Dean Kino October 23, 2009

'The Champions League will strengthen domestic and international cricket'

One of the main men behind the tournament talks about why it is not going to inspire players to go freelance, as has been claimed
20

Dean Kino, a 38-year-old lawyer, is general manager of legal and business affairs for Cricket Australia. But what not many know is that he is also one of the main drivers of the Champions League - as one of the main back-room organisers, a key member of the core management, director of business and legal affairs, and Governing Council member.

From the organisers' point of view, how has the tournament been?
The tournament's gone wonderfully well to date. From a pure cricket perspective, the standard of cricket and the standard of matches has been superb. But most pleasingly, the contributions that we most wanted Champions League Twenty20 to make to cricket have occurred.

For example, the impact it has had in the Caribbean has been spectacular. It has given West Indians the chance to see the true strength of West Indian cricket once again. I think what this is going to achieve is to inspire the next generation of cricketers in the West Indies with new and greater opportunities, and certainly more opportunities than those offered by one national team across numerous countries.

And those opportunities are numerous; apart from the obvious financial ones, this competition has given players opportunities to showcase their talent and capacity for international cricket, as well as opportunities to play for other domestic teams when their schedules allow, whether that occurs in India, Australia, South Africa or elsewhere.

There are already a number of players who have performed well during the Champions League who have been approached to play in the coming months in various domestic competitions, and for many players, this competition has been their first opportunity to play with and against the best cricketers around the world. That will improve their cricket and help them become more accomplished cricketers, and it would be surprising if a large number of domestic players participating in this competition without previous international experience weren't selected for their international teams in the near future.

What has also been pleasing is the competitiveness of all teams. There was a lot of confidence expressed about IPL teams being favourites, but as you can see the tournament has shown that there is a great deal of strength among all domestic teams throughout the world. The performances of Cape Cobras, Victoria and New South Wales have been a terrific example of just how strong domestic cricket is around the world, and just how overdue it has been to stage this type of event.

Are you happy with the crowd turnout for the tournament because it has been obvious that the numbers have not been able to match those of the two IPLs, even the one held in South Africa?
The crowds have been more than acceptable, particularly for IPL-team matches, certain non-IPL team matches, and all matches at the later stages of the tournament. For instance, the local support at Hyderabad for the Trinidad and Tobago team has been extremely pleasing. But yes, if we know anything about Indian crowds, it's their preference for watching Indian teams and internationally acclaimed Indian cricketers. So we knew from the start that crowds for non-Indian domestic teams or those without Indian international players were going to be down, particularly given the inevitable unfamiliarity of Indian crowds with new teams, new players and a new competition. But the crowds we have got have more or less exceeded our expectations.

"I suspect you will see changes in many domestic competitions in the coming years to bolster performances with a view of qualifying for the Champions League"

Again, this is the first year of a new competition and we are hopeful that in future years the Indian crowds, whenever the tournament is played in India, will become used to the competition and will develop allegiances to teams and start supporting them in much larger numbers. If we are to stage the event in India, I think it's important that we get more support from Indian crowds for non-Indian matches.

So are there any ideas or suggestions being worked on regarding increasing the Indian presence in the Champions League?
There are no solid plans right now for any wholesale changes to the structure of the tournament, but we are continually looking at ways to promote the event to increase response levels in India. But in terms of increased participation of Indian players, that's up to each individual national board and each individual participating team, as to the limits, if any, on recruitment of overseas players and which players those teams want to recruit for their competitions.

I would imagine that a lot of countries may follow in the footsteps of what Cricket Australia has done for the KFC Big Bash [Australia's domestic competition, which is the qualifier for the Champions League]. Cricket Australia has increased the number of overseas players per team from one to two, so you will find teams recruiting more international players, such as Dwayne Bravo, who has been recruited by the Victoria Bushrangers. Now whether the recruits are mostly Indian players or non-Indian players is a matter for individual teams, but I suspect you will see changes in many domestic competitions in the coming years to bolster performances with a view of qualifying for the Champions League. That really is a matter for each individual board.

There are fears in international cricket that the Champions League will encourage players to go freelance. You could see players opting to play for Twenty20 domestic leagues around the world to enhance their chances of playing in the Champions League. What is your opinion?
I think the concerns are misguided. On the contrary, the tournament will breed cricketers who are encouraged to remain in their national system and progress through that system. The Champions League will incentivise cricketers to play domestic cricket. It will give them a chance to shine at both the domestic and international level. It will provide them with great opportunities without necessitating them leaving their domestic club. I also don't think it is going to take cricketers away from international cricket; on the contrary, it will incentivise them to stay in the system because they now have additional revenue opportunities by doing so.

Also, bear in mind that there is a limit on the number of overseas players who can play in each team - a Champions League team can't play more than four foreign players in the XI. This certainly limits the playing opportunities for freelancers, as does the transfer fee payable to home teams in the event of players qualifying for multiple teams. For instance, if you look at this year's competition, there were approximately eight players who could have played for an IPL team after qualifying for their home team, but only one of them went across [Dirk Nannes opted for Delhi Daredevils instead of the Victoria Bushrangers, his home team]. So what this is saying to the world is, "Yes, there is an opportunity to play for multiple domestic teams but at the end of the day your best chance of playing in the Champions League is to play for your domestic team because there are no restrictions on playing for your domestic team." So my view is the Champions League will not create freelance cricketers, and if anything, it's going to strengthen domestic and international cricket.

How have the TV ratings been? Do you have the numbers?
I don't have the figures, but based on the feedback we are getting from the various official broadcasters, the local ratings for the preliminary matches - those involving Royal Challengers in Bangalore, Delhi Daredevils in Delhi and Deccan Chargers in Hyderabad - were excellent. The ratings for Indian matches across have been generally good, though the ratings in India for non-Indian matches have been a tad disappointing. But the ratings for non-Indian matches in countries whose teams are involved have been excellent. For example, in the West Indies, ratings have been excellent. The feedback I got from Trinidad and Tobago is that from 5am [their time], when they played their last game, people throughout the Caribbean were watching the game and then celebrating the great victory, so that gives you an idea of what the ratings are going to be like over there.

It has not been made very clear to the outside viewer what exactly the governing structure for the league is. It is known that BCCI, Cricket Australia and Cricket South Africa are the founding partners, but who owns how much?
The founding members of the tournament are the BCCI, Cricket Australia and Cricket South Africa and, as you know, its Governing Council is constituted on a 3:2:1 basis [Lalit Modi, Niranjan Shah and N Srinivasan from India, James Sutherland and Kino from Australia, and Gerald Majola from South Africa].

How are the three boards sharing the revenue from the tournament? What is the model?
That is a matter purely for internal consumption.

What are the lessons that you have learnt from the first tournament? What can you do better next time?
Well, we haven't got to a stage where we are having a review meeting yet. That will likely occur in early December. That is also when we are going to look at which is the most appropriate country to host the event next year, what are the best ways of promoting the tournament, and so on. But we are constantly reviewing the tournament operations.

For example, we are of the view that for this year event promotion started too late, and that's one area where we are probably going to review and look at a more appropriate timeline. We also need to review venues and locations and the logistical issues faced at each of this year's venues.

As far as structure is concerned, we are happy right now with the number of teams and the location of the teams. Basically, we are very pleased with everything related to the cricket, the players, the teams and the rules, though we will continually assess potential changes.

Where will the tournament be held next year?
The Governing Council will decide on that late this year or early next year, but it's fair to say that there is always one factor that we need to take into account when evaluating prospective host countries, and that is time zones. Ideally, it should be held in a location where it can be broadcast into prime-time Indian television, which is the most valuable market from a broadcast and sponsor perspective. That brings into the picture countries such as South Africa, England and the UAE. Obviously, the Indian ratings are very important for the competition. Again, it might be played in India as well. We are going to look at various options with that constraint in mind.

Ajay Shankar is a deputy editor at Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • rsgarcia on October 25, 2009, 3:00 GMT

    Why does everyone seem to think Pakistan was left out? The Pakistani board refused the invitation because they did not want the team to travel to India. So it's their fault if they weren't there, not the organisers. As for the 'ordinary cricket' comments, continue to fool yourselves. The game doesn't change because it goes faster. You still have 11 men trying to get the other 11 men out first. I can't understand why we are trying so hard to bash a format. Don't you all love cricket? I'll take any form of cricket, any day, over anything else. Yes, Test is the best, but honestly, all this crying over 20/20 is the same as when the 50 over format was introduced. You'll all be eating your words and wondering what all the fuss was about in a few years.

  • kingofspain on October 24, 2009, 20:25 GMT

    What a load of rubbish! More 20/20 overkill, most people are sick of it already. Test cricket is real cricket.

  • krsna76 on October 24, 2009, 13:56 GMT

    To get more crowds in CLT20, they should have 4 teams from India. Two teams should be from IPL and 2 more teams from the Indian domestic competition. This definitely help the other Indian domestic players and have an reality check with the other Foreign domestic teams. If there would be objection for 4 Indian teams, then there not be any IPL teams and there should be only Indian state teams.

  • Ribs on October 24, 2009, 9:01 GMT

    Champion league is not as sucessfull as IPL and also it is clearly indicated the failure of the IPL teams. This format doesnt need highly paid stars only the balanced team. The current IPL teams not having the team balance. But T&T and NSW having a good team balance and they deserved to be in the finals. Speacially in this format each and every players has to contribute that actually lacks in IPL teams. If your star players fail you will fail and also IPL is not going to contribute anything to the Indian cricket only the crowds can be entertained. Like spain they are world class football club like Real madrid but they never won a world cup.

  • U.A.1985 on October 24, 2009, 8:23 GMT

    If the cricketing world wants to ensure that CLT20 can be a success forever than follwoing points will have to be very serious condered:

    - CLT20 management needs to be neutral with minimum external influence. - Yes decisions like broadcast timings can be goverend by countries having most sponsors but considering CLT20 is a world tournament decisions about leaving particular country teams (e.g. Pakistan) out of tournament cannot be made on basis of sponsors. - There should be an executive board of test playing nations for CLT20 which will decide that a CLT20 tournament will not be possible if a member country specific no.of champion team is not participating. - Tournament should not be held in India alone. They should be held in other test playing countries too - No restriction should be imposed on having min. Indian players in IPL teams. an IPL team can be all non-Indian too and same can be the case with other country domestic teams too

  • U.A.1985 on October 24, 2009, 8:16 GMT

    @ Chestnutgrey

    Yes Pak Govt did not permit Pak Govt to play in IPL only after Indian Govt refused to accept any Pak Player on thier soil

    Below is a statement of Indian Criketer, Vishwanath:

    "I feel sport is sport. And as a cricketer, I want everybody to participate. But my logic is, when you are not allowing Pak-India cricket tours, when you are not encouraging participation of Pakistan players in any sport in India, then I am not sure how proper it will be to let them play in the IPL," Viswanath said.

    The celebrated former batsman, known for his wristy strokeplay, said: "We should wait for normalcy to return in Indo-Pak relations before allowing them to play in the IPL."

    Above statement was issued before decision from Pak Govt and Vishwanaths statement was in favour of Indian Govt.

  • virology on October 24, 2009, 1:41 GMT

    Well there are lot of good things about the challenger trophy. Lot of domestic player got a opportunity to play with international cricketer which is very good for their development. The winners get good financial benefit which will serve them good espcially for teams from west Indies. There is a huge difference between the IPL team and other teams in the competition. In the other domestic team the players play together for most of the time in the year unlike the IPL team. So there is less bonding between the players and IPL team is more culturally diverse compared to the other teams. It will take time for the IPl to develop as a good team. Some of the people seemed to be very happy about the IPL team not making into the final four. I believe most of this people are non-Indians. Cricket should be a tool to bind us all and not fight among ourself. Let cricket spread in most countires and then no country will have the supreme power

  • Chestnutgrey on October 23, 2009, 19:02 GMT

    The Pakistani govt. did not permit their cricketers to play in the IPL. Playing in India for the Pakistani players, there are lot of politics. That's why we didn't have any team from there. The IPL doesn't deserve three teams, of course. But we should all realize that the Champions League came into existence primarily because of the IPL.

  • popcorn on October 23, 2009, 13:33 GMT

    Stop silly gimmicks that disturb fielders wiring a mike to their necks and ears. Davids dropped two easy catches.

  • popcorn on October 23, 2009, 13:17 GMT

    Football lovers may remember that at one time, Arsenal did not have a SINGLE Englishman in the playing ranks. If the Champions League Twenty20 is trying to model itself along the Football UEFA Champions League, then it must follow the same principles. Players like Dirk Nannes cannot choose which side their bread is buttered -Victoria or Delhi Daredevils. A long way to go. The essential difference between Football and Cricket is that football has ONLY ONE FORMAT. Cricket has three.So it is easy for a Footballer to switch from Club to Country. Also,

  • rsgarcia on October 25, 2009, 3:00 GMT

    Why does everyone seem to think Pakistan was left out? The Pakistani board refused the invitation because they did not want the team to travel to India. So it's their fault if they weren't there, not the organisers. As for the 'ordinary cricket' comments, continue to fool yourselves. The game doesn't change because it goes faster. You still have 11 men trying to get the other 11 men out first. I can't understand why we are trying so hard to bash a format. Don't you all love cricket? I'll take any form of cricket, any day, over anything else. Yes, Test is the best, but honestly, all this crying over 20/20 is the same as when the 50 over format was introduced. You'll all be eating your words and wondering what all the fuss was about in a few years.

  • kingofspain on October 24, 2009, 20:25 GMT

    What a load of rubbish! More 20/20 overkill, most people are sick of it already. Test cricket is real cricket.

  • krsna76 on October 24, 2009, 13:56 GMT

    To get more crowds in CLT20, they should have 4 teams from India. Two teams should be from IPL and 2 more teams from the Indian domestic competition. This definitely help the other Indian domestic players and have an reality check with the other Foreign domestic teams. If there would be objection for 4 Indian teams, then there not be any IPL teams and there should be only Indian state teams.

  • Ribs on October 24, 2009, 9:01 GMT

    Champion league is not as sucessfull as IPL and also it is clearly indicated the failure of the IPL teams. This format doesnt need highly paid stars only the balanced team. The current IPL teams not having the team balance. But T&T and NSW having a good team balance and they deserved to be in the finals. Speacially in this format each and every players has to contribute that actually lacks in IPL teams. If your star players fail you will fail and also IPL is not going to contribute anything to the Indian cricket only the crowds can be entertained. Like spain they are world class football club like Real madrid but they never won a world cup.

  • U.A.1985 on October 24, 2009, 8:23 GMT

    If the cricketing world wants to ensure that CLT20 can be a success forever than follwoing points will have to be very serious condered:

    - CLT20 management needs to be neutral with minimum external influence. - Yes decisions like broadcast timings can be goverend by countries having most sponsors but considering CLT20 is a world tournament decisions about leaving particular country teams (e.g. Pakistan) out of tournament cannot be made on basis of sponsors. - There should be an executive board of test playing nations for CLT20 which will decide that a CLT20 tournament will not be possible if a member country specific no.of champion team is not participating. - Tournament should not be held in India alone. They should be held in other test playing countries too - No restriction should be imposed on having min. Indian players in IPL teams. an IPL team can be all non-Indian too and same can be the case with other country domestic teams too

  • U.A.1985 on October 24, 2009, 8:16 GMT

    @ Chestnutgrey

    Yes Pak Govt did not permit Pak Govt to play in IPL only after Indian Govt refused to accept any Pak Player on thier soil

    Below is a statement of Indian Criketer, Vishwanath:

    "I feel sport is sport. And as a cricketer, I want everybody to participate. But my logic is, when you are not allowing Pak-India cricket tours, when you are not encouraging participation of Pakistan players in any sport in India, then I am not sure how proper it will be to let them play in the IPL," Viswanath said.

    The celebrated former batsman, known for his wristy strokeplay, said: "We should wait for normalcy to return in Indo-Pak relations before allowing them to play in the IPL."

    Above statement was issued before decision from Pak Govt and Vishwanaths statement was in favour of Indian Govt.

  • virology on October 24, 2009, 1:41 GMT

    Well there are lot of good things about the challenger trophy. Lot of domestic player got a opportunity to play with international cricketer which is very good for their development. The winners get good financial benefit which will serve them good espcially for teams from west Indies. There is a huge difference between the IPL team and other teams in the competition. In the other domestic team the players play together for most of the time in the year unlike the IPL team. So there is less bonding between the players and IPL team is more culturally diverse compared to the other teams. It will take time for the IPl to develop as a good team. Some of the people seemed to be very happy about the IPL team not making into the final four. I believe most of this people are non-Indians. Cricket should be a tool to bind us all and not fight among ourself. Let cricket spread in most countires and then no country will have the supreme power

  • Chestnutgrey on October 23, 2009, 19:02 GMT

    The Pakistani govt. did not permit their cricketers to play in the IPL. Playing in India for the Pakistani players, there are lot of politics. That's why we didn't have any team from there. The IPL doesn't deserve three teams, of course. But we should all realize that the Champions League came into existence primarily because of the IPL.

  • popcorn on October 23, 2009, 13:33 GMT

    Stop silly gimmicks that disturb fielders wiring a mike to their necks and ears. Davids dropped two easy catches.

  • popcorn on October 23, 2009, 13:17 GMT

    Football lovers may remember that at one time, Arsenal did not have a SINGLE Englishman in the playing ranks. If the Champions League Twenty20 is trying to model itself along the Football UEFA Champions League, then it must follow the same principles. Players like Dirk Nannes cannot choose which side their bread is buttered -Victoria or Delhi Daredevils. A long way to go. The essential difference between Football and Cricket is that football has ONLY ONE FORMAT. Cricket has three.So it is easy for a Footballer to switch from Club to Country. Also,

  • vswami on October 23, 2009, 12:50 GMT

    "Ideally, it should be held in a location where it can be broadcast into prime-time Indian television, which is the most valuable market from a broadcast and sponsor perspective" I am sure this would be a very controversial statement for a lot of people, but the fact of the matter is that most of the sponsors are from India, and most of the money is generated from the largely invisible television audience in India. The spectacle could happen in New Zealand, or Australia but then would have to be bankrolled by Australian/NZ sponsors as very few people are going to watch the matches early morning in India. The number of timings, teams etc. are simply driven by market forces, the way it happens in all other professional sports.

  • AsadSherazi on October 23, 2009, 11:20 GMT

    Keep the real champs (Sialkot Stallions / Karachi Dolphins) out of the tournament and try to be the One!! Its a shame to name this tournament as "Champion's League"... I bet "Lahore Badshah" is even better side than those three poor IPL teams who participated in this league (Championnnnnn's league :-D )

  • PS25BPUK on October 23, 2009, 10:39 GMT

    This tournament is very good so far. However there should have been a PAK team as well. This tournament is a WORLD tournament featuring WORLD teams. I could understand when the IPL was played to suit indian times when it was played in SA as it has indian teams with 4 foreign players in each team. I know that lots of the money is from India but this is a WORLD tournament so the timings of matches should suit the people in the country it's played in, not the indians. You would never have the timings for 2010 world twenty20 in WI suiting the indians so why is this any different? It would be silly holding the tournament in England for example then having the games at 11.30 and 3.30, because the crowd would be less because people would be at work. It should be held to suit the English people like at 3 and 7. If it's in AUS, the times should suit the Australians, It makes no sense to take CLT20 round the world then play at Indian times. Either play round world at local times or keep in Ind.

  • Nuxxy on October 23, 2009, 8:08 GMT

    I agree on having the Pakistani team. No need for 3 IPL teams. Host the next one in SA. We had good attendances for IPL2 and didn't know half the players anyway.

  • Zaheerahmed on October 23, 2009, 7:39 GMT

    The main beneficiaries of tournament like IPL and so called Champions' League (as it did not have the champion team of the champion country) are messers Kino and Modi. Who would have imagined that people like them who very few knew outside their own country would occupy so much space in Cricinfo. I would have rather read the interview of Darren Ganga, Gibbs or Bravo. The matches were played with half empty stadium and the quality of cricket was not above ordinary. No wonder none of the IPL teams reached quarter final though so much was aired about the quality of its cricket. These type of cricket is a short term phenomenon and in not more than 1-2 seasons general public as well as sponsors would be forced to rethink.

  • Twinloner on October 23, 2009, 6:56 GMT

    Overall it has been a fantastic tournament to watch. As malik said it would have been better to see a pakistani side in the league. But considering the political crisis between the two countries I think it was a fair choice for not including them. If a pakistani had to go through what Parvez Rassol did just imagine how disturbing the situation would have been for both the countries. It was great to see a West Indian side dominate a cricketing arena after a very long time. Hope they continue to do the same for some more time at the least. Long Live Trinidad and Tobago and Long Live CSK!!!!

  • captainpravin on October 23, 2009, 6:55 GMT

    this tournament is a sucess as far as cricket as a whole is concerned but in india it is not as success as the ipl.

  • Timu on October 23, 2009, 5:49 GMT

    "Ideally, it should be held in a location where it can be broadcast into prime-time Indian television, which is the most valuable market from a broadcast and sponsor perspective" - I find this a very disturbing comment. Must we hold all international tournaments only to satisfy the Indian public? As an Australian and New South Welshman I have loved this tournament, but it saddens me that we could never see such a spectacle in England or Australia/New Zealand simply because it doesn't suit India.

    Also, lets drop one of the IPL sides and get a Pakastani team in there. What makes the IPL so special that it gets 3 teams? Surely there should be representation from at least 1 Pakistani side before a 3rd IPL side.

  • -Glacier- on October 23, 2009, 5:09 GMT

    cricket now baseball .poor bussinesmen destroy cricket .

  • MalikNadeemAwan on October 23, 2009, 3:55 GMT

    i think it was good tournment but it would have even better if there was a pakistani side too likes of shoaib malik, imran nazir, muhammad asif and rana but it is poor decision by india that not to include the sialkot stallions side. but over all it was good tournment.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • MalikNadeemAwan on October 23, 2009, 3:55 GMT

    i think it was good tournment but it would have even better if there was a pakistani side too likes of shoaib malik, imran nazir, muhammad asif and rana but it is poor decision by india that not to include the sialkot stallions side. but over all it was good tournment.

  • -Glacier- on October 23, 2009, 5:09 GMT

    cricket now baseball .poor bussinesmen destroy cricket .

  • Timu on October 23, 2009, 5:49 GMT

    "Ideally, it should be held in a location where it can be broadcast into prime-time Indian television, which is the most valuable market from a broadcast and sponsor perspective" - I find this a very disturbing comment. Must we hold all international tournaments only to satisfy the Indian public? As an Australian and New South Welshman I have loved this tournament, but it saddens me that we could never see such a spectacle in England or Australia/New Zealand simply because it doesn't suit India.

    Also, lets drop one of the IPL sides and get a Pakastani team in there. What makes the IPL so special that it gets 3 teams? Surely there should be representation from at least 1 Pakistani side before a 3rd IPL side.

  • captainpravin on October 23, 2009, 6:55 GMT

    this tournament is a sucess as far as cricket as a whole is concerned but in india it is not as success as the ipl.

  • Twinloner on October 23, 2009, 6:56 GMT

    Overall it has been a fantastic tournament to watch. As malik said it would have been better to see a pakistani side in the league. But considering the political crisis between the two countries I think it was a fair choice for not including them. If a pakistani had to go through what Parvez Rassol did just imagine how disturbing the situation would have been for both the countries. It was great to see a West Indian side dominate a cricketing arena after a very long time. Hope they continue to do the same for some more time at the least. Long Live Trinidad and Tobago and Long Live CSK!!!!

  • Zaheerahmed on October 23, 2009, 7:39 GMT

    The main beneficiaries of tournament like IPL and so called Champions' League (as it did not have the champion team of the champion country) are messers Kino and Modi. Who would have imagined that people like them who very few knew outside their own country would occupy so much space in Cricinfo. I would have rather read the interview of Darren Ganga, Gibbs or Bravo. The matches were played with half empty stadium and the quality of cricket was not above ordinary. No wonder none of the IPL teams reached quarter final though so much was aired about the quality of its cricket. These type of cricket is a short term phenomenon and in not more than 1-2 seasons general public as well as sponsors would be forced to rethink.

  • Nuxxy on October 23, 2009, 8:08 GMT

    I agree on having the Pakistani team. No need for 3 IPL teams. Host the next one in SA. We had good attendances for IPL2 and didn't know half the players anyway.

  • PS25BPUK on October 23, 2009, 10:39 GMT

    This tournament is very good so far. However there should have been a PAK team as well. This tournament is a WORLD tournament featuring WORLD teams. I could understand when the IPL was played to suit indian times when it was played in SA as it has indian teams with 4 foreign players in each team. I know that lots of the money is from India but this is a WORLD tournament so the timings of matches should suit the people in the country it's played in, not the indians. You would never have the timings for 2010 world twenty20 in WI suiting the indians so why is this any different? It would be silly holding the tournament in England for example then having the games at 11.30 and 3.30, because the crowd would be less because people would be at work. It should be held to suit the English people like at 3 and 7. If it's in AUS, the times should suit the Australians, It makes no sense to take CLT20 round the world then play at Indian times. Either play round world at local times or keep in Ind.

  • AsadSherazi on October 23, 2009, 11:20 GMT

    Keep the real champs (Sialkot Stallions / Karachi Dolphins) out of the tournament and try to be the One!! Its a shame to name this tournament as "Champion's League"... I bet "Lahore Badshah" is even better side than those three poor IPL teams who participated in this league (Championnnnnn's league :-D )

  • vswami on October 23, 2009, 12:50 GMT

    "Ideally, it should be held in a location where it can be broadcast into prime-time Indian television, which is the most valuable market from a broadcast and sponsor perspective" I am sure this would be a very controversial statement for a lot of people, but the fact of the matter is that most of the sponsors are from India, and most of the money is generated from the largely invisible television audience in India. The spectacle could happen in New Zealand, or Australia but then would have to be bankrolled by Australian/NZ sponsors as very few people are going to watch the matches early morning in India. The number of timings, teams etc. are simply driven by market forces, the way it happens in all other professional sports.