Plan to neutralize BCCI

[NasserFan207]

I highly doubt that the BCCI 'represents' most Indian fans anyway tbh. Unless Indian cricket fans are overweight, greedy, billionaire wankers with no actual interest in sport.

 

[DingDong]

While bagging bcci is always good don't forget the other two scums of the cricket world- Australia and england

Ppl complain that shastri and sunni are paid agents of the bcci but what about ch 9 lot? Not a single word about the new proposal all through out the odi series lol. Just absolute scum

 

[GIMH]

While bagging bcci is always good don't forget the other two scums of the cricket world- Australia and england

Ppl complain that shastri and sunni are paid agents of the bcci but what about ch 9 lot? Not a single word about the new proposal all through out the odi series lol. Just absolute scum

Nasser has spoken out against it DD, so as you would expect, it's really the Aussies and Indians to blame here

 

[the big bambino]

Why should the board that represents the largest chunk of cricket's fanbase and revenue be neutralized in the first place ? If the argument is they have more power- too much power- well so they should. They represent/control 70-80% of cricket's revenue and 80-90% of the fans. With such a huge chunk of cricketing world being under BCCI's perview, why should they not have decisive power in cricket ? Thats like saying the party that has 80% of the votes should not have decisive power. In most democracise, such huge chunk of the voting market leads to power to do whatever the heck you want- including modifying the constitution as they see fit. So whats the problem here ?
Infact, to argue for neutralization of BCCI reeks of nepotism, elitism and going against the overwhelming majority demographic and income of the sport.

The idea that marginalization of the board that represents 80-90% of cricket's fans and 70-80% of cricket's income, leads to the betterment of the sport, is a total strawman.

Lets be clear that while you use terms like constitution and democracy this is more a description of mob rule and the theory that might is right. Don't pretend its any more noble than that.

 

[Binkley]

Why should the board that represents the largest chunk of cricket's fanbase and revenue be neutralized in the first place ? If the argument is they have more power- too much power- well so they should. They represent/control 70-80% of cricket's revenue and 80-90% of the fans. With such a huge chunk of cricketing world being under BCCI's perview, why should they not have decisive power in cricket ? Thats like saying the party that has 80% of the votes should not have decisive power. In most democracise, such huge chunk of the voting market leads to power to do whatever the heck you want- including modifying the constitution as they see fit. So whats the problem here ?
Infact, to argue for neutralization of BCCI reeks of nepotism, elitism and going against the overwhelming majority demographic and income of the sport.

The idea that marginalization of the board that represents 80-90% of cricket's fans and 70-80% of cricket's income, leads to the betterment of the sport, is a total strawman.

This is so wrong it is ridiculous. In a democracy it is one person, one vote - not one dollar, one vote. I get the same vote as New Zealand's richest man, and am subject to the same laws. We are equals in the eye of the law and of governance. There are very good reasons why rich people don't get more votes or greater rights under the law than poor people. It is fundamental to democracy and the rule of law.

 

[DingDong]

Nasser has spoken out against it DD, so as you would expect, it's really the Aussies and Indians to blame here

it's good to hear that the english commentators aren't the puppets of their boards like the aussie and the indian crews.