ICC revamp January 27, 2014

Big Three offer redraft to ICC as lobbying intensifies

90

'Revamp has many legal implications'

Cricket's formally-united Big Three - the BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB - will present the seven other Full Member nations with a set of re-drafted "resolutions" around their radical "position paper" at an ICC executive meeting in Dubai on Tuesday.

The resolutions - five in number - were being talked through the first official meeting of the Finance & Commercial Affairs (F&CA) committee after its "working group" - made up of the heads of the BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB - came up with the proposal in a 21-page document that called for a complete overhaul of the ICC's administration and its revenue distribution.

The first of the proposals to be watered down is expected to be the one pertaining to a two-tier format for Test cricket and the relegation of the bottom two ranked into the ICC Intercontinental Cup. The other proposal which could be reworked pertains to a newly formed Executive Committee (ExCo) and it's possible expansion from four to five, with a second nominee coming in from the "small seven," as opposed to only one according to the draft position paper.

As the ICC's Board met for its scheduled quarterly meeting in Dubai, the Big Three were known to be in discussions with six of the Seven in order to ensure their support should the proposal go to vote on Tuesday.

One board chief said the BCCI, ECB and Cricket Australia had been "surrounding people, taking them in, we'll give you this, we'll give you that." Another said that BCCI led the majority of such discussions, their offers being enhanced with every meeting, "Individually they call every board and offer them something each time."

The only vocal objector to the proposal, Cricket South Africa, has been left out of these discussions and the benefits being offered to the rest of the boards. The main negotiations took place on governance issues with FTP agreements - particularly those pertaining to tours by India - being used as "bait". The resolutions, first expected to be presented in a list of 50-plus points, were later gathered together under five categories.

While in the past governance issues had dominated revenue matters, on Monday evening, one of the Big Three officials said there could be "further discussions rather than negotiations around revenue models" with an attempt to explain how they would work in real terms and the guarantees being offered.

The main boards involved in the talks are the three Asian boards - the PCB, SLC and BCB - who have been left mulling over their options due to various reasons. There has been public protest in Bangladesh, including a crowd gathering of close to 3000 in Dhaka on Saturday, over the possibility of their cricket board ceding Bangladesh's Test match status and calendar in the face of the proposals.

A senior Bangladeshi cricket official said, "It is a big thing, (to us) this status. In 13 years Bangladesh have managed to win four Test matches. India and New Zealand did not win their first Test till 30 years. So how come these people are now telling Bangladesh that you will need to fight out in the I-Cup to retain your Test status." Should the relegation issue be diluted from the resolutions, the Big Three may find the leverage they need with the BCB.

With the PCB, the main issue concerned their FTP arrangements particularly with the BCCI, in the light of a fluctuating political climate. SLC finds itself in a state of financial crisis, an application pending for an $8m loan from the ICC and the prospective carrot of a 2017 tour from the Indian team. Plus, officials are under pressure from former players and administrators who believe the rights they won at an ICC table, "the hard way" should not be surrendered for "short-term gain."

Former Sri Lankan captain Arjuna Ranatunga said accepting the proposal would take smaller countries back to the skewed international calendars of the 1980s. "From 1987 to 1990 in four years Sri Lanka played just seven Tests. After that, ICC's Future Tour Programme ensured that there were equal opportunities for all countries. The proposed system will take smaller nations like Sri Lanka to the situation in 1980s."

Zimbabwe Cricket, despite its financial debt to the tune of $18m and its player strike due to non-payment of dues, is expected to vote in favour of the proposals largely because of their good relations with the BCCI. In the last 10 years, India has played two Tests, nine ODIs and two T20s in Zimbabwe, compared to Australia's three, England's four and South Africa's three ODIs.

Among the other Full Member nations, New Zealand Cricket had come out in support of the proposal while the West Indies Cricket Board only stated that they had taken a position "in the best interests of West Indies cricket" following two board meetings in the past ten days.

With inputs from Andrew Fernando, Firdose Moonda, Nagraj Gollapudi and Mohammad Isam

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on January 30, 2014, 3:26 GMT

    There has been a protests in Bangladesh which just shows you that cricket is a big deal in Bangladesh. Inshallah none of these altruistic and egotistical big 3 do any damage to the integrity of cricket!

  • on January 28, 2014, 20:52 GMT

    Earn and let earn is ''The motto'' of Big three. The big three can't do much better if others left aside and same applies to the others. All be happy of getting on with the flow. Think out Big people.

  • Tokai69 on January 28, 2014, 14:19 GMT

    Now the gloves are off, and the division in cricketing countries are clear than ever. Every Board should think about benefit of it's own, at the same time the love of the game per se. Politics in this game is another reason why this game is got an world class event yet!

  • muzika_tchaikovskogo on January 28, 2014, 12:25 GMT

    Call me cynical if you like, but the most likely outcome of this entire affair will be additional tours by India to those countries. I'll be delighted to be proven wrong btw.

  • on January 28, 2014, 10:12 GMT

    @Neel_123 The above said four boards are taking measures which are their best interest at the same time those measures are not putting other boards survival in jeopardy. But the draft paper is ensuring only the benefits of the big three.

    I hope you will understand my point. If you only run after money leaving the spirit of the game far behind which BCCI is doing, soon you gonna end up with money only with Indian team doing good only in home series and Indian players only shining in IPL and your so called super league. Think about it. Cricinfo please post.

  • on January 28, 2014, 9:47 GMT

    @Neel_123 BCCI's demand for more financial share is fare demand but the way in which position paper was drafted secretly make it looks like a conspiracy. It wud have been better if these suggestions have been discussed openly and input from other full members have been taken. 2nd point more financial contribution doesn't guarantee a good performance or gives a board more executive and financial decision making power

  • zarasochozarasamjho on January 28, 2014, 9:42 GMT

    It is not Big 3 but Big 1 which is Australia. India is test-ranked 7th historically by win/loss ratio; and look at way England has been humiliated by Australia and Pakistan.

    Let the rest kick out Aus, Eng, and Ind anf form their own club; and let us watch the Big "3" losing popularity over time as England will continue to lose to Australia as is historically the case and India will simply continue to be whitewashed by the other two.

  • Neel_123 on January 28, 2014, 9:27 GMT

    So, essentially, these 4 crickets boards are doing what is 'good' for THEIR respective countries! Why is BCCI wrong if they want to do what is good for Indian Cricket??

    Look at all these comments degenerating India & Indian cricket. Yet, all these boards beg money from BCCI and beg BCCI to arrange a tour or two to for their survival.

    It would be awesome if BCCI proposal for higher share of revenue gets REJECTED and I hope BCCI start India Super League 50-50 during winter season (Nov-Feb) every year. There are enough money and enough apatite for cricket in India to make it a grand success much like IPL (despite many predicted IPL to doom in 2 years; 6 years and it is going stronger every year). I can not wait to see India leaving ICC and going on its own NFL, MLB style!!

    Let us see if 'true cricket lovers' commenting here from these 4 countries would keep cricket alive in their nation or if their boards go bankrupt in 2-3 years and close their shops for better options!

  • Almightys on January 28, 2014, 8:17 GMT

    Being Indian I am writing this, good option is all other countries (than these 'Big Three' should come together and start their separate council for cricket. SA, WI, SL, NZ can take initiative, its better for them for longer duration. Let these three countries play together every time.

    Either give every test playing nation equal number of matches to play as home and away basis with every other test playing country and make standard format, else make separate council for all other contries.

  • on January 28, 2014, 7:29 GMT

    Shame on India, England and Australia. They should have their own council and other 7 must kick them out and let them play in their circle.

  • on January 30, 2014, 3:26 GMT

    There has been a protests in Bangladesh which just shows you that cricket is a big deal in Bangladesh. Inshallah none of these altruistic and egotistical big 3 do any damage to the integrity of cricket!

  • on January 28, 2014, 20:52 GMT

    Earn and let earn is ''The motto'' of Big three. The big three can't do much better if others left aside and same applies to the others. All be happy of getting on with the flow. Think out Big people.

  • Tokai69 on January 28, 2014, 14:19 GMT

    Now the gloves are off, and the division in cricketing countries are clear than ever. Every Board should think about benefit of it's own, at the same time the love of the game per se. Politics in this game is another reason why this game is got an world class event yet!

  • muzika_tchaikovskogo on January 28, 2014, 12:25 GMT

    Call me cynical if you like, but the most likely outcome of this entire affair will be additional tours by India to those countries. I'll be delighted to be proven wrong btw.

  • on January 28, 2014, 10:12 GMT

    @Neel_123 The above said four boards are taking measures which are their best interest at the same time those measures are not putting other boards survival in jeopardy. But the draft paper is ensuring only the benefits of the big three.

    I hope you will understand my point. If you only run after money leaving the spirit of the game far behind which BCCI is doing, soon you gonna end up with money only with Indian team doing good only in home series and Indian players only shining in IPL and your so called super league. Think about it. Cricinfo please post.

  • on January 28, 2014, 9:47 GMT

    @Neel_123 BCCI's demand for more financial share is fare demand but the way in which position paper was drafted secretly make it looks like a conspiracy. It wud have been better if these suggestions have been discussed openly and input from other full members have been taken. 2nd point more financial contribution doesn't guarantee a good performance or gives a board more executive and financial decision making power

  • zarasochozarasamjho on January 28, 2014, 9:42 GMT

    It is not Big 3 but Big 1 which is Australia. India is test-ranked 7th historically by win/loss ratio; and look at way England has been humiliated by Australia and Pakistan.

    Let the rest kick out Aus, Eng, and Ind anf form their own club; and let us watch the Big "3" losing popularity over time as England will continue to lose to Australia as is historically the case and India will simply continue to be whitewashed by the other two.

  • Neel_123 on January 28, 2014, 9:27 GMT

    So, essentially, these 4 crickets boards are doing what is 'good' for THEIR respective countries! Why is BCCI wrong if they want to do what is good for Indian Cricket??

    Look at all these comments degenerating India & Indian cricket. Yet, all these boards beg money from BCCI and beg BCCI to arrange a tour or two to for their survival.

    It would be awesome if BCCI proposal for higher share of revenue gets REJECTED and I hope BCCI start India Super League 50-50 during winter season (Nov-Feb) every year. There are enough money and enough apatite for cricket in India to make it a grand success much like IPL (despite many predicted IPL to doom in 2 years; 6 years and it is going stronger every year). I can not wait to see India leaving ICC and going on its own NFL, MLB style!!

    Let us see if 'true cricket lovers' commenting here from these 4 countries would keep cricket alive in their nation or if their boards go bankrupt in 2-3 years and close their shops for better options!

  • Almightys on January 28, 2014, 8:17 GMT

    Being Indian I am writing this, good option is all other countries (than these 'Big Three' should come together and start their separate council for cricket. SA, WI, SL, NZ can take initiative, its better for them for longer duration. Let these three countries play together every time.

    Either give every test playing nation equal number of matches to play as home and away basis with every other test playing country and make standard format, else make separate council for all other contries.

  • on January 28, 2014, 7:29 GMT

    Shame on India, England and Australia. They should have their own council and other 7 must kick them out and let them play in their circle.

  • baskar_guha on January 28, 2014, 6:42 GMT

    Big 3: why should the rich bother with the poor (who are poor because they are just lazy.)

    Small 7: the rich (who are rich because they are just lucky) should help the poor

    If you don't like all this and you are in the Big 3, stop watching cricket; if you are in the Small 7, start watching cricket.

  • on January 28, 2014, 5:34 GMT

    How can anyone consider these 3 as the "Big Three"... ex England haven't even won a world cup... & India hardly won match/series out of the country, even last worldcup they won in India, come-out from India, play & show your talents, This is NOT acceptable... Money & IPL have already killed part of the game & but its still running live. No more involvement pls, let ICC do their job and the country boards do their individual job to their country. & I am agree with Ranatunga why not big five or big seven

  • on January 28, 2014, 5:26 GMT

    This is sick. It seems that board heads don't trust each other's. ICC executives need to do their part in enforcing the laws.

  • on January 28, 2014, 5:20 GMT

    whatever anyone says or wrotw, the fact is India rules Cricket! !!!! the other three cricket board in subcontinent doesnt have any leadership what so ever. ...

  • Udendra on January 28, 2014, 5:19 GMT

    They'll surrender for "short-term peanuts" and suffer in the long-term big time! Arjuna Ranatunga is very correct in his statement.

  • on January 28, 2014, 5:13 GMT

    I feel sad for South Africa. They should fire Lorgat and get someone who can deal with BCCI fresh.

  • sobicopal on January 28, 2014, 5:09 GMT

    India won 25% of total test matches they played. six other teams have better winning percentage. South Africa is in the top as per current test ranking. and India think they are the best. India never invited Bangladesh to play test in their country. What India will give to Bangladesh what they never gave to Bangladesh? Bangladesh has nothing to loose. All country should avoid India. let them play Ronjy trophy at their own.

  • maeen on January 28, 2014, 5:02 GMT

    Is the property of Cricket is owned by India, That what they say have to be conveyed by us.Acting as a monist can never be well expected from a country where players like Sachine , Ganguly are born.

    Please BCCI, stop making blue print regarding cricket aqnd if you do otherwise it may fade your popularity away among the cricket lovers.

  • ihmubarak on January 28, 2014, 4:49 GMT

    its not ICC any more if these happens, ICC will become IAECC, India/Australia/ England Cricket Council and future it will India Cricket Council, automatically Australia/England will be puppets.

  • SkyClean on January 28, 2014, 4:49 GMT

    "You give up your rights, we will take care of you" - BCCI

  • Thathal on January 28, 2014, 4:47 GMT

    May God save cricket, because it seems that the other boards except for South Afracian board ahve all given in to this rubbish proposd by BCCI.

    I hope Sri Lanka, Pakistan & West Indies take a stance. Let the big three play within themselves, All other nation can make a new cricket association. Forget anout ICC whose president isn't even consulted and is hijacked by three cricket board. This is nonsense.

  • on January 28, 2014, 4:46 GMT

    so all which was said in past was true that "ICC has double standards"...

  • on January 28, 2014, 4:46 GMT

    The so cold big three.... are only using there performance in cricket to cash in... eventually some other team is gonna perform better then these three.... and ask for similar position. ....

  • jbentham on January 28, 2014, 4:43 GMT

    Terribly short sighted from the games administrators. Make the game fairer, not more exclusive. Do they not realise that without competition there is no money to be made - which is exactly why the "small seven" need to unite and reject this sly horse trading by the three. UNITE!

  • India_Rules_Everybody on January 28, 2014, 4:41 GMT

    I am sorry but I have to agree with most people here that there is no "Big Three". There is only a "Big One" and that big one is India. Learn to live with it because there is nothing you can do about it.

  • sapnil2000 on January 28, 2014, 4:18 GMT

    india is still weak, they are losing against even NZ, when bangladesh whitewash them

  • Matadore on January 28, 2014, 4:11 GMT

    @Wapuser, who said Bangladesh trying 2 prove Nz "WERE" not better? Evn they "ARE" not just gd enough 2 beat bd in bd soil... nd Undoubtably, if nz come 2 tour ban once again r8 now.. they will b banglawashed again by 5-0, 4-0 or 3-0 ... nd cant win the test series too

  • starlover on January 28, 2014, 3:36 GMT

    India has a different plan. Controlling ICC by 3 big boards and two tier system may be a diversion, they are planning for more dangerous long-term plan. For Srinavashon everything is possible. God save cricket! Every idea from INDIA/AUS/UK them should be denied, and there should be a punishment for them. Example should be created to prevent this kind of scene appear again.

  • on January 28, 2014, 3:33 GMT

    As a cricket fan, I urged other all cricket boards to withdraw draft resolution or be courage's to say no for cricket. However, resolution of BCCI should be discussion on financial issue as India sacrifice more in financial terms.

  • on January 28, 2014, 3:32 GMT

    How can anyone consider these 3 as the "Big Three"... ex England haven't even won a world cup... This is NOT acceptable... Money have already killed part of the game but its still running live. No more involvement pls, let ICC do their job and the country boards do their individual job to their country.

  • Mobin_My_Name on January 28, 2014, 3:18 GMT

    One thing nw iz sure that this redraft will go through. But good thing iz two tier test system iz watered down. Let Big Three have all the money but cricket iz for every one. Players should play for Flag nt for money.

  • mabbas64 on January 28, 2014, 3:14 GMT

    all the other boards should unite behind CSA and say NO to this proposal...shame on the big three to conjure up something like this in privacy and shame on the board or boards who may sell out for their own benefit.....does no one realize india generates such revenues by playing against other countries... can BCCI generate such revenues if the other countries decline to play against india?

  • on January 28, 2014, 3:09 GMT

    What is Bangladesh trying to prove by reminding that India and NZ weren't good enough in their first 30 years? They are clearly showing their lack of knowledge. You can't compare cricket in the 1930s to that today. There were a handful of teams playing Tests (that too at the helm of England & Australia.There weren't any weak team like Zimbabwe against whom you could win a few Tests.

  • on January 28, 2014, 2:52 GMT

    Arjuna Ranatunga's view is exactly correct.

  • on January 28, 2014, 2:34 GMT

    Big three, why not big five... or big seven?

  • Atish_Man on January 28, 2014, 2:27 GMT

    It was coming. I dont see apart from csa any other board refusing this draft. All other boards r heavily dependent on bcci. And this is the root cause. Its not difficult for bcci to award few series to these boards. Especially pak and srilanka.

  • Tmalik on January 28, 2014, 2:14 GMT

    The proposal should be rejected outrightly and ICC needs to ensure the implementation of FTP, period. this proposal of big 3 three is rubbish, this is sport and there isnt anything considered BIG 3. be fair and work on the growth of the game not protect the interest of 3, what if China and US start playing with big boys the more revenue will start coming from these countries, what if Pak or SA start generating bigger sponsors, what then? for the sake of the game lets not go after money rather promote the game in the world. I pray and hope that common sense prevails in this greedy atmosphere and proposal is cancelled.

  • Little_Aussie_Battler on January 28, 2014, 1:54 GMT

    Bangladesh needs to be relegated for it's own good. They say NZ took 60 years to learn how to pick up a bat, blah, blah. But, that was in amateur times. Nowadays, all cricketers only play cricket and are paid very well too. So why is Bangladesh still so bad.

    Why do these teams deserve to still be at the head table when teams like Ireland or Afghanistan or even Scotland cannot compete?

  • mensan on January 28, 2014, 1:47 GMT

    But why the big-3 are chasing ICC money? ICC has responsibility of global spreading of game. It needs funds for that. Moreover ICC has only ODI or T20 tournaments to generate money, so why big-3 are talking about test rankings? Test matches are not at all related related with this whole issue. Why talk of 2-tier system?

  • i_amVIVA on January 28, 2014, 1:31 GMT

    Cricket should be saved for the sake of the gentlemen's game, not corrosive politics. The arrogance of B3 can only be diminished by the United-we-stand, Divide-we-fall mantra by the R7. At the same time they should realize that the so called 'carrot and stick' could easily be short lived beyond the vote for their desired change.

  • on January 28, 2014, 1:08 GMT

    ca anyone explain that this tier system is applied only to test or all the three format.

  • IndiaGoats on January 28, 2014, 0:43 GMT

    People were praising whoever managed to leak the original draft. I think it is the big three themselves who did that. They made the first draft so unacceptable, then came back with a slightly revised one so that the rest of the folks think they are getting a good deal.

  • shan_abc on January 28, 2014, 0:38 GMT

    The disappointing thing here is that only SA had the guts to stand up to this nonsense. Given the proper monetary baits, some boards (specially our SLC) will just bow their head. Its sad to see people without vision (and who'd do anything for money) governing a "gentleman's sport". I for one have vowed myself that I will never watch cricket if this goes through (not that anyone cares).

  • CricTimer on January 28, 2014, 0:38 GMT

    SHOULD ICC give it a try????...As test is the key to prove a consistent performing player, ICC should rethink this two-tier proposal for players who decided to build their career as cricketer. Financial stability is an obvious issue for test cricket. Considering that, ICC may organise test competition each year in countries where their business is adequate with support of sponsors. That way each team will get fair chance to play test against every team too. This will also help international sponsors' globally making business.

  • InsideHedge on January 28, 2014, 0:29 GMT

    Seriously, BCB, how many Tests did India and NZ play in its first 30 years compared to the 80-odd that you've already played? Further, your 4 Test wins (so far) have come against Zim (2) and a further 2 against a second string West Indies team.

    BCB has shown no interest in Test cricket yet 3000 ppl came out to protest. Clearly, the fans treasure their Test status so the BCB should do something about the paltry number of first class games they play first and foremost. Do that before complaining about the lack of Tests, all your domestic cricket is geared towards the shorter format.

  • on January 28, 2014, 0:27 GMT

    HopefullySL, Bangladesh, Pakistan and SA bote no, there would go the 7 votes needed to pass.

  • on January 28, 2014, 0:10 GMT

    Look like there trying to kill the rest of the cricket where was this

  • TropicPleasure on January 27, 2014, 23:56 GMT

    I know I'm only one person but if this proposal is accepted in any form, I'll no longer watch cricket, in person or on TV. You might say I'm just one person and it won't make a difference, but if cricket lovers all act in the same way, we can make a difference. And, if not, at least I won't be party to this madness and I won't count towards TV adverts

  • CricketisKing on January 27, 2014, 23:53 GMT

    Have to wait till tomorrow to see how this joke plays out. I am all for bilateral agreements but that relegation nonsense should be thrown out. The FTP was and is a joke. ICC will cease to exist. As such it is an inept organization that toed BCCI's line. Remember the ICL and how it was crushed. The more I read about this the more I feel that this was all hatched by the BCCI to see which boards will be loyal to it. Reward the ones loyal to them and punish the rest for speaking out. NZ board and WICB were smart in going with the flow. Zimbabwe doesn't have to worry. SL will toe the line because of financial problems. Pakistan playing India, especially in India, is a great revenue stream for BCCI. Bangladesh and CSA have to worry for protesting too much. ECB and CA quietly played along to BCCI's wishes.

  • Jibber-Jabber on January 27, 2014, 23:51 GMT

    Why is South Africa, the number 1 test playing nation left out in the cold? Is it because they have just walloped India? Is this a result of the personal issues that appear to exist between the heads of South African cricket and Indian cricket? Or is it to encourage more South Africans to go to the UK and qualify for the England team to prop up their game. Absolutely disgraceful.

  • anoopshameed on January 27, 2014, 23:50 GMT

    Bangladesh had their first Test victory in their 35th Test against Zimbabwe!-and has only 2 victories each against West Indies and Zimbabwe in 82 Test so far. On the other hand, India had their first Test victory in their 25th Test against England, followed by two more against Pakistan in the very next series, and had completed at least 8 victories by the time they played 82 Tests. So much for the 30 year theory! But it does hold good for New Zealand who won their first Test in their 45th match-against West Indies!

  • Aura123 on January 27, 2014, 23:43 GMT

    Now everyone get 117 million with new agreement India will get 500 million per year , England will get around 200 , Australia around 150 and rest of the teams will get less than 100 million per year and associates will not get any , tell me where is the justice ??

  • iceaxe on January 27, 2014, 23:40 GMT

    "New Zealand Cricket had come out in support of the proposal..."

    Do we get to publicly flog the clowns who just smile and sign the dotted line?

    I wonder if the NZC actually read the fine print. Did they get their calculators out and see how much millions they would be short under this new proposal. Thank goodness the likes of Martin Crowe & co have their heads screwed on to raise the red flag over this.

  • jkaussie on January 27, 2014, 23:38 GMT

    I'm an Australian, and I abhor this whole idea. The cricket world needs nurturing and expanding, not a return to the old colonial days the only difference being a former colony as one of the controllers! CA and ECB should be especially ashamed because there has been a complete lack of integrity and forward thinking in their plans - make lots of cash now, but stifle the games growth for the future! At least the BCCI is being true to form - they have never done anything but look to push their weight around, and stuff the consequences. In some ways, it would have been better if the ECB, CA, CSA, CNZ and the WICB had banded together and told India, we're not playing you, we'll play each other only - short term pain for long term gain! If only the other nations had done the same thing to Aust and Eng when the situation was reversed and we may not have had the issue today!

  • on January 27, 2014, 23:32 GMT

    Suppose BCCI, ECB and CA quit ICC and start bi or trilateral calendars. What then? They will still prosper but the 7 others will collapse.

  • Banglar_Badshah on January 27, 2014, 23:30 GMT

    I think 2 tier system is acceptable if- (a) the big 3 agree to play TEST matches with 'small 7' countries on a bi-lateral basis, (b) it is formatted as 5+5, with an oppertunity for champion from small 5 to promote to big 5, (c) no TEST nation should be relegated to Intercontinental cup, and (d) invite Intercontinental cup champion to join 'Small 5' to play test matches with 'provisional TEST' status to make small 5 to be expanded to small 6; and should intercontinental champion (Ireland) play well and avoid being at the bottom of the table, the country should get permanent TEST status like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and won't compete in the Intercontinental cup. This should allow another nation like Afghanistan to get provisional TEST status (if they become Intercontinental cup champion). Once there are 12 nations playing TEST matches, the upper division and lower division for test matches should have 6 + 6 nations.

  • Aura123 on January 27, 2014, 23:21 GMT

    Germany and Japan are the second and third biggest contribution in UN but they do not have any veto power

  • on January 27, 2014, 23:20 GMT

    @Sohail Munir You are exactly right! I hope they keep their nerve and stay strong. This is NOT acceptable

  • vish2020 on January 27, 2014, 23:05 GMT

    Its so funny to watch these fans of other boards wanting their boards to say NO hahahah that would finish cricket in your countries. This really is a proposal of no choice. And all BCCI haters, you can hate BCCI and India and Indians, but remember one thing, the money your board gets to break even or make profit is because of India alone. PCB, SLC, BCB contribute very little in revenues and act like they are BCCI. what a joke

  • CurrentPresident on January 27, 2014, 22:55 GMT

    Talk about theoretical fairplay and other words... The only opposition the SLC, PCB and WI board had was that they were not part of the top-3. The moment you include them in and make it top-7, they are more than happy to throw Bangladesh and Zimbabwe under the bus - all rhetoric be damned.

    It is amusing how self-preservation wins every time. Big rhetorical words are just bargaining chips.

  • on January 27, 2014, 22:50 GMT

    Hope the boards of Pakistan SL, NZ, SA West indies and Bang vote for a no and show some guts.....

  • on January 27, 2014, 22:50 GMT

    why i.c.c flexible for wealthy 3 ?? bcz of they blind policies in 80s nd 90s cricket is only limited for just 10 its been played more than 100 years but yet to excel its members as much as fifa done,ilive in s.korea there ae some cricket loving teenagers here but i.c.c done nothing over it....i salute to s.a they are the only board respond well nd publicly oppose the proposal.....

  • on January 27, 2014, 22:44 GMT

    Ohhh Cmon "ICC" & Big 3 Dramas Cricket is in our blood , why you want to stop it :) We don't need such kind of 3 big Kingkong on our head :) Cricket is our passion don't make it your business :)

  • on January 27, 2014, 22:42 GMT

    so they will propose a new draft right at the meeting where the board presidents from each country will have few minutes or hours to decide whether they want to support it or not? the new idea would be crazy as the board presidents themselves do not even know whats there. why don't they show the draft to the public?

  • on January 27, 2014, 22:36 GMT

    So the proposal, in the end, can be seen as an end of Cricket's globalization effort, right? Money is been taken out of full member's allocation but returned as bilateral revenue. But the money taken out of Associate revenue is not returned anyway. So, the Associates are the biggest losers out of the equation ... that's what I understand.

  • khanofcricket on January 27, 2014, 22:33 GMT

    The irony is that most of the boards are taking position in the interest of their own board and not in the interest of the game. If that is the case then BCCI didn't do anything wrong, did they? They also acted in their own interest. WI & NZ will regret this after a decade when they will forget how to play international cricket. I give full credit to SA, somewhat to Pak and to the ex administrators and Journalists from all over the world for raising their voice as they can see how this game will die if this goes through. I am however, a bit disappointed with the notable cricketers from India (whom I really admire, such as Gawaskar, Shastri, Ganguly, etc) who could have made a difference by raising their voice but I guess they are too close to BCCI and hence, too dependant on them.

  • Baundele on January 27, 2014, 22:28 GMT

    ICC is going back to the darker ages, when England and Australia were controlling it. The only change is now it is 3, instead of 2. Cutting down ICC aid to associate members clearly states ICC's unwillingness to globalize cricket.

  • screamingeagle on January 27, 2014, 22:17 GMT

    Lie I mentioned in another forum, this is the political game played by BCCI. Unfortunately, they will get it through in some form. Unfortunate because no one seem to be ready to call their bluff.

  • Temuzin on January 27, 2014, 22:12 GMT

    I think Aus, Eng and India are responding to all fans who did not value runs/wickets against weaker teams. Fans have always being busy down grading teams and players if they play well against so called Minnows. So the big three decided, OK minnows will play minnows and big 3 will play big 3 so that fans can respect team/players accomplishment. Bulls eye BCCI.

  • on January 27, 2014, 22:03 GMT

    So here is what I don't understand. Say the rest of the cricket boards part ways with the Big-3. Now The Big-3 will have no choice but to keep playing with each other. How long will the viewers tolerate this? Eventually, the cricket hub of fans in India will lose interest and will be fed up playing with Australia and England only. The Indian public would yearn to play with Pakistan and South Africa and may be WI but there won't be any games, so protest will start, the public will lose interest in playing with Australia and England, the revenues will decline and players will be bored as well. What will the BCCI do then? Start browning it's nose by negotiating with the break away boards?

  • on January 27, 2014, 22:00 GMT

    After all principles are principles. please dont apply a reverse gear. Just reject these proposals.

  • on January 27, 2014, 21:58 GMT

    This is shocking and disgraceful from ICC....byebye 'Cricket'

  • on January 27, 2014, 21:56 GMT

    @Sohail Munir - Nailed it !!

  • on January 27, 2014, 21:51 GMT

    This so called proposed draft reminds me of a masterfully crafted chess game.If you want to win the war, you have to take few steps back, it's nothing but a shrewdly masterminded strategical move .

  • Rally_Windies on January 27, 2014, 21:39 GMT

    Nice strategy ...

    put out the totally unacceptable version 1st,,,,

    and then negotiate down to what you really want .......

    The speed at which this "redraft" was put out is very suspicious ....

    This might have been the plan all along !

  • on January 27, 2014, 21:38 GMT

    It's India again...they always come up with such pathetic ideas...they want to rule...in the end...there would be only one team...India...and they will be playing against them in their own country...i guess this is what they want

  • BigINDFan on January 27, 2014, 21:34 GMT

    @fair_paly_1 - Agreed the first draft was intentionally leaked.

    While the Big 3 proposal sounds unfair to the other nations, the reality is money talks and that is the tactic that is being used with all the boards except CSA. ZIM and WICB will give in easily while SLC will get some of their wish list taken care before they give in. BCB will be assured of their test status and they will give in. PCB is the only one who can put up a fight with CSA but they do need tours from the Big 3 even if in neutral/new home in UAE to sustain financially. CSA will be the lone ranger fighting and will eventually come to an agreement.

    My two cents - scrap the two-tier system for tests since there are not a lot of tests played anyways. Put 2 test series as the norm with 3 test series for the Big 3. Add more T20 tournaments like an annual champions trophy for all nations or invite associate nations to the Champions league T20. That will take care of the financial issues for the smaller boards.

  • Cric_fever_notgoingdown on January 27, 2014, 21:26 GMT

    lets be honest guys honest with our selfs whats the point of having icc when it cant take any decision. when it cant help us (pak) in last decade or so. for me its always been an toothless institution . such things was always on the cards from long time now. so its better we should strike best deal as possible with big three coz icc doesnt have any solution to our issues(reviving cricket here). and those who thinking cricket is global sports lets face facts nether any non test playing nation hasant produced any thing big that they should be in line for test line hell they even not serious to play test. pak should care about this this aint our problem. when small teams who we helped in past cant help us today then why do we should we care about them now. u know which team in talking about here. so its better pcb should make them delete few clauses ask them guarantees (bank) try increase there profit bit more and sign it thats it.... dont get emotional now use ur brain.

  • Pippy_the_dog on January 27, 2014, 21:17 GMT

    I'd like to say that I don't believe that the lesser boards are going to sell out, sadly I can't. I fear that finally cricket is going to destroy itself. These 'concessions' are just pathetic fig leaves.

  • on January 27, 2014, 21:16 GMT

    I think this kind of proposal will killed tutur cricket.When cricket grouth all over the world than some of selfish board demesec cricket tutur.May be ICC should think if is like this than some of new nation will afraid to pley cricket.So Icc should cencel this proposan.

  • Cric_fever_notgoingdown on January 27, 2014, 21:12 GMT

    my personal opinion is pcb in betterment of there cricket should agree to this agreement but on some condition 1st that relegation clause or any clause such as two tier system affecting test cricket should be omitted. test cricket doesnt need too many radical changes for my likings just reduce number of test playing nation thats it. 2nd we should get bank guarantee or some other financial guarantee that if big 3 in future refuses there promises of playing us we should still get paid for the loss especially when it comes to india there should be an agreement of such type as i dont trust there words they already owe us 2 home series. so pcb should take some thing in writing for this. 3rd they should try to increase there share of profit i still think it should be increased a bit more. as a pak fan i would certainly like pcb to strike best deal as possible in intrest of us. i know most fans would punch me but lets not get emotional and think with brain and be selfish.

  • on January 27, 2014, 21:06 GMT

    We should protest their proposal for the greater sack of Cricket. I hope ICC will deny this.

  • on January 27, 2014, 20:53 GMT

    should tell bcci,later gator dont let the doar hit you on the way out.cya hate to be ya

  • on January 27, 2014, 20:52 GMT

    as expected, 1st leaked draft was bit different and tough and now they have some changes in it.

    for revenue. i think its ok if it was only about revenue. question is what guarantee bcci can give for series especially with pcb? they already have 2 pending series from past ftp. all thses are short term goals. smaller boards should not fall in to it.

    but i think it will be passed. reason is simply that small boards other than CSA, may not vote against it unless they are sure that it will be scrapped. because if it gets passed then those 2-3 who will vote against it will be cornered.

    the 7 which were left out, are mostly financialy struggling boards except csa or may be wicb up to some extent. rest are already looking for money.

  • on January 27, 2014, 20:38 GMT

    For the sake of cricket the proposal should not be accepted. It will be a total disaster of cricket.

  • WeldonHosten on January 27, 2014, 20:35 GMT

    Talk about a conflict of interest.... Story should be more like "Big three to offer draft to themselves"

  • on January 27, 2014, 20:22 GMT

    One day whole world will find that there are only three cricketing nations in this world. India will destroy this beautiful game. I don't understand why Australia and England are sucking the feet of india

  • fair_paly_1 on January 27, 2014, 20:15 GMT

    Well it was ominous. First hit every one with the worst case scenario by leaking the draft and then show that they are backing down a bit. A tried and tested ploy.

    The one deplorable idea was in the two-tier system where the three could not be relegated and lo and behold it's going to be "watered down". I had sussed it right when I said this before under Atherton article: "I think it's just a bargaining tool so they can all agree on the rest of the proposals".

  • on January 27, 2014, 20:15 GMT

    This is going to be the biggest fallback to International Cricket if the proposal of the so called BIG THREE is accepted...!!! I can think of one word here... GREED!!!!

  • on January 27, 2014, 19:37 GMT

    It is so obvious, first a ridiculous proposal was put forward to scare every one so that they all accept the watered down version..... PCB, SLC, WICB, CSA, BCB should respond with a big NO.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on January 27, 2014, 19:37 GMT

    It is so obvious, first a ridiculous proposal was put forward to scare every one so that they all accept the watered down version..... PCB, SLC, WICB, CSA, BCB should respond with a big NO.

  • on January 27, 2014, 20:15 GMT

    This is going to be the biggest fallback to International Cricket if the proposal of the so called BIG THREE is accepted...!!! I can think of one word here... GREED!!!!

  • fair_paly_1 on January 27, 2014, 20:15 GMT

    Well it was ominous. First hit every one with the worst case scenario by leaking the draft and then show that they are backing down a bit. A tried and tested ploy.

    The one deplorable idea was in the two-tier system where the three could not be relegated and lo and behold it's going to be "watered down". I had sussed it right when I said this before under Atherton article: "I think it's just a bargaining tool so they can all agree on the rest of the proposals".

  • on January 27, 2014, 20:22 GMT

    One day whole world will find that there are only three cricketing nations in this world. India will destroy this beautiful game. I don't understand why Australia and England are sucking the feet of india

  • WeldonHosten on January 27, 2014, 20:35 GMT

    Talk about a conflict of interest.... Story should be more like "Big three to offer draft to themselves"

  • on January 27, 2014, 20:38 GMT

    For the sake of cricket the proposal should not be accepted. It will be a total disaster of cricket.

  • on January 27, 2014, 20:52 GMT

    as expected, 1st leaked draft was bit different and tough and now they have some changes in it.

    for revenue. i think its ok if it was only about revenue. question is what guarantee bcci can give for series especially with pcb? they already have 2 pending series from past ftp. all thses are short term goals. smaller boards should not fall in to it.

    but i think it will be passed. reason is simply that small boards other than CSA, may not vote against it unless they are sure that it will be scrapped. because if it gets passed then those 2-3 who will vote against it will be cornered.

    the 7 which were left out, are mostly financialy struggling boards except csa or may be wicb up to some extent. rest are already looking for money.

  • on January 27, 2014, 20:53 GMT

    should tell bcci,later gator dont let the doar hit you on the way out.cya hate to be ya

  • on January 27, 2014, 21:06 GMT

    We should protest their proposal for the greater sack of Cricket. I hope ICC will deny this.

  • Cric_fever_notgoingdown on January 27, 2014, 21:12 GMT

    my personal opinion is pcb in betterment of there cricket should agree to this agreement but on some condition 1st that relegation clause or any clause such as two tier system affecting test cricket should be omitted. test cricket doesnt need too many radical changes for my likings just reduce number of test playing nation thats it. 2nd we should get bank guarantee or some other financial guarantee that if big 3 in future refuses there promises of playing us we should still get paid for the loss especially when it comes to india there should be an agreement of such type as i dont trust there words they already owe us 2 home series. so pcb should take some thing in writing for this. 3rd they should try to increase there share of profit i still think it should be increased a bit more. as a pak fan i would certainly like pcb to strike best deal as possible in intrest of us. i know most fans would punch me but lets not get emotional and think with brain and be selfish.