ICC funding

Participate in discussion with your fellow Zimbabwe cricket fans!
secretzimbo
Posts: 8689
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:08 pm
Supports: MidWest Rhinos
Location: Gweru

Re: ICC funding

Post by secretzimbo »

Googly wrote:
Fri May 12, 2023 9:56 am
You don't need 20 players per franchise. That works on the premise of giving lots of players a little. As tough as that decision is, you have to give fewer players more.
I'm not sure I agree with this, although I see the logic and I've probably said similar myself in the past.

I think you risk the system becoming too small. it's already too small actually. I think having 100 full-time professionals really is the lower limit an international side can sustain. It's a regular occurence this past season that franchises have had to field 2nd or even at times 3rd string players due to the national side/A side having fixtures - it's not good when those fringe players coming into First Class fixtures are basically random amateurs. The drop-off in standard is vast, and doesn't benefit anyone. I think 20 players in a franchise squad is reasonable when you consider probably up to 5 or 6 of those per side may be unavailable at any time due to internationals.

You have to give enough opportunity to those on the next rung down who may be young enough or talented enough to maybe at least become decent franchise players long-term. I think it's dangerous if your focus is entirely only on players who have the potential to play international cricket. You also need a solid core of competitive players who honestly won't ever play for the national side but can ensure decent standard, week in week out over years in the Logan Cup.

Of course the key thing is that if someone is contracted then they have to be seriously contracted. There needs to be a strong expectation that anyone on any sort of contract is a full-time professional and that this is being monitored and strictly adhered to. You can't have these fringe guys going 4 weeks without being selected in the team but only training maybe two or three times, half-heartedly in the local nets. If you're going to have a professional contract then there has to be an absolutely expectation and high-standards and requirements to match.

Googly
Posts: 14197
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:48 pm

Re: ICC funding

Post by Googly »

You're 100% correct

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 7035
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: ICC funding

Post by Kriterion_BD »

I don't think this new funding ploy is a done deal yet. Its got to be up for a vote at the AGM which is usually every June or July. I imagine a few full members will be opposed to this. No way England and Australia are only twice as valuable as Zimbabwe and India is 6-7x as valuable as England and Australia. As the article says, there was no evidence to back up these arbitrary ratings.

I think a fairer distribution would be:

20% for Associates
80% for 12 full members
- 25% India
- 10% England
- 10% Australia
- 7% Pakistan
- 5% New Zealand
- 4.5% South Africa
- 4.5% Sri Lanka
- 4% West Indies
- 4% Bangladesh
- 2% Zimbabwe
- 2% Ireland
- 2% Afghanistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjtuZBykSzM (Noreaga - Blood Money Part 3)

pillowprocter
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2022 5:37 pm
Location: Riyadh

Re: ICC funding

Post by pillowprocter »

Kriterion_BD wrote:
Fri May 12, 2023 5:55 pm
I don't think this new funding ploy is a done deal yet. Its got to be up for a vote at the AGM which is usually every June or July. I imagine a few full members will be opposed to this. No way England and Australia are only twice as valuable as Zimbabwe and India is 6-7x as valuable as England and Australia. As the article says, there was no evidence to back up these arbitrary ratings.

I think a fairer distribution would be:

20% for Associates
80% for 12 full members
- 25% India
- 10% England
- 10% Australia
- 7% Pakistan
- 5% New Zealand
- 4.5% South Africa
- 4.5% Sri Lanka
- 4% West Indies
- 4% Bangladesh
- 2% Zimbabwe
- 2% Ireland
- 2% Afghanistan
If it's based on the revenue they bring in I'd put both Ban and NZ at 4.5 aswell

secretzimbo
Posts: 8689
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:08 pm
Supports: MidWest Rhinos
Location: Gweru

Re: ICC funding

Post by secretzimbo »

India and the BCCI will be the death of this sport

Googly
Posts: 14197
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:48 pm

Re: ICC funding

Post by Googly »

What's the justification of zim, Afghanistan and Ireland basically getting half of what West Indies, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka get?

There are a multitude of factors to take into consideration-
Corporate sponsorship.
Television revenues
How many senior players
How many franchises
How many games are scheduled
How many junior players
How many ladies/girls
Potential to improve
Popularity of the sport
Marketability of the senior team internationally
Ranking
Propensity to ram raid the cookie jar.
Whats left in the bank after a year of operations. No prizes for guessing which Boards will have some money and which will have zip. India will surely have massive funds at year end, indicating they have too big a slice.
Theyre going to end up like America where they will proudly call their fc cricket the World Series at this rate.
The other big countries must be frothing at what India have decided to award themselves. How have they pulled that off? They should play themselves for a couple of years

We don't tick a lot of the boxes....anymore.
We now have a fraction of the cricketers we used to and all sport has imploded.
I wonder if the powers that be in all sporting disciplines ever stop to reflect at their sheer magnificent incompetence? It's the stuff of legend.
But having said that we need a leg up, surely? It's a huge step in the right direction, but when you look at what everyone else will be getting it's not so shiny.

Despite the increase we are surely under massive pressure to perform!! We are so much better off financially than some Associates that are pretty much on a par with us. We're in the cross hairs.

If this gets signed off it's going to be alarmingly fascinating to see how some of the money is spent.

secretzimbo
Posts: 8689
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:08 pm
Supports: MidWest Rhinos
Location: Gweru

Re: ICC funding

Post by secretzimbo »

You mention the west indies....thats a good point. They appear to be in terminal decline. They seem to attract almost zero local home fans to any of their fixtures. Participation on some islands is now at historic lows from what I've read. I doubt they bring in much of a local TV deal. Their domestic first class season is even shorter than ours. The list goes on. They seem to be going completely backward, and yet they get double what we get?

Makes no sense. Imagine if we were to get 25-30m - that would be a real game changer!

User avatar
eugene
Posts: 7653
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:31 pm
Supports: Matabeleland Tuskers

Re: ICC funding

Post by eugene »

Why is South Africa assigned so little these days? Surely they are a more valuable market than New Zealand?
Neil Johnson, Alistair Campbell, Murray Goodwin, Andy Flower (w), Grant Flower, Dave Houghton, Guy Whittall, Heath Streak (c), Andy Blignaut, Ray Price, Eddo Brandes

User avatar
zimbos_05
Posts: 3057
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:00 am

Re: ICC funding

Post by zimbos_05 »

secretzimbo wrote:
Fri May 12, 2023 6:45 pm
India and the BCCI will be the death of this sport
This

There seems to be more talk of IPL clubs signing players to permanent contracts which would mean the players will need to be released by the IPL club if the player is selected by their country.

India don't realise that the more they take, the less competitive the game gets, thereby dropping the potential income

ZIMDOGGY
Posts: 6647
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:40 pm
Supports: MidWest Rhinos

Re: ICC funding

Post by ZIMDOGGY »

Why do the biggest earners need the most funding exactly?


Shouldn’t it be the opposite?
Cricinfo profile of the 'James Bond' of cricket:

FULL NAME: Angus James Mackay
BORN: 13 June 1967, Harare
KNOWN AS: Gus Mackay

'The' Gus Mackay.

Hero.
Sportsman.
Artist.
Player.

**
Q. VUSI SIBANDA, WHERE DO YOU HOP?

A. UNDA DA ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE*

Post Reply