nightprowler10
Global Moderator
Not helping your cause with that oneLA ICE-E said:sri lanka, zimb, bang wouldn't been playing test without the ICC and that was before the ICC was focusing on develoment of the game....
Not helping your cause with that oneLA ICE-E said:sri lanka, zimb, bang wouldn't been playing test without the ICC and that was before the ICC was focusing on develoment of the game....
ah there's going be ups and downs with teams...unfornately sri lanka and zimb sucks now but look how long WI's been playing they suck too and bangladesh has not yet made it becase the need bit of time before new genaration kicks innightprowler10 said:Not helping your cause with that one
LA ICE-E said:but enough about it... silent you smart but on this one you lose i win.... ICC doing a ok job on spreading the game. ex-world cricket league,
the world cricket league is the structure the icc created to give every one of its members a chance to play twice as much as they did before(once every 4 years) and it gives a chance to any nation to try and qualify for the world cupmarc71178 said:The what?
Glad you think so. I will be proven wrong when ICC's money helps a single country that didn't already have a cricker playing populace, reach Test status.LA ICE-E said:but enough about it... silent you smart but on this one you lose i win.... ICC doing a ok job on spreading the game. example-world cricket league, intercontinentals which they dont really make any money out of but provides associates to play to get better(before this team with only test status would get to play really)... but on with it.... it said that there would be minimum of 3 champions trophy...WHY?? thats the suckiest thing the ICC have made along with the super series...does that mean in 2012 there will be a champions trophy? that sucks i thought twenty20 championship would replace it..atleast twnety20 championship is a different thing than the world cup..champions trophy is basically the same thing which takes the shine of the world cup
im telling you its not just about the money its the opportunity and alot fo ther stuff icc been doing...you are wrong...spreading the games doesn't mean just making test nations...its getting countries to play cricket where there is much of cricket being played....keyna/nehterlands already plays ODIs thats a spread because they dont have any colonial relations...and yes you should come back here when china plays in the qualifiers one day ...eventually in the world cup and then tests...silentstriker said:Glad you think so. I will be proven wrong when ICC's money helps a single country that didn't already have a cricker playing populace, reach Test status.
If China makes it to test cricket, it won't be due to the ICC. China has plans to put cricket in every school and have thousands of coaches. There is not enough money in the ICC to fund all that. That all has to happen internally.LA ICE-E said:im telling you its not just about the money its the opportunity and alot fo ther stuff icc been doing...you are wrong...spreading the games doesn't mean just making test nations...its getting countries to play cricket where there is much of cricket being played....keyna/nehterlands already plays ODIs thats a spread because they dont have any colonial relations...and yes you should come back here when china plays in the qualifiers one day ...eventually in the world cup and then tests...
so tell me where the millions of dollar the ICC and ACC game china will go and how it will not help china?china government helping is great but they wanted this about ten years ago but nothing happened until the ICC looked its way so it wont happen with out the ICC's help...stop...your just in denial...the ICC is't bad...silentstriker said:If China makes it to test cricket, it won't be due to the ICC. China has plans to put cricket in every school and have thousands of coaches. There is not enough money in the ICC to fund all that. That all has to happen internally.
Yeah, so the 1.1 billion for cricket, really isn't that extreme.silentstriker said:NFL went for $18,000,000,000. Ridiculous, huh?
No, but its still a lot of money to waste.pasag said:Yeah, so the 1.1 billion for cricket, really isn't that extreme.
Most of the money in pro-sport is tbh.silentstriker said:No, but its still a lot of money to waste.
Dunno about that. I like how the money is allocated in the NFL. 60% is player salaries directly, rest goto the teams for coaches, training facilities, stadium upkeep, etc. And that still leaves enough for the owners to make money.pasag said:Most of the money in pro-sport is tbh.
I'm sure it does, but this is all terribly over-inflated and as something similar to what BoyBrumby said in another thread it's a cancer rotting at all sports. And the real problem here is that our cricketers may turn into the spoilt brats that we see in American sports, getting hundered million dollar contracts without playing a highest level game etc. When that happens cricket will be dead.silentstriker said:Dunno about that. I like how the money is allocated in the NFL. 60% is player salaries directly, rest goto the teams for coaches, training facilities, stadium upkeep, etc. And that still leaves enough for the owners to make money.
thats because everything here in the US is overpaid sports wise...but i would like to know how much the baseball classic went forsilentstriker said:NFL went for $18,000,000,000. Ridiculous, huh?
Dunno about over inflated. I mean, its us customers who decide the value...and frankly I'd rather have the players get the money instead of the owners.pasag said:I'm sure it does, but this is all terribly over-inflated and as something similar to what BoyBrumby said in another thread it's a cancer rotting at all sports. And the real problem here is that our cricketers may turn into the spoilt brats that we see in American sports, getting hundered million dollar contracts without playing a highest level game etc. When that happens cricket will be dead.
i was looking at something related to this ....NFL is the most successfull money wise and so is the MLB but attendence wise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures#Competitions_between_national_teamssilentstriker said:Dunno about over inflated. I mean, its us customers who decide the value...and frankly I'd rather have the players get the money instead of the owners.
I know what you mean about over inflated egos, but using NFL as an example, I don't think there is a more successful league in the world at the moment. Soccer is obviously the most popular, but there is much less internal discord in the NFL. The players make money, every single team turns out profit, the labor union and ownership is peaceful, most teams have good stadiums, and it gets obscene amount of ratings because, in general, the games are competitive with lots of upsets.
LA ICE-E said:i was looking at something related to this ....NFL is the most successfull money wise and so is the MLB but attendence wise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures#Competitions_between_national_teams