+- Sri Lankan Cricket Fans (https://www.slcricketfans.com)
+-- Forum: Cricket Talk (https://www.slcricketfans.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: General Cricket (https://www.slcricketfans.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: ICC News Thread (/showthread.php?tid=812)
RE: ICC/MCC News Thread - mugatiya - 06-19-2016
Excellent
Wonder if picking Nepal regardless of their spot in WCL is the greatest of calls though
But perhaps it could be an exception to start the league because cricket is so massively popular there
AFG v Nepal get huge crowds over there
RE: ICC/MCC News Thread - ApoCrypto - 06-19-2016
As expected Ireland have fallen by the side after the golden generation have retired, youngsters not up to scratch
RE: ICC/MCC News Thread - mugatiya - 06-19-2016
Not much difference from SL
RE: ICC/MCC News Thread - Bada - 06-19-2016
Also, giving Test status to 2 countries just to create two tiers is ridiculous. Irish definitely don't have the bowling apart from Rankin even to compete against sides below the top 5-6.
RE: ICC/MCC News Thread - nighthawk - 06-19-2016
Good move. They have to tie in WC qualification to this regardless of test status. Then it would be really interesting. Then most won't be sending 2nd tier teams to play against associates.
And yes, netherland should get the last spot. Very unfair for them if Nepal gets it.
RE: ICC/MCC News Thread - Bada - 06-19-2016
Cricket considers radical TV rights shake-up
A radical shake-up to the existing ecosystem of selling television rights is under discussion by Full Members and will be examined further at the ICC's annual conference in Edinburgh later this month. The change, one part of a broader reworking of cricket's international calendar, is aimed at giving member boards better value for their television rights in overseas markets. If implemented, a new model could see boards take greater control than broadcasters of monetising the value of bilateral cricket as well as its promotion and visibility in untapped markets.
The crux of the proposal, made at the ICC chief executives committee meeting in April, is this: once the current cycle of television rights ends for respective Full Members, each board will continue to sell rights for its home territory and avail of those profits entirely as is already the case. But each board will place the rights to telecast its home series in overseas markets in a common pool into which other boards will also put those rights. The rights in the common pool will then be sold collectively as bundles by a committee of Full Members and the profits will be divided and distributed in certain percentages to the contributing boards.
For example, if New Zealand are hosting India, the NZC retains the ability to sell television rights for broadcast within New Zealand, but places the rights for broadcast in India and the rest of the world in the common pool; that pool already contains the overseas broadcast rights of other bilateral series such as, for example, Australia's tour of New Zealand or Sri Lanka's tour of West Indies. So if a broadcaster wants to telecast India's tour of New Zealand in India, it may have to purchase a bundle from this pool - in a similar way as the ICC sells its own events as part of a bundle - that also contains rights to the Australia-New Zealand series or the Sri Lanka-West Indies one, and it may have to mandatorily telecast those series in India as well.
This will be a change from the current system where the home board sells rights - either home and away or both - to a particular broadcaster and then leaves it to that broadcaster to on-sell the rights for overseas markets to other broadcasters. In some cases, boards have sold rights for a particular overseas market to an overseas broadcaster who has no interest in telecasting series not involving the broadcaster's home country. Under this new model, a committee composed of member board officials would be in charge of the on-selling.
ESPNcricinfo understands that the ECB floated the proposal and is currently part of a committee working on it, along with CSA, CA, NZC and the PCB. The proposal is currently at a conceptual stage, with details of how and what bundles will be sold, thin. But the overriding principle is that no participant in the common pool should be worse off financially compared to what it gets for its rights in overseas markets at present. The five boards on the committee are all in agreement on the principle.
Which way the BCCI goes will be a factor. It is understood that the BCCI has been informed of the proposal but their position on it is not yet known. Like other boards, under the proposal, the BCCI would retain control over the sale of rights in India - its primary market - and could stand to benefit by joining the common pool, if say rights in England for a West Indies tour of India stands to bring them more revenue than it does at present. It is believed, however, that the aim of the committee is to ensure a model that is workable with or without the BCCI.
Part of the driving force behind the proposal arises from the fear some boards have of a gradual dip in the value of their broadcast deals for bilateral series. There is also a feeling among some that broadcasters have not reaped the full monetary benefits of overseas rights in markets such as the US, where digital rights are a lucrative but untapped avenue for cricket; one of the model's benefits, its authors hope, will be to better expose cricket in such markets.
The proposal has not emerged in isolation. It is very much part of the broader restructuring of international cricket currently under discussion, one which envisages Test cricket as a two-tier system and ODI cricket as a rolling 13-team league. One committee of board chief executives has been looking at the calendar and format restructure while this committee has concentrated on the commercial aspects of such a restructure. The idea is that every bilateral match or series in this new restructuring will have some context, or some bearing upon a league table - that context, in theory hopes the committee, ultimately translates into a higher monetary value for any bilateral series in home markets and also overseas ones.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1027619.html
RE: ICC/MCC News Thread - pj57 - 06-19-2016
^^ Seems a good proposal.
RE: ICC/MCC News Thread - Bada - 06-24-2016
There has been a push for Twenty20 cricket to become an Olympic sport, but chances of that happening may diminish if the ICC reverses its decision to switch the World T20 from a two-year to a four-year cycle.
Cricket is recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which, it is understood, has "encouraged" the ICC to apply for the inclusion of a Twenty20 event in the Olympics, featuring up to 12 teams, both men and women.
While governing bodies of other sports have been quick to seize the exposure Olympic status can provide, the ICC has maintained a deliberate approach to the matter. At the last two ICC board meetings - on February 3 and April 24 in Dubai - they have deferred taking a final position on whether or not to make an application to the IOC.
If the World T20 continues to take place once every two years, there is a chance that it would clash with the quadrennial cycle of the Summer Olympics. ICC head of global development Tim Anderson conceded it would be difficult to squeeze two major global T20 championships into the same calendar year.
"It's a big decision, there are some pros and cons," he told ESPNcricinfo, "The ICC board has had long discussions and more recent discussions about the potential of cricket to participate in the Olympics. There's been direct conversations with the IOC very recently and I think the continued dialogue with the IOC is really important but at this point our board has not made a decision in that regard.
"I think one of the additional pieces to the dynamic now is lots of discussion around the possibility of having two World Twenty20s in a four-year cycle," Anderson said. "That would be great for cricket, too, I think and if that did happen, then you've got a really packed schedule of Twenty20 cricket internationally. Whether that positive move means that potentially another positive move is not possible, that's certainly one of the conversations that's happening at the board right now.
"It's hard to really say whether it's possible to fit two World Twenty20s and an Olympic Games in a four-year cycle. Obviously if we have two World Twenty20s it's going to make the calendar much tighter and more difficult I would imagine. But I think the appetite right now around the board and Full Members for consideration of reform of international cricket is really strong. All of these things have been taken into consideration."
Financial permutations are also a major factor. While the ICC controls broadcast rights and revenue distribution for its own competitions, they would cede both to the IOC for an Olympic T20 tournament. However, with the increase in government funding for sports with Olympic status, member countries who lose out on ICC revenue can still make up the difference.
The ICC's confirmed cycle of tournaments, in conjunction with the end of the current TV broadcast rights contract, ends in 2023. An opportunity to tweak the international calendar at the end of 2023 is one reason why the ICC had targeted an Olympic T20 competition in 2024.
ICC had unveiled a strategic plan to help develop cricket in the USA and if Los Angeles wins the hosting rights for that year's Summer Games, there could be a chance that the ICC would submit an application to the IOC to include cricket. However, they would need to do so by September 2017 - when the host for the Olympics is announced - if cricket realistically has a hope of being approved for the 2024 Summer Games.
In the past, administrators from leading Full Members have been reluctant to have cricket in the Olympics. England's Giles Clarke had once claimed "we don't have the space in our calendar." However, Anderson claims the "appetite for reform" is as strong.
"We obviously know that the Associate and Affiliate members are keen for it to happen," Anderson said. "There's lots of positive things being discussed about the reform of the international cricket program which for AMs is potentially really really important. It's a part of a very large and complicated conversation."
ICC's next board meeting is in July in Edinburgh.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1028761.html
RE: ICC/MCC News Thread - Bada - 06-27-2016
Opposition to cricket's entry into the Olympics is set to become increasingly problematic after the ICC was advised that the sport's preferred path to inclusion may be shelved by the IOC. The Olympics question is set to be among a suite of agenda items to be discussed at the ICC Annual Conference in Edinburgh this week.
The earliest window for cricket to be played at the Olympics is 2024, an event favoured to be awarded to Los Angeles. Budapest, Paris and Rome are the other bidding cities, with the formal award announcement to be made in September next year.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1029957.html
RE: ICC/MCC News Thread - Bada - 06-27-2016
A cricket tournament, played as part of the 1900 Summer Olympics, took place on 19–20 August at the Vélodrome de Vincennes. The only match of the tournament was played between teams representing Great Britain and France, and was won by 158 runs by Great Britain.
Originally, teams representing Belgium, France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands were scheduled to compete in the tournament. Belgium and the Netherlands pulled out of the competition, leaving Great Britain to play France. Neither team was nationally selected. The British side was a touring club, the Devon and Somerset Wanderers (alias Devon County Wanderers), while the French team, the French Athletic Club Union, comprised mainly British expatriates living in Paris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics#Scorecard
