The next test nations......

[JHunter]

It IS that clear. Did you read the TWO PAGE document on the requirements of full membership? Do you realize that the document on the requirement for full membership is less wordy than the documents on the requirements for Associate membership?

That two-page document contains guidelines, not rules

The two page document contains guidelines on the criteria (i.e. requirements) for full membership. The document is also to be found under the section of the ICC website entitled "Rules and Regulations".

(and they're guidelines a number of current Full Members don't even meet, at that).

Such as?

Any application for Full Membership still requires a vote of the existing Full Members,

As it always has. So it isn't as if the ICC is changing the rules of the game as sam edwards is alleging. In fact the ICC made it fairer in 1993 when England and Australia voluntarily gave up their veto powers in the ICC which had been used in the past to veto applications for the full membership that had the support of the majority (e.g. Zimbabwe in 1989).

who will be looking at the Future Tours Programme, TV rights, the possibility of diluting all that with games against another nation that Indian, Aussie or English crowds won't necessarily want to watch them play against, and be basing their decision on that.

1. what proof is there that this will be the behaviour exhibited? What past behaviour has been exhibited by the ICC's full members in the consideration of an application for full membership that leads you to this conclusion? Bearing in mind that the FTP was instituted in 2001 and thus only after the all the current 10 full members had become full members (Bangladesh being the last in 1999/2000) I don't see the logic behind this reasoning. If it is that the ten ICC members are going to be looking at TV rights and preference of Indian, Aussie and English crowds and basing their decision on that, then why on earth did the ICC's 10 full members agree to the future tours programme in the first place in 2001 which replaced the informal, bilateral arrangements that had been in place up to that time? Surely it makes no sense for India, Australia, England and South Africa to have agreed to the FTP since they could have easily made more money under the previous arrangement.

Not on adherence to the guidelines in a 2-page ICC document.

Given that the ICC adheres to the 8-page ICC document on the guidelines for associate membership and the 7-page ICC document on affiliate membership when considering applications of the respective categories and that NO country has actually applied for full membership since Bangladesh in 1999 (at least as far as I am aware of) and has been turned down by it despite meeting the criteria in the 2-page ICC document on full membership I don't see the basis for this thinking. There is no proof that the ICC will not adhere to that document and there are many examples of where the ICC has adhered to similar documents for other forms of membership. As far as I can tell from those documents and the 50+ page ICC constitution the upgrading of a membership only requires a majority vote with the stipulation that "Any application to be a Full Member must be proposed and seconded in writing by two Full Members" (which is generally how it was done in the past as Sri Lanka's application for full membership had been proposed by Pakistan and India (who were persuaded by Pakistan to support proposing the application in 1975) and South Africa's re-admittance as a full member had been proposed by India (and some other full member)).

My own thinking is that there's a 50/50 chance that Ireland will get Test status within the time they've targetted for it - Deutrom seems to be bloody persuasive when he wants to be, and that'll work in their favour.

Deutrom persuasive? Can you give a few examples please.

It's a long way from in the bag, though. And I'd bet there will be no other new Test country within the next 20-30 years, if not longer. There's simply no good reason why the 'traditional Test nations' would want to expand their cosy little club.

Hence why the only full members are still England, Australia and South Africa with the first two retaining veto powers.........

ICC full membership has expanded from 3 in 1909 to 10 in 2000. Three members were admitted in 1926, one in 1953, one in 1981, one in 1992 and the last one in 2000. So on average the ICC's full membership expands every 18 years. And at one time it took 28 years before a new full member was admitted. So 20-30 years is not out of the norm (in fact it is the norm) and is definitely not proof that the traditional test nations do not want to expand their "cosy little club". Just because they don't throw open full membership automatically to a dozen other nations doesn't mean they would be opposed to those nations becoming full members if they met the criteria.

Don't fool yourself by thinking they have any interest in 'expanding the world game' - they're purely interested in the money.

Uhuh. Purely interested in money. Which is why they actually bother with the World Cricket League, Targeted Assistance and Performance Programme, the High Performance Program, The Pepsi ICC Development Programme, ICC Intercontinental Cup, World Cricket League Championship (formerly the Intercontinental Cup One-Day), having categories of affiliate and associate membership for countries with differing levels of cricket involvement locally, the ICC Global Cricket Academy (which has seen teams such as Ireland, Namibia, the Netherlands etc visit already). Sorry, but that meme about the ICC full members being some set of fat cats only interested in money is a tired meme. Sure they are interested in money. Of course they are interested in money. Who isn't apart from maybe monks? But are they purely interested in money? Obviously not. Otherwise the millions (that's right millions) spent on the programmes outlined above would surely have been not been spent on associates and affiliates and instead would have just gone directly back to the full members (from whence the millions came by way). Just look at Canada - they reported receive US$960,000 per year in HPP funding alone. And who pays for the affiliates and associates to play in the World Cricket League, ICC Intercontinental Cup, ICC World Cricket League Championship, ICC World Cup Qualifer, ICC World Twenty20 Qualifer, ICC World Cricket League Twenty20 divisions (which lead up into the World Twenty20 Qualifier)? Definitely not the associates and affiliates themselves.

Perhaps the ICC should let the Associates and Affiliates foot the bill for most of the programs it has been sponsoring for their benefit and then we will really see what an ICC that is only purely interested in money looks like. I could almost guarantee that overnight cricket outside of the full members and maybe a few affiliates and associates would collapse as most national teams would no longer be able to play against any other national teams.

[brmtaylor.com admin]

JHunter, you misquoted maehara. He was talking about the traditional Test nations being money focussed. Which is true really as there's no incentive for the likes of England and Australia, and more recently India, to do anything for the smaller countries. When was the last time Bangladesh had a Test tour of India?

I don't think anybody is suggesting the ICC, as an organisation, doesn't try and grow the game and spread it to new markets. They do a pretty good job. It's not the full members chipping in to fund the Intercontinental Cup or the World Cricket League that's for sure!

[JHunter]

JHunter, you misquoted maehara.

I'm pretty sure I didn't. If I did then it was because I must have misunderstood his statement where he implied they had zero interest in expanding the world game.

He was talking about the traditional Test nations being money focussed. Which is true really as there's no incentive for the likes of England and Australia, and more recently India, to do anything for the smaller countries. When was the last time Bangladesh had a Test tour of India?

And as you can see above, I agree that they are interested in money. Don't think Bangladesh have toured India for tests and there is nothing slated until 2020.

I don't think anybody is suggesting the ICC, as an organisation, doesn't try and grow the game and spread it to new markets.

maehara did: "Don't fool yourself by thinking they have any interest in 'expanding the world game' - they're purely interested in the money."

And that is what I was responding to. Unless he meant something else by that sentence.

They do a pretty good job. It's not the full members chipping in to fund the Intercontinental Cup or the World Cricket League that's for sure!

Huh? Could you clarify that. It's a bit confusing. If the ICC as an organization does a pretty good job of trying to grow the game then how is it that the full members are not the ones chipping in to fund in the Intercontinental Cup or World Cricket League? From my understanding the Intercontinental Cup and World Cricket League are funded by the ICC which in turn derives the vast majority of its funds from the 10 full members and whose executive board consists of 1 director from each full member and 3 directors from among the associates and affiliates. If the full members did not want ICC funds to be used for such competitions as the Intercontinental Cup or World Cricket League they probably could have gotten their way since they have 10 of the 13 directors on the executive board and are responsible for the lion's share of ICC funding. The full members don't directly chip into funding those competitions but they are ultimately responsible for those competitions being funded and existing. If all 10 full members wanted they could actually leave the ICC and form a new body (say a GCC) and simply exclude all associates and affiliates and keep all the money for themselves.

[maehara]

To be clear: the ICC, in terms of the organisation and the staff who work directly for it, has an interest in expanding the world game - they rightly use the proceeds from the various ICC tournaments (after the participating countries have taken their cut) to support their various development programmes & the second-tier competitions (WCL, Intercontinental Cup etc). If it was purely up to the ICC, it would probably be a lot easier for Associates to make the step up to Full Member, and I wouldn't criticise their efforts.

The problem is the Full Members who have the controlling vote on who joins them or not. They are profit-driven, and they have no incentive to add more series to the fixture list that are mostly going to be loss-making events for them.

[samedwards]

To be clear: the ICC, in terms of the organisation and the staff who work directly for it, has an interest in expanding the world game - they rightly use the proceeds from the various ICC tournaments (after the participating countries have taken their cut) to support their various development programmes & the second-tier competitions (WCL, Intercontinental Cup etc). If it was purely up to the ICC, it would probably be a lot easier for Associates to make the step up to Full Member, and I wouldn't criticise their efforts.

The problem is the Full Members who have the controlling vote on who joins them or not. They are profit-driven, and they have no incentive to add more series to the fixture list that are mostly going to be loss-making events for them.

And that's where the ICC needs to show a bit os a spine. As the Wolf recommendations suggested, Test status should be made independent of Full Member status. Rather than the ten Full Members deciding everything, it needs to stand up to them for the long-term good health of the game, instead of short- term profit making.

I believe one step in the direction of globalizing the game would be to get it included in the Olympics. That will provide separate funding to the Associates from the Government, and popularize the game on a world stage. The Full Members need not send their full sides, A teams would be fine- just like the Asian Games.

[JHunter]

To be clear: the ICC, in terms of the organisation and the staff who work directly for it,

But this would include the 10 directors who come from full member countries so how are you going to separate the ICC from the full members who in essence run it?

has an interest in expanding the world game - they rightly use the proceeds from the various ICC tournaments (after the participating countries have taken their cut) to support their various development programmes & the second-tier competitions (WCL, Intercontinental Cup etc).

Right, and the full member nations are in total agreement with the concept otherwise they would never have signed off on it during the various times the ICC was reformed (by the full members) to become more inclusive (first by opening up membership to non-Commonwealth countries and then by England and Australia voluntarily giving up their veto power and with the ICC Executive Board (which is responsible for the direction the ICC takes as an organization) including 3 directors from non-full member countries.

If it was purely up to the ICC, it would probably be a lot easier for Associates to make the step up to Full Member, and I wouldn't criticise their efforts.

This is like trying to separate the UN Security Council from the permanent members on that council. It doesn't work. On what possible basis can we speculate that if it was up to the ICC as separate from the full members that it would be a lot easier for associates to make the step up to full member? Is there an ICC official who does not come from a full member country who you can quote as saying anything to this effect?

The problem is the Full Members who have the controlling vote on who joins them or not. They are profit-driven, and they have no incentive to add more series to the fixture list that are mostly going to be loss-making events for them.

Again, separating the full members who run the ICC as an organization through their 10 appointed directors from the ICC itself is illogical.

And as I pointed out before, the idea that the full members are only profit drive and that they have no incentive to add more series to the fixture list which are going to be mostly loss-making events is a concept that not only holds no water but is actually disproven by the full members all agreeing to replace the pre-2001 system of bilaterally arranged tours with a systematically organized programme of home and away tours called the future tours programme in 2001. brmtaylor rightly points put that India have never hosted Bangladesh for a test tour. The suspicion being obviously that Bangladesh doesn't draw the same kind of money/profit as say England or Australia. Under the previous system India would have been free to basically NEVER play Bangladesh in a test series except maybe once a decade. There was no requirement for India to play Bangladesh in a test prior to 2001. Under the previous system England, Australia, India, South Africa and Pakistan could have easily arranged better bilateral series among themselves and played even less cricket against the likes of New Zealand, West Indies, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh than they do now. So if they really are so profit driven and so disinclined to add more loss making events to the fixtures list can you or anyone else please explain why on earth England, Australia, India, South Africa and Pakistan agreed to the Future Tours Programme in 2001?

[JHunter]

To be clear: the ICC, in terms of the organisation and the staff who work directly for it, has an interest in expanding the world game - they rightly use the proceeds from the various ICC tournaments (after the participating countries have taken their cut) to support their various development programmes & the second-tier competitions (WCL, Intercontinental Cup etc). If it was purely up to the ICC, it would probably be a lot easier for Associates to make the step up to Full Member, and I wouldn't criticise their efforts.

The problem is the Full Members who have the controlling vote on who joins them or not. They are profit-driven, and they have no incentive to add more series to the fixture list that are mostly going to be loss-making events for them.

And that's where the ICC needs to show a bit os a spine. As the Wolf recommendations suggested, Test status should be made independent of Full Member status. Rather than the ten Full Members deciding everything, it needs to stand up to them for the long-term good health of the game, instead of short- term profit making.

I believe one step in the direction of globalizing the game would be to get it included in the Olympics. That will provide separate funding to the Associates from the Government, and popularize the game on a world stage. The Full Members need not send their full sides, A teams would be fine- just like the Asian Games.

The Woolf report has some good ideas. But full membership independent of test status is basically a recipe to kill off test cricket since new full members would have zero incentive to develop the infrastructure and systems necessary for test cricket (such as multi-day domestic cricket; look on Ireland now...they finally have a multi-day domestic cricket tournament after much griping. Can anyone honestly say with a straight face that Cricket Ireland would have so much as given even passing thought to the idea of a multi-day cricket tournament for domestic purposes if they knew they could become a full member and not have to play test cricket? And of course we have the example of Afghanistan who went ahead and put in place a multi-day domestic cricket tournament without any help from the ICC as far as I can tell....shows what can be done when you really want something). Plus once full membership is independent of test status it would probably not be long before teams like New Zealand, West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and maybe even Pakistan and South Africa abandoned test cricket.

Interesting the Woolf report is critical of the structure of the organization of the ICC because the ICC as an organization is basically run by the full members, thus proving my point that maehara's separation of the ICC as an organization from the full members is artificial and cannot work.

Incidentally are none of the questions I raised going to be tackled in this discussion to further it along?