[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by BAYWAQOOF: *
or may be pants are too tight to jump out ;)
[/QUOTE]
Well its beter to be in tight pant than out of pant , NAKED in public. ;)
Anyway Jokes part.get back to topic.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by andha_qanoon: *
Well its beter to be in tight pant than out of pant , NAKED in public. ;)
Anywya Joked part.get back to topic.
[/QUOTE]
awwwww AQ in good and humorous mood after 10dulkar's 100 ;)
yes lets get back to topic so why are Indians not signing the contract ???
(wo hee murghee kee eik tangh)
AOA !
Yeah - Pak has to beat the Lankans to do that (Murali is also going to be there)
In Sharjah also they beat you up twice when Murali bowled. In the Finals Murali didn’t bowl and Sri Lanka played with 10 players 
. So dont start jumping like you did before Morocco. Let’s wait and watch.
Losing by 20+ runs in ODIs is not close. Someone needs to tell you that.
Okay you have a choice - Which one you will pick (I will pick 1)
- Lose 5 matches by a margin of less than 10 runs or less than 3 wickets
- Win one by 200+ runs or 7+ wickets
Aapke analysis ke kya kehne We just beat England in England and we dont have a chance..haha and you just now finished last in Morocco have a ver good chance of beating Lankans
Oh India is Sending its team - But to meet them you need to beat the Lankans and we need to beat the English and Zims.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Question: *
I guess thats because they don't trust their team cuz they never know if their team is going to win or not
[/QUOTE]
And you trust your team completely - that's why after every loss - you start talking about match fixing. ;)
Show me one single post where I’ve talked about match fixing after PAK loss? And if you are unable to prove it then u better don’t show up here
Ofcourse there is no way one can predict 100% victory and there is NO TEAM that has won all the matches they ever played but atleast I have faith in my teams ability to turn the match situation at any time. Unlike yours “praying for them to atleast draw the test”
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Asif_k: *
AOA !
In Sharjah also they beat you up twice when Murali bowled. In the Finals Murali didn't bowl and Sri Lanka played with 10 players :) . So dont start jumping like you did before Morocco. Let's wait and watch.
[/QUOTE]
As usual selective quotes which suits you. Same as it doesn't matter that in ODI Paksitan hold nearly 2:1 lead over your team, what really matters to you is that they have lost 3 or 4 times to your team in the world cup.
If Murali wasn't in the finals and did not bowl and is the main reason for Pakistan winning then by extension the ONLY reason Tendulkar and Dravid have made centuries in Leeds is because Gough is not bowling. So don't get too excited.
You guys ever notice every time we talk about PAK vs India the indian gupies start to bring in SL record against PAK. Its like they are using SL as a shield to protect themselves. I mean if we are saying PAK loses another chance of playing against india what it has to do with PAK vs SL? or is it that the indians are so obssesed by the SL? or is it that indians are too chicken to face the reality of PAK vs IND records? ;)
Forgot the loss to India in 1996 world cup, or Loss to Aussies in 1999 World Cup Finals, Loss to Bangladesh and so many more - Go thru the thread of every tournament Pak plays and looses the match - You will find at least one guy accusing Paki players of taking money.
Exactly like Morocco keep up the good faith.
Yeah - 488/3 with two of its batsmen making century, one still playing at 140+ and the captain playing at 75+ - Only you can call it "we are praying for a Draw. "
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ehsan: *
As usual selective quotes which suits you.
[/QUOTE]
Do you wanna talk about selctive quotes ?? You and your countrymen will always be the winner when it comes to jumping out of your pants while making selective statements.
[QUOTE]
Same as it doesn't matter that in ODI Paksitan hold nearly 2:1 lead over your team, what really matters to you is that they have lost 3 or 4 times to your team in the world cup.
[/QUOTE]
Same was it doesn't matter to you and your country men who keep declaring that India doesn't have chance against Eng in ICC trophy despite we beat them in NW series. On the other hand they will continue to Jump out of their pants and declare Pak the winner over Sri Lanka despite the fact that they finished last in Tangiers.
[QUOTE]
If Murali wasn't in the finals and did not bowl and is the main reason for Pakistan winning then by extension the ONLY reason Tendulkar and Dravid have made centuries in Leeds is because Gough is not bowling. So don't get too excited.
[/QUOTE]
Sachin did score a Century(that too unbeaten) against Gough and his team in their own hood. go figure and come up with a better one this time. Show me when Pak won by 200+ runs against the Lankans whenever Murali bowled.
We have also noticed no. 6 - Lankans ka naam suntey hi tumhari patloon gili ho jaati hai.
The reason we are bringing SL here is because you need to beat them to play with the Indian team. You are taking it as granted that you will beat them, when they are clearly the better team and can kick your A$$ anytime, anywhere. Dont worry we are not chickening out (Unlike you in 1998/99 ATC )- our third best eleven is going there try to beat them first (after you beat the Lankans which I doubt)
Coming back to the topic what is the latest on the issue, has it been resolved or not?
Sheesh! some people…
Kahaan ka topic kahaan lay gayay 
*
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mo_best: *
A team or first 11, your rarely seriously contenders for anything.
[/QUOTE]
=======================================================
*
This is where problem started. People should just stop hate mongering and post things related to post.Once one guys does it then starts I AM GOOD and YOU ARE BAD post.
People need to be understand that.
Ehsan bhai looking good. 
Keep it up.
http://sports.yahoo.com/m/sk/news/reuters/20020822/reu-iccindia.html
The Indian cricket board is still hopeful its leading players will sign the controversial contract to play in next month’s Champions Trophy.
“I hope so, hope wisdom prevails,” Niranjan Shah, secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), told Reuters.
Top players, including Sachin Tendulkar and captain Saurav Ganguly, have refused to sign the contract because of a clause protecting sponsors which prevents them from endorsing products of rival companies 30 days either side of International Cricket Council (ICC) events.
The stand, backed by players from other test countries, had threatened a mass boycott of the September 12-29 tournament in Colombo, but that prospect receded on Thursday when Australia reached an agreement and said they planned to send a full-strength team.
England and South Africa have also indicated that they are close to ending the dispute with their players.
Shah said the Indian board was still going ahead with plans to select a second string squad for the ICC Trophy from a short-list of 25 unnamed “probables”.
“We are planning to select the final 14… it will take two-three days,” he said.
Shah said the board has done its best by offering the rebels compensation for lost endorsement deals and support in case of legal hassles from their sponsors, though he feels his organisation has been handicapped by the absence of player contracts.
“When we enter into contract we can have provisions for such issues, but it is not easy (to finalise), it will take time,” he added.
The Indian board plans to study the proposals worked out between the Australian board and its players’ representatives before the ICC’s executive board meeting in Dubai on August 31.
http://sports.yahoo.com/m/sk/news/reuters/20020823/reu-indiacontract.html
India is unlikely to adopt the Australian model in their attempt to solve the contract row threatening to devalue next month’s prestigious ICC Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka.
“We have received some documents from Australia,” Niranjan Shah, secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), told Reuters from the western city of Rajkot.
"We are studying the material, but the problems of the Indian and Australian players are different to a large extent.
“So it’s unlikely that we will be able to use their model as a template for our negotiations,” he said on Friday.
Australia reached an agreement with its players on Thursday to reduce fears of a mass boycott of the September 12-29 Colombo tournament and the International Cricket Council (ICC) has urged other boards to use their guidelines as a model for negotiations.
Top Indian stars, including Sachin Tendulkar and captain Saurav Ganguly, have refused to sign the contract because of an “ambush marketing” clause which prevents them from endorsing products of rival companies 30 days either side of ICC events.
The Australian cricket board has offered their players compensation for any sponsorship money they would lose as a result of the contract.
But an Indian board official, who did not wish to be named, said that considering the huge sponsorship deals of some top Indian players, the same would be “unthinkable” for the BCCI.
The ICC has remained firm in its resolve to retain the “ambush marketing” provisions for their events, including next year’s World Cup in South Africa.
LOSING MILLIONS
The provisions could lead to top Indian players, with lucrative personal sponsorship deals, losing millions of dollars if they signed the document.
“Cricketers in Australia and other countries don’t have big sponsorship contracts like they have in India,” Shah said.
“Whatever documents Australia has sent us are welcome but it’s unlikely the Australian resolution with the ICC will be used as a template for us because the problems might not be the same.”
Players from Australia, England and South Africa said they did not have any direct sponsorship conflict for the Champions Trophy tournament, but had refused to sign the document because the ICC deal was valid until 2007.
Shah said the Indian players’ main problem with the contract was an “images clause”, which allowed official ICC sponsors to use player images from a tournament in their advertising campaigns for up to six months after the event.
“Our players have expressed serious concerns over the images clause,” Shah said. “We are hoping for a solution which can address their problems, otherwise there will be no option but to send a second string team (to the Champions Trophy).”
India has already shortlisted 25 unnamed probables for a weakened team for the tournament. The final 14 are expected to be picked soon.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ehsan: *
As usual selective quotes which suits you. Same as it doesn't matter that in ODI Paksitan hold nearly 2:1 lead over your team, what really matters to you is that they have lost 3 or 4 times to your team in the world cup.
If Murali wasn't in the finals and did not bowl and is the main reason for Pakistan winning then by extension the ONLY reason Tendulkar and Dravid have made centuries in Leeds is because Gough is not bowling. So don't get too excited.
[/QUOTE]
That pretty much wraps it up !!
Coming back to topic..
Looks like Srilankan players also refusing to sign the contract.
Sri Lankan players join ICC sponsorship row
Charlie Austin - 25 August 2002
Sri Lanka’s cricketers have refused to sign the International Cricket Council contract that is threatening the participation of leading Asian players in the ICC Champions Trophy next month.
The Sri Lanka team returned home after the Morocco Cup 2002 on Friday and player representatives met with the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka (BCCSL) to voice their concerns.
The BCCSL is urging the players to sign the controversial ICC contract designed to prevent `ambush marketing’ during the ICC Champions Trophy and the ICC World Cup, but the players will not do so unless key conditions are met.
BCCSL chief executive Anura Tennekoon confirmed the players’ refusal to sign, saying: “They declined to sign the contracts pending clarification to certain matters”.
Newspapers in Sri Lanka on Sunday claimed that the players were demanding 30% of the revenue accrued by the BCCSL from the ICC Champions Trophy and ICC World Cup as compensation.
An anonymous player is quoted in the Sunday Times as saying: “If the players are not permitted to endorse any products and expected only to promote a selected product they should be compensated and remunerated accordingly.”
The players have requested that the cricket board negotiate with former Sri Lanka fast bowler Graeme Labrooy, a representative from the Sri Lanka Cricketers’ Association (SLCA), who has been discussing the issue with the world players’ body (FICA).
Labrooy has also insisted that: “Any future contract signed with the ICC that involves the players must have their consent.”
But despite the players’ reluctance to sign the contract, they are expected to do so, at least for the ICC Champions Trophy, considering the fact that Sri Lanka is hosting the tournament and that few of the players currently endorse international brands.
During the past week the Australian, English, New Zealand and South African cricket boards reached agreement with their respective player associations, ensuring that their top players will participate in the 12-team tournament starting Sept 12.
However, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has not been able to persuade its star players, who are not contracted to the BCCI and earn the majority of their income from endorsement deals, to sign the ICC agreement.
http://www-rsa.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2002/AUG/052823_CI_25AUG2002.html