-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Big 3 could control revamped ICC
- Thread starter Adelaide Hawk
- Start date
- Tagged users None
That would completely obliterate smaller nations, and ensure the demise of Test cricket. (Or hasten it for thise who believe Test cricket is doomed regardless.)
There is not one even vaguely defencible part of the proposal.
There is not one even vaguely defencible part of the proposal.
- Thread starter
- #5
I'm looking at it more from the point of view of counteracting India's present hold on the ICC.
- Sep 21, 2012
- 1,697
- 2,053
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- they don't fear; Dallas Mavericks
Terrible idea. There is absolutely no point of having a relegation system when particular teams can't even be relegated. If you're not good enough, you're not good enough. Imagine Man Utd not being able to be relegated, the outrage by all the other teams. Would be one of the worst things for the sport; ever.
monty1104
Brownlow Medallist
Not overly keen on this. The non relegation rule is ridiculous, but let's be serious, those 3 countries would never be relegated anyway. Scrap that rule.
I don't like the line about ECB, CA and BCCI getting a larger share in the revenue. Every nation should simply get their share. I'm sure there are people out there with a better knowledge of finance than I do that could work out a way where nations get their fair share of revenue. If Australia or India end up with more, fine, it as long as they deserve it, not just because of an arbitrary percentage allocation of total revenue.
I don't like the line about ECB, CA and BCCI getting a larger share in the revenue. Every nation should simply get their share. I'm sure there are people out there with a better knowledge of finance than I do that could work out a way where nations get their fair share of revenue. If Australia or India end up with more, fine, it as long as they deserve it, not just because of an arbitrary percentage allocation of total revenue.
I'm not a huge fan of the BCCI-CA-ECB triumvirate, but on the other hand it simplifies what's basically been going on behind the scenes for the last decade anyway.
As for pro/rel, the "exemptions" need to be done away with, but otherwise it's exactly what Test Cricket needs. There's no reason why Bangladesh or Zimbabwe should have a free pass ahead of the other associates.
As for pro/rel, the "exemptions" need to be done away with, but otherwise it's exactly what Test Cricket needs. There's no reason why Bangladesh or Zimbabwe should have a free pass ahead of the other associates.
Yes because Cricket Australia have been making decisions in the best interest of the game recently...
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
Shit for cricket
Mate. That went out years ago. It's long since become the BCCI, ECB, CA alliance.
The main problem with this is the getting rid of the FTP- you need it for a proper pro/rel system.
And of course the exemption.
It's not like Australia, England or India would ever get relegated on merit really.
Mate. That went out years ago. It's long since become the BCCI, ECB, CA alliance.
The main problem with this is the getting rid of the FTP- you need it for a proper pro/rel system.
And of course the exemption.
It's not like Australia, England or India would ever get relegated on merit really.
(edit Depending on where you draw the line) England would have done in the late 90s. I recently read (it may have been on here) that they reached a low of 8th at some point.
By basically replacing the ICC with a CA-ECB-BCCI coalition? And how will this prevent the BCCI in 10-20 years time manoeuvring to remove CA and the ECB? Edwards has been instrumental in setting up better governance for CA. It's a shame he doesn't want to do the same with the ICC
Will be the death of test cricket as a legitimate sport, we will still have the regular ashes and few other series but without the ftp teams like sri lanka pakistan nz and west indies will not get many test series against the big boys and will favour the shorter forms against each other as they will need that revenue just to scrape by.
The ability to simply opt out of any test series for alleged financial reasons would make any bilateral agreements completely useless and ensure that the big teams can play just each other and lock everybody else out and that the small teams then have to lock out test cricket just to survive.
The ability to simply opt out of any test series for alleged financial reasons would make any bilateral agreements completely useless and ensure that the big teams can play just each other and lock everybody else out and that the small teams then have to lock out test cricket just to survive.
It is almost impossible to overstate how important it is that this does not happen.
death of cricket in west indies and other smaller competitors.
Can't see why we can't have a 'security council' set up, with one representative from the test playing nations and rotating 2 year for every other nation.
Will still see pakistan/india/SL/Bangaladesh block vote and NZ/SA/England/Aus block votes but I think it would be better than transfer of power to 3 nations.
Can't see why we can't have a 'security council' set up, with one representative from the test playing nations and rotating 2 year for every other nation.
Will still see pakistan/india/SL/Bangaladesh block vote and NZ/SA/England/Aus block votes but I think it would be better than transfer of power to 3 nations.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
It was only a few months ago that we lost seven tests in a row. But for a few important decisions being made - Arthur being sacked being one of them - we could have been staring down the barrel right now.
sherb
Hall of Famer
This sounds like the lunatics running the asylum to me.
It would be like handing the three or four most powerful clubs excessive power in the running of the AFL.
If anything, the ICC should be heading more toward independent control of the game, not the opposite.
I don't like it.
It would be like handing the three or four most powerful clubs excessive power in the running of the AFL.
If anything, the ICC should be heading more toward independent control of the game, not the opposite.
I don't like it.
Does the term "blockbuster game" mean anything to you?
sherb
Hall of Famer
I'm aware of the influence the powerful clubs have, yes.Does the term "blockbuster game" mean anything to you?
But the AFL has made decisions - or persisted with policies - that have gone against the grain of those clubs as well. Give member clubs (or in the ICC's case countries) too much power or influence, and would that still occur? Doubt it.
That's what worries me here. We didn't like it when India had too much power, I don't see how this is any different - other than to dilute India's influence (perhaps).
A very, very good question which is not being asked by CA. I would trust India about as far as I could kick them.
India has less of a love for Test cricket than the variety of shorter forms that generate more money (either legally or otherwise).
At least CA and ECB are more likely to see Test cricket as having some intrinsic value over and above cash.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
Against India and England.
In a proper pro/rel system we'd also play the West Indies, Sri Lanka, New Zealand home and away and the other nations at home.
We would win enough games to avoid relegation.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
Correct. This would be like Collingwood, Essendon and West Coast joining together to create a new AFL Commision (with those three clubs having vetos) and creating two ten team divisions with Collingwood, Essendon and West Coast been exempt from relegation.
While making it so the Bulldogs, Demons etc get less revenue sharing and the Bombers, WC and Pies get more of it
Similar threads
