6-7 top Bangladeshi players set to join ICL as per Cricinfo. This is a huge news story.
If true…this is end of Bangladeshi Cricket as we know it. BD is starved of International level players already and now this.
Thanks BCCI for destroying a country’s cricket.
In this day and age, when even Microsoft cannot get away trying to prevent competition, the ICC weaklings have allowed BCCI a free leash.
The bottomline - The Cricketing powers-that-be must come out with a solution to protect countries from losing players to ICL just because the respective boards don’t have the guts to stand up to BCCI’s diktats.
I want to see the end of politicians-cum-baniyaas managed billion dollar cash cow called the BCCI.
This kind of unleashed unquestioned monopoly is unheard of. I am sick of their muscle-flexing pugnacious ways. It is mind-boggling to me that a central Cabinet Minister of such an important portfolio as "Agriculture" spends almost all his time soaking in the glory of being the BCCI president.
The thread title was to suggest that I am loving what just happened to BD and what it could ultimately mean for BCCI.
As more and more countries lose good fringe players to ICL, you will see their respective boards beginning to see what the BCCI-ICL standoff is doing to them...and they will stop banning their players who join ICL......which in turn will hurt BCCI.
ps> moderators please change the thread title to "6 top BD players set to join ICL" or some such.
I would say that the member boards - especially lower-ranked teams such as Bangladesh - would have to lift the bans from their players joining the "rebel league". Because players are in the field to earn money regardless of their association with a country, if the boards become a tough nut to crack, ICC, who first came up with the idea of banning (and BCCI/PCB were the first ones to follow) would have to re-think. Majority of the cricket stake lies with BCCI and if they were to lift the bans of Indian players from joining ICL, ICC would have no option but to give up this rule and follow in BCCI's footsteps. When the ICL started last year, only one Bangladeshi player was contracted so they did not think this all the way through, but now that contracts are being handed out, either lift the bans or re-construct their bench strength to allow the exposure to new players. I don't see any third option. And in my view, the ball lies with the boards (ICC/BCCI) to come to a consensus rather than players picking their allegiances.
The thread title was to suggest that I am loving what just happened to BD and what it could ultimately mean for BCCI.
ps> moderators please change the thread title to "6 top BD players set to join ICL" or some such.
haha I meant the title comment as a joke, it probably came off the wrong way, was heading out, I should have put a smiley face at the end of it.
But I agree with you. A monopoly does not benefit the cricket world. Competition always increases quality.
Also dhobi bhai is right, it affects the lower-ranked teams a lot more who dont have higher salaries. Also teams like NZ who don't play as much as India and Australia, are less financially stable and could use the extra cash in their pockets.
Also ICL has improved cricket in India. BCCI is so against it, they started paying more attention to the way they run their own cricket. Increased salaries for their domestic tournaments, staff etc, invested a lot of money into cricket in India, its been a good wake up call for Indian cricket.
Seems like its not got a lot to do with the ICL and BCCI from recent reports. It just seems like the players are fed up with their board, just like the mass Pakistani surge of players that left for ICL during the start of ICL.
Seems like its not got a lot to do with the ICL and BCCI from recent reports. It just seems like the players are fed up with their board, just like the mass Pakistani surge of players that left for ICL during the start of ICL.
No way.
These guys are trying to rationalize their action and trying to defend themselves against accusations of being "unpatriotic" by holding the BD cricket board responsible for their decision.
The simple fact is that no BD player can ever expect to make the kind of money being offered by ICL. And especially if you are a fringe player or a discarded player (like Bashar), why would you turn down the ICL offer ?
A monopoly does not benefit the cricket world. Competition always increases quality.
Very much.
BCCI will have to make a sound judgment whether the bans from Indian (domestic) players will be lifted or will they be forced to exile from appearing in the national team. If anything, BCCI can continue to monopolize (as if they haven't already done enough) the Indian cricket and cricket around the world by not lifting the bans, which, in effect, will also put the other countries at risk of not allowing those players to take part in their own international cricket schedule. BCCI have set a negative standard for themselves and for the other boards especially ICC. I would like to think that under the supervision of Haroon Lorgat, ICC is becoming more mainstream with their processes and their dealings but so far, it is appearing anything but.
No way.
These guys are trying to rationalize their action and trying to defend themselves against accusations of being "unpatriotic" by holding the BD cricket board responsible for their decision.
My thought process is the same along these lines. Why would one want to rationalize the concept of patriotism knowing that you are in a field to make money as cricket is an occupation just as anything else. If players choose to go elsewhere other than their countries to play and still represent their country, the boards should not be blamed for their actions.
Look what competition did to BCCI. It created the IPL.
Yes, if it was not for ICL, BCCI would never have thought of IPL.
The BCCI had been the most unprofessional board until the advent of ICL. (didn't have a proper official address or a website for god's sakes - I am not sure where they spent their billions other than in enriching themselves).
From a legal standpoint, the BCCI is a privately held organization . That it is headed by a current Cabinet Minister is ridiculous given the obvious conflict of interest. Would it be acceptable if Sharad Pawar starts to work tomorrow as the CEO of Infosys while also being a Cabinet Minister in the current Govt ? Why nobody is questioning his BCCI position is beyond me.
To take this argument further, private organizations like BCCI (PCB/BCB/Cricket Australia etc) have joined forces and formed a "cartel" called the "ICC" . And going by the current BCCI-ICL standoff, it seems like if you refuse to work for one company in this "cartel", you become a persona non grata for all the other companies in the cartel. Not to mention that you become a "REBEL".
Such activity cannot stand up to legal scrutiny (with regards to labor laws) in most countries - so why is it being allowed just because the "business" being conducted is "Cricket".
^ No sure about that . I am still perplexed with the financial aspect of ICL. How do the promoters recover all this money spent. The past seasons of ICL have not had a huge following even in India. Though the quality of broadcast and commentary was top notch - one of the things that put me off was that the grounds the games were played on were clearly sub-standard and small (BCCI of course used its muscle to force the state boards to refuse permission to the ICL to use any of the major venues).
A bit of history of ICL from Wikipedia : Zee Telefilms (part of the Essel group, which is promoted by Subhash Chandra) bid for the telecast rights to the 2003 Cricket World Cup. Although the highest bid, it was unsuccessful. In 2004, Subhash Chandra again bid for telecast rights and ended up in an inconclusive court battle. He made another bid for the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy rights and once again lost. He responded by creating the ICL. “They denied us the cricket content,” says Himanshu Mody, business head of ICL and Zee’s sports, “so, we had to create our own content”.
Very soon, BCB/PCB will follow in the same footsteps, if not in the future. ICL is not going to go away because of their unsanctioned entry into the cricket world. Because of the competition between ICL/IPL, the likes of Stanford are now available to English players to make money off of and take part in these yearly versions of Twenty20.
I don’t understand why BCCI has to run in the direction of ICC and take the matter to them. I had thought the decision was first taken by BCCI to ban ICL and it’s association with Indian cricket, and ICC shortly followed with their stance, any move to ban such players will “have to be taken by the respective boards of the concerned players”.
This is affecting/hurting Bangladesh more than it is affecting Sri Lanka. Half of BCB’s highest-prized stocks are gone for 10 years. Unless they remove the ban, there is no hope left for Bangladesh cricket.
