Good one Wasim especially the details on the regularization and the court proceedings. Have sounded this post off to everyone on my blog. I will join the discussion tomorrow, as power is due to be cut in my area for a few hours in 10 mins :(.

I completely agree… the ICL will be good for the entire cricketing community. After all competition is healthy. I have been in its favor since day 1. High time the BCCI resolved the issues.

Though i believe ICL(or any other private league) is good for players, specially second and third line cricketers, but for the game i am quite apprehensive. It might bring complacency in young cricketers who see these leagues as a cash door. I dont want to see Indian cricket becoming another English cricket, so BCCI should continue ban on Indian players who join ICL. Having said that, they should stop arm twisting to other boards. If PCB, NzCB etc think ICL is good for their players and board they should be allowed to send their players in these leagues. In short it is a quick fix for BCCI …. ban Indian but allow foreign players. Quite opposite of ’swadesi’ i think

For a merger to occur there must be common ground.

A company/ organisation, while issuing a tender, has the right to call for applicants with a certain minimum experience. Just being the highest bidder may not make you eligible. In fact how could you bid if there were conditions and requirements?

However, that said, BCCI should have re-screened the applicants rather than make the mistake of accepting Zee’s application first and then rejct on the grounds.

There must have been something more than we are privy to. It could be related to greed from either party.

At this point, let me first emphasize that ICL, IPL was not the first nail in the coffin - that recognition goes to Stanford.

Zee cannot invoke the MRTPC and hence it did not and opted instead to go the ICL way. Of course, a legal battle could have gone against Zee, and made any future rapproachment difficult. Better to be in a position to provoke bargaining.

There is so much more I’d like to add…but will be repetitious.

i wont go into oft repeated things like icl is unofficial etc etc…coz i hv had enough of it already…

if you see this dispassionately…and from distance…lots of voice in support for ICL are joining majorly coz a team named ‘lahore badhshah’ (i said it look dispassionately) has done tremendously in it…

what if lahore badhshas failed miserably? i can guarantee you nobody would have noticed ICL in pakistan…that’s fact…

emotional decisions always lead to short sighted decisions

icl was created in one of that moment when one guys ego was hurt…rightly or wrongly i am not even touching that…

and now the momentum to get it official to me is again for the ‘emotional’ fact that i have mentioned…

apart from that the tournament is crap…is shit…let them first sustain the tournament itself…coz these aged…over weight players are not gonna be there for long…

and let them arouse interest of fans ACROSS WORLD…through sheer display of quality cricket to even consider them for the round table discussion…and you know why i highlighted ACROSS WORLD…

BCCI is not covered under it.

they are so blinded by their emotions for BCCI that they can’t even see the immoral acts committed by BCCI against their own countrymen…

pls elaborate more on this…

The witch hunt against former employees, and the players who opted for ICL, withholding their pensions and other dues,getting them fired from other private institutions, arm twisting other associations and not letting those players play in any of those tournaments even if those tournaments are not controlled by BCCI.

Creating hurdles for competition by not allowing them access to cricket infrastructure which is not even owned by BCCI by punishing every individual and enterprise whether they are journalists,suppliers or private companies who deal in any way with ICL, Isn’t Essel Group a legal Indian enerprise and pays taxes in India and employs mostly Indians and contributes to the Indian economy.

There is no law in India which prevents a private company to run a cricket league

If their operations in Cricket are illegal then why doesn’t BCCI sues them and if this is not the case then such totaltarian actions are nothing but a witch hunt and completely immoral and illegal under Indian law and any defense of such actions is completely based on blind emotions and has nothing to do with the law of the country or morality.

There is no law in India which prevents a private company to run a cricket league, s

Sorry Wasim for the delay…

Even though I am going to be repetitive, I will address all the areas from my point of view and hopefully discuss the way forward.

In short, the way forward is to put pressure on the ICL on certain areas of concern and all can co-exist.

Starting with the evil BCCI

1. The vendetta of BCCI and other boards didn’t stop here they expelled players from employment who established any relation with ICL, BCCI denied ICL the access to the cricket infra structure in India, Players were forced to lose jobs from private sector, their pensions and other dues were withheld, the boards twisted the arm of every associate and private entity to make life tough for the rebel players and ICL.

This will be set right hands down by the court. These are cheap tactics and will be squashed by the labour laws proceedings in court. However the aspect of the employment rule for the BCCI, in terms of the contract for not playing for an unrecognized rival party without explicit permission will hold true in court. Like said, it is a standard clause where any employer has the right to not allow their employees to work simultaneously with a rival. The employee is free to leave the BCCI and work for a rival. So all the pension, job manipulating tactics will be rapped on the BCCI by the court except for the rival clause. That is the BCCI’s right.

It is also to be understood that those reports on cricketers loosing their jobs have been presented with only one side of the story. Those cricketers who are qualified and got those jobs by their merit continue to do so.

Others… Most of these jobs given to cricketers especially from the government held private companies are due to the soft perks of the BCCI. In the current national team, there are many working as managers in ONGC and none of them have any clue nor are they qualified for the work. They don’t report to work. They occasionally play with the company team and involve in some employee moral boosting ventures…. nothing more. They get paid in full along with other perks.

It has to be also understood that this is a soft perk initiated by the BCCI so it isn’t as bad as the ICL wants it to sound. However, as mentioned above, this is not right and will be set right by the court.

Now comes the key point that is a cause of worry and perhaps very important to resolving it.

2. Subhash Chandra knows if ICL gets recognized it will also get regulated, which means the boards will again control the supply of players, and ICL might have to pay huge amounts in lieu of affiliation fees, he won’t gain anything and he might lose control over his market share.

This is fundamentally the biggest problem for co-existing. The ICL does not want to be regulated and that is dangerous and stupid. Regulation is very important.

Take the example of Cairns and Mongia, till date there has not been a single official explanation for their suspension. After all these days. ZEE unregulated has the right to do it.

Should not the fan who pays to watch the ICL not know what has happened? Could there not be a situation either now in this case or in the future that a player can be wronged by the management and the management keeps quiet about it buying all the time to find some explanation. If in case a
player was wronged, he is also being denied the chance of playing that tournament and earning his right for the money isn’t it?

What if it is match fixing… doesn’t it give the ICL enough time to blotch this up and decide to share a tit-bit after covering their end up. Regulation is important. Control of the supply of players does not actually come into play… that can be the right of the players and can be negotiated or enforced by law.

State of finances too.

Continuing with point 2, Miandad, Kapil, Yousuf and many ICL fans have all asked “What is the difference between the ICL and the IPL”? All reckons that there is no difference.

There is a huge difference.

In the case of the IPL, the franchise owner who puts in the investment, gets back a sizable portion of the profits and a decent percentage goes to the BCCI which in turn goes back to the state associations, who use it to invest that money in conducting tournaments, camps, facilities, talent scouts all over India to unearth talent that could go on to play at the highest levels progressively…. from u14 to the national team.

All of this costs money!

Whereas the ICL so far does not want to give back a penny to that system through which they are stealing those players. Subhash just wants the perks… only the profits but not give anything back to that vital pool.

This is not at all fair and is plain arm twisting.

There is no harm if the ICL takes the players who want to play for them and conduct the tournament. However, by making a ruckus and cases on the BCCI for not letting those players play for the BCCI sounds odd to me, because the BCCI is protecting its income which it invests back into cricket.

Second aspect,

On the issue of why should the PCB, SLC all care about the Indians problems and take care of their own self-interest.

Dudes, the BCCI’s problems are a good 70% of the every boards financial problems… that’s the bottomline and much more. 70% of the income for world cricket comes from the BCCI and if the ICL is only going to take from the system and erode that share, proportionately it will also for very board.

Plus, remember, if the ICL in its current organizational format gets approved by the ICC or some member boards, it paves way for 10 more rich businessmen to start their own tournaments and this could happen to your boards too!! You need a lot of money to get a talent pool to compete in world cricket… so you invest that money and watch your profits that again need to be re-invested dwindle, as these breakaway leagues will only take a chunk of the profits alone but not share a tooth to the player resource pool.

The quality of cricket will sink. Period.

Secondly,

Apart from the ones who retired, there are those disgruntled folks of their respective boards who plays for the ICL. The very obvious reason for them to join the ICL was they were unhappy. So if a Minadad thinks their interest is being protected by allowing Yousuf to play for the national team and the ICL is puzzling. Were they not unhappy with your respective boards, so are the ones in the Indian camp in the ICL? For short term interest, what are you all getting into? What guarantee is that those players will not cause a ruckus when they get to play for the national team again. What guarantee is that those players will then simply retire unhappy about these boards.

It is time to please be dispassionate about this and look at it removing all emotional attachments.

The way forward:

a) Either ICL continues to remain in this structure. Not contribute to the grassroot level cricket in investing money to adding to the talent pool. Help only established cricketers and that businessman. Status quo. Unrecognized.

b) The ICL does an ICC. Creates a separate body, invests in talent pools, runs cricket much like a parallel government. Tough one for them to that but may work with tie-ups with other interested businessmen.

c) Seeks recognition, give back a portion of the profits to the ICC to be invested back in the countries talent pool which they use for the success of their tournament. Automatically also allows a case of those players be eligible to play for their countries too. Allows a conducive environment, where more businessmen can engage into this formula and collectively help spread the growth of cricket across the world.

To me, point c is the way forward. Rather than putting pressure on the BCCI, it is best that the same be applied to the ICL in sharing a chunk of their profits back into the development of the game via the resource pool and every party can mutually benefit from the same.

I would like the ICL to declare this. When this happens, there is a possibility that the BCCI may still get greedy and enforce its monopoly by rejecting the ICL. But it won’t sell for them… not in a court of law nor with the fans like me. That will be the time, we step up to help the ICL.

The ICL as it stands today are no different from software pirates.

The BCCI will lose the case on restraint of trade in terms of the players not being allowed to continue their other jobs, BCCI pensions, salary payments being withheld. That’s cheap anyway on the part of the BCCI.

However, if the law is fair, there is no chance of those players playing for both the ICL and the BCCI as it stand today.

This is not restrain of trade at all. As a private entity, it is completely in the right of the BCCI to allow or not allow its contracted players to play for the ICL.

There is some extent of hypocrisy as well here - thought the players are banned by the BCCI and other boards, the commentators in the ICL are allowed to commentate on international matches - why?

Tony Greig, Ayaz Menon are just 2 examples..

Moreover, TV producers, cheerleaders, etc are all interchangeable between the ICL and the IPL… this was well covered in the Hindustan Times some time back..

Even more - SRK, owner of KKR is the brand ambassador for Dish TV, which is a sponsor of ICL.. a huge SRK billboard was there at the ground in every ICL match..

If u want to ban something, do it correctlyy.. not half heartedly.. jahan apna faaida nazar aya wahan aankh band karli.. aise to nahin hota..

Q… what hypocrisy? All those is totally based on the decision of the broadcaster not the ICC.

Hypocrisy of the BCCI and the other national boards Scorps, not the ICC.

Why do you want to associate yourself with broadcasters telecasting ICL matches as well as those using staff used at the ICL?

If the league is blacklisted than all those associated with it should be banned, not only the cricketers.

Q… there are few broadcasters and there is no choice about it. Maybe that’s why. At least thankfully… they have been left out

Wasim…

1. The first part of point 1 is not possible. The ICL did not enter with the intention of the tune they are singing now on co-existence.

If so, they would have considered the FTP and the domestic schedule. Search for a good window.

It is impossible now for those players to play domestic, the FTP and the ICL at the same time. So naturally, it does not work at all.

Even for the players from other countries. So it is fundamentally flawed. Too many conflicts of interest that will affect all.

That’s why the ICL should have approached it like a Standford. No court or fan would entertain denying the ICL then.

Like you point out in the second half, there is a chance that these bans will be considered against public policy on those grounds you mentioned.

However by doing that, it is bluntly against public policy for the growth of cricket. Double edged sword Why?

The ICL and the result of that verdict, n’ number of new leagues that could potentially crop up will be entitled not to spend a dime on grassroot cricket development but take in the money only as profits.

The BCCI’s revenue will then be considerably reduced and over time when this compounds, there won’t be sufficient money for them to invest in grassroot cricket.

As a result, poor quality cricketers will come up in the system much like the associate countries.

Nobody benefits… not the public, certainly not the BCCI or the ICL or every other board. Cricket will hit bankruptcy again… stalemate.

2. No official explanation has come out till date except for a cricinfo story citing sources close to the ICL. Kapil himself said that we will address it after the tournament ends. Whether it is a small issue or not, we don’t know… either way they have kept quiet this long. It might be fair when the facts come out. However such a policy may not hold true in a possible incident in the future if a scenario arrives that a player was wrongly punished. Regulations of some acceptable sorts are needed.

Part 2 of point 2… I don’t buy that argument the ICL makes on its facilities for the players and how the players themselves sing like parrots taught to sing.

Whatever facilities, trainers they have got is solely the basic necessity to keep that tournament running and reek profits. Remember many players are retired and need to be in shape.

I am talking about grass root cricket. If my son has to play for the ICL, he cannot start anywhere to have any chance of playing for the ICL except through the BCCI.

The equation is simple… if the ICL have to be a successful tournament, it requires quality cricket from a quality talent pool which is currently solely being funded by the BCCI. And if the BCCI’s revenues are going to be affected, in turns means less funding for that talent pool.

Will it not be simple for the ICL giving back a portion to the ICC/BCCI who uses it to share and develop the same resource pool which is crucial for both the parties.

This is exactly where I disagree with the ICL. They want to take the cake and eat it too at the expense of the BCCI and the public.

3. About the part of yousuf… yousuf by himself came through the investment of the money put in the PCB in the domestic district level talent scouts and facilities. Right.

Imagine now if Zee since it is popular in Pakistan starts a series of leagues there, including one days, test and 20-20s. The PCB’s revenue will come down as a result. Correct. The PCB, BCCI are all non-profits… the money they earn they invest back. Now ICL will not provide a dime to Pakistan… PCB’s revenues get reduced and the money put in to discover talent pools like Yousuf will be far less, thus putting the country in a position with the very real possibility of not finding an another yousuf.

That’s the bigger picture here. Yousuf may play for 3 years… that’s all. Discovering an another yousuf and grooming him is the bigger picture which is getting hurt with this policy.

Pakistan had great batsmen in the past… and they discover Yousuf in the recent past… bottomline you need money to invest at the grass roots to discover another Yousuf.

I think it is fair and I believe we should put pressure on the ICL to part with their incomes to the ICC or they can nurture and create their own talent pool by themselves.

It is not right that they steal and cry foul as they are currently doing.

Am stunned at this notion of Subhash not make any money if they do this sharing bit.

Well… in the first year, some of the IPL franchises are making money already in this logical set up of sharing.

Subhash is trying to be very greedy here. He wants to force them to lift the ban on players representing India and other countries, thus making the ICL attractive for bigger stars to come in and he wants to keep all of that. This is equally mafia like.

If the franchises can make money in the IPL… a lot of money BTW… i cannot find one reason why Subhash cannot do that by sharing out a similar agreement.

Not only does this logically become legitimate but it soundly opens cricket to more investors pumping in for the growth of the game.

Q,

The BCCI produces its own match telecast in the tie-up with Nimbus. The BCCI owns all those match footages. It’s totally their production.

Ten sports which show ICL are contracted to other boards and more importantly, the boards there do not own the production.

Wasim… Rohan Gavaskar was again a disgruntled folk who left. It was partly because he was a pale comparison to his father in skills and also some local cricket politics.

For him it made sense, because he could make more money with the ICL and he may not have got an IPL contract either. So it is ok.

Also Wasim… you make a point on those private leagues in America. The difference is that those league invest at the grassroots to pick talent… schools, colleges etc whereas the ICL doesn’t.

The ICL could do what those private leagues do or they simply leaving that to the BCCI by investing and keeping a tab on the investment.

Either way is fine with me. I wish they do so.

Scorps - so if there were few cricketers around, the BCCI would not have banned those playing for ICL?

Thats what I mean by hypocrisy..

Ayaz Menon was commentating on the ICL and now he’s an expert on NEO Sports.. the BCCI can get any other expert if it owns the broadcast..

Cheerleaders performed in the ICL last year.. the same cheerleaders were roped in for the IPL in April this year - who was behind hiring them? BCCI could have gotten some other cheerleaders..

Kareena Kapoor performed in the ICL opening ceremony last year, why was she allowed to market the Mumbai Indians in the IPL?

SRK is a brand amabassador for Zee - why was he allowed to own a team in the IPL?

There are many more examples..

Wasim…

1. It is too simple to say problems in FTP international and domestic can be easily sorted out. If recognized boards are been at loggerheads in agreeing on dates due to board politics, it cannot be utopia. The IPL by itself after scheduling under the specific approval of all boards except ECB are having troubles in the second year itself. Right now it may seem simple with only the ICL though it is not, imagine other leagues when they come.

Please consider not looking at this as only an Indian problem or one which affects only India. We are talking about the world’s domestic program and international commitments… that’s huge and you can never please all.

Bond and Yousuf chose ICL over country.
Giving powers for the players to decide is not fair… they will only take their short term interest levels which pleases them. If that is the case, then the boards should be equally empowered to take punitive action against them. When they did so what is happening with the case of Yousuf. The PCB is bending backwards under the hand of Yousuf.
Besides the law won’t take that… but board officials are trying anyway.

BCCI not in a mood to talk about that.

That is speculative by itself. We will never know. Even if they had not, there is a huge brownie for the ICL that they tried.

But the fact is they didn’t… not with the BCCI nor the ICC or PCB or SLB or BAN. What kind of intention was this! How come all of you don’t ask questions on the ICL? Forget the BCCI… they didn’t ask your board nor the sri lankan one nor the bangladesh board? For god’s sake, do understand they are openly twisting you all and making a complete mockery of the leadership and strength of these respective boards… arm twisting them and literally throwing a challenge to do what you can, but I will eventually have my way!! Jeez… have none of you looked at it in this light. They are perceiving you all as weak idiots and you are all happily obliging.

BTW, They didn’t have the same results in Australia or England! They tried equally hard, their biggest trump card was Nofke and you will be stumped by the amount, because of the fact that they want a slide there.

You are right… there is no law against another league, affiliation or no affiliation. Nobody is stopping them… nobody is stopping them… not even the BCCI. The ICL is free to conduct the tournament on its own. Who is stopping them or have stopped them? The BCCI has not filed a single case against them. Read that again that’s significant.

It seems it is only the ICL that is trying to stop the BCCI and other boards from functioning and the best part is the BCCI is not complaining but ironically it’s the ICL.

Regulation is a must as you say and it is important for the growth of cricket and its stakeholders…. it safeguards every stakeholder and the sport But then, isn’t the ICL the one who doesn’t want to be regulated as you pointed out earlier?

On the ICL not giving back…. it is not speculation. Because it is a fact as it stands today. Show me a single place where they have said so. So when they have not, it does not remain speculation but a fact. I would be happy even if they orally say it is their intention but even that is not coming.

On the basis of the coaching facilities and the coaches which the players who have vouched for in a “video” that has got you sold to their idea. I had iterated in my point earlier by those coaching facilities especially in the context of the ICL is important… it is simply bare necessities.

What then why succumb to what parrots are told to speak about? Seriously.

I will ask you how many times have domestic teams won against an international team when touring Pakistan? Who were those coaches for the respective sides.

In the Indian context, as recent as a month back, the strongest side in the world Australia was kicked left and right by the Indian A side in a practice match. Who was the coach for that Indian side? The same ones who were coaching for the ones playing for the Indians in the ICL now.

Overstating the importance of a coach by these players are one which only parrots are told to do so.

As far as facilities goes, aren’t they hinting at the facilities being better than the ones in the BCCI?

I wish to tell you my personal story with the MRF pace foundation, though it will be long as this post :)… another time if anybody is interested.

Am afraid everyone is seeing one side of the story and getting sold to the emotional drama thrown on the other end when the fact remains that they are fingering you all.

On the How come the BCCI will lose money point.

Once again, what parrots tell, all of you agree on.

When there is nothing either in the law or by actions by the BCCI to stop the ICL, what makes you all imagine that there is ‘everything’ in the law or action that will stop the ICL from touring countries or getting into other formats apart from few paid officials words… you are kidding me!

Seriously… isn’t this a huge contradiction for the very beliefs all of you are fighting for. How come everyone restricts it to only 20-20 and especially only 1 single player ICL? Am afraid, the pro-ICL folks are not looking at it im-passionately.

They are saying this NOW because it will not threaten other boards position whose support they crucially need… simple as that. But like all businessmen, when they have the first level under their belt, they will embark on the next level which is exactly why I am arguing to all of you to not look at it as a personal Indian board problem but one which can easily take over as a problem for other boards.
And remember they are UN-REGULATED. No chance in a court of law.

On sachin etc… I have addressed that in depth in my earlier comment on the need to focus NOT on short term goals with players. Let’s not forget that an equal argument is that what if Yousuf does not agree with the board and just quits… what are you going to do then?

No the BCCI is not sharing revenues with other boards for the IPL for letting it’s players. It will when it reaches profitability maturity which will then BE A FIRST among all boards. They are paying the boards for the champions trophy.

Currently, the PCB and other board players play for the ECB and CA. Right… Do they get paid by those respective boards?

So I ask you, on what basis are you asking the BCCI alone to make a payment? Is that fair? Ask Tunga that.

On the IPL teams making profit… the chennai superkings made more than expected profits!!!! The RR will make 100% next year only. I agree that is no guarantee, but that doesn’t mean it is ok for the ICL to live off the BCCI’s expense either, specifically for this point. Much of this debate lies on the fact of the assumption that the BCCI is rich today, how much possibly can the ICL take from it.

You beautifully mentioned how it can hurt… It can all change in a year! Just like in the last test series, there was a full house and in a matter of less than a year, the stands were empty for the IND-AUS series.

On the scouting camps, am afraid Wasim… the ICL is not doing the same.

Besides the american structure is heavily invested by the government to promote sport at the school and college level so much so that it is an impeccable system. The ICL and the BCCI has to do more as our systems especially in the asian countries are very poor.

On your last point on presumptions…

Well the stanfords have done that in west Indies so much better than it puts the ICC and the WCB under shame.

Besides, at the end I ask you who will you like for the sake of sport and growth… the one who invests in it from the bottom or the one who only invests in the aspects that will affect their easy-money making interests only.

Even though the ICL has a meaningful purposeful tournament compared to a trash bin one like the Stanfords 20-20 million dollar tourno with ECB… My sympathy will be with Stanford not because of that meaningful tournament but for the lives of cricketers he has changed for the kids playing cricket at the grassroot level. The ones I am referring to too are the other stanford tournaments in WI and his personal money.

Much of the real money that this standford has pumped is not in any superstar who will entertain us on TV but some possible ’superstar’ cricketer still finding his way into the spotlight.

That my friends is grassroot cricket one which we cannot neglect.

Q,

if there were few cricketers around, the BCCI would not have banned those playing for ICL?

I never said anything to that effect nor has the BCCI but on the contrary that’s what all the pro-ICl folks are saying… they are all looking at it purely about “ONE” ICL that too affecting “INDIAN INTEREST” only.

I don’t get it… why do you see in the notion that the ICL cheerleaders or Ayaz should not be hired for the IPL or any other commitments for the BCCI in the first place.

Did the ZEE group or the IPL/BCCI, invest in Ayaz becoming a commentator or in anyone of those girls becoming a cheerleader or Kareena as an actress.

Has in any of these cases a non-rival competence clause instrumental in their contracts been implemented in the first place and enforced? Did the BCCI or Ayaz or Kareena or those cheerleaders break any contract.

what double standards may I ask.

What you are suggesting is absurd.

You are under the notion that the BCCI is preventing the ICL and will witch hunt anything associated with the ICL. But as I have repeatedly stated here, which you can go back and reflect on the actions the BCCI has done is often restricted to commodities, players etc. which they are contracted to and have invested on…. that’s it!

As wasim and everyone here knows that the zee group started this to rival the BCCI. The exact quote “they were not willing to sell us the content so we decided to create our own content.” They keyword “OUR OWN CONTENT”.

Good… the BCCI or the fans against the ICL are not against the ICL starting “their own content”. Not a case has been filed by the BCCI for starting one either.

But what I cannot understand from you is while you accept that it is a rival, you and the ICL find it strange that the BCCI does not want to accommodate those rival players in its system.

What is your logic here?

They have contracted a few players who they have nurtured from dog years spending money and when those players expressed(remember none formally tendered an official letter) their interest to play for the ICL rather than over the BCCI’s contracted commitments to play x-number of domestic, international matches, they accepted it and revoked all benefits that the player possessed with the BCCI because he was no longer part of it by his OWN CHOICE.

Come on… how absurd are your notions that the BCCI should continue paying them for missing BCCI commitments just to play for a rival league.

Are you kidding me! If that’s the job which everyone has… screw the cow… my next four generations will be only cricketers… a job that doesn’t matter who you work for but get the perks and salary from everyone. Give me a break.

How different is this notion of yours if the same player defected to another board called ECB and plays for England or some club. Do you expect the BCCI to pay for his absence or also allow him to play for India.

That’s how absurd yours and the ICL claims are.

Nobody is stopping them to create their players and content or steal too! They can go about their business but please it is unfair to say the BCCI should accommodate those guys who don’t honour the BCCIs contracted and mutually agreed commitments. Ridiculous.

The ftp problems exist because of IPl too,so what does that mean close IPL,every problem has a solution if the parties are willing to talk and negotiate.

You keep on dreading future leagues,they are inevitable unless there is a legislation to prevent them in the absence of any law nobody can stop them, banning players is not going to prevent future leagues, come on its not that hard to understand.

PCB is not left with any other choice, Bcci convinced other boards that ICl will not survive, it is not only going to survive but it is thriving and the current situation is working to their advantage this policy of banishing players has failed.

Its not about Yousuf its about having an effective policy where the interests of other boards are also protected which in the current scenario is not happening. If ICL is recognized and PCb doesn’t want to release a few players ICL will be bound to listen, the players will lose their black mailing leverage and the boards will have an upper hand, which I am sorry to say is not happening with the current policy all the boards are helpless.

I brought up the sharing of revenues issue only to prove ICL should be paying affiliation fees to BCCI or ICC but sharing a piece of the whole pie is never heard of, ICl has announced it is planning to develop state of the art academies all over India so thats how they will contribute to cricket at grass roots.

Again the above points are a mere speculation and fear mongering as nobody sat down with ICL and offered any pre conditions for approval to them,we don’t know their answer yet so lets not make up an answer on their behalf it will be unfair and pointless.

ICl is not living on BCCI expense, you keep on saying that but it doesn’t make any sense, the players it hired were already getting wasted, even the time slot of ICL doesn’t clash with IPL, in fact ICL created something out of nothing,they created their own niche. This argument lacks substance, Players are traders and they trade their skills, they are not property of any institution they are free to sell their skill to any party they wish,so this whole notion that BCCI owned those players who are playing for ICL will not hold in any court of law hence it is futile to even discuss it. It is just like an employee gains experience with one organization and then quits his job for more money, unfortunately thats how things work in free market economy, but somehow all the BCCI supporters consider those players as NAMAK HARAM for playing for ICL and ICL as a dacoit, but we have forgotten slavery doesn’t exist anymore, this is a norm in corporate wars but you still have to play by the rules.

I know Stanford gave some money to WICB and some associations
in WI but i said it before it only happened because somebody sat with them and negotiated something.
BTW the young players who are selected by ICL aren’t they Indians or BCCI wants to get their citizenship revoked too, if stanford helped identifying young talent so has ICL nobody would have known about Ibrahim Khaleel, Satish, Rayudu,and several others that is a positive isn’t it.

We will continue to argue again and again on the same points but the ground realities will not change.

The current policy is a failure, and is seriously harming other cricket teams. Where ICL and BCCI remain unaffected no wonder they want to keep status quo.

Only regulation can put some chains around ICL and that will happen when their application is even considered and some preconditions are offered to them. All the speculation until then is just fear mongering.

The future leagues are inevitable if there is more room in the market.

Bans will hurt cricket and the policy is not in public interest.

The boards will remain the key bodies which will control cricket private leagues will never be able to represent India or any other country they will be just private clubs.

We can continue with the current policy only if a solution is in sight.There is no end to this stalemate.

If the laws of the country are followed everything will work out, the beauty of the free market economy is that the market forces always adjust for the better.

U seem to have missed my point Scorpi..

I have never suggested that the ICL players get paid by the BCCI…

All I have argued for is that the bans on the ICL cricketers are unjust. What have they been banned from? Representing their domestic teams and the chance to pay international cricket. Why?

That is what I am against.

The players are not even allowed to practice cricket on grounds directly or directly owned / operated by the BCCI. Why?

All what I have argued for is that the cricketers are professionals and they should be allowed to choose their employer - whether its a county, an ICL, an IPL, or a Stanford, it should not matter. But if a player is good enough then he should be allowed to play international cricket, not be banned from it.

Sure the BCCI invested in the grass roots and provided the facilites to these players and so on, but the ICL is only in its 2nd year.. if it is allowed to continue without any restrictions and hindrances, it may also tomorrow provide the players with the facilities that the BCCI has over the years. Surely it will if it has to be self sustaining.

If a corporate picks me up from college, trains me, invests its time in me, helps me grow in my career, provides me with the facilities and opportunities to grow as a professional, do I have to stick with it for the rest of my life? I will jump at a better opportunity and apply my trade for a competitor without being banned from working for anyone else..

Same is the case here with the ICL and the national boards..

The reason I speak of the cheerleaders, Kareena, Ayaz Menon is because they too are providing their services to the ICL. As are the cricketers. The cricketers are banned because the BCCI/IPL doesn’t need them.. but the former are not because without them the IPL/BCCI will not be a success.

Those are double standards in my books.

Scorpi

May be you didn’t read the case law and the explanation of the law on the subject I quoted in my comments, BCCI cannot ban players under any law it will be treated as unreasonable and against public policy as BCCI runs a private league in IPL but also runs India’s national cricket on national and international level.

It cannot refuse those players out of its system as the bans will be considered as unreasonable and against public policy.

It will be pointless to defend or argue on points which have no value in the court of law.

Wasim,

Am all for regulations. The important point is that they need to be regulated. If subhash is not for regulation, then it is pointless.

I don’t understand the logic of why the BCCI should not ban. You are agreeing that the players are free to choose their own employers and the same holds with me. So when these players who have existing contracts with the BCCI does not honour it and choses to work for someone else, it is a breach of contract or by accepted choice and I can’t understand what court will be deemed fair on the view of the BCCI to allow players to breach the contracts for their self-interest.

If the court says that the players self-interests come ahead of the country’s, then you cannot really call that a court but some motley crew.

Let’s however see how these cases pan out. The BCCI will lose many but am worried about the important ones.

If those players are going to skip Ranji matches to play for the ICL, on what basis can anyone see them qualified to be a possible selection to represent the country in the national team. Those players had the choice of playing in the system that is designed to let people represent their country by merit.

To say those players have the right to be allowed to play for the country in the BCCI’s system without them proving (playing) among all the probables in the domestic circuit is absurd. Those spots logically has to go to the next committed person waiting in line.

And this is exactly why some of here in India hates the ICL. We like those players no doubt… I even have met R. Satish a few times. They made the choice to not want to play for India.

If anyone wants to leave the ICL and come back and play… you are allowed to do that by law.

BTW Wasim, Q… looks like only we 3 are the ones discussing LOL.

Scorpi

Quiting your job is not a breach of contract if that was the case BCCI instead of using other arm twisting techniques would have straight away sued the players or they would have obtained a stay order just the way ICL did in the case of Yousaf.

Yeah its only us three I had a discussion with Homer at Well pitched. Straight Point, Soulberry, and Ottayan left one or two angry responses it seems they didn’t wanted to discuss this topic in an open manner and they are happy with the status quo, the problem is there and the existing policy is not working by sweeping it under the rug more problems will be created so an open discussion is always healthy.

Its quite clear which direction PCB wants to take, they have sold their broadcasting rights for the next five years to Taj Entertainment Network, which operates TEN Sports and is owned by Gulf-based businessman Abdulrahman Bukhatir, also held Pakistan cricket broadcast rights from 2004 to 2008.It is also said that Essel also owns 60% of the shares in the above company.

Q,

“All I have argued for is that the bans on the ICL cricketers are unjust. What have they been banned from?”

Have addressed this in the above point. It can only start working they agree to be regulated. They chose not to be regulated but in that case they shouldn’t be complaining. It conflicts FTP, domestic FTP in all countries and therefore it is hard for those players who skip matches to be considered into the realm of selection.

“Sure the BCCI invested in the grass roots and provided the facilities to these players and so on, but the ICL is only in its 2nd year.. if it is allowed to continue without any restrictions and hindrances, it may also tomorrow provide the players with the facilities that the BCCI has over the years. Surely it will if it has to be self sustaining.”

It is not about facilities alone Q… it is about the system. Building a state-of-the-art facility does not remotely mean that you can find the best player in the country or for the ICL. To do that, there needs to be a sustained investment. But yes facilities are welcome but that isn’t enough. Like you say, it may be that they build or get a system in place for the future.

Which is why you need to ask them what exactly is the scope of the ICL. They started this as an alternative system and now they confusing everybody to get integrated without regulations. That’s plain stupid. Even those private leagues you mentioned in the US are all regulated.

“If a corporate picks me up from college, trains me, invests its time in me, helps me grow in my career, provides me with the facilities and opportunities to grow as a professional, do I have to stick with it for the rest of my life? I will jump at a better opportunity and apply my trade for a competitor without being banned from working for anyone else.”

No harm in anyone choosing his employer… working with two rival employers doesn’t work anywhere doesn’t it? Ultimately somewhere you will not be able to fulfill some of the commitments you promised to both, as in the case of these players towards the BCCI.

I pray Ayza Menon not be required for his commentator services Q, LOL

Guys,

Now where is this heading…

a) Should the ICL be regulated to start with

b) ICL remains as it is… unregulated and unaccounted.

C) Let the BCCI do what it wants but other boards to not tow the line.

All the boards should sit together alongwith ICC and should device a legal framework for accepting private leagues.

ICL should be offered the preconditions and that should include:
1-ICL will limit its operations to T20 and will never let its schedule clash with IPL.
2-It should also not clash with the Ranjhi trophy schedule.
3 -If a board doesn’t want to release a player ICL will not play that player. Must accept the release of player clause.
4-ICl must pay all the affiliation fees to ICC and if applicable to BCCI.
5- ICl should also come forth of a plan for the future development of the game and should allocate a % of budget.
6-ICL must enforce all the anti doping and Anti corruption code of iCC.

Now if these conditions are presented and they accept they should be approved.

The other boards should lift the bans if both parties decide to stay the existing course and do not want to move forward to resolve the issue.It will be pointless for them to suffer indefinitely in a fight where they have no stake.

Wasn’t the problem with the Tony Greig case simply the fact that the bans were retrospective?

Anyway, one of the issues raised is that the situation is hurting countries other than India. NZ and Bangladesh seem to have been bitten. Would they have acted differently if the ICL had come to them with clearance guarantees like the BCCI/IPL eventually did?

Then there’s Pakistan… would so many Pakistani players have gone to ICL if the national team was still functioning normally? Who is actually hurting Pakistan cricket? The BCCI, or CA/ECB/the political situation?

It will take a lot of effort to fit in even the IPL and still maintain the notions of international (and domestic representative) cricket that we are used to.

Johnathan

Welcome to cricketfiles,

“NZ and Bangladesh seem to have been bitten. Would they have acted differently if the ICL had come to them with clearance guarantees like the BCCI/IPL eventually did?”

I am not sure, how much this has to do with BCCI’s influence and how much does it have to do with the simple fact that ICL is not regulated yet. But one thing is for sure all the fans and all the cricket managers are getting sick of this mess.

So are you saying that the players from other countries went to play for ICL because of money or personal reasons and Pakistanis went there because our team wasn’t functioning properly? Well it has become a fashion now to criticize Pakistan cricket management on every issue whether they deserve it or not, I don’t see a difference here.

ICL is there already running and operating successfully whether we accept it or not, will it make a difference if it is regulated and brought under control?

If an existing league cannot fit in the FTP then how do you envision the SA T20 league and the Australian T20 league to fit in next year, every problem has a solution you only need the intent to solve.

Wasim,

I guess we will take your concluding points as this is the way forward. After all it is the ICL which is seeking things from the ICC and therefore it needs to be put across to the ICL that they need to bend backwards to an extend or they could function as it is currently.

Wasim,

I guess we will take your concluding points as this is the way forward. After all it is the ICL which is seeking things from the ICC and therefore it needs to be put across to the ICL that they need to bend backwards to an extend or they could function as it is currently.

Cheers

Scorpi, Q , Jonathan, SP and Soulberry thanks for participating in the discussion.

I hope that the situation gets resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned.The ball is in ICC’s court lets see how they respond to ICL’s application for recognition.

Any details Wasim in the press on what the ICL is seeking… i.e any details on what they are asking the ICC to do.

Hi there,

Just come across your site when I was searching for other cricket blogs on Google. Your site is one I would definetly consider to having a high standard, I can say I would defiently be reading it from time to time!

I also have a cricket site of my own I would highly recommend you having a look at. It is called “Cricket, the Brilliant Game” and the web address for it is http://www.whoplayscricket.com. If you are also interested in doing a link exchange with me feel free to email your site’s details to my email at whoplayscricket@gmail.com, and when you add my site please use the following details:

Site Name: Cricket, the Brilliant Game!
Web Address: http://www.whoplayscricket.com
Link name: Cricket, the Brilliant Game!

Also email me when you have added me so I can add your site on mine promptly.

Cheers!

Rob

http://www.whoplayscricket.com

Hi Wasim,

I’m saying that players balance the financial advantags with the disadvantages (like not playing for their country). I would have thought that Pakistan would have more hold on their players than NZ or Bangladesh, if not for the current mess. But by saying the team is not functionally normally, I’m not blaming the management - I’m saying that playing for your country is a whole lot less attractive when opponents are cancelling tours left, right and centre. I’m suggesting that Cricket Australia, for example, might be more to blame than the BCCI. Of course, they would blame non-cricket factors, but that is a separate discussion.

ICC recognition of ICL simply doesn’t make sense. The ICC works on the basis that members are not leagues but groups controlling cricket in particular countries, so it’s up to the BCCI. I don’t see how they could be brought into a court case, especially since “discrimination” in general is a perfectly normal part of business, etc.

As for all the other leagues, I strongly agree that there are problems fitting them in. The ICL has at least the same problems, and multiplies them. Where does that leave everyone?

I had thought that the defections included players in the current national team, but if not, then you have a point.

As for the place of the ICC, there are several issues. Discrimination includes, for eexample, choosing which company to award a tender, a normal part of business. The question is whether it is unfair or illegal discrimination.

As for recognition of leagues, I’m pretty sure Stanford was recognised by the WICB, not the ICC. I don’t see any way for the ICL to bypass the BCCI. It just doesn’t make sense. Do you know what that clause actually says?

In Australia, it’s actually fairly normal for the top league to be the governing body. Of course, any of these bodies are subject to the rules of law, including monopoly law. These may include restraint of trade issues, and possibly even recognise a governing body as a monopoly, but that is not clear.

Whatever the legal issues, some monopolistics interests might actually be good for the game and the fans. If the courts don’t see this as a valid concern, then the problem will go on until one or both sides are losing money from the situation, or they come to an agreement to avoid it. The ICL as yet has no reason to meet the conditions that can reasonably be suggested, so it will probably go on in the courts and on the field, hoping to reach a position where the boards are forced to concede.

Hi Wasim,

You make a good point and I am totally with you on this…By not recognizing the ICL, the ICC is giving the so-called rebel league a free hand to be more disruptive…I need we need to look at the way things are handled in the US…leagues keep coming up all the time…but just like it is in a free market economy, bobody goes around banning players…they let the fans decide…if the League is good and the fans like it it lives on…if not it dies out…

Hi common fan:

Welcome to cricketfiles.

I completely agree with you.

The issue is indeed the monopoly laws, which, apart from being different in different countries, are not that straight-forward. (Of course, if it were a completely free market, then monopolisation would probably be allowed.) Microsoft still does as much as it cna get away with to use Windows to promote IE, and it would take hours of legal arguments to sort out exactly what is and isn’t allowed. It is a matter of what the laws say, and possibly what is considered in the public interest.

I don’t know what happened in the talks between the BCCI and the ICL, but I suspect both parties came with conditions that the other would not meet. I don’t see why we need to follow the US model, especially if we are planning to keep international representative cricket as the pinnacle of the game. Indian law does seem fairly prescriptive about what is in the public interest, but it is not necessarily right. As common fan says, the market might sort that out itself, in the end.