Stanford millions

[cowboysfan]

Allen Stanford is ready to give each English player(or a Caribbean all-stars player-LOL @ the name) $1 million for 3 hours of work.I am exicted for West Indies and England as all this money pouring in will help to bring in new talent particularly for west Indian cricket which is in decline for more than a decade now.

I hope England choose a good side for the game because players like Vaughan will also want a million for 3 hours of work but will doom the team.

 

[cowboysfan]

I see that a "who's better" or a "best ever thread" is in order.

 

[Goughy]

Its very interesting.

Will the money be kept by the winning players or will other centrally contracted players get a cut? And if so how will the pie be divided?

If this type of thing becomes common then someone like Luke Wright could be earning far more than the England Test captain.

 

[Manee]

As unfeasible as it might be, I am unsure, but the ICC need to attain control over the national boards so that a large percentage of the income from T20 goes to fund Test match cricket. Rather hypocritally, I believe that T20s should be made to be self sufficient in places such as India and maybe England if Stanford comes through - ie. they should recieve no money from domestic cricket or the boards funds not related to and generated from the T20 competitions whereas the income from domestic cricket should be tapped toward Test cricket directly...

Or am I being naive?

 

[steds]

I see that a "who's better" or a "best ever thread" is in order.

 

[Richard]

As unfeasible as it might be, I am unsure, but the ICC need to attain control over the national boards

Simply 100% unfeasible. There's no way to make it happen.

In any case, this would assume that I$C$C would do the job properly, which is highly unlikely. I rate the ECB as a far better cricket board than I$C$C and am far happier with them controlling the proceeds.

 

[Manee]

Simply 100% unfeasible. There's no way to make it happen.

Indeed, it would require cooperation, for which there is no motive.

 

[Prince EWS]

Its very interesting.

Will the money be kept by the winning players or will other centrally contracted players get a cut? And if so how will the pie be divided?

If this type of thing becomes common then someone like Luke Wright could be earning far more than the England Test captain.

Yeah, I really hope the money will be divided equally (or at least divided to some extent) between all the centrally contracted players and not just paid out to the XI.

There are a lot of positives to this Twenty20 money - the main of course being that a career in cricket suddenly becomes a financially very wise decision. However, cricket could end up competiting with itself.. if Michael Vaughan (for example) doesn't get any of this money, that sends the message to the next generation that it's more financially wise to aspire to being Luke Wright than Michael Vaughan. Test match skills will then take a back seat to the development of Twenty20 skills as players look to support themselves.

IMO, in situations like this Stanford thing, the money should go to the boards - not the players directly - to be divided among the centrally contracted players. What exactly would happen if England selected a non-contracted player for this is another issue though - not to mention the tough decisions on whether to even contract someone like Strauss if he's only going to play about a third of England's games and be responsible for a very small percentage of the revenue raised by the players.

 

[silentstriker]

Its very interesting.

Will the money be kept by the winning players or will other centrally contracted players get a cut? And if so how will the pie be divided?

If this type of thing becomes common then someone like Luke Wright could be earning far more than the England Test captain.

But it would be odd if the England Test captain gets a cut of the winnings by a team which does not include him, and for a format in which he hasn't done anything.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, I really hope the money will be divided equally (or at least divided to some extent) between all the centrally contracted players and not just paid out to the XI.

Why?

 

[steds]

He explained later on in his post.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why?

I explained that in my post.

Luke Wright getting more money than Michael Vaughan will result in more Luke Wrights and less Michael Vaughans. AFAIC, that's horrible for the game.

 

[Goughy]

Also Test revenue doesnt go straight to the players. Most goes on subsidising the rest of English cricket such as junior development and the Counties.

As suggested, this money should go to the kitty of the boards rather than the players themselves.

The idea of a specialist T20 cricketer getting more money for playing that than the England captain gets for Tests is wrong. Its ok for club cricket, but for International cricket (England at least) Test cricket is the pinacle and must be treated as such.

 

[Goughy]

Deal agreed. Love the idea but not sure on the breakdown

 

[four_or_six]

I loved the IPL but I think this is a horrific idea. Who cares who wins a game like this?

 

[Goughy]

I loved the IPL but I think this is a horrific idea. Who cares who wins a game like this?

Oh this is far more important. This is national teams (or ar least England are). This maybe T20 but has history and depth. Its not a new and manufactured premise. This means something. Not much, but even in T20 when its an International it carries weight.

 

[four_or_six]

Oh this is far more important. This is national teams (or ar least England are). This maybe T20 but has history and depth. Its not a new and manufactured premise. This means something. Not much, but even in T20 when its an International it carries weight.

I disagree. With the IPL there was long enough to get into it, get to know the players and for a story to unfold. The players got team spirit together and seemed to really care about winning. This is just about money grabbing.

 

[Goughy]

I disagree. With the IPL there was long enough to get into it, get to know the players and for a story to unfold. The players got team spirit together and seemed to really care about winning. This is just about money grabbing.

Its about keeping players within the traditional international framework and rewarding them for playing for their nations, not running off to play for a rag tag bunch in nasty clothing.

 

[four_or_six]

Sorry. Am just irritated about it. I thought T20 was good when it was about a series of domestic leagues culminating in a champions league. And the international T20 world cup is an idea I like too.

I just don't like the idea of a random one-off match where the players are playing primarily for money. And I don't like the idea of an extra quadrangular T20 tournament every year in the UK... I think that could be bad news for our own T20 domestic competition (as well as our test schedule), as the summer is crammed enough as it is.

 

[four_or_six]

Its about keeping players within the traditional international framework and rewarding them for playing for their nations, not running off to play for a rag tag bunch in nasty clothing.

This isn't West Indies vs England though is it? I thought it was Stanford vs England. I haven't seen the WICB or the opinions of the West Indies international players mentioned at all throughout the whole thing.