ICC revamp February 5, 2014

'A strong India is good for world cricket' - Srinivasan

ESPNcricinfo staff
  shares 129

N Srinivasan, the BCCI president, has strongly defended India's claim for a higher percentage of the ICC's global revenues and has asserted that India would have never signed the Members Participating Agreement (MPA) in its existing form. He also rejected the suggestion that the restructure plan for the ICC amounted to a takeover of the global game by its three most powerful constituents.

Speaking to ESPNcricinfo days before the ICC board reassembles in Singapore to decide on proposals which have undergone minor changes since being tabled at the ICC board meeting in Dubai on January 29, Srinivasan said the proposed restructure is aimed at providing financial stability to all cricket-playing nations and making the ICC a more inclusive organisation.

"The BCCI is quite happy to be involved with the leadership of cricket," he said. "We will embrace this ICC in the new structure, which will be good for cricket as a whole."

The BCCI will emerge the biggest beneficiary under the proposed revenue distribution plan, its earning increasing in the range between US$ 63 million and US$ 766 million. Srinivasan said that none of the other boards had objections to India taking a higher share of the revenue because there was universal recognition of India's contribution to cricket's global revenues.

"A strong India with a vibrant commercial structure is good for world cricket," he said.

When asked if the BCCI, as has been widely reported, had made the signing of the MPA conditional to the restructure, Srinivasan said the BCCI had a few genuine issues with the MPA as it stood.

"I don't know how it got signed. I would not have signed the last MPA. There are a lot of disadvantages. We had made it clear that we could not sign the MPA in the current form." When asked, more than once, to explain what the "disadvantages" were, he refused to provide further details but said the issues were "substantial".

"The other members in the committee realised that India's concerns were legitimate and therefore it led to a discussion, out of which all these proposals came".

When asked about the absence of a consultative process while drafting such wide-ranging and sweeping changes, Srinivasan said the proposal that was presented to the ICC board members had always been a draft which was put up for discussion, not for approval.

"When we met in Dubai on January 9, I made the presentation and we said this is what we are suggesting. If there are improvements or suggestions or some other model, please feel free to put them forward. Somebody has to prepare a draft for discussion. So three out of ten sat together and prepared a draft, others can go through it and suggest changes. In fact a lot of changes have already taken place. There has been lot of consultation and a lot of points have been dropped also and some changes have been made."

"There is no veto. There will be two other members at all times and anyone can become the chairman after the term of the first chairman gets over. And more importantly, this will be another committee of the ICC. It will report to the ICC board on which all the members sit. And the ICC board will be remain supreme, with the all the decision-making authority."
N Srinivasan on the proposed ExCo

Would the abolition of the FTP in its current form not leave a lot of members at the mercy of the bigger boards? Srinivasan said the new system of bilateral agreements will be far stronger. "The current system is merely an indicative structure without any guarantees. It is not a legal document, it was never binding.

"The FTP bilateral agreement will be stronger. And we have already sat down during the Dubai meeting and discussed it with a number of countries, and the proposed FTP for going forward will work on the right cycle."

On the other contentious issue of the permanent membership in the proposed executive committee for India, England and Australia, Srinivasan strongly denied that it amounted the return of the veto-era, which the BCCI fought to overturn. "There is no veto," he said, "There will be two other members at all times and anyone can become the chairman after the term of the first chairman gets over.

"And more importantly, this will be another committee of the ICC. It will report to the ICC board on which all the members sit. And the ICC board will be remain supreme, with the all the decision-making authority."

Srinivasan also maintained the ICC's stance that Associate members stand to gain, financially and on the field, from the proposals. "I'll explain it to you. In the last rights cycle, a total of US$ 314 million was allocated to the Associates. But actually the Associates, in terms of money, got US$ 125 million directly from the ICC. And then the balance went by way of subscriptions collected from them, ICC administration costs, event costs, tournament costs, and costs of running some programmes - umpires' programmes or high performance programmes etc. So basically it is 125 plus cost.

"Now, in this proposal … they are likely to get 200 plus costs. The top performing Associates will get almost a 100 million, which is what was [previously] given to all of them.

"What has been their concern at all times? They say we are playing only amongst each other, we never get to play you. So there is an opportunity now, in time. You can't look at things overnight, you take a 10-year cycle, 20 years. A top Associate can become a top Test nation, that possibility is there."

Read the full interview here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY on | February 7, 2014, 4:19 GMT

    Well well India could be making more money in cricket but what about the transparency.IPL was not clean and then do you trust giving India more powers. I do not agree. ICC must also wake up. To weak and bad decisions when we needed them.

  • POSTED BY NP_NY on | February 7, 2014, 3:44 GMT

    @wapuser: If you leave out the Ashes, India produces the largest test crowds. India does generate 80% of cricket revenue which keeps test cricket afloat around the world. If there is no money in the sport, there is no test cricket. That is the brutal truth and you know it. And since you chose to get personal by calling Indian spectators not knowledgible, there is a lesson in finance 101 for dummies like you. The fact is IPL matches take 3 hours to watch whereas people just don't have to time to go to the stadiums to watch a 5-day match. It's not about knowledge, it's about time. So stop hating on the Indian spectators/fans.

  • POSTED BY on | February 7, 2014, 2:12 GMT

    India is already the Don. No DRS for Indian Matches where rest of the world using it & want it. ICC cannot do anything about it.. How strong you want India to be ?

  • POSTED BY Batmanindallas on | February 7, 2014, 0:28 GMT

    Strong India is definitely good so either we get good coaches, have young bowlers play abroad, make good pitches here-definitely those all are good. Is this what you are talking about?

  • POSTED BY Ghost-117-16 on | February 6, 2014, 23:51 GMT

    To all the BCCI supporters citing the 'population of India' argument, I say this: large populations in sports are already an advantage, not a burden. India has a much bigger pool of players from which to have their pick, where the smaller nations don't have such luxuries. So that argument is completely invalid.

  • POSTED BY Extra...Cover on | February 6, 2014, 18:35 GMT

    No one thinks that a strong India is good for world cricket than the BCCI. Frankly I believe that the commercial value of the Indian cricket team lies in the quality of their opposition from time to time. There seems to be some merit in a moderate adjustment to compensate larger unions for their larger cricket audiences, but not at the cost of governance, and only with a safety/development net for the emerging unions. It seems extraordinary that the BCCI, ECB and Cricket Australia have deafened themselves to the worldwide criticism of their plan, bound together by a common greed and cynically dismissive of the other cricketing nations.

  • POSTED BY wapuser on | February 6, 2014, 13:30 GMT

    India generating 80% revenue is overrated.....Indian spectators don't have the true cricketing knowledge..just have a look on the test cricket crowds in Indian cricket grounds..they only come for IPL....so IPL is world cricket?....India generates the highest revenue..no, Srinivasan generates the highest revenue...... look at the condition of Indian cricket grounds.. way ancient....highest revenue lmao...

  • POSTED BY fr600 on | February 6, 2014, 13:24 GMT

    A strong India has nothing to do with good world cricket, good for only commercializing the sport better. It's not wrong commercializing it, it's just wrong how one country is likely to have so much power over others. The so called "big 3" should play test and matches against each other in division 1 and leave the rest in division 2, and make the board and management for division 2 separate.

  • POSTED BY NP_NY on | February 6, 2014, 13:19 GMT

    Strong India? We just lost 4-0 to New Zealand, haven't won a game in over 3 months, and getting beat in the first test too. Mr.Srinivasan, Indian cricket is only as strong as the team's performances and the fans' interest in the game. So focus on improving the game in the country at least as much as focusing on getting richer.

  • POSTED BY AvidCricFan on | February 6, 2014, 12:38 GMT

    We want strong Indian team performances overseas first. BCCI getting strong is immaterial if the team remains weak. Strength of BCCI should be measured on how strong the Indian team performances are in all conditions not on financial and power might.

  • POSTED BY on | February 7, 2014, 4:19 GMT

    Well well India could be making more money in cricket but what about the transparency.IPL was not clean and then do you trust giving India more powers. I do not agree. ICC must also wake up. To weak and bad decisions when we needed them.

  • POSTED BY NP_NY on | February 7, 2014, 3:44 GMT

    @wapuser: If you leave out the Ashes, India produces the largest test crowds. India does generate 80% of cricket revenue which keeps test cricket afloat around the world. If there is no money in the sport, there is no test cricket. That is the brutal truth and you know it. And since you chose to get personal by calling Indian spectators not knowledgible, there is a lesson in finance 101 for dummies like you. The fact is IPL matches take 3 hours to watch whereas people just don't have to time to go to the stadiums to watch a 5-day match. It's not about knowledge, it's about time. So stop hating on the Indian spectators/fans.

  • POSTED BY on | February 7, 2014, 2:12 GMT

    India is already the Don. No DRS for Indian Matches where rest of the world using it & want it. ICC cannot do anything about it.. How strong you want India to be ?

  • POSTED BY Batmanindallas on | February 7, 2014, 0:28 GMT

    Strong India is definitely good so either we get good coaches, have young bowlers play abroad, make good pitches here-definitely those all are good. Is this what you are talking about?

  • POSTED BY Ghost-117-16 on | February 6, 2014, 23:51 GMT

    To all the BCCI supporters citing the 'population of India' argument, I say this: large populations in sports are already an advantage, not a burden. India has a much bigger pool of players from which to have their pick, where the smaller nations don't have such luxuries. So that argument is completely invalid.

  • POSTED BY Extra...Cover on | February 6, 2014, 18:35 GMT

    No one thinks that a strong India is good for world cricket than the BCCI. Frankly I believe that the commercial value of the Indian cricket team lies in the quality of their opposition from time to time. There seems to be some merit in a moderate adjustment to compensate larger unions for their larger cricket audiences, but not at the cost of governance, and only with a safety/development net for the emerging unions. It seems extraordinary that the BCCI, ECB and Cricket Australia have deafened themselves to the worldwide criticism of their plan, bound together by a common greed and cynically dismissive of the other cricketing nations.

  • POSTED BY wapuser on | February 6, 2014, 13:30 GMT

    India generating 80% revenue is overrated.....Indian spectators don't have the true cricketing knowledge..just have a look on the test cricket crowds in Indian cricket grounds..they only come for IPL....so IPL is world cricket?....India generates the highest revenue..no, Srinivasan generates the highest revenue...... look at the condition of Indian cricket grounds.. way ancient....highest revenue lmao...

  • POSTED BY fr600 on | February 6, 2014, 13:24 GMT

    A strong India has nothing to do with good world cricket, good for only commercializing the sport better. It's not wrong commercializing it, it's just wrong how one country is likely to have so much power over others. The so called "big 3" should play test and matches against each other in division 1 and leave the rest in division 2, and make the board and management for division 2 separate.

  • POSTED BY NP_NY on | February 6, 2014, 13:19 GMT

    Strong India? We just lost 4-0 to New Zealand, haven't won a game in over 3 months, and getting beat in the first test too. Mr.Srinivasan, Indian cricket is only as strong as the team's performances and the fans' interest in the game. So focus on improving the game in the country at least as much as focusing on getting richer.

  • POSTED BY AvidCricFan on | February 6, 2014, 12:38 GMT

    We want strong Indian team performances overseas first. BCCI getting strong is immaterial if the team remains weak. Strength of BCCI should be measured on how strong the Indian team performances are in all conditions not on financial and power might.

  • POSTED BY fair_paly_1 on | February 6, 2014, 12:29 GMT

    A strong India. Why not.

    But, if the board's concentration is to make BCCI financially strong out of ICC then the priorities are all wrong.

    If you keep milking money out of good reputation of a couple of star batsmen then it's not going to last forever unless something is done to unearth pace bowling talent as well.

  • POSTED BY kentjones on | February 6, 2014, 12:12 GMT

    TO THE SOUTH AFRICANS: Please accept my apologies for inadvertently leaving your name out in my last post. It was an unfortunate error on my part, please forgive me. Of course a strong South Africa is excellent for the game. As indeed SA is now the strongest on the planet as evidenced by their number one status and strong showing. The cricketing magic that SA conjures on the filed of play is significant for the beautiful game.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | February 6, 2014, 12:05 GMT

    The 7 cricket boards that supporting new ICC revamp are only considering short term money for their personal agendas. but if we ask cricket waching public of those 7 respective countries to vote on this proposals, they will surely vote against it because fans love cricket not the money!

    so we should not bash general public on those countries. Instead people should take on cricket boards...

  • POSTED BY kentjones on | February 6, 2014, 11:36 GMT

    No true cricket follower will disagree with the statement that a strong India is good for the game. Likewise all the major cricketing nations the same can be applied: Strong Australia, Strong England, Strong Pakistan, Strong Sri Lanka. Strong West Indies, Strong New Zealand, Strong Bangladesh and a Strong Zimbabwe. Each of these nations bring a wonderful unique indigenous essence of their own to the game that adds to the universal enjoyment, appreciation, depth and spectacle of the game itself: when they met each other on the field of play. This can only be maintained fairly if there is democracy and consensus among the playing nations,(in the board-room), in a facilitating environment that encourages and fosters such fairness. Any one nation's voice that overpowers and dominates above all others will eventually lead to a situation that is undemocratic and inequitable to some and could prove unhealthy and damaging to the universal game. Strong India yes, overpowering India NO!

  • POSTED BY android_user on | February 6, 2014, 10:16 GMT

    strong india ??? i think they r talking about money...and tamasha cricket like ipl..

  • POSTED BY android_user on | February 6, 2014, 10:11 GMT

    India was always the second side I supported after SA but the last few years have changed that considerably. It started when great gentlemens like Dravid, Laxman, Kumble and Tendulkar moved on and replaced by arrogant "new india" types like Kohli, Sharma, Dhawan and Jadeja. The most disgusting thing I ever saw was some mocking Watson when he came into bat in the recent ODI series against Oz. I supported the Aussies for the first time in my life from there on that your. Secondly the bullying of their ridiculous might hungry cricket board starting with their utter disrespect to SA in the recent tour and now this nonsense. The reason the receive such great revenues is due to the intetest people have in seeing them play against great teams like SA without teams like this the interest would be zero therefor the teams they play against are just as important to their revenue then themselves. Wake up India, your team is useless but too concerned about other nonsense

  • POSTED BY sundersingh on | February 6, 2014, 9:31 GMT

    Team India losing not matches but the die hard fans of this game....

  • POSTED BY android_user on | February 6, 2014, 7:58 GMT

    R u kddn #srinivansan ist look at ua teams performance overseas......... I thnk y bcci made this draft proposal is bcoz india wiil play only in india then bcoz they are good at home as usual as lyk Bangladesh they too lyk play at home as they whitewashed nz two tyms #lol nd icc events will be played in india bcoz india are good at home #lol....... Look at Indian spinners abroad ashwin took 1 wicket in whole series #lol even part tym bowler like kane Williamson took 3 wickets in last odi against so called strong batting line up so, do jadeja wicket less as usual....... I thnk its india's downfall #God save India

  • POSTED BY Mehboobchowdhury on | February 6, 2014, 7:32 GMT

    Coming to the Tri-Nation theory and B'desh & Zim Test Status. I fail to understand why ICC is trying two tier. Cricket stands no where in terms of popularity when compared with Football, Basketball or even field Hockey. More nations now play Field Hockey than Cricket. More and more countries should be playing cricket, ICC should ensure more growth and popularity of the game cricket itself. When it comes to money, we are used to big nations taking more, it is nothing new. So I,A,E can take all the money they want in the name of good for cricket, I have no problem if India, Australia and England form a group & play super three series, we wll go & pay to watch the game & enjoy it. But, please not at the cost of the game of cricket in global context. When India is such a big power, they need to be more sensitive. When 16 nations play tests, possibility of I,A,E earning more is much higher. Do not look for immediate benefit, today it may be good for I,A.E in 10 years they may be left alone.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | February 6, 2014, 7:25 GMT

    very good srinivasan

  • POSTED BY mohanram82 on | February 6, 2014, 6:54 GMT

    @ BCCI... improve the quality of indian cricket team over the overseas tours first.. then we think about these all...!!!

  • POSTED BY Kingman75 on | February 6, 2014, 6:53 GMT

    If you look at their test record, India are the most overrated side in the history of test cricket. So not sure what that guy is on about regarding a strong India. India have never been strong in the past or currently. Winning a few test series at home each year is something anyone can do.

  • POSTED BY mohanram82 on | February 6, 2014, 6:51 GMT

    @yoohoo... yes u may be correct, but if you pull the revenues from the other countries then they wont even try to sell their tickets. so the spectators will be very very less then compare to now.. and its not atall good for cricket at anytime..

  • POSTED BY Nutcutlet on | February 6, 2014, 6:36 GMT

    @Posted by Manujer on (February 6, 2014, 3:51 GMT)

    "Yes India is the best team. They will prove it, without any shadow of doubt, by the end of the New Zealand series (NZ team is an ordinary side). Kudos !" I just hope you know about hubris in addition to dishing out kudos! I have a funny feeling you soon will!

  • POSTED BY Prabhash1985 on | February 6, 2014, 6:20 GMT

    This may be the most expensive lesson cricketing nations who agree and doesn't agree will learn. Once this deal is done, your future will change dramatically. They just need acceptance from one, and one taken, we all will suffer. Money is not cricket. This change will not be revertable, and it will be the disaster for all cricket. Do not think BCCI is India or Indians. You have to consider THIS BCCI as Sirinivasan and co, who are accused even by Police but yet to prove. Take it that way. You eat the bait, and you will be gone. Your future people will be able to do nothing, but frowning. Don't be silly. I appreciate the stance of SLC so far, they requested for time, and they stood still there. But, I don't know what will happen. Think wisely.

  • POSTED BY flyingwarner on | February 6, 2014, 5:59 GMT

    'A strong India is good for world cricket' - could not disagree more.

  • POSTED BY Iceman29 on | February 6, 2014, 5:08 GMT

    @ yorkslanka: you are right somewhat in your comments...We Indians dont care about the money or how rich our cricket board is, we only have die hard passion towards cricket and how well our team performs only matter to us. But now it seems like cricket has become like a business after BCCI started to intervene much in ICC's business. We expect BCCI to wisely spend money to help other cricket boards and especially to improve our country's infrastructure and nurturing young talents because that is what we need right now since we are getting hammered everywhere around the world...but it seems like that its happening just the opposite....

  • POSTED BY Manujer on | February 6, 2014, 3:51 GMT

    Yes India is the best team. They will prove it, without any shadow of doubt, by the end of the New Zealand series (NZ team is an ordinary side). Kudos !

  • POSTED BY android_user on | February 6, 2014, 2:59 GMT

    Now two-tier system and seeking a complete control over the setup will is something similar to the UN security council. How can two or three countries decide the fate of a game which is being played in some 20 odd countries (international level) and is expanding. Also can somebody tell me on what basis these big threes should have their own group of ranking and not performance. If money and power are the criterias then we should put some gulf states or China or Japan as the top ranked team because they are not even playing cricket after the proposed revamping in action, thats exactly what big threes would be doing.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | February 6, 2014, 2:47 GMT

    The revenue may not be a big deal. In the broader picture one must be aware that India has over 1billion fans and hence more revenue is generated from different angles. However I am still in doubt if that contributes about 80% of the total. As people have already pointed out, the ICC gets funds from the bilateral series plus the tournaments which may or may not have India and media rights in other countries as well. So it seems quite silly and baseless to me when India claims that they share more than 4/5th of all the money. Look how much money had (just) the Ashes been generating in all these years.

  • POSTED BY dunger.bob on | February 6, 2014, 0:48 GMT

    I don't want my country (Aust) to be untouchable as far as relegation goes. Not ever. I want them in there fighting tooth and nail to defend their top tier status. They should be playing under the same pressure as any other team and if they're not good enough they should drop down the same as everyone else. I can't see how being immune from the chop is going to breed anything other than complacency and its close cousin, mediocrity.

    I agree that sport is a business, but only up to a point. If we start messing around with things like relegation for some but not others I think it ceases to be a sport and becomes something more akin to those American wrestling fiascos. Total pantomime where the results are predetermined and purely entertainment with no real sporting merit. .. it's too horrible to think about. PS I don't care what England or India do, that's entirely up to them, but no way should we go down that track.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 23:55 GMT

    India is already strong.. may be writer should use words like Dominant India or Over Powered India good for cricket... This is world cricket not IPL or Big Bash, so do not make it all about money. Every country should be equal just as Soccer, which is the Biggest Sport! India want to be single king (BIG1); but not possible as Kangrooz and Brits will never allow it. So india brought them along for now! Wake up cricket world how can this proposal be even debatable. All countries should have voted against this but many fell for money & deals except for 3. Great3 vs BIG3 & looserz.

  • POSTED BY rezauk on | February 5, 2014, 23:31 GMT

    I don't believe many people have any objection to the BCCI retaining a lot more money. There is no need for 3 cricket councils to control World Cricket based on what skill set ? India are unable to understand the advantages of DRS and therefore we already have an issue between " the big 3". Why aren't the likes of India not playing other Test teams home/away.Obviously Pakistan is considered a security issue. These 2 could play in Australia,England etc and retain some of the income. I suggest we get on with a test championship with each Test to comprise 3 Tests. If home sides wish to doctor the pitch then fair enough as long as it's safe to play on. The only issue we would then have to worry about would be the standard of umpiring. this too could be improved by minor amendments to DRS. There's nothing wrong with umpires gettng it wrong since we know it's a tough job at the best of times. In conclusion Cricket needs to expand and that won't happen if you can't be relegated or promoted.

  • POSTED BY tempus on | February 5, 2014, 22:02 GMT

    All you folks talking about India playing against one team or the other, please note that the ICC DO NOT GET ANY FUNDS from one country playing against another in test cricket. They ONLY GET FUNDS FROM ICC TOURNAMENTS. Those are the funds the BCCI want a greater percentage of and the BCCI or the Indian team have no greater an investment than another board or team in ICC tournaments.

  • POSTED BY yoohoo on | February 5, 2014, 20:18 GMT

    @Craig Chan - Very Simple. See for example how much revenue is generated when SA tours Sri Lanka, and how much is generated when India tours Sri Lanka.

    There is a reason SL wants to play india all the time!!

    The fact is 80% of the Revenue comes in due to india, and India is paid about 10% of it.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 20:11 GMT

    How exactly is it determined that India is bringing all this money.How much is it the sponsors and channel money.Test cricket is played b/w two countries,World cup and other tournaments involve several countries even IPL has individual cricketers from several countries.Have two indian teams play a game and see how much money is generated.Regardless even if you have accurate formulas to determine how much revenue a country is generating,you can distribute the money accordingly,there is no reason that country should control the whole game of cricket.

  • POSTED BY m_ilind on | February 5, 2014, 20:09 GMT

    BCCI has every right to ask for unequal share of the revenue that it generates from the game to the ICC, but creation of a two tier system is not a good idea. It may as well be a creation of a separate league for the less stronger nations, as the chances of the top playing cricketing nations playing against the lower ranked countries will be very low. This is similar to the Kerry Packer scenario of the 70's. Just to illustrate the point, India has never hosted Ban at home yet, although they strongly advocated their inclusion into the Test playing arena,

  • POSTED BY dreamliner on | February 5, 2014, 19:54 GMT

    A strong India is good for the Indian fan and should be what the BCCI should concentrate on. But they have made this proposal a scapegoat for the recent away performance of their national team.

    BCCI should make their own cricket strong before they make bold assertions for global cricket. Surely that is the primary directive for any board and primary desire for any cricket consumer.

    BCCI- I don't care about revenue, but if your leadership can't provide India with a decent bowler from billions with the millions you currently receive then what makes you think your leadership can help cricket globally. Welcome to keep your 'money talks' dribble off the mitts of cricket.

    Btw, ECB doing the same using KP as a scapegoat for their thrashing. This is the Big 3 board mentality. The patriotism of Indians and English fans is being manipulated by their boards to hide their weaknesses.

    Wake up.

    Pathetic from BCCI, ECB, CA and CNZ.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 19:03 GMT

    Handouts are done with folks, it is time to produce. Pak must first find where to play instead of these rhetoric against BCCI.

  • POSTED BY T_Pak on | February 5, 2014, 18:59 GMT

    Finally I am reading some good positive comments (based on some good ground) whether you are in favour or not. Cricket is a game which bring people together and for me presonally whatever the outcome is it should be good for cricket and cricket loving people.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 18:51 GMT

    I am not clear about the "fact" that India brings in more revenue. How exactly is that determined? If we go by that argument, why doesn't extend to the other team India is playing against? How much of the revenue increase is due to the other team? Here is a fair way to measure the impact of the other team: Two teams from India should play each other and see how much is the revenue generated. Then India should play Bangladesh and see how much the is the revenue generated. Same against other top teams. Now the any extra revenue generated compared to India A vs India B is clearly due to the other team. The other team should keep all the extra revenue.

  • POSTED BY BillyCC on | February 5, 2014, 18:45 GMT

    Does this mean that world cricket has not been good for about 134 out of its 137 years? Because India haven't been strong, and they're still rubbish away from home.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 18:04 GMT

    This is business just like every other sports. One who invests more should get the revenue proportionately. All member countries want more without contributing proportionately. As far as revenue is concerned, it should be proportionate to the investment. However, the decision making can not be entrusted with only 3 countries, whoever they are. My suggestion is that (a )It should be the responsibility of all member countries or (b) for some valid reason, it should be restricted to 3 or 4 members, then it can followed, provided these 3 or 4 positions are on rotation basis among all member countries, say, every 3 or 4 years.

  • POSTED BY Pippy_the_dog on | February 5, 2014, 17:30 GMT

    I for one do not agree that the BCCI 'deserve' a greater share of revenue, or the ECB or CA for that matter. The ICC events were set up to promote the growth of cricket, not as a business venture. The BCCI has plenty of opportunity to earn vast riches from bilateral series, and their domestic game. The ICCs role should be to promote and spread the game across the globe. Concentrating financial resources into the hands of a few countries does nothing to achieve this goal.

  • POSTED BY yorkslanka on | February 5, 2014, 17:30 GMT

    @atish_man- thanks mate, I know lots of Indians are against this and I don't blame the indian people for this. As with our country, the cricket board is miles away from the average fan. Well said Viratkohlirocks.

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

    Let's use the right words then, the membership for big three in the proposed executive committee is basically a 'reservation' to uplift those who are already on top. It is one thing to demand higher share which surely has justification but to demand a permanent 'quota' in power wielding is 'bullying'

  • POSTED BY SaraJahanSeAchha on | February 5, 2014, 16:46 GMT

    It does not matter whether India is ranked 1st or Last be in Test or ODIs. This has got to do with who has more power and who has a bigger financial clout. It is obviously India. The ICC makes most revenue primarily when India is involved and Secondary being the Ashes. There is no question and why the big three demand more power. As long as Cricket is not a loser don't see big issue. Finally, every country goes through ups and down, Pakistan is reinventing now from where they were a few years ago and so is Australia. Indian team is very young baring Dhoni and it's going to take some time.

  • POSTED BY greenluv on | February 5, 2014, 16:32 GMT

    strong indian since when indian has become strong to take cricket control they cant ply away ...they need a big reality check on that. Yes give them money as they bring more into it. but cricket they are a boring side whenever they ply away.

  • POSTED BY TRAM on | February 5, 2014, 16:11 GMT

    @getsetgopk, >>> Since when did cricket become a company? The correct answer to your question is this: Cricket is the product, a service (a show business). It is created and distributed by ICC and its members boards. (who gave them such monopoly is a different question).

    Each board runs their shows and their profits are put in the central ICC pool. Every one now agrees BCCI can take the high share from the central pool. The dispute is only in the share of power.

    The difference (compared to a company) is, there are no share certificates here. If SriLanka board is worth 5 shares BCCI is 80 shares. Aus and Eng may be 10 shares each and so on. As with any business, higher share = higher money AND POWER (decision making). If people write against BCCI's actions with pure hate and jealousy there is no argument. As a customer, (regarding the quality of the product cricket), we can only wait and see (can't jump to conclusions).

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

    No.. absolutely not . Totally disappointed with the behavior of BCCI . I believe they are trying to destroy the real spirit of cricket. Every nation has a right be independent in icc and in world cricket. It doesn't matter what colour u are. bt Every nation should receive the benifits of it. If India thinks they re the best in the world, I just ask u to examin last few indian games. Everybody loves this beautiful game, Please don't ruin this

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

    Mr Srinivasan u show 10% interest in developing indian players we would have been world beaters

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 16:03 GMT

    first of all its just the main 10 teams that have a strong following...with cricket dying in zimbabve and west indies make that 8...pakistan cant play at home but are still surviving because there is passion among the people...that too will die off if this continues...newzealand has been competitive over the years but rugby is more favoured there...bangladesh is too weak a team...sri lanka is struggling to make ends meet...i think with the 5 teams already dying off in cricket...and blocking the way for other potential teams will leave cricket with 4 teams playing againt each other...which is as it sounds really boring...interest i am sure indians will stop following cricekt when they will see their team drubbed 5-0 every month in australia or england and those teams will do the same abroad...let cricket as it it...you have already killed the real game...let remain whatever is left of it...

  • POSTED BY Farooq3 on | February 5, 2014, 15:40 GMT

    Mr. Srinavasan has very diplomatically avoided giving a clear reason to the question about the contentious issue of the permanent membership in the proposed executive committee. Even if one country takes a stand against this proposal, it would be enough to gather a world wide support again this plan - this would eventually damage the reputation of BCCI

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 15:29 GMT

    i agree with the logic that whomever generates more revenue should have a bigger slice of the pie that's only fair. The cricket boards shouldn't allow this dictatorship which these boards are trying to impliment. Should this happen the icc will become a body trying to preverse the interest of the so-called big three, where programs will be alligned to unfairly establish their dominance in the field and further fatten their wallets. From this years onwards we can say goodbye to the dark horses-pak, ssri,nz of cricket and farewell to south-afr a true cricket nation, and welcome to the era of plastic/bubblegum cricket

  • POSTED BY IndiaGoats on | February 5, 2014, 15:29 GMT

    People are confusing a strong India with a strong Indian cricket team. We don't need the cricket team to be always the strongest. Rather, the state of the game in India is strong. Thousands of prospective cricketers are trying out cricket as a viable profession. Millions are watching cricket at the ground or on TV, drawing in big advertisers. Tens of Thousands of others are also earning a livelihood in many other fields because of cricket. No one can deny these facts.

  • POSTED BY Brahams on | February 5, 2014, 15:25 GMT

    When Srini says a "strong India" he is referring to the financial clout and leadership in cricket administration. It appears many have mistook it to mean a strong Indian cricket team.

    Historically, India has not been a strong team. They do well in patches and win a few trophies on the way - this keeps the India public on the edge. Heroes one day, and trash the next day. This is a general trait of the subcontinent teams.

    To be a killer team, India should be able to produce genuine match winning fast bowlers. Even the spinners these days are mediocre; at least Harbajan, even when he was bowling trash, had a competitive spirit.

    A lot of folks were upset at the antics of Sreesanth - at least he was able to swing the ball and get a few wickets. Apart from Zak, the Indian bowlers appear to be timid and ready to be rolled over at the slightest hint.

    And why can't India find one genuine leg spinner (and an off spinner)?

  • POSTED BY IndiaGoats on | February 5, 2014, 15:20 GMT

    @Shamil Mohamed - BCCI has clearly proven to be able administrators. It was BCCI under Jagmohan Dalmia that revolutionized the monetization of cricket - resulting in thousands of cricketers now able to see cricket as a viable profession, tens of thousands of others getting jobs in media, logistics, construction, training and what not. That too not just in India, but in many other countries. It was BCCI that introduced the highly successful domestic T20 leagues that is now being emulated by other countries.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 15:10 GMT

    Mr Srinivasan...this is not the BCCI, its the INTERNATIONAL Cricket Council... you need to be strong on merit NOT on a conditional clause avoiding relegation!!

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 15:07 GMT

    Pakistanis are bound to oppose India. We contribute 80% of the world's revenue. Without us, you won't be able to organised a proper ICC series. Sri Lanka is an emotional country. They believe in fighting and are a bit stubborn, but we are fine with it. We love them. South Africa has few issues and it'll get settled. If the demands are not met, BCCI should boycott ICC an play with countries in bilateral agreements. That will make small 3 realize their potential. I think it is fair, We don't get anything from FIFA, International Olympics, International hockey etc we need money for development of our sports. Contributing 80% and demanding 20% is a bargain. Without India, ICC will crumble financially.

  • POSTED BY TRAM on | February 5, 2014, 14:52 GMT

    @getsetgopk, >>> ince when did cricket become a company? Well it is now. You sure accept this is business right? Where there is money, this would be the natural modus-operandi. Whoever holds more money has more power (and it is fair).

  • POSTED BY Masculineffort on | February 5, 2014, 14:51 GMT

    Another meeting, another place, same result, an Indian Defeat, A BCCI victory. Ho Hum!

  • POSTED BY EashwarSai on | February 5, 2014, 14:49 GMT

    @getstgopk Well, the BCCI is a registered company and profits are taxed by the Indian Gov. Th more money the BCCI makes , the more money for India's treasury which can be used for the Indian people. Srini is completely right, India have been way too generous in the past and this has actually made the rest of the world greedy for India's money.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 14:33 GMT

    Mr. Srinivasan, you lost me at "A strong India is good for world cricket"

  • POSTED BY Atish_Man on | February 5, 2014, 14:30 GMT

    @yorkslanka. Good comment mate. Something different from regular india bashing. Not all indians are with this draft. Many are against it. Also we do not hate srilanka or pakistan teams. About i think it a done deal and will gwt though. Reality is bcci is too strong to be cornered. The only way i see is other boards should start promoting cricket in their countries. No one is expecting them to compete with bcci, but if they become independent then only they can stand against bcci. Their dependency have made bcci more stronger.

  • POSTED BY ilyas_US on | February 5, 2014, 14:30 GMT

    India produces more money because they play with other cricket playing Nations if doubt try to play with Zimbabwe, Kenya and then Pakistan and compare the revenue. Ind can't produce revenue on its own.

  • POSTED BY getsetgopk on | February 5, 2014, 14:27 GMT

    TRAM: Since when did cricket become a company?

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 14:21 GMT

    Simple biggest contributor gets the bigger chunk of pie....Whats wrong with that. BCCI, ECB and ACB give the cricket the much needed boost which other nations cannot even imagine. These guys know how to run cricket big which they were doing for decades. If other nations had similar level of interest why they are not able to contribute to ICC. How many of you over here go to stadium to watch PAK Vs SL test matches, where as the three biggies will be able to generate huge amount of money overall which willl take 3 to 5 series for the other boards to generate. I need to know how many matches are played with associate teams currently. If the associates tour the big three countries that will surely give the exposure that they were looking for. There is no use for ireland playing bangladesh and Zimbabwe which nobody is even trying to follow. How much of cricket has developed in the other nations with the current policy....i still find only the big 3 are getting bigger day by day.

  • POSTED BY TRAM on | February 5, 2014, 14:16 GMT

    In a public company, the board members and their power are decided directly by the percentage share of money. Money = decision making power. There is nothing wrong about it and it is fair. Cricket IS business. I dont understand why people dont understand / accept this simple worldwide proven concept. This did not happen 20 years back, because cricket did not mean this much money then. India must have done this many years back (by 2008 at least). NSrinivasan, the shrewd business man and administrator that he is is, is doing the right thing.

  • POSTED BY Blearbunty on | February 5, 2014, 14:16 GMT

    I dont understand that as a true Cricket lover how can you support this kind of proposal. Being a true fan of the game you need to stand out before your respective courts.. i Expect this kind of big demonstration from Indian Youth. Its not the money that derive game. Its a Cricket that catches money.

  • POSTED BY Equanimous on | February 5, 2014, 14:12 GMT

    One only needs to look at the DRS implementation issue to see if a strong India is good for the game or not. They will keep us backwards. I think a stronger newzealand , Zimbabwe , and Bangladesh are good for the game. I think stronger assassinate nations , and not just the top ones, are good for the game. With leadership comes responsibility not bullying.

  • POSTED BY salil247 on | February 5, 2014, 14:06 GMT

    @itsthewayyouplay- "I think you'll find that a strong India with a vibrant commercial structure is only good for those with noses in the trough." Who else will it be good for? The Common Man??

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 14:05 GMT

    strong india can't find a quality international fast bowler at least and they ruin the gentlemans' game with money ....don't let flat track bullies to do it

  • POSTED BY android_user on | February 5, 2014, 13:38 GMT

    first start winning abroad apart from sachin name one player that is idolised by cricket lovers nation of a billion and you cant even produce a fast bowler WI in 70s 80s ruled the cricket world australia won 3 WCs in a row PAK bowlers with pace and swing where followed by millions of cricket lovers you just keep playing in your IPL and leave cricket alone IPL is international players net session where they smack average indian players all around the ground

  • POSTED BY i_amVIVA on | February 5, 2014, 13:32 GMT

    BCCI's shameless demand for imperialism with the other two sycophants in this 21 century is simply irrational; they forgot their own experience of colonialism, and now tends to do that in Cricket this time, along with their old master; this is merely absurd. No wonder none of her neighbors has any support to this big brother bullying attitude, as they face in all other aspects around the boarders as well.

  • POSTED BY itsthewayuplay on | February 5, 2014, 13:21 GMT

    I think you'll find that a strong India with a vibrant commercial structure is only good for those with noses in the trough. How much of the increased earnings of between $63m to $766m will find its way to grass roots level and much of it will be accounted for down to the last cent or rupee? Exactly how is this structure good for world cricket? What will the BCCI be doing to improve facilities in the grounds and bringing the crowds back to the stadia for test matches? Usual story of the rich getting richer.

  • POSTED BY yorkslanka on | February 5, 2014, 13:03 GMT

    @ iceman- I am not mixing politics with cricket, that's what the big three are attempting to do. I agree that India has helped us out in the past but recently we have not been their "yes" men and that has not gone down well. As for Pakistan fans, I don't need to try and turn anyone off anyone, we in Asia know which teams support each other and which we can depend on.Pakistan and Sri Lanka have always been close in cricket because we refuse to take sides in regional debates. Also isn't a strong indian team more important than money to you guys?

  • POSTED BY A.Ak on | February 5, 2014, 12:49 GMT

    No one will deny India produces more revenue for ICC than any other board. India don't play a 2 month ashes. But where ever they play, people watches the game.

  • POSTED BY Nali_live on | February 5, 2014, 12:40 GMT

    strong india ruins the gentlemen's game

  • POSTED BY naren1983 on | February 5, 2014, 12:37 GMT

    @Vishal_Bagmar: Its not only because of winning many matches, its about Indian fans love cricket, respect the cricket & the players. If you go everywhere where cricket is being played, Indian fans are coming more to watch it, you can take few examples in recent NZ series, NZ earned more than $35 million by broadcast rights by this India tour, this is the highest for NZ for any sports. In last year Champion Trophy final, Indian fans present more than England fans. You can see huge fans in Australia, SA. So other nations getting better broadcast rights and earnings by it. This is good news for them, so they can invest more in sports to develop. So this is the fact no other nation opposed India from getting more shares. We respect Pakistan Cricket Team, they play outstanding cricket even after less support and many internal obstacles, but at the same time, you need to accept the truth :)

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 12:33 GMT

    haha.. ridiculous.. really.. If everyone is better off then whre was this money last year? Have they made a magic stick? For example, from a pot of 100 bucks, India, Australia and England will take more than they were taking earlier and still other boards will be able to take more. He never explained how this pot of 100 bucks will turn into 1 million overnight.

    Fool's Paradise.

  • POSTED BY sweetspot on | February 5, 2014, 12:29 GMT

    @Neel_123 - Sooner or later, what you suggest is going to happen. When the hypocrisy clears, pure commerce almost always rules. People don't realize the size and power of India in this sphere, or are too scared to accept and respect it. Of course it is important that India plays well, but just because they lose a few here and there doesn't make their fan following go down dramatically. India will continue to rule economically as long as the population of India is crazy about cricket.

    Those examples of China and USA are stupid - it will take an enormous amount of time before those nations exercise any kind of influence on the game of cricket. Even if they do, India will still be, guess where - in the top 3! So grow up and smell the coffee, haters.

  • POSTED BY sweetspot on | February 5, 2014, 12:23 GMT

    To all the India bashers - Look at what 100 years of "equality" has brought cricket to - just 10 teams at the top level, hypocrisy, and cricketers retiring without even decent financial security after playing for their nations. The IPL has done a lot of good, so don't get jealous that a third world nation has a first world tournament and get with the program - India isn't going to disappear anytime soon. Get used to it.

  • POSTED BY Iceman29 on | February 5, 2014, 12:22 GMT

    @yorkslanka:Adding to my previous comment....I dint mean to support Srinivasan's comment even I dont agree with the "big 3 cricket policy"...but the fact is because of BCCI other cricket boards benefits a lot...NZ already announced that the current INd vs NZ series brought the biggest revenue than any other sport in their country...

  • POSTED BY harmske on | February 5, 2014, 12:20 GMT

    a cunning businessman and an astute politician. how easily he dodges questions asking for specifics and provides vague yet assuring statements.

    innocence is bliss and to those of you who take comfort in his words that everything is going to be alright (better even) i say good luck. because heck, in 10 - 20 years time, we might see ireland and afghanistan maybe playing more odi's against top level teams (if the tours are economically viable of course).

    good luck to cricket ever becoming a globally thriving game.

  • POSTED BY Thegimp on | February 5, 2014, 12:14 GMT

    OK, so if India are getting more, and the associates are getting more, and I assume that the second tier are getting more and I am sure Australia and England wont be missing out, the West Indies are getting more, I bet CSA are putting their hand out for more..........

    Ummmmmm where was all this money last year?

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 11:56 GMT

    what superiority does BCCI claim to have on cricket? cricket is not in Olympics and is played by handful of countries. further BCCI has not done enough to clean the game in their own backyard (i.e. betting by franchise owners). cricket exist bcoz of players and fans, not because of idiotic administrators. i have stop watching IPL after first season bcoz they increased the teams and the cricket got boring and betting.

  • POSTED BY espncricinfomobile on | February 5, 2014, 11:44 GMT

    What everybody understands, except India, is that the distribution of money is not the big issue. The issue is the clandestine method of the proposal and the fact that a sport will be ruled by a minority on nations not a body more powerful. Look at football, England may make the most money and Brazil and Spain may provide the best players yet they all know that the rules are instituted by FIFA.

  • POSTED BY Iceman29 on | February 5, 2014, 11:39 GMT

    @yorkslanka: oh come on.... If BCCI would want to eliminate SL as you say, Ind team wouldnt have toured SL recently to help your board deal with their financial problem..wherever Ind team travels the host team's cricket board gets good revenue which makes them a little bit financially stable that includes your country's cricket board also....dont mix politics with sports and dont turn Pak fans against Ind by posting such comments...

  • POSTED BY reality_check on | February 5, 2014, 11:29 GMT

    By the same logic as this, China has a football team and so does the US. They should demand total control of FIFA and all the money.

    One simple reason why BCCI's control of cricket is not good. BCCI involves politics (See Pakistan) and personal vendettas (See South Africa) when dealing with other boards. BCCI is stubborn when it comes to DRS etc and is only looking for what is best in its own interest and coffers. Nothing wrong with this last point but this makes them unsuitable to govern cricket as a world leader.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 11:28 GMT

    how come this "strong India" has such a weak cricket team especially outside asia.?

  • POSTED BY Hello13 on | February 5, 2014, 11:22 GMT

    He's right. India deserves more money.

  • POSTED BY stonk on | February 5, 2014, 11:19 GMT

    "A strong India with a vibrant commercial structure is good for world cricket," Who told him that? Having 1.2 Billion people alone does not make India "a vibrant commercial structure". Out of the 1.2 billion population more than half live in abject poverty. So the ICC will be pandering to less than 500 million people with a poor per capita income. The spread of cricket will ensure a larger percentage of the world's population, as those who follow football/soccer. Let India go it alone and generate even the money they get from the ICC at present. If nobody tours India and they are not entertained elsewhere, they will have to rely on IPL type income to keep the game alive domestically. They will not be granted any tours particularly as their 'away' form in the recent form is woeful, to say the least. England and Australia, particularly England, ran the ICC in the past. Now they want to include India and run cricket on a tripartite power base with three of them getting the Lions share.

  • POSTED BY ABKhanISB on | February 5, 2014, 11:02 GMT

    @ CricketMaan ..........Yes lets talk about 4 matches of world cup. Dont talk about the fact that Pakistan has beaten you on your own soil many times. You guys stop playing Sharja cup only because of your humiliating defeats by Pakistan over there. Even in the last bilateral series how badly your guys were thrashed by Pakistan with in the India. I feel pity for your non productive team in terms of quality

  • POSTED BY Vishal_Bagmar on | February 5, 2014, 11:02 GMT

    @ sajid7137 Lets Compare how Pakistan and India Fared in two blocks, i.e.,

    India Pre-1999 Played Wins Losses Drawn W/L Ratio %Win %Loss %Drawn 325 60 107 158 0.56 0.18 0.33 0.49 Post-1999 Played Wins Losses Drawn W/L Ratio %Win %Loss %Drawn 151 61 43 47 1.42 0.40 0.28 0.32

    Pakistan Pre-1999 Played Wins Losses Drawn W/L Ratio %Win %Loss %Drawn 260 75 60 125 1.25 0.29 0.23 0.48 Post-1999 Played Wins Losses Drawn W/L Ratio %Win %Loss %Drawn 120 43 47 30 0.91 0.36 0.39 0.25

    Please do the meaning full comparison yourself, all this data are available in espn/country/record/(Series Results) + Overall Results. Check yourself.

    Re-ICC revamp, out of 3 musketeers, one who shows up early will get rich, plain and simple fact. Rest will suffer.

    Peace to all, Drone to None.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 10:46 GMT

    Sushmita Kapoor you are 100% correct about BCCI being rich among other cricketing nations but the point here is that no country is allowed to take over the ICC on the basis of money and power. Every country must have equal rights and must be equally recognized not including the top 10 teams but also teams who are want to qualify to play in international cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 10:42 GMT

    Sushmita Kapoor you are 100% correct about BCCI being rich among other cricketing nations but the point here is that no country is allowed to take over the ICC on the basis of money and power. Every country must have equal rights and must be equally recognized not including the top 10 teams but also teams who are want to qualify to play in international cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 10:41 GMT

    Cricket is in lowest low, administrator are making this game a jokers game use to be called gentlemen s game.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 10:34 GMT

    this is financially viable for the game but it gives dictatorship of the game to big three, and smaller countries or cricket boards will suffer in the long run as three big guns decides everything in the game.it is not good. totally a crap. remember that most of best players of the world came up from smaller countries with unorthodox talents or styles, hadlee, lara, muralidaran, clive loyed, richardson, sanga etc.

  • POSTED BY Cool_Jeeves on | February 5, 2014, 10:30 GMT

    Come june, BJP will win, Jaitley will take over, Srini will go, along with him, perhaps Dhoni also, and Kohli will take charge. so many changes in the offing. This document does not matter at all.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 10:19 GMT

    sajid7137 this is all about board being rich... ranking is at side. what abt ur board financial status??? give me a break. understand what is going on around.... also rest of u. dont u guys understand.. BCCI is a richest Board so they hold powers. dont be a kid with silly comments. The world knows about it.

  • POSTED BY landofcricket on | February 5, 2014, 10:14 GMT

    dear non indian fans ,why you guys r always crying & blaming india,,,just now nz board announced that they r earning 35 million usd from this india tour more than any sport .can any board other than india give this ??? then u guys r saying india is bad for cricket ...what a RUBBISH statement...

  • POSTED BY Neel_123 on | February 5, 2014, 10:00 GMT

    It is high time, ICC should be disbanded and let each nation go its own way. England and Aus will keep playing each other as cricket is their National game! NZ, WI, SA public seem to be more interested in other popular sports in respective country.

    BCCI would be better without freeloaders leaching on cricket revenue generated by Indian public! Worse part, such freeloaders full members are in majority in ICC; these boards line their own pockets with BCCI money and do NOTHING to bring crowd to stadium.

    India (and BCCI) should extend IPL for 3 months and 50-50 franchises based league tournament in winter for another 3-4 months. Test cricket is dying anyway, sooner than later. BCCI would do great if it ceases the opportunity and make IPL and 50-50 domestic league part of Indian contemporary culture as NFL & MLB are to USA. More celebrities, more inning break shows by popular singers and dancers, better stadium facilities for Indian middle class families to have a decent outing.

  • POSTED BY CricketMaan on | February 5, 2014, 9:56 GMT

    @getsetgopk - Why dont you get your PAK to beat India in a WC match anywhere in the world?`And what happed to PAK in the last Champions trophy that wasnt a flat bet or played in India? Its one thing to hate, but its another to be ignorant. I like PAK team, ive always admired the skillful bowlers, the agression and the yesteryear batting stalwarts. PAK is a good team, but just like India, with all the great bowlers your overseas record is also not to be very proud of! You have a WC from Aus and Eng, so do we from SA and Eng, ICC champs from Eng!!! sort of even there!

  • POSTED BY CricketisKing on | February 5, 2014, 9:44 GMT

    Instead of all this tamasha (joke), why can't the BCCI just leave the ICC? In that way they can keep all the money they are making of their cricket without having to give to anyone else. If any country is interested in playing against them they can arrange bilateral tours. BCCI can make enough money of IPL. In this way, if world cricket goes to the dogs they cannot blame BCCI. All this nonsense is getting a bit irritating and annoying. Lots of posturing and threats and such. BCCI should just leave the ICC and do things on their own.

  • POSTED BY Diaz54 on | February 5, 2014, 9:16 GMT

    Just imagine China....real,financial,power unlike India, yet they do things in a measured way..because they have immense history and dignity!

  • POSTED BY getsetgopk on | February 5, 2014, 9:01 GMT

    These business men have a very peculiar sense of humour, phrases like 'a strong india' is right up there. India has never been a strong side, their recent spike in ratings is attributed to dull, dusty and doctored pitches where bowlers have no real chance. Their only threat at home is from Pakistan which they very conveniently dont play against and hence the ratings. If India were anywhere near strong it wouldn't be so hopeless against an 8th ranked ODI team. Doctored pitches and doctored ratings and what not, is anything but good for cricket. Cricket in the 80's was fantastic, hard fought, sweat and blood, conqer or be conquered. No one pulled any strings, there were no leverages back then, it was all about things done on the field. No body knew who Ind was back then. Now ratings and who is strong (India) and who is weak (S. Africa) is decided off field. These administrators are well on their way to destroy cricket that is, if they aren't there already.

  • POSTED BY Alexk400 on | February 5, 2014, 8:52 GMT

    Actually i do not mind india taking more of revenue as it is center of cricket. But the leadership of cricket crap do not work for me. Exclusive group deciding what is best for others is bad idea.

  • POSTED BY yorkslanka on | February 5, 2014, 8:39 GMT

    errr no..a strong indis is good for india and that's it... @AzizZoaib - india does not represent SL& Pak, they are trying to get rid of us as then they can be a dominat team from Asia...

  • POSTED BY dunger.bob on | February 5, 2014, 8:26 GMT

    Two other members at all times and no veto. If I were a cynic I might be inclined to say that neatly cancels out two of the permanent members and eliminates the need for a veto anyway. If just one of the big 3 where to apply enough pressure on both of the 'guest' board members they would have themselves a very easy time. .. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen at all but I think the possibility might excite the cynics out there.

    Some of this stuff actually sounds Ok so let's hope that all the major parties are truly interested in the future of cricket just a bit more than their own futures.

  • POSTED BY electric_loco_WAP4 on | February 5, 2014, 8:04 GMT

    Oh ,I think he really meant 'strong BCCIndia is good for world cricket ! Would be more apt and to the point . But he wouldn't put it that so straight clever man that is . Not sure about it though what I'm sure is ICC 'officialy' revamped to ,well IndianCC - the brand new,improved and 'stronger' - 'ICC' ! -:)

  • POSTED BY CricketFever11 on | February 5, 2014, 8:01 GMT

    What a joke lol. No India is good for world cricket.

  • POSTED BY sajid7137 on | February 5, 2014, 7:05 GMT

    Somebody said that Indian is second in the world in all formats. This is just at this point in time that they are second. Why should we not take historical data and then decide who are big 3. Australia is Top side with Win Loss ratio of 1.77 in Tests. England is second in Tests with W/L ratio of 1.23 and Pakistan is 3rd with W/L ratio of 1.10. South Africa is at 4th with 1.09 W/L ratio. In ODIs, Australia is first with win percentage of 64% in ODIs.South Africa is second with win %age of 63 and Pakistan is 3rd with 55%. Where is India? From these stats, I think Australia, Pakistan, South Africa are big 3.Even England misses out with these stats. Even if we go by fan following, Pakistan is second behind India. Let Pakistan, SL and CSA purpose a new model and then you can combine India model and Pakistan SL CSA model to get best for cricketing world. I have no problem India sharing higher percentage of profits. It is their right. But overall decision making to big 3, no way!

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 7:04 GMT

    I really think someone needs to take it this way. Imagine, if India becomes noncompetitive for a period of time and get regularly thrashed by other teams, then it would mean BCCI would ensure steps to let India win, because that is where the revenue will come from, and they would be contending that "Stronger Indian Team is better for the world cricket". So, let India win and it would be in the best interest of all the other nations.

    As many have said before, and I will repeat, the problem is not that BCCI will be getting a greater chunk of revenue. THE REAL problem is that BCCI will be controlling the cricketing affairs, and it will mean a death of cricket to the cricket aficionados like me!

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 6:57 GMT

    America and/or China should become nations with substantial cricket following. With these countries even if just 20% of the population start following the game, the boards will become super powers. That will balance out the power in the cricketing world and BCCI will not be allowed to abuse power anymore.

  • POSTED BY ashuhatesyou on | February 5, 2014, 6:51 GMT

    Its quite funny that how all the boards are fighting over money but stand no chance against the BIG BROTHER of cricket !

  • POSTED BY android_user on | February 5, 2014, 6:49 GMT

    I strongly recommend India's participation in ICC as big power. its good for Asians cricketing team to have anyone from Asia to represent Asian champs like Srilanka, India and Pak.

  • POSTED BY Mobin_My_Name on | February 5, 2014, 6:46 GMT

    Strong India gud for world cricket

  • POSTED BY Nuxxy on | February 5, 2014, 6:45 GMT

    Strong Indian cricket is not the same as rich Indian cricket. New Zealand just proved that it's not all about how rich your board is.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 6:28 GMT

    A strong world is good for world cricket

  • POSTED BY Syed92786 on | February 5, 2014, 6:26 GMT

    he is Making it Indian Cricket Counsel

  • POSTED BY Siva_Bala75 on | February 5, 2014, 6:25 GMT

    A strong Indian board and a strong Indian team are disconnected. India team is ranked 2nd in all 3 formats, Tests, ODIs and T20s.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 6:10 GMT

    @Viratkohlirocks: "Nobody cares about a strong Indian board ruling world cricket. What Indians fans like me care about is a strong indian team! "

    I think you'll find that some non-Indian fans care about a strong Indian board ruling world cricket.

  • POSTED BY SanjivAwesome on | February 5, 2014, 6:08 GMT

    He is an administrator. He can only make the administration strong. The cricketers have to sort out their own performance strengthening!

  • POSTED BY Prabhash1985 on | February 5, 2014, 6:06 GMT

    Rest inPeace, Cricket.............!

  • POSTED BY yoohoo on | February 5, 2014, 6:05 GMT

    Very Valid Points all of them!

  • POSTED BY CrICkeeet on | February 5, 2014, 5:47 GMT

    U better strong ur away perfomence

  • POSTED BY BeingCricketFan on | February 5, 2014, 5:39 GMT

    Yep agree with you @ViratKohliRocks, A strong Indian team is much needed then only financially strong BCCI.

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 5:33 GMT

    this filth of a warm is talking about everyone agreeing is just like icc statement releases after the meeting. How is any few controlling whole structure of cricket any good.

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

    Nobody cares about a strong Indian board ruling world cricket. What Indians fans like me care about is a strong indian team!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

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

    Nobody cares about a strong Indian board ruling world cricket. What Indians fans like me care about is a strong indian team!

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 5:33 GMT

    this filth of a warm is talking about everyone agreeing is just like icc statement releases after the meeting. How is any few controlling whole structure of cricket any good.

  • POSTED BY BeingCricketFan on | February 5, 2014, 5:39 GMT

    Yep agree with you @ViratKohliRocks, A strong Indian team is much needed then only financially strong BCCI.

  • POSTED BY CrICkeeet on | February 5, 2014, 5:47 GMT

    U better strong ur away perfomence

  • POSTED BY yoohoo on | February 5, 2014, 6:05 GMT

    Very Valid Points all of them!

  • POSTED BY Prabhash1985 on | February 5, 2014, 6:06 GMT

    Rest inPeace, Cricket.............!

  • POSTED BY SanjivAwesome on | February 5, 2014, 6:08 GMT

    He is an administrator. He can only make the administration strong. The cricketers have to sort out their own performance strengthening!

  • POSTED BY on | February 5, 2014, 6:10 GMT

    @Viratkohlirocks: "Nobody cares about a strong Indian board ruling world cricket. What Indians fans like me care about is a strong indian team! "

    I think you'll find that some non-Indian fans care about a strong Indian board ruling world cricket.

  • POSTED BY Siva_Bala75 on | February 5, 2014, 6:25 GMT

    A strong Indian board and a strong Indian team are disconnected. India team is ranked 2nd in all 3 formats, Tests, ODIs and T20s.

  • POSTED BY Syed92786 on | February 5, 2014, 6:26 GMT

    he is Making it Indian Cricket Counsel