ICC revamp February 4, 2014

CSA to list revamp objections to ICC

  shares 34

Even while it stays engaged in negotiations with the BCCI, Cricket South Africa has laid out some fundamental objections to the ICC makeover proposal which includes the permanent membership for representatives from India, England and Australia in the proposed Executive Committee. It is learnt that CSA is preparing a detailed submission to be made to the ICC president Alan Isaac, going into details of their objections to the draft proposal for the revamp of the ICC, drafted by the BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB.

The precise details of the submission could not be obtained but ESPNcricinfo understands that the chief observations made to the ICC could include, apart from constitutional procedure and ethical codes, specifics around clauses pertaining to governance and revenues. These may involve raising objections to the proposals suggesting that the all-powerful Executive Committee have permanent seats for the Big Three (BCCI, CA and ECB) in particular. Or asking for clarity and accounting on the revenue distribution with respect to the division of the ICC revenues on a scale of graded percentages.

Regardless of the ICC's release after the last Board meeting about "unanimous support around key principles" in its draft proposal, CSA, the Pakistan Cricket Board and Sri Lanka Cricket are the three boards that make up the main opposition to the changes. On Monday, the PCB's governing board recorded its opposition of the proposals, while SLC issued a statement after an emergency meeting of its executive committee. The committee will meet, SLC said, with its "stake holders" on February 5, adding that, "with a view to safe guard the current rights and privileges of Sri Lanka Cricket as a Full Member of the ICC."

CSA denied a report in ESPNcricinfo that talks were on between CSA and the BCCI with a view to reaching an agreement to push the draft proposals through and resolve the dispute between the two boards over CSA CEO Haroon Lorgat. CSA's statement said they would "not consider deals that compromise our key principles". CSA president Chris Nenzani said, "While we are engaged in discussions with the ICC and other Members, including the BCCI, to find an acceptable way forward, we have not and will not consider deals that compromise our key principles and integrity."

The three boards who make up the main opposition to the Big Three draft proposals are said to be in contact with each other over their approach to the ICC Board meeting to take place on February 8.

Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY 4cricketluv on | February 7, 2014, 11:08 GMT

    Although difficult, painful and costly, a new cricketing world body is not an impossibility. Huge "markets" exists in the USA and China and unhappy smaller nations would be eager to come on board if they realise that progress in world cricket seem possible for them after years of struggling under ICC management.

  • POSTED BY Greatest_Game on | February 7, 2014, 4:13 GMT

    @ Jimmyvida If you can't beat SA on the cricket field is the sporting way to then do it in the boardroom? Face facts: India may have a billion fans, but SA has the players those fans WANT to watch. The ECB just booted KP, the only English player that Indian fans love to watch. The Indian team is being hung, drawn & slaughtered by New Zealand. Are a billion Indian fans going to be happy to settle for watching India get slaughtered by every other team in short 1 to 2 test series, and interminably, deathly boring 5 test series India vs England games? They would rather watch paint dry!

    No. Without exciting cricket that big money flow will dry up. Do a billion Indian fans want to watch Dale Steyn take 6 for 8, or Ishant Sharma take 6 for 134 as New Zealand cruise to 500? Cant bat, can't bowl, can't field, and need great opposition to provide the excitement.

    A LOT of Indian fans would tune in to watch SA. SA would make more Indian money OUTSIDE of the ICC!

  • POSTED BY jimmyvida on | February 6, 2014, 17:32 GMT

    Did someone just say BCB are in with the proposals? OK, so WI, BCB, India, NZ, Australia and England and any other cricketing country willing would form the new cricket body. The rest can play amongst themselves and share the loot amicable. Soon SA will realize that it is footing 80%-90% of the bill, but must be willing to take a wooping 20%. It would then come with bowl in hand and say, "please Sirs......"

  • POSTED BY sam911 on | February 6, 2014, 17:26 GMT

    Mr. Panday lets see the realistic view, BCCI refuse to play Pakistan on political grounds, no Pakistani player allowed in IPL, Indian team had poor record overseas, BCCI comes with a briiliant idea in this proposal no relegation for BIG 3 in ICC rankings, this is how ur BCCI people think to remain on top, saying we r not been able to compete at international level. BCCI president Sirinivasan now offering PCB bilateral series at neutral venue, to get thrir vote, on the other hand in his interview he said we look at our schedule how to accomodate and when to accomodate all the rest of the seven, it means no cricket is allowed for rest of the seven with BIG 3, as once this proposal is approved, BIG 3 said they had busy schedule with each other so soory, when we get time and think the rest of the seven r financially viable to play. and in case of Pakistan BCCi told them afterwards Govt. won't allowed them to play. That's it beginnig of the end.

  • POSTED BY Neel_123 on | February 6, 2014, 15:56 GMT

    It is so funny to see people talking about democracy and EQUALITY and uniform distribution of revenues to all members. Could any one please answer these simple questions ?

    1. WI, NZ, SL have population like 4-5 millions each. They have very few cricket stadium and professional cricketers to care of. India (or BCCI) has over 25+ cricket associations whose members (and geographical areas) are much greater than these countries combined. How is it fair that a young kid in India get 300 times LESS fund than a kid in NZ or WI from ICC? Never mind that India actually generate 70-80% of ICC revenue and demanding ONLY 20% (India alone has over 60% of the total population which follow cricket).

    2. You say, "But India earns from IPL", True. But then so are other nations by their other domestic sports.

    3. Assuming BCCI is forced to accept equal revenue and manage its BIGGER needs from domestic revenues, does it not make sense for INDIA to skip ICC altogether and focus on IPL, etc.??

  • POSTED BY Albert_cambell on | February 6, 2014, 14:38 GMT

    SO BCCI is saying that they are taking administrative charge to improve world cricket. But, here is my question. How much help they provided to associated nations in the past 10 years, despite of making the highest profit in world cricket? Take a look at the help given by other cricketing nations.ECB- Offers contracts to IRish, Dutch and Scotish players and every year they play an ODI game with these teams. WICB- Despite of having financial problems, they have included IReland in their domestic cricket. CSA- We have allowed some of the Namibia players to take part in our domestic matches. PCB- Helping out Afghan team and arranges a game for them with their visiting teams. NZC- Helping for the development of cricket in USA. Teams Like AUS and SL also agreed to play matches with Ireland whenever they tour England. Its seems only BCCI is the one who hasnt helped them at all and they will never do it.

  • POSTED BY JJAbraham on | February 6, 2014, 11:23 GMT

    The Big Three proposal will not do any good to world cricket. I being an Indian, cannot accept this proposal. It will undermine the value of the other countries playing this sport called cricket. And why give more revenue to the Big Three? Why not develop the associates and affiliates?

  • POSTED BY on | February 6, 2014, 5:18 GMT

    Please SA do not vote in the favor off this revamp. Please.

  • POSTED BY on | February 6, 2014, 0:21 GMT

    While revenue distribution should be fair, and should mostly be used to develop cricket in respective nations, the Big 3 proposal is undemocratic.Even if a two-tier system has to be there, it has to be equal for all teams involved.BCCI certainly seems to be the key player but ECB and CA are no less to blame. These two boards have always been the most powerful in the cricket world, no radical change can take place without their involvement.Lets hope that the boards opposing the change are not doing so just to get their hands in the revenue pie. And for Pakistani friends, who are using this opportunity to criticize the Indian cricket team, should remember that India was ranked number 1 in Test cricket not too long ago and it was on the basis of Test wins in NZ,Aus,Eng,Pak,SA and WI.All teams go through transition period , you guys make it seem as if Pakistan never loses a game anywhere.Plz keep yur arguments realistic.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 17:10 GMT

    It is right time that India first utilise their resources and time for selection good all-rounders, good bowlers and good batsmen who can play good and competitive cricket as their present performance in overseas does not deserve any special treatment. I think we concentrate on improving our quality of cricket.

  • POSTED BY 4cricketluv on | February 7, 2014, 11:08 GMT

    Although difficult, painful and costly, a new cricketing world body is not an impossibility. Huge "markets" exists in the USA and China and unhappy smaller nations would be eager to come on board if they realise that progress in world cricket seem possible for them after years of struggling under ICC management.

  • POSTED BY Greatest_Game on | February 7, 2014, 4:13 GMT

    @ Jimmyvida If you can't beat SA on the cricket field is the sporting way to then do it in the boardroom? Face facts: India may have a billion fans, but SA has the players those fans WANT to watch. The ECB just booted KP, the only English player that Indian fans love to watch. The Indian team is being hung, drawn & slaughtered by New Zealand. Are a billion Indian fans going to be happy to settle for watching India get slaughtered by every other team in short 1 to 2 test series, and interminably, deathly boring 5 test series India vs England games? They would rather watch paint dry!

    No. Without exciting cricket that big money flow will dry up. Do a billion Indian fans want to watch Dale Steyn take 6 for 8, or Ishant Sharma take 6 for 134 as New Zealand cruise to 500? Cant bat, can't bowl, can't field, and need great opposition to provide the excitement.

    A LOT of Indian fans would tune in to watch SA. SA would make more Indian money OUTSIDE of the ICC!

  • POSTED BY jimmyvida on | February 6, 2014, 17:32 GMT

    Did someone just say BCB are in with the proposals? OK, so WI, BCB, India, NZ, Australia and England and any other cricketing country willing would form the new cricket body. The rest can play amongst themselves and share the loot amicable. Soon SA will realize that it is footing 80%-90% of the bill, but must be willing to take a wooping 20%. It would then come with bowl in hand and say, "please Sirs......"

  • POSTED BY sam911 on | February 6, 2014, 17:26 GMT

    Mr. Panday lets see the realistic view, BCCI refuse to play Pakistan on political grounds, no Pakistani player allowed in IPL, Indian team had poor record overseas, BCCI comes with a briiliant idea in this proposal no relegation for BIG 3 in ICC rankings, this is how ur BCCI people think to remain on top, saying we r not been able to compete at international level. BCCI president Sirinivasan now offering PCB bilateral series at neutral venue, to get thrir vote, on the other hand in his interview he said we look at our schedule how to accomodate and when to accomodate all the rest of the seven, it means no cricket is allowed for rest of the seven with BIG 3, as once this proposal is approved, BIG 3 said they had busy schedule with each other so soory, when we get time and think the rest of the seven r financially viable to play. and in case of Pakistan BCCi told them afterwards Govt. won't allowed them to play. That's it beginnig of the end.

  • POSTED BY Neel_123 on | February 6, 2014, 15:56 GMT

    It is so funny to see people talking about democracy and EQUALITY and uniform distribution of revenues to all members. Could any one please answer these simple questions ?

    1. WI, NZ, SL have population like 4-5 millions each. They have very few cricket stadium and professional cricketers to care of. India (or BCCI) has over 25+ cricket associations whose members (and geographical areas) are much greater than these countries combined. How is it fair that a young kid in India get 300 times LESS fund than a kid in NZ or WI from ICC? Never mind that India actually generate 70-80% of ICC revenue and demanding ONLY 20% (India alone has over 60% of the total population which follow cricket).

    2. You say, "But India earns from IPL", True. But then so are other nations by their other domestic sports.

    3. Assuming BCCI is forced to accept equal revenue and manage its BIGGER needs from domestic revenues, does it not make sense for INDIA to skip ICC altogether and focus on IPL, etc.??

  • POSTED BY Albert_cambell on | February 6, 2014, 14:38 GMT

    SO BCCI is saying that they are taking administrative charge to improve world cricket. But, here is my question. How much help they provided to associated nations in the past 10 years, despite of making the highest profit in world cricket? Take a look at the help given by other cricketing nations.ECB- Offers contracts to IRish, Dutch and Scotish players and every year they play an ODI game with these teams. WICB- Despite of having financial problems, they have included IReland in their domestic cricket. CSA- We have allowed some of the Namibia players to take part in our domestic matches. PCB- Helping out Afghan team and arranges a game for them with their visiting teams. NZC- Helping for the development of cricket in USA. Teams Like AUS and SL also agreed to play matches with Ireland whenever they tour England. Its seems only BCCI is the one who hasnt helped them at all and they will never do it.

  • POSTED BY JJAbraham on | February 6, 2014, 11:23 GMT

    The Big Three proposal will not do any good to world cricket. I being an Indian, cannot accept this proposal. It will undermine the value of the other countries playing this sport called cricket. And why give more revenue to the Big Three? Why not develop the associates and affiliates?

  • POSTED BY on | February 6, 2014, 5:18 GMT

    Please SA do not vote in the favor off this revamp. Please.

  • POSTED BY on | February 6, 2014, 0:21 GMT

    While revenue distribution should be fair, and should mostly be used to develop cricket in respective nations, the Big 3 proposal is undemocratic.Even if a two-tier system has to be there, it has to be equal for all teams involved.BCCI certainly seems to be the key player but ECB and CA are no less to blame. These two boards have always been the most powerful in the cricket world, no radical change can take place without their involvement.Lets hope that the boards opposing the change are not doing so just to get their hands in the revenue pie. And for Pakistani friends, who are using this opportunity to criticize the Indian cricket team, should remember that India was ranked number 1 in Test cricket not too long ago and it was on the basis of Test wins in NZ,Aus,Eng,Pak,SA and WI.All teams go through transition period , you guys make it seem as if Pakistan never loses a game anywhere.Plz keep yur arguments realistic.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 17:10 GMT

    It is right time that India first utilise their resources and time for selection good all-rounders, good bowlers and good batsmen who can play good and competitive cricket as their present performance in overseas does not deserve any special treatment. I think we concentrate on improving our quality of cricket.

  • POSTED BY FSL2013 on | February 5, 2014, 16:05 GMT

    South Africa will still get help from Australia and England in the end and they will save them from total isolation. SL board will give in , considering poor financial condition they are in.... in the end it will hard for them to refuse a lucrative deal. PCB will be left alone on all fronts. They will neither be supported by Asian teams nor the other block (Aus, NZ, Eng). I think its pretty unrealistic thinking on part of PCB.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 14:23 GMT

    SL, CSA and PCB must keep their stance unchanged for the sake of Cricket. I think these 3 are the BIG 3 who stand against any damage to that precious sport called Cricket and its spirit.

  • POSTED BY Zainnajam on | February 5, 2014, 14:13 GMT

    All The cricket loving Nations are standing up, That is to say Sri lanka, pakistan and south africa, if u love cricket, then prove it.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 11:24 GMT

    I mean how can a team like India can be called Big 3 , when their win loss ratio suggests that, they are a lower tier team with absolute avg. bunch of players .It is such a shame that a board of such an incomptent team will control the ckt. in future and ,they will make the whole world ckt as avag. as they are themselves . so i mean this is end of a great game i,e cricket .

  • POSTED BY PrasPunter on | February 5, 2014, 9:34 GMT

    @sajid7137, as far as merit on the field is concerned, Aus, SA, WI (of the past) and to some extent Pak are the ones that really dominated cricket. Unfortunately , the also-rans are running the show and claim to be bigger than the world, nowadays.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 8:45 GMT

    This proposal is a disgrace to cricket. The aim to should be to increase the number of playing countries. Get more associates, promote more associates, like China, USA, and Arab Countries, not the opposite, money will take care of itself. India is playing like one of the bottom 3 at the moment, but even if they were playing well there is no space in any sports for a proposal like Big 3. All playing countries should have equal vote and playing opportunities on the basis of merit. I don't care if India gets more share of the money if they contribute more. But don't destroy world cricket by giving all powers to so called Big Three. BIG Three keeps changing, like India's current embarrassing downfall, their inability to win a single ODI against minnows NewZealand and their miserable win/loss ratio has shown, the timing is so bad for India, they want to be in Big 3 but they cant beat NZ, cricket doesn't belong to the richest, it belongs equally to everyone.

  • POSTED BY sajid7137 on | February 5, 2014, 7:10 GMT

    Historical ranking of teams in Test and ODIS: Tests Australia: 1.77 Win/Loss Ratio England: 1.23 W/L Ratio Pakistan: 1.10 W/L Ratio

    ODIS Australia: 64% wins South Africa: 63% Pakistan: 55%

    Where are 2 of the Big 3?

    I am sending this comment for third time, so please publish it now.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 6:35 GMT

    If 'Logart-episode' hadn't happened, South Africa also would have been in the "inner circle", pushing everyone else to the out-field or even beyond the boundary. Instead of creating a "Cricket's Bermuda Triangle", it would have been a "Quadrangle", that's all.

    Being in the outer circle, CSA has to play this 'posturing' game, before they take a gingerly step into the inner circle, thinking of all the money they can get through co-ownership of Champions league, and from the relocated IPL. Just wait and watch.

    CSA will do the back door entry, but Pak will not, since it doesn't make any significant difference to them, one way or the other. That will be the case, till they can get other teams to tour Pakistan.

    But, if a sufficiently juicy carrot is dangled in front of them (NS is a Machiavellian expert in that), anything can happen. For political reasons, Pak Cricket may still refuse to bite. In that case, the Pak Govt may foot the bill for sustaining Pak Cricket. Let us be realistic.

  • POSTED BY Arijit_in_TO on | February 5, 2014, 5:22 GMT

    When is this going to be over?

  • POSTED BY Sirio on | February 4, 2014, 23:58 GMT

    If PCB or SL cric can stay steadfast then CSA might consider supporting for the opposition. Problem is that PCB or SL might decide to double cross and then CSA will not have any chance but to support big three, in which case they should be allowed to play it hard to get the maximum benefit. CSA is not the board to be a lone ranger in their opposition.

    It is also possible that CSA may strike a better deal (like a permanent seat etc) and leave PCB and SLC wondering.

    Even if at this time all three opposition stick together, there is no way it can be guaranteed for future. One will give in and the proposal will reemerge.

    The other way out for big three would be to expand the ICC by including Afghanistan, Ireland, Kenya etc, and then push for the resolution.

    Its mind blogging but I like the gaming behind it. Its mind games that makes cricket very interesting both on-field and off-field.

    Happy following!

  • POSTED BY on | February 4, 2014, 21:57 GMT

    In a few years time CSK, MI and KKR will be the big 3 Lamo

  • POSTED BY a.syed81 on | February 4, 2014, 21:38 GMT

    Bravo CSA, PCB and SLC for taking stand on the matter! You three should stick together.

  • POSTED BY KingOwl on | February 4, 2014, 21:20 GMT

    What I don't like is the notion that the system is going to be anti-merit. I think it is the death of cricket. The nations that produce the best teams have to have a strong say in all ICC matters. South Africa is consistently at the top in test cricket. SL are consistently at the top in limited overs cricket. The idea that these teams will be marginalized in the new system is beyond belief!

  • POSTED BY pmaya on | February 4, 2014, 20:18 GMT

    Shameful that past cricketers, and even those that have only just retired have decided to stay silent on this. This only highlights the power of the BCCI and people simply wanting to appease their masters as well as just look after their own interests. It was always going to be a challenge for cricket to become a worldwide attraction, but this proposal will kill that idea. Where would India be if the English, the Aussies and the Windies decided to banish them to a third tier before they had money rolling in? I will be making sure no money from me ever go to any of the three boards above. I can't influence others, but at the least I will be self assured that I didn't contribute a single dime to their coffers.

  • POSTED BY fair_paly_1 on | February 4, 2014, 19:51 GMT

    Its much better if the objections are sent by the remaining three boards together to show unity.

  • POSTED BY Rubic on | February 4, 2014, 19:47 GMT

    With "up-coming" BIG 3 WORLD..CSA & WI will hardly get a chance to play with them and GUARANTEED No test either for PCB & SL… How about playing a yearly 4 nations "CRICKET LOVER CHAMPIONSHIP" e.g; March 2014 - SL host the first CLC, where SA/WI/PK & SL play only One test with each other… Pick one city per game per year (that will be the ONLY time a cricket match been played in a year). Use Mktg tools, broadcast live streaming (WI & CSA can help to develop a good business) to promote and SAVE cricket. Round 2 - (after 03 months) Repeat the same in SA, in WI and in PK..Yes..in Pakistan..safety and security..No problem..it's much cheaper to PURCHASE than running the show in empty UAE stadiums… Release the seeding once you complete all 4 rounds..and this will be the REAL seeding as every team will get equal filed to play and having only one game per year would be a good to boost the INTERSET and money for each individual city and the boards…

  • POSTED BY sajid7137 on | February 4, 2014, 19:42 GMT

    Windies, NZ and BCB are now going to decide fate of cricket. They cant even manage their own things.

  • POSTED BY sajid7137 on | February 4, 2014, 19:40 GMT

    shame on BCB, NZL and Windies for their characterless stance on big 3 issue.

  • POSTED BY sajid7137 on | February 4, 2014, 19:29 GMT

    In addition my earlier comments, I have noticed that Australia is getting 117 Million and Pakistan, SLC, CSA etc are going to get 92 Million so I wonder why Australians are with Indians on this. Also why so called greats of cricket are silent on this issue, do not they have responsibility to guide world. Where are Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Ian Chappel? Why they cant speak up. Dont they enough courage and decency to oppose it? I know some Britsh greats are against it, Plz publish my both comments.

  • POSTED BY Extra...Cover on | February 4, 2014, 18:47 GMT

    Well done CSA for holding true - but it's still tough to see how either Isaac or Lorgat can survive this. Sacrifices and compromises will be sought in the interests of the game, and neither is in a great place relative to the power centers here, no matter what or how noble their original intentions.

  • POSTED BY mbilalhussain on | February 4, 2014, 18:39 GMT

    Its a shame that NZ, BCB and WI have gone in favour of Greedy 3. They should appose the move and support CSA, PCB and SL.

  • POSTED BY pipsonian on | February 4, 2014, 18:10 GMT

    All other nations can thank PCB, CSA and SLC if they are able to successfully block the revamp paper.

  • POSTED BY Nutcutlet on | February 4, 2014, 18:05 GMT

    Of all the boards outside the self-appointed 'Big Three', it must be CSA that feels most aggrieved, most snubbed. Anyone who's followed the labryrinthine dealings that have been going on between the BCCI (and that, for this purpose, means Mr N Srinivasan) and CSA (headed up by Haroon Lorgat) could see that SA's exclusion would have its toxic roots in the dealings between these two. The thought occurs (tell me I'm wrong, someone!) that the big boy's mates (CA & ECB) must have 'ganged up' (and the unsupervised playground analogy seems to be quite a useful way of looking at all of this) on CSA having it been made worth their while. Surely, someone said during those negotiations: 'But what about CSA?'... The arm was round the shoulder; the deal was done; the ECB & CA were satisfied that it was, indeed, worth their while. The rest is so obvious that it does not need spelling out. Pls publish.

  • POSTED BY mzm149 on | February 4, 2014, 18:01 GMT

    Well done CSA, PCB and SLC!!! Even if the proposal gets accepted, they won't have regrets that they were part of destruction of cricket.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY mzm149 on | February 4, 2014, 18:01 GMT

    Well done CSA, PCB and SLC!!! Even if the proposal gets accepted, they won't have regrets that they were part of destruction of cricket.

  • POSTED BY Nutcutlet on | February 4, 2014, 18:05 GMT

    Of all the boards outside the self-appointed 'Big Three', it must be CSA that feels most aggrieved, most snubbed. Anyone who's followed the labryrinthine dealings that have been going on between the BCCI (and that, for this purpose, means Mr N Srinivasan) and CSA (headed up by Haroon Lorgat) could see that SA's exclusion would have its toxic roots in the dealings between these two. The thought occurs (tell me I'm wrong, someone!) that the big boy's mates (CA & ECB) must have 'ganged up' (and the unsupervised playground analogy seems to be quite a useful way of looking at all of this) on CSA having it been made worth their while. Surely, someone said during those negotiations: 'But what about CSA?'... The arm was round the shoulder; the deal was done; the ECB & CA were satisfied that it was, indeed, worth their while. The rest is so obvious that it does not need spelling out. Pls publish.

  • POSTED BY pipsonian on | February 4, 2014, 18:10 GMT

    All other nations can thank PCB, CSA and SLC if they are able to successfully block the revamp paper.

  • POSTED BY mbilalhussain on | February 4, 2014, 18:39 GMT

    Its a shame that NZ, BCB and WI have gone in favour of Greedy 3. They should appose the move and support CSA, PCB and SL.

  • POSTED BY Extra...Cover on | February 4, 2014, 18:47 GMT

    Well done CSA for holding true - but it's still tough to see how either Isaac or Lorgat can survive this. Sacrifices and compromises will be sought in the interests of the game, and neither is in a great place relative to the power centers here, no matter what or how noble their original intentions.

  • POSTED BY sajid7137 on | February 4, 2014, 19:29 GMT

    In addition my earlier comments, I have noticed that Australia is getting 117 Million and Pakistan, SLC, CSA etc are going to get 92 Million so I wonder why Australians are with Indians on this. Also why so called greats of cricket are silent on this issue, do not they have responsibility to guide world. Where are Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Ian Chappel? Why they cant speak up. Dont they enough courage and decency to oppose it? I know some Britsh greats are against it, Plz publish my both comments.

  • POSTED BY sajid7137 on | February 4, 2014, 19:40 GMT

    shame on BCB, NZL and Windies for their characterless stance on big 3 issue.

  • POSTED BY sajid7137 on | February 4, 2014, 19:42 GMT

    Windies, NZ and BCB are now going to decide fate of cricket. They cant even manage their own things.

  • POSTED BY Rubic on | February 4, 2014, 19:47 GMT

    With "up-coming" BIG 3 WORLD..CSA & WI will hardly get a chance to play with them and GUARANTEED No test either for PCB & SL… How about playing a yearly 4 nations "CRICKET LOVER CHAMPIONSHIP" e.g; March 2014 - SL host the first CLC, where SA/WI/PK & SL play only One test with each other… Pick one city per game per year (that will be the ONLY time a cricket match been played in a year). Use Mktg tools, broadcast live streaming (WI & CSA can help to develop a good business) to promote and SAVE cricket. Round 2 - (after 03 months) Repeat the same in SA, in WI and in PK..Yes..in Pakistan..safety and security..No problem..it's much cheaper to PURCHASE than running the show in empty UAE stadiums… Release the seeding once you complete all 4 rounds..and this will be the REAL seeding as every team will get equal filed to play and having only one game per year would be a good to boost the INTERSET and money for each individual city and the boards…

  • POSTED BY fair_paly_1 on | February 4, 2014, 19:51 GMT

    Its much better if the objections are sent by the remaining three boards together to show unity.