It's a bit of an overreaction. I don't see how it can be a bad thing - the target audience for the two formats are completely different. The only problem I have with Stanford's proposal is that its not longer (e.g, not a tournament), but I don't think getting someone injecting money into the game is bad.
Although this is quite dire:
But really, I bet a bunch of IPL owners feel the same way, so I don't think its much of an issue.In fact, there is a fine line between a kiss of life and a smothering, because the greatest fear about the day's events was the one that Stanford singularly failed to allay. When asked his opinion of Test cricket, he responded baldly: "I find it boring, but I'm not a purist." Then, in a sweeping metaphor about the architecture at Lord's, he went on to liken the "1700s" pavilion to the Test game, and the "Eye in the Sky" media centre to Twenty20s. "Test cricket is the foundation, that's where cricket came from. Twenty20 is the future, that's where the money is."
How awesome would it be if the international calender only consisted of Test cricket and all these hit and giggle stuff would be done via clubs and tournaments like these?