ICC's revamp

Speed, Gray join Mani's protest

Daniel Brettig

January 26, 2014

Comments: 152 | Text size: A | A

Malcolm Speed announces the ICC's decision on Steve Bucknor, Melbourne, January 8, 2008
Malcolm Speed has remained linked to Cricket Australia even after leaving his post as ICC chief's executive in 2008 © Getty Images
Enlarge

Malcolm Speed and Malcolm Gray, both former senior administrators with Cricket Australia and the ICC, have broken away from their national board's position by undersigning a formal letter to the ICC and member nations requesting that the "big three" proposal be immediately withdrawn.

The letter, composed by the former ICC president Ehsan Mani in the wake of his damning 13-page assessment of the draft finance and governance proposal that is due to be voted on by the ICC's executive board this week, is also undersigned by the former West Indian captain Clive Lloyd and former PCB presidents Shahrayar Khan and Lt Gen. (retd) Tauqir Zia and former BCB president Saber Hossain Chowdhury.

Ali Bacher, the former managing director of the first South African board after reunification, also came out in support of the argument being made by Mani. In a letter to Alan Isaac, the current president of the ICC, Bacher reminded him of the "animosity" that existed particularly in the Asian subcontinent and the Caribbean, when England and Australia had the veto in the ICC. He said that the working group position paper, if accepted, would "lead to division and strife in world cricket as never seen before." *

But it is the presence of Speed and Gray on the letter that is most significant, for each have remained linked to the workings and decisions of CA in the years since they left formal administrative posts. Speed still retains a close working relationship with the CA chief executive James Sutherland under the banner of the Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports (COMPPS). He was also a member of the Argus review panel that charted a new path for the Australian team in 2011.

All signatories agreed that the ICC needed to re-examine the conclusions of the 2012 Woolf Report into ICC governance, which recommended, among other things, an improvement in governance standards, the appointment of independent board directors and greater transparency. The text of the letter reads:

"We are writing to ask you, the custodians of world cricket: 1. That the Paper by the ICC F&CA Committee should be withdrawn. 2. That the ICC directors and management, its members and other stakeholders are, as a matter of urgency, invited to review and comment on the Governance Report by Lord Woolf and PWC, published in 2012, with a view to implementing its recommendations and improving ICC's Governance structure, in keeping with contemporary best practice."

Following a long period in senior roles with CA when it was known as the Australian Cricket Board, Gray served as president of the ICC from 2000 to 2003, when he was succeeded by Mani. Speed was the chief executive of the ACB/CA from 1997 until 2001, then served the same role with the ICC from 2001 to 2008. He told ESPNcricinfo that he trusted the motives of the CA chairman Wally Edwards, but held grave doubts about the redistribution model the proposal outlined.

"I have no doubt that Wally Edwards has given the matter very close consideration and believes that this is the best outcome for world cricket," Speed said. "Wally has been in the thick of the debate and I respect his opinion and have no doubt that he is acting in the best interests of the game and Australian cricket.

"I cannot see any reason whatsoever why India should receive extra funding from ICC Events at the expense of struggling countries such as Scotland, Ireland, Uganda, Kenya and the other 100 Associate and Affiliate members where every dollar counts. India generates hundreds of millions from domestic and international media and sponsorship rights from matches played against the other Full Member countries.

"India already benefits more than any other country from the popularity of the game in India and India's huge population. It receives this revenue as a result of playing against the other countries. The rationale for ICC Events is to raise funds to support the game across the world. All of the other members need additional funding. Previous Presidents of BCCI were strong supporters of the other countries. Jagmohan Dalmiya as BCCI and ICC President was a pioneer in spreading cricket's revenues around the cricket world. BCCI needs to reconsider its position."

The letter was accompanied by Mani's analysis of the proposal, which raised many and varied concerns about the conflicted interests of its authors - the BCCI, CA, and the ECB - and the revenue modelling they are suggesting. Among his reservations was the fact that under the new plan, the game's developing nations stood to lose an enormous percentage of projected revenue, relative to their current allocation.

Mani estimated that under the proposal, Associate and Affiliate Members would lose more than US $312 million in projected revenue, an amount that would instead be redistributed largely to the boards of India, Australia and England.

"The biggest gainers are BCCI, ECB and CA. In addition, ICC events for the period 2015-2023 will be held only in India, England and Australia. These Boards will receive hosting fees for the events in addition to the ICC Distributions they propose," Mani wrote. "A point that also needs to be addressed is; why does BCCI need more money at the expense of other countries? The domestic and international media fees that BCCI receives from playing with other members are massive and underpin BCCI's financial position. It is the richest cricket board in the world.

"If cricket is to grow and develop around the world more investment is required in the Associate & Affiliate countries, not less. The Associate & Affiliate countries represent some of the biggest economies in the world. If cricket could be established properly in the United States of America and China and become an Olympic sport, the ICC could double its revenues in real terms over the next 10-15 years. This requires vision and a less parochial approach."

* - 11.05 GMT, January 26, 2014 - Story updated with quotes from Ali Bacher and Malcolm Speed

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

RSS Feeds: Daniel Brettig

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Navaneeth1717 on (January 27, 2014, 14:22 GMT)

God knows what BCCI wants to do with all that money. Hope they leave all this and concentrate on building a team which can atleast compete well outside sub-continent. What if we have millions of dollars, we do not have one bowler of class of Morne Morkel, Dale Steyn or Mitchell Johnson. Hope we spend our money in that direction rather then trying to get more money.

Posted by   on (January 27, 2014, 12:36 GMT)

It is ridiculous to of BCCI to think of getting extra money as they are already having so much of fund which they should use for developing the cricket in rural India, rather than squeezing the money out of ICC.I think more money should be distributed among other country.

Posted by Naresh28 on (January 27, 2014, 10:59 GMT)

IT WONT HAPPEN - CAUSE AUSTRALIA will side with the other block. Leaves INDIA/ ENGLAND on one side. AUSTRALIA will remain with SA block. They look at the sport professionally.

Posted by rickyvoncanterbury on (January 27, 2014, 7:31 GMT)

Imagine trying to take money out of the cricket/footie tipping jar .....because most of your mates paid to be in it.

Posted by   on (January 27, 2014, 6:21 GMT)

Its too much, just a rascalism from India, whatever they want, they are trying to implement on others, they create IPL & now cricketers are happy to play IPL instead of from country, India earning more money because they have a big population remember China has more than India, once they started they will ask for that also, & India should remember he didn't born cricket,

Posted by   on (January 27, 2014, 5:36 GMT)

I dont understand why the professional cricket boards like England and Australia agreed to take part in this crap. This is a big question mark on their credibility.

Posted by Lees_Legends on (January 27, 2014, 5:07 GMT)

There's a view from some BCCI supporters here that say "Why should the money India make go to other countries, why should we fund cricket all over the globe?" Which is a true enough point but what are you going to do with all your extra money?? The last I saw the BCCI was one of the richest governing bodies in world sport behind only the IOC and FIFA. Why do you need more?

Posted by heart_king on (January 27, 2014, 5:04 GMT)

Nitin Bhandari so far india is always home players they always good in india most centuries and wickets are in india with help of own umpires like kumblay got 10 most wickets are given lbw watch carefully yes you sorry cannot produce a genuine fast bowler and your country plays a setup against other countries

Posted by   on (January 27, 2014, 4:59 GMT)

There is an old saying - "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Could there be a possibility that CA and ECB are on board with the BCCI so that they have the psoition to veto anything the BCCI tries to come up with in future to the detriment of the game in the pursuit of the almighty dollar ??? I would not be surprised if this is the plan of CA/ECB with the backing of the other boards to reel in the lust for power and money that the BCCI is currently afflicted with. But time will tell......

Posted by   on (January 27, 2014, 4:57 GMT)

The FIFA, IOC and the world Rugby federation must be the Luckiest board in the world since India is not doing well in these sports,if not they would mess them up them too, like they do in cricket thesedays.Its the typical indian attitude as former Sri Lankan captain arjuna Ranatunge said quite rightly.The Democrasy preachers had forgotten what democracy is all about and trying to ruin the cricket.I know your'll may find difficult to publish this message.

Posted by likeintcricket on (January 27, 2014, 4:53 GMT)

All these three countries are not a force in any major sports and in the Olympics. Therefore they want to preserve their authority in one sport where they think they are more talented. That is the reason why cricket is not very popular in the world.

Posted by likeintcricket on (January 27, 2014, 4:53 GMT)

All these three countries are not a force in any major sports and in the Olympics. Therefore they want to preserve their authority in one sport where they think they are more talented. That is the reason why cricket is not very popular in the world.

Posted by starlover on (January 27, 2014, 4:19 GMT)

Oh! you should not save big 3 by telling that they are not under the same law! Make them earn what they deserve!

Posted by starlover on (January 27, 2014, 4:18 GMT)

let start 2 tier system from Zero. Then count all the points after equal number of matches home and away....It will be fair to judge who is true 9 or 10 team. If you play 60 test in 5 years, whereas other team play 20 tests, it does not make any sense.

Posted by   on (January 27, 2014, 3:59 GMT)

Can we have a separate ranking for teams based on away form. India will certainly rank 9th or 10th in that. And implement the non-test playing criteria for India there. They should agree to it. India is nothing away from home. A useless, pathetic, rubbish cricket team who can't win even a single match.

Posted by Ray24 on (January 27, 2014, 3:49 GMT)

Well done Mr. Mani. And to Mr. Speed and Gray who have joined in. This is not about India or Australia etc. It is about cricket - please let the sport remain alive and interesting.

Posted by Amkhan200 on (January 27, 2014, 3:31 GMT)

As it is clear that the BCCI has only one interest -money- and has resorted to threats and arms-twisting with all the sophistication of a common thug, it may be time for lovers of cricket to unite and fight back. I have some suggestions and invite others to put forward their own ideas to save cricket from its biggest enemy, the BCCI. My suggestions are as follows: i) expel the BCCI from all matters to do with international cricket; ii) all other nations should refuse to play cricket against any Indian team with any connection with the BCCI; iii) any players signing up to play in any matches sponsored by or in association with the BCCI should be banned from playing in any international cricket.

Posted by wapuser on (January 27, 2014, 2:53 GMT)

Please leave "Cricket" alone.. Don't prevent millions of cricket loving fans from sharing their enthusiasm, excitement and eagerness of supporting their own nation. Don't prevent us from our rights of freedom of speech. We want cricket and we shouldn't tolerate anyone who wants to snatch it from us. May it be BCCI, ECB or CA, it's not only them playing cricket.. So they have no rights to retain the majority of revenue amongst themselves..

Posted by   on (January 27, 2014, 2:45 GMT)

two tier system could be with AUS, ENG, SA, PAK, SL, INDIA with one pool and BD, ZIM, NZ, and WI in another. one top team from the pool B can move up to pool A in 2 years and one bottom team from the pool A will be moved down to pool B. and the same way lowest team in the pool B will be moved down to play along with the top 4 teams from the intercontinental countries and whoever tops there should move to the pool B. ODI statues should be same for top 10 countries.

Posted by DaredevilsUnlimited on (January 27, 2014, 2:07 GMT)

Very nice that people who were associated in the past are standing up to show what cricket means to the cricket boards. But for the cricket fans the world over the very same authorities in power would be singing different song. Money is required but GREED to amass is not tolerable.

Posted by Number_5 on (January 27, 2014, 1:50 GMT)

As an Aus cricket fan im pretty upset that CA has taken this line. Its almost as if they have taken a 'If you can beat em, join em' approach in this whole affair which sees more $ flowing to the BCCI , CA and ECB. How can this help develop and grow the game around the globe? Its clear that whilst words such as transparency, ethics and governance get used often in big business they actually mean very little to the people running the game. I feel for fans in other countries that are impacted by the absurd proposal and truly hope the games stakeholders can see the right thing to do is to help all ICC countries, not just the powerful few.

Posted by   on (January 27, 2014, 1:26 GMT)

We are talking only of cricket income. Do other countries or boards related to other sports support India in those sports? Might be better if bcci money supports other sport in India which has lower per capita than most

Posted by willmot on (January 27, 2014, 1:00 GMT)

@ Harmony111 -Problem in this case is Rich feeding OFF the poor. The Ashes wud always be top priorty leaving India/BCCI scrounging for rupees elsewhere

Posted by android_user on (January 27, 2014, 0:49 GMT)

Its exciting to see that..all the former prisidents are try to save the cricket fm Big 3 ....jio criket jio..cricket....

Posted by sams235 on (January 27, 2014, 0:16 GMT)

Do what it takes to stop this madness -- an Indian cricket lover.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 23:43 GMT)

NZ has a population of 4million, They are contrubuttung more than you think,. Already punch above their weight and should have gone 3-0 zip against a complacent and Indian side. India and the BCCI will destroy cricket world wide with their selfish proposals.

Posted by rickyvoncanterbury on (January 26, 2014, 23:43 GMT)

100 years ago the big 3 where ENG and AUS, 50 years ago the big 3 where SA ENG, AUS, 30 years ago the big 3 where WI,15 years ago the big 3 where AUS, now the big 3 are SA, oh sorry I didn't know you where talking about money.

Posted by rickyvoncanterbury on (January 26, 2014, 22:27 GMT)

I cannot speak for India but the problem for the ECB and CA is that there are plenty of options for the ticket buying spectator, and what sport a kid will take up. Cricket in Australia is popular, but not the be all to end all. CA better make the right choices or cricket will go the way of tennis in this country.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 22:18 GMT)

Shame on BCCI,ECB,CA...They just trying to destroy the cricket....I am not against change. But let those who are calling the shots look at other sports bodies and recommend changes. The US is not telling the International Olympic Committee members that we bring the largest revenue and hence we need more control of the IOC.The IOC has a history of over 110 years and only once has an American been President of IOC.Due to the proposed system there will be no democracy and other countries will be at the mercy of BCCI. Australia and England merely will follow BCCI orders.I can't understand why you need to give importance to financial power only. What BCCI couldn't do alone they are now trying to do by getting CA and ECB on thir side.The way the Chairman of the ICC will be chosen seems fine compared to the act that India, England and Australia wilnever be relegated and will play in the elite league always.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 22:03 GMT)

First of all,, let just put one thing straight which though very few but "loyal" BCCI supporters are paddling around,, the myth that BCCI is paying out 80% of the ICC revenues,, this is as for from reality as Mars from Earth,, I challenge anybody to back this with real numbers instead of just living in hysteria of ignorance. The issue here is somehow BCCI projecting total revenues including of those generate and then paid put through BCCI to ICC but this also includes revenues from media companies and advertisers,now since BCCI is not a "State" who could portrait the total outputs in GDP and GNP to formulate the projections generated through all financial producers, the fact that there are lot of independent companies happened to be in India which has their own customer base and showing them cricket is one of their product which they buy through BCCI and when India is not involved, through other TV companies but all this being projected by BCCI as their core revenue which is wrong.cont

Posted by Blal on (January 26, 2014, 21:58 GMT)

@Rajan Rbr: In a program telecast by Geo TV Pakistan today, paticipated by Ramiz Raja, Bishen Singh Bedi and Lalit Modi and conducted by ex Pakistani pacer Sikander Bakht, Bedi has in clear terms opposed the draft proposal by the so called B3 and has asked Pakistan to oppose the proposal tooth and nail. Lalit Modi has also opposed the proposal. Curiously, Ramiz Raja has favoured it, probably he has his job as comentetor in IPL is dear to his heart then the game of cricket in general.

Posted by espncricinfomobile on (January 26, 2014, 21:53 GMT)

BCCI along with ECB and CA are attempting to high jack cricket. Greed has made BCCI arrogant. This non-sense must be berried for good.

Posted by S.R.Khan on (January 26, 2014, 21:24 GMT)

For all the know-it-all's who want to relegate BD and ZIM to a 2nd tier, how about you people first demand a fair ranking system in which those two teams get opportunities to actually move up the ladder? I am fine with my team (BD) being relegated to play against the Associates, but only based on test rating points accumulated over the NEXT 3-5 years and an equal number of matches against every member nation within that period. If, at the end of that period, BD and ZIM find themselves at the bottom, then banish them from playing tests for four years. If, however, WI and NZ (or any of the other countries, including IND, ENG, AUS) are at the bottom of that table, then they must be relegated to the 2nd tier. Automatically relegating BD and ZIM at this stage ignores the fact that (i) BD have played at most half the tests that other member nations have, (ii) have played SIX tests in the last FIVE years against the top five nations and (iii) are even denied A-team tours to improve.

Posted by espncricinfomobile on (January 26, 2014, 21:19 GMT)

All cricket fans don't shout on so called big threes its time to stand up and put pressure on our boards to vote against this stupid position paper this is the only way to save cricket.

Posted by rickyvoncanterbury on (January 26, 2014, 21:18 GMT)

Who knows what these boards are thinking but as an Aussie supporter I want nothing to do with CA getting into bed with the BCCI, I want to go to the SCG and see the Aussies play Pakistan, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka etc etc, I want my Kids and their Kids to represent New South Wales and Australia, NOT the Sydney sixers and Mumbai, I want more national teams not less, cricket in all forms can exist and prosper only if MANAGMENT want that.

Posted by no_point_chasing_the_wide_ones on (January 26, 2014, 21:04 GMT)

Hypothetically speaking now (cos we all know this proposal is going to happen), the other members should grow a spine and call the BCCI's bluff here. Let them take their bat and ball and sulk off home to play on their own. And stand together and refuse to play them in any form of cricket. Yes, it will hurt a lot in terms of revenue lost, but if they pooled their financial resources and efforts they could survive. create a meaningful test match product (competition) to supplement the ICC events. might even be some interest from an Indian broadcaster to pay to show it in India. The BCCI would suffer as well. besides the lost ICC and test match revenue streams, maybe not critical for them but still significant, I think they might have a tough time answering to their cricket mad fans who won't be happy being excluded from the international arena. But it's not going to happen thanks to the ECB+CA's position. 9 against 1 might have had a chance, 7 against 3 is too big a risk for the 7.

Posted by CurrentPresident on (January 26, 2014, 20:43 GMT)

To all those crying about how "cricket used to be a gentleman's game", here are some things to ponder over, from when it was a "gentleman's game": - It was controlled by the color of your skin - Umpires from the host country were virtually part of the playing XI - Bodyline happened, underarm bowling happened. - No player was ever punished for behaving rudely to umpires or the opposing team - Players could not make a decent living off of playing cricket.

Grass seems greener in the rear view mirror, but almost always things are either the same or a slight improvement.

Posted by android_user on (January 26, 2014, 20:40 GMT)

true money is the be all and end all for these three suits from Ind sums and eng. their remit is global not local.what they are basically advocating is that a poor talented kid from say Bangladesh will have less oppertunity than a kid from India or england. that is unfair.at its very heart this is the argument. and it is wrong..so very wrong.let's bring the game back to the people...of all countries...and get rid of these suits....who basically want better suits to parade around in. this argument is to drop boundaries for cricket and create a level playing field for all who love this wonderful sport and genuinely care for its future.

Posted by drnaveed on (January 26, 2014, 20:30 GMT)

any one can guess, whose mischievous mind is behind all this , who has initiated it and involved the other two nations. That country's record had recently improved somewhat on the foreign grounds , but still they are on the loosing side as always . on the basis of that slight improvement ,they think they are in a position to rule the world. i think , let it (cricket ) be a sport, don't involve politics in it. every other cricket playing Country should be given its due share and right. you should respect the others, if you want respect from the others .Don't think yourself GODS.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 20:26 GMT)

Big 3? Why is everyone calling the proposal as one by the Big 3? It really is the Big 1. The other two are just proxies for the Big 1, or to be specific "shadow cricket boards" for the real controlling cricket board. This is not just about money and its distribution but about power and dominance and to make the game localised as opposed to globalisation. This is against the ICC's constitution and core principles. If this vote goes through, all my Wisdens and cricket books go out of the window, as does my subscription to Ric Finlay's CSW databases.

Posted by wapuser on (January 26, 2014, 20:24 GMT)

That's why no country want play cricket they can see india real face shame on India

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 20:20 GMT)

India's bullying reminds me of George W. Bush when he said "Either you're with us or with them".

Posted by Bang_La on (January 26, 2014, 20:17 GMT)

@keptalittlelow, game? What game? Lets count money!

Posted by CurrentPresident on (January 26, 2014, 20:15 GMT)

I do agree that isolating playing tiers to restrict it to 3 is a stupid idea and will hurt cricket. It should be separated out from the money issue and the top tier should include the current top 8. To leave out SA is stupid, to leave out Pakistan, SL and NZ is dumb as well. They are all good enough to be in the top tier. Just use the rating points of 100 as a cutoff if needed.

Posted by drnaveed on (January 26, 2014, 20:03 GMT)

cricket is supposed to be a gentleman's game, please let it be the same. don't bring politics in the game, and don't try to make this game a business affair.

Posted by CurrentPresident on (January 26, 2014, 20:00 GMT)

I think people are ignoring the ground situation. In no other business (and sports is Entertainment business). the governing power follows the money. BCCI is already paying a big tax in terms of the income retained versus income generated. So I wouldn't fault it from asking why should it have to pay more? All the commentators in their own personal life would ask the same question in the same situation.

What the emerging countries need is a planned constant investment of a certain amount of money. But there is no reason their money should be tied to a percentage of the income generated. Percentage of revenue can only be justified when you participate fairly in generating it. Kenya and Zimbabwe are not participating in that respect. Giving them a % of income they did not earn will not solve it.

Again, I am not saying that others should not get monetary investment from the ICC, but it should be based on what is needed by them and not a percentage of ICC revenue as a right.

Posted by ozone8237 on (January 26, 2014, 19:51 GMT)

STOP these "Three Musketeers" before they hurt the soul of cricket and put a permanent block towards the development of Cricket in Associate and Affiliate countries. Existing struggling test playing nations like BD & Zim and somewhat NZ and WI are at the stake of losing further and face the possible decline of quality cricket in their respective countries. IF BCCI contributed more towards the ICC funds then they received a better say in ICC matters as well now if they demand More powers along side CA and ECB and huge chunk of revenues from the earnings of ICC events thinking Yes they deserve more since they contributed more then whats the point?? If SA, NZ, even Pak start contributing more, from whatever resources, to ICC funds thinking that when time comes of distribution they will get their investment back Plus command and veto powers then it will lead to a closed tunnel and huge setback to the ICC and eventually the soul of cricket. So stop this mad proposal and reign those horses

Posted by ItsJustaSport on (January 26, 2014, 19:41 GMT)

All SL & Pak Fans, you guys don't miss a chance to throw dirt on India, don't you? Here the proposal is from 3 countries, and i can see all the comments against BCCI, shouldn't there be equal opposition to all the three countries.

I don't have time to research on the entire draft, but as a cricket fan first & indian cricket fan second, if this results in disparity in the way other teams are treated, then i oppose it strongly. Our father of the Nation, Gandhi, believed in equality for All. Regarding Money issues, partially i agree with India getting more money, i am worried about how this would be used. You guys don't realize, India is not the richest country in the world. The facilities available to domestic players are very pathetic. This money can be used for the development of other sports as well. Most of the money is generated in India, and i feel, major part of the money generated in India, should be used for development of sports in India&other economically weak countries.

Posted by Me_A_Gemini on (January 26, 2014, 19:24 GMT)

Well done Mr Mani. I say it not because he is from Pakistan who is not a stakeholder in this game, but because he is a true professional and a wise man who exactly knows the long term impact of this revamp on cricket.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 19:02 GMT)

@ Night Fury, I am feeling terrible while reading your comments "We will make the rules and other will follow." excuse me. this is not some stone age. We are living in civilized world, where nation is heard. Cricket is not only limited to India. Well i accept India has got major share but it doesn't mean you people will be dictating others. PCB, SA, WI and Srilanka should immediately reject this new proposal.

Posted by keptalittlelow on (January 26, 2014, 18:50 GMT)

Its now well and truly established by all the right minded and sincere people that these proposals are not drafted for the good of the game in mind, lets vote them out and move on.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 18:40 GMT)

I think, BIG3 should be follow democracy instead of just preaching the same, Big3 should not ruin the gentlemen game for the sake of money and ego.

Pakistan, South Africa and Srilanka should take strong stand against this modern day discriminating proposal.

Cricketers from these three Nations are as much important as of cricketer from India, Australia and England.

Sorry but, Cricket should become global game, and administration should be autonomous.

Posted by Chris_P on (January 26, 2014, 18:32 GMT)

Finally some sort of perspective that show what the majority think. I hope this proposal gets tossed out & confined somewhere where it will stay forever. How could it ever be determined as progress?

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 18:29 GMT)

In what way can it be right?

Posted by YS_USA on (January 26, 2014, 18:14 GMT)

Big 3 should not be allowed to take the control of the ICC though India should be allowed to get more revenue and FTP should be cancelled and all teams should be allowed to play who ever they want to play.

Posted by shillingsworth on (January 26, 2014, 18:10 GMT)

@DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement - India have played 7 tests against Bangladesh in 14 years and 11 against Zimbabwe in over 20 years. I struggle to see how the BCCI could claim the moral high ground - not that they have tried anyway. I guess that they would find your attempt at justification somewhat embarrassing.

Posted by TRAM on (January 26, 2014, 17:55 GMT)

Cricket will not die if the big3 separate out. Cricketers from other countries will continue to play in IPL and similar tournaments. There will be more tournaments similar to IPL, hiring international players. Fans of those players will continue to watch the matches played by their heroes. What will die is the "weak" cricket boards. Individual sponsors always exist in all countries. They will take care of developing next generation players.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 17:51 GMT)

Bangladesh has been bought out by promise of bilateral sereis with India,India owes 2 home sereis to Pakistan,which it wont do since it knows the results will show how good or bad they are,west indeis also have been bought out ,this conspiracy will not succeed,this will not fly.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 17:47 GMT)

From BAN. There can be 3 tier. 1st tier with best 5 team, 2nd tier with Other 5 test team, and last tier with associate teams.

Favoring IND, AUS, and ENG always will not provide level playing field for all. Though I can consider England as they are Father of the cricket and they have old cricket traditions. FTP should not be controlled.

Posted by espncricinfomobile on (January 26, 2014, 17:26 GMT)

This should not be happen if australia,england and india will be the veto powers cricket will ba clash into two pieces and all the teams will not have type of favour so lcc should not do these type of things

Posted by sashi94 on (January 26, 2014, 16:54 GMT)

India should share their revenues for the two KFC chicken wings you bring from your sponsors? Yeah right!!

Posted by cvenka on (January 26, 2014, 16:51 GMT)

@JOSE PULIAMPATTA thanks for the info. Pl try to understand my question in the right perspective. I am not belittling anyone. I have asked the question in general terms considering the present global scenerio. It is possible that some one of lower cadre occupying the top post. But the probability of that is somewhat remote & I am not talking about exceptional cases but in general

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 16:47 GMT)

@Rajan - Have you seen any Australian cricketer or English cricketer talk about it? Cricketer's are better off doing their job - that is, playing cricket - instead of speaking about politics. That is a job for the administrators to do.

Posted by mensan on (January 26, 2014, 16:33 GMT)

Why India needs bigger shares of ICC world cup's money? Does it give share to ICC from the money it makes from bilateral tours?

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 16:20 GMT)

it is just a message to pakistan that vote india if not we already have enough votes it would be your loss CSA and PCB should do somethhing combinn ed

Posted by naxo2000 on (January 26, 2014, 16:19 GMT)

BCCI, England, CA have no right keeping other countries aside making new policy for their own benefits. India, England and Australia knows well that ICC has its own policy and rules. If India does not want to stay in ICC then they are welcome to walk out from ICC. Destroying ICC policy and rules and other countries cricket these three countries does not have right to make money for their own benefits. As a Bangladeshi I would say BCB definitely is going to support BCCI as our lot of political issues are controlled by India directly or indirectly. India will do everything to get the support from Bangladesh. It's time for other countries to stand up against the new policy which India/England/Australia drafted. India/England/Australia must not dominate cricket and cricket policy for their own benefit.

Posted by espncricinfomobile on (January 26, 2014, 16:08 GMT)

@ cevenka, ok than why you want to play with internationals teams like S. Africa, srilanka, Pakistan West Indies nz Australia England leave international cricket and start your own cricket to save your revenue than No country demand their rights. Simple is that if bcci think their revenue is going to other countries than leave icc. Why you want to spoil cricket???

Posted by niazbhi on (January 26, 2014, 16:00 GMT)

It does not make sense to me that Bangladesh cricket control board is supporting it. Why? It does not serve any interest of Bangladesh cricket (not even short term). Are the board members politically influenced? personally influenced or benefiting? I remember BCCI elections regional board members were offered vacation packages in some resort ahead of some BCCI election.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 15:41 GMT)

cvenka on (January 26, 2014, 13:57 GMT): Would like to respond to the last sentence in your post; Quoted below:

"Can you imagine a fitter or electrician becoming ceo of a business organisation ?"

I don't have to imagine. I has met one.

When I was teaching at the Asian Institute of Management Manila years ago, I had the fortune of meeting the gentleman, Mr Konosuke Matsushita, of Japan, the founder of the Matsushita Electric Company, which owned global brands like "National" & Panasonic". The group has been renamed as "Panasonic Electric" a few years ago, and crossed $70 billion (billion, not million) sales in 1998. The venerable old man is no more.

He was an "ELECTRICIAN", with even a humbler title of "FITTER" (precisely the titles you used), in the Osaka Electric Company, before founding Matsushita Electric to manufacture bicycle lamps, adapters, and Toasters. So, please don't belittle anyone, irrespective of the trade he practices to earn a livelihood. Please.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 15:13 GMT)

BCCI will give all out pressure to Bangladesh to vote for them,this is very unfortunate rather big brother attitude.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 15:04 GMT)

surprising!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO INDIAN GREATS are talking :) we're waiting ....

Posted by android_user on (January 26, 2014, 14:54 GMT)

@zaheer Ahmad bajwa...nice cliches often sound silly and your flippant response is worse than that. 'Might' is not always right, and these proposals are being fought at all levels. There are very very few people who want them. You only need to read these pages to see that.

Posted by akashchandran on (January 26, 2014, 14:51 GMT)

"If cricket is to grow and develop around the world more investment is required in the Associate & Affiliate countries, not less"- Does BCCI want cricket to grow all over the world? No. The interest of BCCI is best served if it remains confined to a few nations and it remains as the powerhouse. If the global market is increased it may mean higher revenue for ICC in the long run but the present market share of BCCI, ECB and CA is going to proportionately decline.

Posted by shaannnnnn on (January 26, 2014, 14:48 GMT)

dear harmony according to your business theory if A is not getting what it deserve then it has option of going separate and then we will see how A does survive because if cricket is a business then its kind of business where A or its profit does not exist without B or C

Posted by Natx on (January 26, 2014, 14:46 GMT)

Trust me guys. The 2 tier system will improve the standard of world cricket, especially tests, much better than this toothless ICC. Obviously one can expect more matches between the top 3, but that doesn't mean they won't play with other teams regularly. If anyone sincerely pay attention of the revenues of test cricket, over the last 5-8 years, it is not rocket science to understand who other than the big 3 generated cash on test cricket. How many people here counted the spectators on the ground for the recent SL-Pak and SA-Ind matches? Other than the last 2 days, there were barely more than 1000 people on those stadiums. Take a look at the recent ashes headcount and you will understand what support & revenue means. Same will be the case during the Ind-Eng series this summer and Ind-Aus series later this year. Those who write here without thought, go and first root your teams on the grounds, push them to play hard cricket (like WI of 70-80's) and yes then you have a case to make.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 14:40 GMT)

The sad part is, so many Indians who are commenting here are supporting this draft smh.

Posted by kickassPakistan on (January 26, 2014, 14:34 GMT)

The problem lies in the ICC. These countries are able to pounce on this organization because of the inherent structural and execution of this organization,this needs to be corrected.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 14:27 GMT)

Believe this is okay from them. But how far will this letter effect the withdrawal of two_tier system? Cricket here in Bangladesh a passion and we people are roaring against this. But the most ridiculous of all fact is that Indian Cricket greats are surprisingly not raising their voice against this. How come!

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 14:27 GMT)

Remember, might is right, with all the opposition to proposal it will still go through. The fund starved boards like PCB or WI will join in for short term benefits and ruin the game. It is over and done with. Now relax and enjoy.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 14:19 GMT)

I am from Pakistan , and I am also against Democracy where every ones vote is weighted equally , but in this case I believe Democracy of cricket associations must be maintained , earning power money does not means you have more power . Ballance of power between all test playing nation is making cricket interesting each day , 30 or 40 years back cricket was not so much famous like today , because every board is taking his part in promoting cricket , These days Afghanishtan U-19 is visiting Pakistan , and the performance of Afghan team is pretty obvious , they are emerging as a good side .

Lets hope for the betterment of cricket.

Posted by DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on (January 26, 2014, 14:01 GMT)

i want to say one thing to the people who are fearing that india could not play against low ranked team if the proposal is approved is COMPLETELY BASELESS. India helped srilanka more than any other nation, india helped zimbabwe by playing against them in zim which generates 9m US dollars. India helped WI by accepting triseries odi proposal. And also encourging Bangladesh to host world cup t20 and now afghanistan is included in asia cup. WHICH COUNTRY PLAYED AGAINST ZIMBABWE RECENTLY OTHER THAN INDIA IN TOP 5? But eng and oz has played 10 meaningless test match between them. Why, not against zim or bang, atleast one?

Posted by supplydemandcurve on (January 26, 2014, 13:58 GMT)

Simple: The closer the teams are in ranking, the more games they play against one another in a series. For example in the next series to come, SA is 1 and Aus is 3. Should be a 3-4 test series. As Zim is next door, the opportunity could have been there for each of SA and AUS to play 1 test each against Zim. Similarly if Zim tours banglasdesh for say 3 tests, they also fit in a test against eg Sri lanka or Pakisan or Indian or all of them for a single test each. vice versa, bangladesh gets a single test against SA.

Also, why the huge gaps between games in a series? Get on with it or at least mix in a 20/20 at the venue to generate cash. At least half of each game is sitting around so players hardly wear out. spread the load a bit. More play into the night so people can watch. Cheap student/pensioner and schoolkids tickets plus engagement with players in breaks with grow crowds. Cricket used to be fun before it became all bureaucratic / controlling of fans. don't make Gods of players

Posted by cvenka on (January 26, 2014, 13:57 GMT)

I am an Indian. I have read the comments abt this issue- mostly against BCCI & a few supporting it. Pl see that i mentioned 'against BCCI' & not against the' new proposal' While i reserve my comments on this issue, i would like to ask all those who are now opposing, few questions. 1. where were these people when England & Australia (partly) took all decisions & even had veto power in those days? 2. why was decision making authority diluted when non english & aussie took the top post of ICC? 3.If the sports body's only concern should be the development of sports in their member countries, then what FIFA, FIH, International badminton association, International Athelete federation etc are doing for the development of these sports in India? 4. Everything is business now. even a glass of water costs you money. In such an economicl scenerio what is wrong in taking control of the central organisation? Can you imagine a fitter or electrician becoming ceo of a business organisation ?

Posted by Sal76 on (January 26, 2014, 13:46 GMT)

@Harmony111 - Firstly if Salesman A and B are both in the same role, then yes, their salary should be the same. Their com mission can vary. Salesman A would not even have to ask for the hike in salary, he would get it by way of his higher commission. Anyways, baseless answer for a baseless point you have shared. Everyone GETS IT as far as the money issue is concerned and no one gives a dam if BCCI gets a larger share. The question is, IS THIS GOOD FOR CRICKET? Hell no! You have to have money to develop the sport and if the big 3 take more money away, ICC is left with less to redistribute and invest in the development of the sport. Next I would like to comment on Mr. Mani's point pertaining US and China. Not sure about China, but whenit comes to the US, it will take decades of work, not 10-15 years. In North America love of the sport is alive only through the expats from cricketing nations and you have no idea of our challenges, so please avoid making such blanket statements.

Posted by Rahman512 on (January 26, 2014, 13:41 GMT)

India and Bangladesh cricket history | ♦ India > Test status - of 193 > The first Test win - 195 (0 years ) > Tests First dbisataka - After 3 years of > ODI status - 1971 > The first one-day win - 1979 ( 8 years ) > The first World Cup - all matches of shit Hara dropped out of the first round . > Dbitiyataya and the same phase .

> The first World Cup win - 1983 ( Test styataserai After 51 years and two years after the one-day status 1 ) # Test in a 193 , but more Before starting to play cricket in India The . 195 before a Test in India Can not win . # Cricket India during parasaktite become Like 51 years .

* Now , let's grades figures. *

♦ Sale > Test status - 000 > The first Test win - 005 ( after only 5 years ) > Tests First dbisataka - After 1 year > ODI status - 1997 > The first one-day win - 1998 > The first World Cup - Pakistan and Scotland Lost in first round Stage . > Dbitiyataya and the same phase . > Trtiyataya India lost in the Super Eight .

# India to play cricket sinc

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 13:37 GMT)

These big three are asking for immunity from relegation, which even the big premier league clubs like Manchester United, City, Chelsea don't enjoy. If they are assured of themselves why don't they go for Six teams two tiers system with relegation for lowest team after a period of say two years, & the top teams get the bigger chunk of the cake. With their financial might it shall not be a problem to retain a top 5 place. Even the second tier can have the last place reserved for promotion for associate member to test status while the 12th team losing the test status. Seems not a big issue that 6 teams of each tier playing 3/5 test series with each other over the course of two years unless the mighty Indians have other issues on their minds like IPL (Son in law managed teams), being exposed on foreign soil etc.

Posted by KingOwl on (January 26, 2014, 13:17 GMT)

One thing needs to be clearly understood. Indian fans watch cricket to see international stars, and they come from all over the world. Nobody watches cricket to see Ishant Sharma bowling. They want to see Styne steaming in, see Lasith Malinga's toe crushers. Of course India has some great stars, such as Virat and Dhoni. But they have to play against first class opposition to make the game interesting to fans.Then only can money be made. So, although the money that ICC makes may come from Indian fans more than other country's fans, the VALUE for the fans is created by the international stars who come from all over the world. Therefore, the rationale for distributing the funds is clear. Moreover, when these three cricket boards are having plenty of money, others are struggling and even cancelling test series due to lack of funds. That is shameful.

Posted by android_user on (January 26, 2014, 13:15 GMT)

yes all cricket board should stopped there player for IPL

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 13:09 GMT)

Echoing words from "Right thinking" personnel . This devide and rule policy must never be implimented in world cricket . Lets keep the pressure on the "big three" .

Posted by SaudFaruqi on (January 26, 2014, 13:08 GMT)

If the big 3 get their wish, it will lead to a hole (between them and the rest of the members) big enough to drive a truck through.

Posted by Neel_123 on (January 26, 2014, 13:07 GMT)

@SarfBD: Unfortunately, FIFA spends next to nothing for Indian football! For every friendly international match (with low ranking teams) India plays, Indian football association 'beg' Indian govt for some funds. Rest it generates from the corporate world (through sponsorship) It spend Rs 30-35 lakhs to host an international friendly. Some teams also demand appearance fee from 50,000 to USD 200,000 which again India has to provide NOT fifa.

No team in top 25 EVER play any match with India. It does not matter that by playing in India, FIFA could have potential audience of size equal to WHOLE Europe! Even country like Cameron send the B team for Nehru cup! FIFA and other high ranking teams do what benefits them NOT football. Period.

So, please don't preach about spirit sports. Professional sport is hard core BUSINESS.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 12:55 GMT)

Why is everyone complaining about BCCI............ whereas the entire fault is of all OTHER BOARDS, who can't take a bold decision and stand against BCCI...

why can't all other boards get together and take a decision that they will not tour India or send players for IPL...... BCCI can't survive if other countries stop playing against it......... simple

Rashid Latif said it correctly:- "it is the case of big three versus "Spineless"

Posted by mzm149 on (January 26, 2014, 12:48 GMT)

@Harmony111: Is there any justification in Salesman A undermining the company and trying to become CEO?

Posted by SarfBD on (January 26, 2014, 12:35 GMT)

I've been reading all the comments over the last few days. Most of the comments make me hopeful that cricket won't give up so easily. However some people fail to distinguish between business and sports. If you really want cricket to survive, you need to make it a global sport. And without promoting new teams to the highest level you can't make it a real deal. Matches played only by the so called big three will cause boredom and thus less profit, eventually the death of the game. Anyone care to know how much money is spent for Indian football, a financially insignificant team, by Fifa? That's the reason football is the number one sport in the world.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 11:57 GMT)

Dear IND-ENG&CA - Cricket is Business to you but ‪#‎Oxygen‬ for us in Bangladesh. Don't take our #‎Oxygen‬ for your Business....

Posted by Harvey on (January 26, 2014, 11:56 GMT)

I'm not particularly against some kind of two tier system in Test cricket. Such a system with promotion and relegation would give Test cricket more of a context. However the idea that England, India and Australia should be immune from relegation on financial grounds is not merely unfair, it is so ludicrous that the very fact that it's even being suggested turns our sport into a laughing stock. If a two tier system were to be introduced and England carried on playing the way we have witnessed this winter, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a cricket fan in England or anywhere else who didn't think we should be relegated. What's more, such a stitch-up would mean either blocking a deserving team from promotion or unfairly relegating another team. A place in the game's top tier needs to be awarded on sporting merit and that alone.

Posted by fleetwood-smith on (January 26, 2014, 11:55 GMT)

Interesting to see some well-argued comments from someone in the know against the proposal. While there has been a lot of emotive effrontery taken against the proposal, in particular the immunity from demotion of the Big 3, I can't help but thinking that perhaps those 3 are acting from the belief that they are the only ones who are capable of saving Test cricket. However Malcolm Speed's arguments against this make sense. There is no doubt however, even Gideon Haigh concedes it, that the ICC is in need of a re-structure. Just not sure it is this one though.

Posted by Monjur_Elahi on (January 26, 2014, 11:51 GMT)

The Heros of cricket! How can they remain silent when the glorified game is being stabbed in the back? Where are the others? Come on, you played the game because you loved it, not to set the stage for filling in Shylocks purses!

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 11:48 GMT)

Absolutely agree with the last paragraph. If you expand the game then you will gain a much larger revenue! Big 3 do not understand.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 11:32 GMT)

Withdraw this proposal now.it will destroy the game and love of cricket. enough damage has already been done to cricket by india

Posted by anshu.s on (January 26, 2014, 10:37 GMT)

@Mitty2, i always thought of you to be a wise head always posting sensibily and taking the emotion out of it,but your assertion hinting that curators in SA deliberately doctered the pitch is ridiculous and faulty , did you not watch the first test at Wanderes, ball was doing all kind of things for first three days, such was the help from wicket that even the Indian bowlers looked menacing in first innings, only reason grass was shaved for the Durban pitch was there was hell lot of rain in Durban leading up to the match , anyways South African pace attack can get more out of flat decks rather than leaving extra grass on it and thus bringing Indian seamers who rely on swing and seam in equation, cmmon mate you are lot better than spewing consipiracy theories.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 10:36 GMT)

I am so disappointed to see some of the fans from India supporting this initiative with a completely flawed argument. All these supporters are analysing the whole picture from only financial distribution perspective. Come on people, we don't have any problem if your beloved BCCI take away everything they generate for the International body. We spit on your revenues. BUT how on earth would you justify your board's stance in 2 tier system. No relegation for a team that is getting thrashed outside home???? Are you kidding?? No cricket team deserve immunity from demotion because that kills the whole spirit of the game which is PERFORMANCE. The PASSION to give your best.

Posted by o-bomb on (January 26, 2014, 10:29 GMT)

@Harmony111 - You don't seem to get it at all. If these proposals go through then cricket will disappear in most other countries in the next 20 years. There will be next to no international cricket, because there will be nobody to play against. Is that what you want to happen?

What these 3 boards refuse to accept is that they are custodians of the game and as such have a responsibility to see that it continues worldwide. I've been really pleased to see the reaction to this - fans from all countries speaking out against it. There is no way these proposals should be allowed to go through. Hopefully the majority of boards will pay attention to these sensible words from Mr Mani, Mr Speed and others.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 10:15 GMT)

Wow, shame we can't turn the clock back 10 years and have Mani and Speed running the ICC again. The implementation of the Woolf Report would be fantastic for world cricket. Two more test nations (Ireland and Afghanistan), greater transparency and accountability, and a much more democratic system where all 106 members would have a say (rather than just the top 10, or heaven forbid just the 'Big 3'). I seem to remember the PCB and ironically enough CA (or at least their chief exec James Sutherland) were in favour of it, but of course the BCCI dismissed it out of hand. If only the ECB and CA had put pressure on India to adopt it, rather than jumping into bed with them and spawning this foul creature known as the 'position paper'

Posted by humi_cric on (January 26, 2014, 10:12 GMT)

I think we all need to write e-mails and letters (hard copy) to ICC, CA and ECB to request them to withdraw this proposal (in BCCI, I heard there are 11 politician in the members committee, so hopeless condition). It would be nice if some legend like Clive Loyd, from these three countries speak against this proposal (like Sir Ian Botham, Mike Gatting, Ricky Ponting, Glenn McGrath, Mike Hussey, Rahul Dravid, Ganguly). If Sachin oppose it, then nobody can pass it, atleast now. Afterall we love this game of cricket because of the cricketers, not because of these brainless greedy money maker boards boses. We need to react quickly, as 28/29 January is too close.

Posted by heathrf1974 on (January 26, 2014, 10:09 GMT)

@Harmony 111. I like your analogy with your salesman A and B. However, salesman A has another source of revenue which is not from the business (domestic competitions). Salesman A also has a saturated market so room for growth is limited. Salesman B needs a certain amount of income to eat/survive and has much more room for market expansion (can get more new customers, than salesman A). If salesman B dies from lack of income then the chance for business growth is diminished. Also your comparison of the rich helping the poor. If the rich don't help the poor then the rich will have no customers to sell their products too and the market will crash causing the rich to be poor as well (unless they get bailed out).

Posted by yorkslanka on (January 26, 2014, 10:08 GMT)

Well said Sir, the more official support there is to defeat this ridiculous proposal the better chance it has of beingput to bed...come on SLC show some backbone and put your country before the dollar signs...

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 9:54 GMT)

Even senior and highy respected players like Sachin, Dravid Kumble and Ganguly should raise their voice against this move by BCCI which could not only harm world cricket but Indian Cricket. This beautiful sport will be reduced to a three country affair. A true cricket fan and a true Indian Fan does not and cannot support this move. A typical Indian fab wants to see BCCI make sporting and seaming tracks in Ranji trophy so that the Indian team doesnt struggle abroad. There is a lot of good that BCCI with its power can do to help world cricket provided "absolute power doesnt corrupt absolutely".

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 9:50 GMT)

I just hope that this proposal is rejected and big 3 (especially BCCI) go away with their revenue. Then it will be interesting to see whether pure cricket can survive (without the ornaments like IPL, BBL etc.) or not. Another important question will be whether these rubbish ornament will be worth watching without cricket?

Posted by U.A.1985 on (January 26, 2014, 9:47 GMT)

@harmony111 - if you are talking about business so much than let me tell u a business rule too. If a company is making losses on some of its products it does not immediately discontnue those products because loss making products are CONTRIBUTING to the profits by lowering fixed costs. Thus the relegation rule is not logical at all and there is no justification for it.

Posted by android_user on (January 26, 2014, 9:41 GMT)

well done mani for taking the lead and speed gray speaking up as you have been involved with the icc and know the nitty gritty of the situation dont let the so called big three hijack our beautiful game and dont let us fans suffer in their hands

Posted by espncricinfomobile on (January 26, 2014, 9:24 GMT)

Good to see common sense from these guys . This proposal should be binned right now . Good to see all supporters from all countries condemning this proposal .

Posted by TommytuckerSaffa on (January 26, 2014, 9:23 GMT)

New BCCI changes that will come into effect once this deal if concluded and BCCI rules world cricket. 1. All fast, bouncing, seaming wickets to be changed to rank slow turners. 2. Fast Bowling to be outlawed. 3. All cricket ground boundaries to be reduced 4. Only one fast bowler allowed per team and minimum 5 spinners to be selected. 5. 90% of games to be hosted in India, this ensures a good World Ranking and gate revenues.

Posted by malik_Tahir on (January 26, 2014, 9:21 GMT)

if its all about generating money then let the three get 50% of the revenues. but why BCCI, ECB, CA don't want to remains always in top 3?? are they afraid of other cricketing nations? are they don't have trust on their players? if a relegation (two tier systems) is to be launched then let the top 4 or 5 to be in top group. and after two years the last two (ranked 4th and 5th) be relegated and top two of the 2nd group to be promoted in group 1. i think its the desire if BCCI, ECB and CA to be "Big 3" is totally unjustified.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 9:10 GMT)

@Ali Abbas - "India will not tour NZ, BD and PAK because these teams are good at home and they can affect India test ranking :)". You are joking right? I agree that NZ are good at home (and actually, come to think of it.. who isn't?) but how "home" for BD and Pak any different than "home" for India? I mean, the cultures are similar, athleticism is similar, body strength, genetics, lifestyle/culture are strikingly similar, cricket-worship is similar, cricket is similar.. I mean, it used to be one country a few decades back for crying out loud!!

That said, for what it's worth, I am an Indian and I TOTALLY CONDEMN this draft. Not only is it detrimental to the game and oligarchic, but it's driven by pure greed of the richer to get further rich.

Posted by rizwan1981 on (January 26, 2014, 9:02 GMT)

Forget the revenue sharing that is proposed - The decision making that will be centralised among only the big 3 is far more sinister and the attempted grab of power should be condemned by the other test playing nations. Right now there are 10 test playing counties , each with one vote and that it democratic - Recently , Zimbabwe beat Pakistan in a test and earlier , Pakistan beat the England team to win a test series. India lost 3-0 and 4-0 to England and Australia.So , let us not pretend that there is any merit in this proposal- its a naked power grab by the big 3

Posted by Masking_Tape on (January 26, 2014, 8:37 GMT)

Don't just blame the ICC, the boards or the players. Blame the fans as well. There is no pure love of the game to be found anymore, anywhere. With SRT retiring, we've seen the last of pure love the game of cricket. Cricket will never be the same again. This sports will go no where. I myself had to delete this comment 3 times before finally forcing to finish it; shows my lack of interest and care for cricket. I think I'm done with cricket. If I wake up tomorrow and someone tells me, there will be no more cricket, I'll not miss it, I'll not be sad...

Posted by Harmony111 on (January 26, 2014, 8:37 GMT)

My god, Ehsaan Mani is asking ---"why does BCCI need more money at the expense of other countries?"---.

What sort of a question is this? Firstly it is poorly formed and secondly, it is badly put.

The fact is that there are some freeloaders in ICC at the moment who contribute nothing financially, are rubbish at playing cricket yet they haughtily talk of equal right & equal share when it comes to revenue sharing. They are like beggars who want to treated as Lords. What's more, these beggars keep abusing every day those who feed them day in day out out of their benevolence. No need to take names, we all know who these beggars are.

It is these beggars who are living at the expense of the Big3.

There's a story popular on Internet that explains how the rich help the system to keep the poor alive. Tax the rich too much and he will make quit to make his own system. This is what is happening here.

The beggars are free to split away. Glad if they can survive a winter that way.

Posted by KhuzaimaAnwar on (January 26, 2014, 8:32 GMT)

Those who are opposing the position paper are talking about the game. Those who are supporting the position paper are talking about the money. It is evident from the supporting/opposing arguments. No doubt that India, England and Australia contribute a lot to ICC in terms of money. But the question is, is it just about money? When did cricket become a business from sport? In my honest opinion the intention of the 'big three' is very much questionable. The governing body of cricket must not become a puppet in the hands of 'big three' or it will become just a drama like UN Security Council where the 'big five' decide the fate of the week and enjoy immunity.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 8:31 GMT)

Cricket after Big 3 takeover:

1. No DRS because BCCI just doesn't like it. 2. No Field Restrictions because Dhoni doesn't like it :) 3. India will not tour NZ, BD and PAK because these teams are good at home and they can affect India test ranking :) 4. 80% ICC events in India, 15% in England and 5% in Australia. (Indian broadcasters do not like Australia timezone. 5. All the events should be planned after taking IPL in consideration. 6. If India is touring abroad then ODIs will be played first and Tests will be followed but if India is at home then otherwise. :)

The list goes on for the new rules to be made in next couple of years.

Posted by stormy16 on (January 26, 2014, 8:20 GMT)

If the BCCI view of bringing in more reveneu is what this is all about then lets deal with that but lets not sure that argument to hijack the very fundementals of sports which is fair comeptition. You cannot hold the view that by virute of the higher revenue I bring to the game, I will put down conditions to my participating and worse still, I will not compete unless I beleive it to be economically lucrative! Sports is first about respection your opponent and the game and this means you need to compete against everyone regadless of how financially attractive they are. For the BCCI to challenge this very basic concept is like not even understanding sport but wants to be the supre power. Sport is not all about money unfortunately, there needs to be a competition and I dont get why the BCCI is challenged by this very basic principle.

Posted by Dhadumia on (January 26, 2014, 8:18 GMT)

@shahulb: I am from India and I am not interested that India should get more percentage of revenue as India generates higher revenues. India should help in distribution revenue to the small countries so that those small countried could grow on Cricket. If the latest trend of power politics goes on then Cricket will meet the same fate as hockey meets in India because of its maladministrators.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 8:15 GMT)

@shahulb: Great proposal sir. How about all the other nations stop playing this sport altogether and let just the three of you play, seeing it is you who bring in all the revenue?

Posted by kalpurush on (January 26, 2014, 8:06 GMT)

Hats off to Mr. Speed, Gray, Mani and other former ICC executives for speaking up and taking the moral stand and to save the spirit of cricket.

I hope all former cricketers including Sachin Tendulkar, Lara and current players like Dhoni, Clerk and others will stand up and be vocal to keep continue the game of cricket worl wide.

Posted by shahulb on (January 26, 2014, 7:54 GMT)

The 3 Cricketing Gaints account for almost 100% of the revenue generation and they get 7.1% of the share of the total income of the ICC and countries who have account for no revenue generation to ICC takes the same % of the share. Those countries who go against the proposal first generate revenue to ICC and ask share of the revenue.

Posted by espncricinfomobile on (January 26, 2014, 7:50 GMT)

Some sense at last. Whether CA take note is a different matter. One hopes the other 7 boards take note and kick this proposal into touch and out of the stadium so it's never heard of again.

Posted by yujilop on (January 26, 2014, 7:43 GMT)

"If cricket could be established properly in the United States of America and China and become an Olympic sport, the ICC could double its revenues in real terms over the next 10-15 years."

I can't help but think that BCCI doesn't want cricket to be a truly global sport, and definitely not an Olympic event. While India might get a few medals out of the venture, if more nations towards the top of the Olympic tables (US, China, Russia, Germany) began to take it seriously, it would hurt BCCI's political and financial strength.

Plus, as per the Olympic Charter, one of the major objectives of the IOC is to: "Oppose any political or commercial abuse of sport and athletes"

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 7:42 GMT)

BCCI's attempt to increase its already significant revenue is like that of a king who wishes that his subjects go without eating just so that he can indulge in more delicacies. While the income BCCI brings in entitles it to a special status, the changes that would afford it would be like deathblows to other cricketing nations (particularly Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) and therefore is totally disproportionate .

Posted by RoshJ on (January 26, 2014, 7:38 GMT)

Isn't there a limit to their greed? What is going on? Why kill the ghoose that lays golden eggs? Isn't improving the game is more important than making money? Wouldn't cricket be the loser when other "poor" boards don't have enough to run the game in their countries? What is so special about Indian, Australian and English cricket teams? Haven't they been beaten again and agian by even the so called "minnows"..ARE WE TAKLING ABOUT CRICKET?

Many many questions....sad thing is the 'big three" don't seem to see these?

Posted by Harmony111 on (January 26, 2014, 7:35 GMT)

Relax guys. If these two Malcoms are saying something is bad then it must be a super duper awesome proposal. I am yet to hear a single person tell me why is it bad if BCCI want a revenue share that is in proportion to the money they bring to ICC.

There are 2 salesmen A & B. A makes sales worth Rs 50,000 while B makes sales worth Rs 3,000. Should the company pay both of them the same salaries? Is A wrong if he asks for a hike?

I agree that the non-relegation rule for Big 3 doesn't sound fair. But any sport runs on sponsorship money. We have seen that matches not involving one of the Big 3 often tend to be poorly watched and thus get less sponsorship.

SA fans may feel hard done for being left out of the Big 3 but they got themselves to blame for this. Recently, a Test match involving #1 & #2 Teams, a match involving the home team & Ind, the money-magnet, a match where their most prized cricketer Kallis was going to retire, a Boxing day test match --- was played to empty stands.

Posted by ali14pakistani on (January 26, 2014, 7:23 GMT)

Good one, it's because the nature of this nation. Submissive when nothing, then when they have power then the real nature comes out. ram ram on tongue dagger hidden in their robes (armpits)!

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 7:20 GMT)

MR. Mani , Speed and Gray .. How abt u guys worked hard for the business and brought in a lot of revenue but ur either not paid or underpaid since u guys dont need money anymore for living.. those who worked less paid more than their worth. how abt that?.. would u be with same passion ..?..

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 7:14 GMT)

the big three of two india and england already surviving in their current series how can they do that... after newzealand series i m sure india will be withdraw with this proposal because they are loosing from 8th standard team what they think.... for me as a pakistani i just want cricket all over the year will all teams... even i want also a 5 test match series pakistan vs india at nuetral venue england it could be the bigger than ashes if it would happen,, i wish icc will think about it ,, becaue if pak n india play a 5 matches series in 2 years ,, then pakistan would be the fourth popular team,,, :)

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 7:08 GMT)

Now this is a relief, to know that even other members of CA administration sees this Proposal as complete nonsense.. Somehow i also believe that the BCCI has overrated themselves by posing threats of not hosting or participating in ICC events could this nonsense proposal not get approved..

Posted by Caius on (January 26, 2014, 7:01 GMT)

All hail these honourable gentlemen who have the vision, and the courage of their convictions, to stand up and speak truth unto power. I do hope that other former Test captains will follow Clive Lloyd's example and register their opposition to the megalomaniac troika and their nefarious plans to usurp the great game of cricket for their own venal ends.

Posted by sramesh_74 on (January 26, 2014, 6:58 GMT)

The proposal reeks of greed for power and money. I hope this proposal is not passed. The game of cricket will lose big time. BCCI and the other two boards cannot bully the other members into accepting the proposal. Use your clout to improve the game and bring in better technology. Use your power wisely and not just to fill your coffers.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 6:58 GMT)

nice to someone from Australia who is against the new proposal. Now lets see what is response of retired Indian players like Tendulkar and Dravid

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 6:56 GMT)

Well done Mr. Speed, Gray and Loyd. We have been waiting to hear protests and opinions on the draft proposal saga. This draft lacks vision, love and reality of the game. Instead it says about power, greed and money. This should be immediately withdrown.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (January 26, 2014, 6:45 GMT)

With due respect, these seniors will be ignored by the Big 3. There is no use in writing letters to the ICC because it will be heading straight to the shredder. The only way to prevent this proposal from being passed is to threaten the Big 3 with a proposal to form a rival cricket council in which CSA, PCB, SLCB, BCB, WICB and ZCB can democratically run the affairs of the game. The new council can further add 2 more new nations like Ireland and Afghanistan to the council. This is the only way the Big 3 are going to stop pushing for this nonsense. Writing letters is old fashioned.

Posted by OttawaRocks on (January 26, 2014, 6:42 GMT)

"If cricket could be established properly in the United States of America and China and become an Olympic sport, the ICC could double its revenues in real terms over the next 10-15 years. This requires vision and a less parochial approach." I believe the 2 Malcolms have missed the point. The BCCI does not care about whether the ICC doubles its revenues; it cares about whether the BCCI doubles its revenues.

Posted by a-khan74 on (January 26, 2014, 6:34 GMT)

VERY well sound statement from the greats,who runs this well organized cricket council for many many years with dignity.Hopefully and for sure they will get a great support from around the word.How come?...rich get more richer @ poor more poorer,looks to me disgusting.NO need an emergency cricket state (3 big).All board should have equal rights. MORE investment and support required in the new born cricket nations for the better of great cricket game,IF some one think about their revenues then let them ply on their own and keep all $$$$ with you, let see where its goes.Lets keep the great cricket alive & NOP BIG3. Peace

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 6:30 GMT)

Vision is something lacking in the ICC leadership. India wants to bully the world of cricket by perhaps making it smaller as if it was not small enough for them.

Posted by Mitty2 on (January 26, 2014, 6:27 GMT)

Really there's no positives whatsoever to come out of the 'big three's' proposal. Just look at the table provided by Mani, the predicted revenue in fact increases hugely for only India, whereas there's just small increases for CA and England. CA and Eng do not need to partake in it, and in fact they're serving to detriment cricket far more than they're gaining for themselves. They have the power to veto India, and they simply must. The BCCI make enough money from the IPL and television rights with their cricket crazy 1.3 billion populus. We all know the source of the issue is the greedy BCCI, but shame on CA and the ECB to following them heedlessly and even jealously. BCCI's domination is shown with their ridiculous objection and power against the DRS, and their power over other cricket boards (if it wasn't India, those pitches in SA would've been as green as the outfield). India doesn't need any more power, and neither does CA and the ECB. For the sake of cricket they must stop.

Posted by espncricinfomobile on (January 26, 2014, 6:26 GMT)

Good to see more people are coming out against this evil plan of world cricket domination. Now 1. Reject the plan. 2. Fire or sack the people behind this evil plan. I am not sure why they have to go so far to plan this. Simply make the earning distribution according to ranking and reset ranking every four years. Now every nation will try to go up the rank to get more money.

Posted by A.Awal on (January 26, 2014, 6:25 GMT)

The Big 3's proposal will squeeze the Cricket. Cricket will never be the popular game under this proposal. We are hearing from ICC's over last decade that they will spreed the cricket over the world. How this will happen? Under this proposal test playing country will never be more then eight. Big 3 trying to establish Cricket as only their domestic game. I agree with this that USA and China is bigger economy then any other cricket nation. If this countries come forward and play good cricket (China is planning very actively) then the revenue will be double. All over very stupid proposal raised from the Big 3's. This proposal will never be accepted and in future no one trust the big 3's and their intention. Its a shame for cricket.

Posted by android_user on (January 26, 2014, 6:17 GMT)

Mr. Mani is 100% correct and every cricket lover should support his protest. Big three is going to rule like G7..

Posted by dulabhai on (January 26, 2014, 6:16 GMT)

Well done Mr. Mani, Mr. Speed and Mr. Gray. I hope ICC wakes up and throws India, Australia, and England's proposal in the garbage!

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 6:08 GMT)

Thank you Mr. Speed and Mr. Gray.As a Bangladeshi cricket fan, I salute you for coming forward in support of cricket worldwide ; not just for parochial interest of so-called 'Big 3'.

Posted by Mr.PotatoesTomatoes on (January 26, 2014, 6:05 GMT)

I do wish Mr.Mani would get real and stop talking about wasting ICC funds on countries like the USA and China.Cricket has no chance of becoming popular in these two countries,not anytime soon.If the rest of his points are as ridiculous as this one,he is talking like many experts do-as if they know everything and can predict the future.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2014, 5:48 GMT)

Gentlemen across the globe are gradually coming ahead to resist the money makers! Good sign for cricket...

Posted by Akhter786 on (January 26, 2014, 5:48 GMT)

Finally some good news about the ICC paper. Yeah, why is BCCI so adamant on more money. They have loads of it. Tons actually. This is sheer greed and myopic vision of business. Why try to kill the hen which yields you golden eggs every now and then??

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Daniel BrettigClose
Daniel Brettig Assistant editor Daniel Brettig had been a journalist for eight years when he joined ESPNcricinfo, but his fascination with cricket dates back to the early 1990s, when his dad helped him sneak into the family lounge room to watch the end of day-night World Series matches well past bedtime. Unapologetically passionate about indie music and the South Australian Redbacks, Daniel's chief cricketing achievement was to dismiss Wisden Almanack editor Lawrence Booth in the 2010 Ashes press match in Perth - a rare Australian victory that summer.
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days