ICL & BCCI set to talk

[Sanz]

Disclosure of salary paid is a prudent step in corporate setup. Go through the annual reports of some big corporates like Maruti Udyog or Infosys. And though I cannot be arsed to check out how much Asnodkar gets paid, it is SURE his teammates know how much he is getting, facilitating comparison and transparency. Oh you are talking about "transparency" and mentioning you won't care "how much the other guy gets paid"?

Why does it matter to Asnodkar's team mates how much he was paid ? Oh and I know about one or two things about corporate setup, Apart from top Executives, Individual salaries are not disclosed. Infact you are not supposed to discuss your salary with your colleagues.

Apply it to your own life. Would you like a situation where you are not entitled to know how much a colleague in the same level as yours get paid, or a situation where there is transparency and you know how much bonus your mate was paid, so that you can strengthen your case in the next pay-meet with your HR?

I am sorry but you are talking from your ass here. In last 15 years, I have worked in every kind of organization, an organization as small as with 5 employees and as big as BIG 5( EY, DT type ), nowhere have I seen any public disclosure of salaries by the employer itself. It is not allowed, not encouraged.

Your Raise/Bonus/salary is based on your performance (determind by your managers/counselors) at the end of the fiscal year. Your raise/bonus/Salary is very rarely determind by what your mate is making.

 

[Richard]

I really don't get the depth of anti-ICL feeling amongst certain posters. I'm fairly indifferent either way. As far as I can see the only real difference between it & the IPL is that the BCCI says one's kosher and the other isn't. It isn't inherently evil or anything; its players aren't exactly wintering with the Khmer Rouge.

No, the difference is one is a private competition offering massive paycheques. Such things are always a considerable danger to the game.

People who constantly talk about the IPL whenever the ICL is mentioned miss the point - totally.

 

[Sanz]

I said "Mallus and Bongs are the ones subscribing to Communism and Marxism these days". What is bloody racist in that? It is a plain fact! It is your pathetic sense of perception and wilful intention to view facts in a distorted fashion that makes you to see it as racist.

It is not a plain fact, the fact that you assume it as one and paint an entire ethnic group as such is why it is somewhat racist.

And why it is not a fact well look at yourself, you are one of the group that you described, yet you don't subscribe to communism/Marxism.

 

[Precambrian]

Why does it matter to Asnodkar's team mates how much he was paid ? Oh and I know about one or two things about corporate setup, Apart from top Executives, Individual salaries are not disclosed. Infact you are not supposed to discuss your salary with your colleagues.

I am sorry but you are talking from your ass here. In last 15 years, I have worked in every kind of organization, an organization as small as with 5 employees and as big as BIG 5( EY, DT type ), nowhere have I seen any public disclosure of salaries by the employer itself. It is not allowed, not encouraged.

Your Raise/Bonus/salary is based on your performance (determind by your managers/counselors) at the end of the fiscal year. Your raise/bonus/Salary is very rarely determind by what your mate is making.

Beautiful. So without knowing how much your colleague is making for the same work, how'd you rate yourself? Or you leave the entire thing to the HR? Funny in that case you are a fantastic worker from the organisation's p.o.v. One who would take what he is given, without a demur.

 

[Precambrian]

It is not a plain fact, the fact that you assume it as one and paint an entire ethnic group as such is why it is somewhat racist.

And why it is not a fact well look at yourself, you are one of the group that you described, yet you don't subscribe to communism/Marxism.

You are the one who is talking racism by assuming and reducing "communist marxist" idealogy to being derogatory. I really don't want to flood a cricket forum with the merits and demerits of idealogies.

You go to Bengal, and say Bengal is communist, chances are that you will be appreciated, rather than stoned at.

 

[Sanz]

Lara, Fleming, McG, Warne had all retired, and you talk abt them being pressurised by their boards.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/303759.html

I think you have shown how much you know about stuff.

 

[Precambrian]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/303759.html

I think you have shown how much you know about stuff.

All you can give is an article that pre-dated IPL itself. Once IPL came along, Warne realised it was the better pick. Your argument of them being pressurised by boards still remain unsupported much like your other arguments.

 

[GIMH]

I am potentially intrigued by these talks. Not going to engage into deep discussion on this until we know more. I think everyone has got the message that I am totally against the exiling of players from international cricket on the basis of them playing ICL.

 

[Precambrian]

Back to the original discussion, a remote but possible solution could be BCCI "adopting" ICL as Tier 2, like the CocaCola championship and EPL, with a system of promotion/relegation. But how that could be done without affecting the International calendar will be a big big problem.

 

[GIMH]

Coca-Cola Championship isn't "in" EPL, but yeah, reasonable suggestion.

Personally I think the champions of each league should play-off to become the Indian Champions or something, lol

 

[Precambrian]

I am potentially intrigued by these talks. Not going to engage into deep discussion on this until we know more. I think everyone has got the message that I am totally against the exiling of players from international cricket on the basis of them playing ICL.

AWTA. It is unfortunate that International players are not allowed to play in International cricket. But people should realise that the respective Boards are to blame more than the IPL or the BCCI. These boards have shown their lack of spine by bowing down to BCCI's money might. BCCI can adopt what it want, and no one can question that except BCCI, But in nations like NZ where talent is at a premium, it is really sad to see players like Bond etc have to sit out.

 

[Precambrian]

Coca-Cola Championship isn't "in" EPL, but yeah, reasonable suggestion.

Personally I think the champions of each league should play-off to become the Indian Champions or something, lol

Rather I would go for the English system, where the top 2 teams in the ICL is promoted to IPL, and bottom 2 of IPL relegated to ICL. BCCI should take ownership of ICL from Zee Group, while allowing them to retain telecasting rights for the ICL, perhaps give them a pie in the IPL telecast as well. And then auction off the teams in the ICL, thereby uniformalising the format.

 

[Richard]

I am potentially intrigued by these talks. Not going to engage into deep discussion on this until we know more. I think everyone has got the message that I am totally against the exiling of players from international cricket on the basis of them playing ICL.

But why? I understand your "the BCCI should not pick other boards' teams" comments (much as I feel this should be unimportant as all boards should stand united placing long-term ahead of short-term) but don't understand why you feel the ICL is such a good thing.

(And if players shouldn't be outlawed from the official game for playing ICL, then I'd say it's logical follow-on that the ICL is a good thing)

 

[GIMH]

Well, firstly, no that's not logical follow on. I think players should be able to play a few weeks cricket wherever the hell they want in their free time, it matters not one bit whether it's for the ICL or at my annual BBQ.

I don't believe that it is either a good or a bad thing. Quite simply, it exists, the only harm it has done to cricket has been a result of BCCI's pathetic over-zealous attempt at monopolisation, rather than any actions of the ICL themselves.

 

[Richard]

I know. As I've said a fair few hundred times, with the ICL what matters is not the present but the future. Just because it might present no threat now doesn't mean it won't in future. Private competitions run by TV companies with huge wage-packets are always a huge potential danger in cricket and things which should be lanced immediately IMO.

 

[GIMH]

Well, in that case, how the hell is IPL irrelevant to this situation? Because that presents threats in the future also. The only difference is that it's 'legitimate'.

It's not the 70s anymore. The ICL is not WSC. To assume that because that happened once it will happen again is presumptive.

 

[Richard]

Well, in that case, how the hell is IPL irrelevant to this situation? Because that presents threats in the future also. The only difference is that it's 'legitimate'.

The nature of the IPL's threat is entirely different to that of the ICL's. The IPL's threat is comparable to any number of other things - for example, that ODIs will take-over Tests, and that artificially shortened boundaries will irreparably damage the game.

The ICL's threat is that players will be stolen from the game. We've already got a taster of it, it's just that in the initial case the organisation actually causing the lack of players is the BCCI rather than the ICL.

It's not the 70s anymore. The ICL is not WSC. To assume that because that happened once it will happen again is presumptive.

TV executives as a species are types that don't change. They were greedy bastards in the 1970s and they're greedy bastards now. They'd do just about anything to make money in the 1970s and they'll do just about anything to make money now. They didn't care about the long-term wealth of the game for any longer than it was useful to them in the 1970s and they don't care about the long-term wealth of the game for any longer than it is useful to them now.

I don't think that's presumptive, it's based on pretty basic observations I've made.

 

[GIMH]

The nature of the IPL's threat is entirely different to that of the ICL's. The IPL's threat is comparable to any number of other things - for example, that ODIs will take-over Tests, and that artificially shortened boundaries will irreparably damage the game.

The ICL's threat is that players will be stolen from the game. We've already got a taster of it, it's just that in the initial case the organisation actually causing the lack of players is the BCCI rather than the ICL.

TV executives as a species are types that don't change. They were greedy bastards in the 1970s and they're greedy bastards now. They'd do just about anything to make money in the 1970s and they'll do just about anything to make money now. They didn't care about the long-term wealth of the game for any longer than it was useful to them in the 1970s and they don't care about the long-term wealth of the game for any longer than it is useful to them now.

I don't think that's presumptive, it's based on pretty basic observations I've made.

Your argument is saying that ICL is outside of cricket and IPL is inside it, this is a viewpoint I cannot agree with, not at all.

As for TV executives. That is irrelevant. Just because they are greedy does not mean history will repeat itself. And do you think BCCI & IPL put the future of cricket first? Do they bollocks.

 

[Richard]

Your argument is saying that ICL is outside of cricket and IPL is inside it, this is a viewpoint I cannot agree with, not at all.

Well that's the way it is really, can't see how anyone could not agree. The IPL is run by those who run cricket; the ICL is run by a TV company. Outside; inside. I can't see how it works any other way.

As for TV executives. That is irrelevant. Just because they are greedy does not mean history will repeat itself.

Why not? The exact same factors that were in place in the late-1970s are in place now. There could not really be more similarity between the two, only difference is those in charge of the ICL are initially trying to sugar-coat their intentions the way Packer didn't.

And do you think BCCI & IPL put the future of cricket first? Do they bollocks.

Not all those contained within. But if there weren't some that did somewhere down some line, Indian cricket would not exist any more.

 

[GIMH]

Well that's the way it is really, can't see how anyone could not agree. The IPL is run by those who run cricket; the ICL is run by a TV company. Outside; inside. I can't see how it works any other way.

So because the BCCI run cricket in India, noone can ever play the game outside of it? Challenges to sporting establishments are a good thing in many ways, as sport generally comes out of such things stronger.

Just because one is 'official' and one is not does not mean the other is not cricket. A steak is not cricket () the ICL is.

Why not? The exact same factors that were in place in the late-1970s are in place now. There could not really be more similarity between the two, only difference is those in charge of the ICL are initially trying to sugar-coat their intentions the way Packer didn't.

The same factors aren't in place though, there is no evidence that the ICL wish to disrupt the international game. International cricketers bring crowds in and get people to switch on the TV. People who have retired from internationals to play two months a year don't.

Got all those contained within. But if there weren't some that did somewhere down some line, Indian cricket would not exist any more.

We're not talking about the past now though, Richard. And we're not talking about Indian Cricket. IPL is bad for international cricket. The BCCI are bad for international cricket.