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/962007153169985536I 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.
