BCCI vs ICC spat- any implications for BD?

[oracle]

http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/10/14/d61014040932.htm

I guess a selfish stand would be to back up Modi as we are in the WC2011 sceme of things. But Speed does have a point about the other 97 members. The influence of the 5 big Indian sponsors maybe not taht benign in th elong term.

[bharat]

Originally Posted by oracle
http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/10/14/d61014040932.htm

I guess a selfish stand would be to back up Modi as we are in the WC2011 sceme of things. But Speed does have a point about the other 97 members. The influence of the 5 big Indian sponsors maybe not taht benign in th elong term.

Yes , I agree but I back BCCI on this .Its high time that the ICC takes note of the importance of South Asia in general and India in particular.Its unfair on part of the ICC to talk of parity when 80%+ of the revenue comes from India (I am not even including the SL,BD and Pak.. that would skew the ratio to 90% + )

India does have a responsibily to cricket in general and but its responsibility is no less or no more than any other country playing cricket.

[asterix]

I am not taking anybody's side right now.Will have to wait till I have some solid info on the whole issue.

The BCCI wants certain MPA clauses amended.I don't have much knowledge a'bt the MPA clauses,will be very grateful if somebody helps me.


Quote from Daily Star.

"Rest assured, despite such regrettable comments, the ICC remains focussed on delivering a world-class event in India, something that will benefit all of our 97 Members by helping to grow the game worldwide. We will continue to act, as always, in the best interests of the sport."

How does a world-class event in India benefit 97 members.Can somebody throw some light on it.

Looks like WorldCup 2011 is in jeopardy to be held in the sub-continent ,but hey I would love it if that happens coz Aussies are waiting for it.


A'bt the schism between the indian board and ICC,well,Right now ,no comments from me.

[Sovik]

Modi threatens India pull-out from future tournaments

[al Furqaan]

India does have a responsibily to cricket in general and but its responsibility is no less or no more than any other country playing cricket.

i agree 100%...however so far i think BCCI is doing less than her fair share and not from a monetary or revenue perspective.

[Bearman]

"Its unfair on part of the ICC to talk of parity when 80%+ of the revenue comes from India (I am not even including the SL,BD and Pak.. that would skew the ratio to 90%"

I hear this figure thrown about but there are no statistics to back it up. In fact I think it is plain wrong. England's 4 year TV deal alone is worth one third of Indias. India probably gets loads more from sponsorship, but then England makes a lot of money from ticket sales. Throw in the big economies of OZ and South Africa and India probably accounts for 60% at most. Still a big majority but not the 80-90% that people talk about.

[thebest]

Let India play with herself. Rest 9 can play together. By supporting India we would just make ICC irrelevent. India was saying that without India ICC would get only 5% of revenue. OK I agree. But without ICC, how much BCCI would earn playing India A, B and C.
I am tired of Indian bullying of ICC.

[Tintin]

One of the clauses that almost caused the Indian players to refuse to play in the 2003 WC was one that was inserted to prevent ambush marketing. It allowed the sponsors of the World Cup and champions trophy - and no other company - to use the players in advertisements six months before and three months after the tournament.

ie, Tendulkar may be sponsored by Nike, but if Reebok is a sponsor of the World Cup, no Nike commercial with Tendulkar could be aired in those nine months, and Reebok can use Tendulkar in their ads in that time.

For a layman, it sounds outrageous. Does any one know if such agreements exist in other sports ?

[Sovik]

ICC clashes again with BCCI