Cricket match prediction discussions

[justdimin]

ICC funding policy is a joke when it comes to associate nations. They could potentially solve this issue if the ICC stop romanticizing test cricket for the associate nations and just focus on T-20.

Also about the highlighted part, if that was the case then BCCI will run away with more than 50% of revenue because ICC's 70-80% revenue comes from the Indian market only.

Here I agree now it's time for changes and ICC need to be done this as well if they are serious about better future of this game and try to encourage teams for T-20 format instead of all formats because this is nothing positive for this game and good future of this game even I feel they need to be generous about India as they are surely the biggest shareholder in revenue, so they deserve big part of this profit as well but here now also time for changing in ICC system is also needed which will bring good increase in revenue and lifelike for many countries which are going to be in cricket specially like West Indies, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh which are not good and have no enough quality for test format because this need good investment and better structure which is not possible with current financial situation in these countries.

In long run they need to have thought about just two formats like test and T20 with leagues like T10 and The Hundred depend on boards own commitment because this is currently not suitable for them as well but can play good role in future for many new teams.

[Sithara007]

ICC funding policy is a joke when it comes to associate nations. They could potentially solve this issue if the ICC stop romanticizing test cricket for the associate nations and just focus on T-20.

Also about the highlighted part, if that was the case then BCCI will run away with more than 50% of revenue because ICC's 70-80% revenue comes from the Indian market only.

And this is why the election for the post of ICC chairman is so important (due in a few months from now). Already there are rumors that the BCCI may nominate Narayanaswami Srinivasan, who first came up with the pig-3 formula. However, it is not going to be easy. In order to win, BCCI needs 9 out of the total of 16 votes. At this point they can count on 6 votes. Getting the remaining 3 votes will be tricky, but some of the Associate nominees are reported to be very close to the BCCI. Imran Khwaja, Pankaj Khimji and Neil Speight are currently the associate representatives and out of that Khimji (Oman) is in BCCI camp.   

[savetheFORUM]

ICC funding policy is a joke when it comes to associate nations. They could potentially solve this issue if the ICC stop romanticizing test cricket for the associate nations and just focus on T-20.

Also about the highlighted part, if that was the case then BCCI will run away with more than 50% of revenue because ICC's 70-80% revenue comes from the Indian market only.

And this is why the election for the post of ICC chairman is so important (due in a few months from now). Already there are rumors that the BCCI may nominate Narayanaswami Srinivasan, who first came up with the pig-3 formula. However, it is not going to be easy. In order to win, BCCI needs 9 out of the total of 16 votes. At this point they can count on 6 votes. Getting the remaining 3 votes will be tricky, but some of the Associate nominees are reported to be very close to the BCCI. Imran Khwaja, Pankaj Khimji and Neil Speight are currently the associate representatives and out of that Khimji (Oman) is in BCCI camp.   

Right now as things are going into ICC I have feeling India is winner in long race because their relationship and monopoly is going to be strong in near future with their strong economic system and this is going to be good for them as they can control mostly this big sports organization and just because of this they are not supporting many popular decisions which are bringing more teams in this system.

If Narayanaswami Srinivasan is coming again which is not sure then surely things could be more complicated, or we can face more difficulties for many countries specially associate countries because with his business mind surely he is going to do decisions which are going to help big 3 or 4 and nothing positive development for rest of cricket community which is already in trouble.

[hichamito37]

ICC funding policy is a joke when it comes to associate nations. They could potentially solve this issue if the ICC stop romanticizing test cricket for the associate nations and just focus on T-20.

Also about the highlighted part, if that was the case then BCCI will run away with more than 50% of revenue because ICC's 70-80% revenue comes from the Indian market only.

And this is why the election for the post of ICC chairman is so important (due in a few months from now). Already there are rumors that the BCCI may nominate Narayanaswami Srinivasan, who first came up with the pig-3 formula. However, it is not going to be easy. In order to win, BCCI needs 9 out of the total of 16 votes. At this point they can count on 6 votes. Getting the remaining 3 votes will be tricky, but some of the Associate nominees are reported to be very close to the BCCI. Imran Khwaja, Pankaj Khimji and Neil Speight are currently the associate representatives and out of that Khimji (Oman) is in BCCI camp.   

I think that the election is going to be really important for the future of cricket. It might determine the future of cricket for the associate Nations as I think in order to spread cricket more ICC needs to divert its attention more towards Associate nations. BCCI have always found advantages from ICC and I hope that this thing change after the selection and  ICC will treat almost all if not all team the same.

[Sithara007]

I think that the election is going to be really important for the future of cricket. It might determine the future of cricket for the associate Nations as I think in order to spread cricket more ICC needs to divert its attention more towards Associate nations. BCCI have always found advantages from ICC and I hope that this thing change after the selection and  ICC will treat almost all if not all team the same.

If mafia don Srinivasan becomes the chairman again, then there will be a lot more corruption and once again Associate nations will be the ones to suffer the most. The current chairman is also not much better, as he is a pig-4 nominee. Maybe PCB, SLCB and other smaller boards should unite this time and put forward a single choice for the post of chairman. Siding with the BCCI is not going to be beneficial in the long term, although it will bring rewards in the short run (even the ECB and CA have realized this aspect).

[JSRAW]

I think that the election is going to be really important for the future of cricket. It might determine the future of cricket for the associate Nations as I think in order to spread cricket more ICC needs to divert its attention more towards Associate nations. BCCI have always found advantages from ICC and I hope that this thing change after the selection and  ICC will treat almost all if not all team the same.

If mafia don Srinivasan becomes the chairman again, then there will be a lot more corruption and once again Associate nations will be the ones to suffer the most. The current chairman is also not much better, as he is a pig-4 nominee. Maybe PCB, SLCB and other smaller boards should unite this time and put forward a single choice for the post of chairman. Siding with the BCCI is not going to be beneficial in the long term, although it will bring rewards in the short run (even the ECB and CA have realized this aspect).

Virtually no debate on Srinivasan's dodgy history as everybody is well aware of it.

But you are implying that BCCI was directly responsible for the Associate's suffering. This might surprise you, it was ICC that reduced the fund for associates when they dismantled the BIG-3 system and added Ireland and Afghanistan.

And another fun fact about the 2 board's names you mentioned. In a recent ICC meeting (regarding media rights auction) one of the board was very keen to push for 8 year deal only instead of 4 years. No cookies for any guess that which board and why the focus was on a longer deal. 

[Sithara007]

Virtually no debate on Srinivasan's dodgy history as everybody is well aware of it.

But you are implying that BCCI was directly responsible for the Associate's suffering. This might surprise you, it was ICC that reduced the fund for associates when they dismantled the BIG-3 system and added Ireland and Afghanistan.

And another fun fact about the 2 board's names you mentioned. In a recent ICC meeting (regarding media rights auction) one of the board was very keen to push for 8 year deal only instead of 4 years. No cookies for any guess that which board and why the focus was on a longer deal.  

Associate funding for 2015-23 cycle was originally set at $62.5 million per year, before Srinivasan with help from Giles Clarke and Wally Edwards reduced it to $26.25 million per year. After Srinivasan was kicked out, the amount was increased to $35 million by Shashank Manohar. But after a deal was reached with the BCCI, it was further reduced to $20 million per year, as Ireland and Afghanistan both walked away with an addition of $5 million each. More details can be found here, in the tweet from Bertus de Jong:

https://twitter.com/BdJcricket/status/962007153169985536

[Swordsoffreedom]

I think that the election is going to be really important for the future of cricket. It might determine the future of cricket for the associate Nations as I think in order to spread cricket more ICC needs to divert its attention more towards Associate nations. BCCI have always found advantages from ICC and I hope that this thing change after the selection and  ICC will treat almost all if not all team the same.

If mafia don Srinivasan becomes the chairman again, then there will be a lot more corruption and once again Associate nations will be the ones to suffer the most. The current chairman is also not much better, as he is a pig-4 nominee. Maybe PCB, SLCB and other smaller boards should unite this time and put forward a single choice for the post of chairman. Siding with the BCCI is not going to be beneficial in the long term, although it will bring rewards in the short run (even the ECB and CA have realized this aspect).

Virtually no debate on Srinivasan's dodgy history as everybody is well aware of it.

But you are implying that BCCI was directly responsible for the Associate's suffering. This might surprise you, it was ICC that reduced the fund for associates when they dismantled the BIG-3 system and added Ireland and Afghanistan.

And another fun fact about the 2 board's names you mentioned. In a recent ICC meeting (regarding media rights auction) one of the board was very keen to push for 8 year deal only instead of 4 years. No cookies for any guess that which board and why the focus was on a longer deal. 

@JSRAW I would like to ask a question. Why do we have to choose between two shit? Why do we always have to make a choice between which one is less snitty or which one is more snitty? There are times when we know that none of them are going to be of any use to us in the future. Is it not possible to bring another candidate forward? Is there no one else eligible for this position of work? If any of the individuals you are being suggested for nomination are nominated, I don't see any improvement for cricket.

@Sithara007 Srinivasan is obviously going to do a terrible job and there will be a lot of corruption no doubt about that. If he is selected again, there is not going to be any improvement for cricket in my opinion. We will be back in the old days again.

[Juggy777]

I think that the election is going to be really important for the future of cricket. It might determine the future of cricket for the associate Nations as I think in order to spread cricket more ICC needs to divert its attention more towards Associate nations. BCCI have always found advantages from ICC and I hope that this thing change after the selection and  ICC will treat almost all if not all team the same.

If mafia don Srinivasan becomes the chairman again, then there will be a lot more corruption and once again Associate nations will be the ones to suffer the most. The current chairman is also not much better, as he is a pig-4 nominee. Maybe PCB, SLCB and other smaller boards should unite this time and put forward a single choice for the post of chairman. Siding with the BCCI is not going to be beneficial in the long term, although it will bring rewards in the short run (even the ECB and CA have realized this aspect).

Virtually no debate on Srinivasan's dodgy history as everybody is well aware of it.

But you are implying that BCCI was directly responsible for the Associate's suffering. This might surprise you, it was ICC that reduced the fund for associates when they dismantled the BIG-3 system and added Ireland and Afghanistan.

And another fun fact about the 2 board's names you mentioned. In a recent ICC meeting (regarding media rights auction) one of the board was very keen to push for 8 year deal only instead of 4 years. No cookies for any guess that which board and why the focus was on a longer deal.  

@JSRAW I would like to ask a question. Why do we have to choose between two shit? Why do we always have to make a choice between which one is less snitty or which one is more snitty? There are times when we know that none of them are going to be of any use to us in the future. Is it not possible to bring another candidate forward? Is there no one else eligible for this position of work? If any of the individuals you are being suggested for nomination are nominated, I don't see any improvement for cricket.

@Sithara007 Srinivasan is obviously going to do a terrible job and there will be a lot of corruption no doubt about that. If he is selected again, there is not going to be any improvement for cricket in my opinion. We will be back in the old days again.

@Swordsoffreedom I don’t see any other strong candidate to challenge Srinivasan if he’s eligible to contest, and I also doubt that those team’s will unite behind a single candidate. Furthermore do you’ll actually believe that Srinivasan will repeat his old tricks this time too?, because I felt that even if he returned he would be under heavy scrutiny from the media and fans and therefore he would have to strictly follow the rules.

[Sithara007]

@Sithara007 Srinivasan is obviously going to do a terrible job and there will be a lot of corruption no doubt about that. If he is selected again, there is not going to be any improvement for cricket in my opinion. We will be back in the old days again.

BCCI is quite desperate to get the chairman post this time. Ganguly and Shah are not interested, since they can continue with their respective posts in BCCI for another three years. That leaves just 4 eligible candidates - Sharad Pawar, Narayanaswami Srinivasan, Shashank Manohar and Anurag Thakur. We can rule out Pawar due to ill health and Thakur as a result of his ministerial commitments. That leaves Srinivasan and Manohar. And BCCI has quite stormy relations with Manohar. So who is left? Just Srinivasan.

[JSRAW]

Virtually no debate on Srinivasan's dodgy history as everybody is well aware of it.

But you are implying that BCCI was directly responsible for the Associate's suffering. This might surprise you, it was ICC that reduced the fund for associates when they dismantled the BIG-3 system and added Ireland and Afghanistan.

And another fun fact about the 2 board's names you mentioned. In a recent ICC meeting (regarding media rights auction) one of the board was very keen to push for 8 year deal only instead of 4 years. No cookies for any guess that which board and why the focus was on a longer deal.  

Associate funding for 2015-23 cycle was originally set at $62.5 million per year, before Srinivasan with help from Giles Clarke and Wally Edwards reduced it to $26.25 million per year. After Srinivasan was kicked out, the amount was increased to $35 million by Shashank Manohar. But after a deal was reached with the BCCI, it was further reduced to $20 million per year, as Ireland and Afghanistan both walked away with an addition of $5 million each. More details can be found here, in the tweet from Bertus de Jong:

https://twitter.com/BdJcricket/status/962007153169985536

I remember reading an article couple of years back, which used precisely the same data, don't know if this guy was the writer. While I agree this data is accurate but it misses some details.

- Additional funds for Afghanistan and Ireland came from the associate nation's pot. Which means Hamam mein sab nange they (Full members).
- Remember the Tax drama between ICC and BCCI, during the same cycle BCCI paid close to $50-80 Million in taxes and it was directly connected to the same old dispute, hence the monkey balancing from the ICC.

~snip~
Virtually no debate on Srinivasan's dodgy history as everybody is well aware of it.

But you are implying that BCCI was directly responsible for the Associate's suffering. This might surprise you, it was ICC that reduced the fund for associates when they dismantled the BIG-3 system and added Ireland and Afghanistan.

And another fun fact about the 2 board's names you mentioned. In a recent ICC meeting (regarding media rights auction) one of the board was very keen to push for 8 year deal only instead of 4 years. No cookies for any guess that which board and why the focus was on a longer deal. 

@JSRAW I would like to ask a question. Why do we have to choose between two shit? Why do we always have to make a choice between which one is less snitty or which one is more snitty? There are times when we know that none of them are going to be of any use to us in the future. Is it not possible to bring another candidate forward? Is there no one else eligible for this position of work? If any of the individuals you are being suggested for nomination are nominated, I don't see any improvement for cricket.

@Sithara007 Srinivasan is obviously going to do a terrible job and there will be a lot of corruption no doubt about that. If he is selected again, there is not going to be any improvement for cricket in my opinion. We will be back in the old days again.

Because we hear shit, speak shit, and are surrounded by shit. We don't know how to turn shit into fertilizer. Also, fans have no say whatsoever as it's a game of a bunch of guys who wear suits and ties.

So it's all come down to which shit stinks more.

[Sithara007]

~~~~
I remember reading an article couple of years back, which used precisely the same data, don't know if this guy was the writer. While I agree this data is accurate but it misses some details.

- Additional funds for Afghanistan and Ireland came from the associate nation's pot. Which means Hamam mein sab nange they (Full members).
- Remember the Tax drama between ICC and BCCI, during the same cycle BCCI paid close to $50-80 Million in taxes and it was directly connected to the same old dispute, hence the monkey balancing from the ICC.
~~~~

Out of the $15 million deducted from the associate pot, $5 million each went to Ireland and Afghanistan, while $5 million went to BCCI. And this is why I don't side with BCCI so often. This was an open case of the richest member of the association stealing from the poorer members. Ideally, this amount could have come from the funds allotted to ECB or ZC. But why allot extra funds to BCCI from the associate pot? And apart from all this, the funding distribution within the associate pot changed drastically. ICC's new formula favors teams such as UAE and Oman, while being detrimental to teams such as Nepal and PNG.

[JSRAW]

~~~~
I remember reading an article couple of years back, which used precisely the same data, don't know if this guy was the writer. While I agree this data is accurate but it misses some details.

- Additional funds for Afghanistan and Ireland came from the associate nation's pot. Which means Hamam mein sab nange they (Full members).
- Remember the Tax drama between ICC and BCCI, during the same cycle BCCI paid close to $50-80 Million in taxes and it was directly connected to the same old dispute, hence the monkey balancing from the ICC.
~~~~

Out of the $15 million deducted from the associate pot, $5 million each went to Ireland and Afghanistan, while $5 million went to BCCI. And this is why I don't side with BCCI so often. This was an open case of the richest member of the association stealing from the poorer members. Ideally, this amount could have come from the funds allotted to ECB or ZC. But why allot extra funds to BCCI from the associate pot? And apart from all this, the funding distribution within the associate pot changed drastically. ICC's new formula favors teams such as UAE and Oman, while being detrimental to teams such as Nepal and PNG.

So you are saying that BCCI took a hit of $170 Million in revenue funds when BIG-3 got dismantled by Manohar and agreed to take peanuts at cost of Associate members?

I doubt if anyone would buy this argument.

[Sithara007]

So you are saying that BCCI took a hit of $170 Million in revenue funds when BIG-3 got dismantled by Manohar and agreed to take peanuts at cost of Associate members?

I doubt if anyone would buy this argument.

Srinivasan's hatred towards associate members is no secret. This was the first model proposed by Srinivasan and the BCCI:

BCCI wanted to reduce associate funding to ZERO and transfer all those funds to the BCCI. Under their proposal, both Ireland and Afghanistan would receive no funds from the ICC. Shashank Manohar and others wanted to reach a compromise and got something in between. The mindset of the BCCI is very clear from this proposal and I don't think that anyone can defend them.

[Swordsoffreedom]

@Swordsoffreedom I don’t see any other strong candidate to challenge Srinivasan if he’s eligible to contest, and I also doubt that those team’s will unite behind a single candidate. Furthermore do you’ll actually believe that Srinivasan will repeat his old tricks this time too?, because I felt that even if he returned he would be under heavy scrutiny from the media and fans and therefore he would have to strictly follow the rules.

Srinivasan is someone who will find his way around the rules. He has a history and with a person like him, there is always a chance of that history being repeated. I was talking about some new candidate who does not have any kind of history. Obviously, there is no candidate like that. Sadly we have to choose between what we have right now. Even if the media and fans put Srinivasan on, he is not likely to actually be someone who will stick to the rules. Yes, he might follow the rules for a little while, but whenever he gets the chance he will find his way to do all the corruption he wants.

@Sithara007 Srinivasan is obviously going to do a terrible job and there will be a lot of corruption no doubt about that. If he is selected again, there is not going to be any improvement for cricket in my opinion. We will be back in the old days again.

BCCI is quite desperate to get the chairman post this time. Ganguly and Shah are not interested, since they can continue with their respective posts in BCCI for another three years. That leaves just 4 eligible candidates - Sharad Pawar, Narayanaswami Srinivasan, Shashank Manohar and Anurag Thakur. We can rule out Pawar due to ill health and Thakur as a result of his ministerial commitments. That leaves Srinivasan and Manohar. And BCCI has quite stormy relations with Manohar. So who is left? Just Srinivasan.

That's the problem I was talking about. Because of the lack of viable candidates, BCCI is planning to try to make Srinivasan the chairman.  BCCI is obviously obligated to think about their profit. Currently, this is the only way they can ensure the chairman post. I am also quite sure that the BCCI is going to get a lot of help if this ends up happening. But the associate countries are going to be the ones to suffer as usual.

[JSRAW]

So you are saying that BCCI took a hit of $170 Million in revenue funds when BIG-3 got dismantled by Manohar and agreed to take peanuts at cost of Associate members?

I doubt if anyone would buy this argument.

Srinivasan's hatred towards associate members is no secret. This was the first model proposed by Srinivasan and the BCCI:

BCCI wanted to reduce associate funding to ZERO and transfer all those funds to the BCCI. Under their proposal, both Ireland and Afghanistan would receive no funds from the ICC. Shashank Manohar and others wanted to reach a compromise and got something in between. The mindset of the BCCI is very clear from this proposal and I don't think that anyone can defend them.

We are going around in circles now.

You are making point on Pre Shashank Manohar era, which is related to Srinivasan and there is no dispute whatsoever about his wrongdoings, it could be debatable but not forgivable.

And I talked about Post BIG-3 deal in my previous post.

[Sithara007]

We are going around in circles now.

You are making point on Pre Shashank Manohar era, which is related to Srinivasan and there is no dispute whatsoever about his wrongdoings, it could be debatable but not forgivable.

And I talked about Post BIG-3 deal in my previous post.

OK.. let's move on. The funding for 2024-27 cycle will be decided only by mid-2023. But as I pointed out, the ICC chairman election is going to be very important. A few months, there were elections for the three associate representatives. Equilibrium has changed with the election of Pankaj Khimji from Oman. He defeated Mahinda Vallipuram (from Malaysia, who was very vocal about associate rights). This further increases the chances of the BCCI nominee (irrespective of who that is going to be).

[JSRAW]

We are going around in circles now.

You are making point on Pre Shashank Manohar era, which is related to Srinivasan and there is no dispute whatsoever about his wrongdoings, it could be debatable but not forgivable.

And I talked about Post BIG-3 deal in my previous post.

OK.. let's move on. The funding for 2024-27 cycle will be decided only by mid-2023. But as I pointed out, the ICC chairman election is going to be very important. A few months, there were elections for the three associate representatives. Equilibrium has changed with the election of Pankaj Khimji from Oman. He defeated Mahinda Vallipuram (from Malaysia, who was very vocal about associate rights). This further increases the chances of the BCCI nominee (irrespective of who that is going to be).

ICC Chairman election is going to be important for sure.

Having said that I think in the next term whole narrative is going to be dictated by ICC media's right outcome, once it gets public. I have a feeling that lots of people in BCCI going to raise this issue.

[Sithara007]

ICC Chairman election is going to be important for sure.

Having said that I think in the next term whole narrative is going to be dictated by ICC media's right outcome, once it gets public. I have a feeling that lots of people in BCCI going to raise this issue.

Back in 2018, the WICB raised a few important issues during the ICC conference, such as fair distribution of ICC revenues, pooled broadcast rights, distribution of revenues from bilateral series between both the participating boards and more wider distribution of hosting rights. Apart from the WICB, some of the other smaller boards such as PCB and SLCB are also quite vocal on this aspect. But the problem is that they never managed to get the required majority support, as some of the smaller boards always side with the BCCI (Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Oman.etc).

[JSRAW]

ICC Chairman election is going to be important for sure.

Having said that I think in the next term whole narrative is going to be dictated by ICC media's right outcome, once it gets public. I have a feeling that lots of people in BCCI going to raise this issue.

Back in 2018, the WICB raised a few important issues during the ICC conference, such as fair distribution of ICC revenues, pooled broadcast rights, distribution of revenues from bilateral series between both the participating boards and more wider distribution of hosting rights. Apart from the WICB, some of the other smaller boards such as PCB and SLCB are also quite vocal on this aspect. But the problem is that they never managed to get the required majority support, as some of the smaller boards always side with the BCCI (Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Oman.etc).

Kinda amazing everyone wants fair distribution but no stakeholders talk about how to bring a fair amount of money to the table from broadcasting deals be it from ICC tournaments or Bilateral. Only reason BCCI opposes every such proposal. In their point of view, this all seems to be predatory behavior.

I can't even blame them if we look at numbers. They are contributing close to 70%-80% and receive 15%-18% money back. In contrast, its 3 neighboring countries contribute 1-2% at best and walk away with almost 20-ish% of revenue combined and everyone still shit on BCCI constantly.

The kind of money ICC raised from India in a recent media right auction is way too big and could dictate the drama. My fear is if by any chance in this cycle BCCI's contribution to the ICC revenue pot increases by 10% more (80+10 =90%) then this is going to be a problem for everyone. This will give BCCI immense bargaining power again and what if they decide to boycott ICC tournament? Every Broadcaster will %uck the ICC without any doubt.