The ICC News Thread

[cnerd123]

The BCCI doesn't care if other boards get richer too. They care if they lose their influence.

Look at Afghanistan - the BCCI knows they have influence over them. They don't care if cricket grows in that region and Afghanistan becomes richer and more successful as a result. They just had to know that Afghanistan would vote on their side on all ICC meetings. So they give them a ground to play/train at, give them a debut Test, let Rashid Khan and Nabi into the IPL - all very very good things. All done because of Politics.

The BCCI only doesn't want boards not already on their side to get rich. Because they know the only control they exert over those boards is money. But if you're team BCCI already? Then you're cool, go earn as much as you want, infact we will help you by playing you every year even tho both our fanbases are sick of it *cough* Sri Lanka *cough*

 

[Daemon]

Finally the salient admission that being born in India leads to you being a thin-skinned, vindictive ****. Sometimes a successful, thin-skinned and vindictive ****, but a **** nonetheless.

Also shows the sheer amount of pressure Indians are constantly under when you have thousands of others breathing down your neck waiting to jump ahead of you in life the moment you slip up. It's why I usually double Tendulkar's average and rate him above Bradman.

 

[Burgey]

It just sounds like they're a pack of **** ****s tbh.

 

[Burgey]

Having said that, at least the BCCI seems to be having a go. CA isn't.

 

[Borges]

This is a game that is played to any perceptible degree in just a handful of countries; and it is struggling to survive in most of them.
Make cricket a truly global sport indeed!
I'm not sure why this ICC is trying to chase rainbows at a time when most of the test playing nations can't even afford to host test cricket.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The BCCI doesn't care if other boards get richer too. They care if they lose their influence.

*****, you nailed this from the start, but here I politely remind you these are two sides of the same coin.

As you identify, some boards they care more about than others, but they do care about other boards getting richer and their loss of influence.

The bottom line is two sides of the same coin.

 

[cnerd123]

*****, you nailed this from the start, but here I politely remind you these are two sides of the same coin.

Depends on your relationship with the BCCI.

I don't think they've reached the stage yet where they want to deny anyone wealth because they're terrified that anyone with money will immediately turn against them. They're clearly still okay with supporting boards that they do not feel are a threat yet.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Depends on your relationship with the BCCI.

I don't think they've reached the stage yet where they want to deny anyone wealth because they're terrified that anyone with money will immediately turn against them. They're clearly still okay with supporting boards that they do not feel are a threat yet.

Not disagreeing with you. But to deny some is still to deny others, even if ambivalent to the insignificant or in their pocket like Afghanistan currently is.

At some point Afghanistan may grow out of their pocket, then the scene is ripe for change.

We're on the same page overall.

 

[GotSpin]

FWIW, while I agree with the logic of GotSpin's post, I just inherently disagree with the premise.

I don't believe the players owe their national cricket associations anything, or that the national cricket associations have any right to expect anything from them, because these players did not come to the cricket board, ask them for training/infrastructure/resources, and in return sign a contract with them saying they'll pay them back by representing them or playing county cricket or whatever.

A kid has no control where he is born. A kid has no knowledge of the politics that lie ahead of him when he starts playing cricket. Every national cricket board goes out of their way (you would hope) to make the sport accessible, to discover talent, and to coax them to join development and pathway programs. The kids usually dont sit down, evaluate all the sporting programs accessible to them, determine what a future career will look like, and then pick which path to go down on. Most of them just play what they enjoy and what they happen to be good at. Most kids also don't have the option to jump ship to India/England/Australia to develop their cricket career in order to eventually be a professional in those countries instead of where they were born.

The parallel to an organisation training it's employees and expecting a return on investment, or even a private football club recruiting and developing young talent to sign them on exclusive contracts once they mature, just doesn't hold, because these young cricketers have no choice

You play whatever cricket is available to you in the country you are born, and the one day you're suddenly a professional cricketer in your 20s and you see there are more lucrative opportunities out there to further your career and support your family, and then suddenly your local cricket board places an ultimatum on you and is trying to sign you to an exclusive contract and control what cricket you can and cannot play - ultimately, how much you can earn. It's just wrong IMO.

Maybe the future of cricket be franchise driven -just like every other sport- with international matches being a fun novelty on the side...

I wrote some huge reply but for some reason it didn’t go through so I’ll just rewrite a more condescend version

It doesn’t matter whether a player can’t choose where they are born or wants to ‘support their family’, a players development is funded by a country/national organisation in the hope that they will become a future star player and further grow their own domestic following. A player going t20 offers nothing for their home country.

The popularity of cricket in a nation/county is almost always rooted in the success of its own cricket team. Something that’s diminished when players go mercenary. Barely anyone follows other domestic competitions unlike in football so I think it’s quite obvious why this is such an issue.

In an ideal situation, the contacts offered by the t20 teams wouldn’t stack up against the national contracts, both ideologically and monetarily. From what I understand, although I may be entirely wrong, only the IPL and the Big Bash actually turn a profit. There may be a future scenario where administrators of domestic competitions decide that it’s better to let their own tournaments flourish without highly paid foreign imports.

 

[cnerd123]

I think when you are a young cricketer coming up through a system, the day you learn that this system now considers you as being indebted to it, and see you as an investment they expect a return on, you are probably going to be jaded and disillusioned, and will no longer want to put in any more time or effort than this system will be able to compensate you for.

I think in a nutshell this is the issue right now with English and Australian cricket - millions invested and a lack of talent to show for it. Because you treat your cricketers as employees, and these employees never knew what they were getting into, and never really had a choice.

 

[GotSpin]

I don’t know about an indebted system, but I think there’s an expected loyalty from the country that has invested in your talents

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I don’t know about an indebted system, but I think there’s an expected loyalty from the country that has invested in your talents

And yet do you expect your selectors to pick the best available team or be loyal to has-been spuds?

Logically, if the investment is financial, then the return should be financial or a debt.

One puts money in without emotion for future results, why expect emotion back in return?

This is double standard many professional sports fans suffer, we expect our selectors to be ruthless in obtaining the best results, but expect our players to be loyal to their own future financial detriment in return for the previous financial investment in their development.

The initial investment in the player was not made in unconditonal love. It was an invested and expecting a potential return. Why expect unconditional love back from the player and not more simply a debt?

 

[GotSpin]

Who pays for the rehab, training and coaching for the players in between t20 stints? Who looks after the players when they’re injured? It sure ain’t the franchises

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Who pays for the rehab, training and coaching for the players in between t20 stints? Who looks after the players when they’re injured? It sure ain’t the franchises

So its financial?

 

[cnerd123]

Who pays for the rehab, training and coaching for the players in between t20 stints? Who looks after the players when they’re injured? It sure ain’t the franchises

If the ECB doesn't want to fund it's cricketing talents it doesn't have to. They don't need to put out grassroots programs and U13s through to U19s, and Lions and the Academy and all the stuff they do. They don't even need to fund the counties.

They chose to do that. It's a one way contract. The players affected by if didn't sign into this system on an agreement that they will pay the ECB back. Unless you consider being born in England as signing that contract.

If it's really, purely motivated by money, the ECB should hold off on letting any budding cricketer benefit from their infrastructure and resources until they turn 18 and can sign a legally binding commitment with the ECB. But they won't do that. Because if you don't get 7 year olds playing the sport you won't get any 18 year olds worth developing.

So the ECB needs these kids and these talents, and so the ECB must recognise and accept the fact that a lot of these kids aren't going to return the investment. Do you think the ECB goes around knocking on the doors of every man and woman who took part in any ECB cricket program ever and demand payment back because they took part in ECB funded programs and didn't return that investment?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

If the ECB doesn't want to fund it's cricketing talents it doesn't have to. They don't need to put out grassroots programs and U13s through to U19s, and Lions and the Academy and all the stuff they do. They don't even need to fund the counties.

They chose to do that. It's a one way contract. The players affected by if didn't sign into this system on an agreement that they will pay the ECB back. Unless you consider being born in England as signing that contract.

If it's really, purely motivated by money, the ECB should hold off on letting any budding cricketer benefit from their infrastructure and resources until they turn 18 and can sign a legally binding commitment with the ECB. But they won't do that. Because if you don't get 7 year olds playing the sport you won't get any 18 year olds worth developing.

So the ECB needs these kids and these talents, and so the ECB must recognise and accept the fact that a lot of these kids aren't going to return the investment. Do you think the ECB goes around knocking on the doors of every man and woman who took part in any ECB cricket program ever and demand payment back because they took part in ECB funded programs and didn't return that investment back?

Well tbf, their ultimate greener pastures allowed them to steal Caddick after NZ developed him and poach Stokes as NZ continued to develop him when he was home at Christmas.

Money well spent NZC.

No cricket franchise has benefitted from freeriding more from player movements than the EWCB as yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcQ3ptLUiw8

 

[cnerd123]

I quote the wrong post there, should have quoted the earlier one.

I think it's fine for the ECB to approach it's fully grown, adult cricketers with a contract that states exclusivity. I just think that, for most nations around the world, that will backfire for them. Because most nations cannot match what these cricketers will earn in the various Franchise T20 and Domestic leagues around the world. It's what has happened with the West Indies. The WICB took this stance, offered contracts on those terms, and their players buggered off and are now bathing in IPL rupees.

To then turn point at the players and claim a lack of loyalty, and say they owe the WICB...that would be incorrect. Sure the WICB gave these guys the training and facilities that made them who they are, but these guys didn't have a choice. It's almost like saying, as a parent, that you gave birth to your kid, you paid X amount of money raising him up, and now this kid is forever indebted to you for that X amount of money. No. Just no. That kid had no say in being born, let alone in how much you chose to spend in raising in him. Yes he owes his life to you, and yes it would be wonderful if he gave you a great life in retirement in return, but to expect that of him is just wrong. It doesn't hold water.

So when you go back to the topic that kicked this discussion off:

To that end, the chief executives of the full member national boards will come together at the next ICC meeting in Kolkata in April to debate a discussion paper on the possible future landscape for domestic Twenty20 cricket within the world game, and recommendations that include:

• Restricting players under 32 to three domestic T20 leagues per year

• Regional T20 windows that leave six months of the year clear for international cricket from 2023 onwards

• All leagues to pay 20% of a player’s contract value to their home board as mandatory compensation

• Capping the number of overseas players in each domestic T20 league

• Standardised conditions that guarantee player welfare and payment

You don't think any budding athlete from the West Indies, or Sri Lanka, or New Zealand is going to look at this and go 'well **** right off then' ? They fell into cricket for reasons out of their control, they worked really hard at it, and now they see their national board is going to restrict their ability to make a living because they believe they now own them? How many of these young athlete do you think are going to look for a way out of this system now, be it by giving up a domestic contract/national affiliation all together, or jumping ship to another sport if they happen to have a talent in that? Or just get a degree and find another profession?

This mentality is going to just reduce how many people play cricket to a professional level. That's it. All because of this trying to legally enforce this false premise that players are expected to pay back the boards of the countries they are from.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I quote the wrong post there, should have quoted the earlier one.

I think it's fine for the ECB to approach it's fully grown, adult cricketers with a contract that states exclusivity.

Restraint of trade. under Common law, pay damages and join the franchise if it pays better. Just because your boss trains you doesn't mean that he owns you for life.

I just think that, for most nations around the world, that will backfire for them. Because most nations cannot match what these cricketers will earn

Like Archer, KP, Caddick, Stokes, Lamb, Prior and many more they'll just move to or stay in England. Migrant economics - goto where living is best.

You don't think any budding athlete from the West Indies, or Sri Lanka, or New Zealand is going to look at this and go 'well **** right off then' ? They fell into cricket for reasons out of their control, they worked really hard at it, and now they see their national board is going to restrict their ability to make a living because they believe they now own them? How many of these young athlete do you think are going to look for a way out of this system now, be it by giving up a domestic contract/national affiliation all together, or jumping ship to another sport if they happen to have a talent in that? Or just get a degree and find another profession?

This mentality is going to just reduce how many people play cricket to a professional level. That's it. All because of this trying to legally enforce this false premise that players are expected to pay back the boards of the countries they are from.

No - they'll sign, and they'll breach and then plead restraint of trade or damages in lieu of specific performance of the contract in the alternative pending terms.

People aint slaves for life in law to their bosses for hiring them and training them, why expect cricketers to be?

 

[cnerd123]

^ Mr. Miyagi gets it.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

But you're right ***** - it will be a deterrent for some youngsters with multiple career options. But imo most youngsters will take the opportunity for the love of a cricket career and then follow the bigger money within a cricket career later, whatever form that takes.