Angry PCB walks out of 2011 world cup meeting

[third eye]

Oh come on, almost every team has experience of playing in UAE and world-class facilities are being provided there.

With your logic World Cup should be held in Pakistan.

Either you didn't read or didn't understand.

UAE was not on the radar when the 4 nations decided to host the Cup. Yes the world cup should be held in Pk but the teams do not want to play there.

Proxies in form of UAE in lieu of Pk are not being entertained hence the prob.

 

[salman nedian]

Either you didn't read or didn't understand.

UAE was not on the radar when the 4 nations decided to host the Cup. Yes the world cup should be held in Pk but the teams do not want to play there.

Proxies in form of UAE in lieu of Pk are not being entertained hence the prob.

Security situation in India is also not good you could not even conduct IPL in India.
It was also decided that world cup would be held in sub-continent so if teams cannot come to Pakistan than the event should be transferred to some other region.

 

[IceCold]

[SIZE="5
"The security situation in Sri Lanka is now much better and improving so we are confident of hosting a good series," he said.​

What he forgot was to remember the fact that it was because of Pakistan that the security situation in Srilanka has improved and at this time of hour where Pakistan is suffering from bad time and we need support, they are acutally going against us.​

 

[afriend]

What he forgot was to remember the fact that it was because of Pakistan that the security situation in Srilanka has improved and at this time of hour where Pakistan is suffering from bad time and we need support, they are acutally going against us.

I also think its not nice to take credit for some one elses triumph...!!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

GREED!! At one point everyone has to take care of his interests. By your logic greed is what drove PCB(as well as other boards) to do it together because they cannot bid alone and succeed.

Clearly the issue is not of money. Its about denying the other boards some profit. Its about paranoia and stubbornness.
Consider 50% of whatever ticketing revenue you are talking about. Consider 1.1mil$ with zero effort(They are bringing effort upon themselves with lawsuits though). Somebody do the math and tell me how much more Pakistan would have earned... all at the cost of other hosts. Simple reason why this is unacceptable for other hosts.

With only three host countries as against the planned 4, players will get used to the conditions more easily... Dont try **** and bull stories. This is nothing what the PCB was appealing about. BTW the whole of subcontinent has similar conditions. THe conditions you want to dance about can change from one ground to other in the same country.

First, calm down - this isn't the first time you've just gone off half cocked because you don't like someone's argument. If you can't respond with civility, don't respond. Throwing a tantrum does not make your argument any better.

My 'logic' does not indicate that the PCB is greedy - the PCB is merely asking for its rights that were granted it as an integral part of the winning bid for the 2011 WC. The Australian/New Zealand bid was very strong as well, and it is technically their turn to host the WC, since Asia hosted it after Australia in 1996. It was the combined presentation of the four countries that won it for Asia.

Each nation was allotted a certain number of matches, and Pakistan earned that right, as did the other nations, for the reasons mentioned above. Pakistan is not demanding that the other nations fork over 'extra money' or give up the matches allotted to them. Pakistan is merely asking for the right to hold the matches allotted to her at a venue of her choosing, provided the infrastructure and logistics are not an issue. The countries trying to usurp something and being greedy are the other three boards. They were not going to hold these 14 matches and they were not going to get the revenue form these 14 matches in the first place, so to try and steal the right away from Pakistan is just that - greed and theft.

There is nothing 'BS' about the fact that the Pakistani team is extremely familiar with the UAE pitches, and that by having Pakistan's matches in the UAE, and therefore playing on familiar grounds, and attracting the huge Pakistani diaspora, a 'home field' advantage can be replicated.

The ease of travel for Pakistani spectators is undeniable - Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are both quite far in comparison, and India will likely involve Visa headaches and security and safety issues for Pakistani travelers.

The PCB is appealing for the right to decide where to hold its matches - we don't really know what the details are and likely will not until the PCB is given that right or it has to make arguments to the ICC or in Court explaining why. I am merely pointing out the benefits of having Pakistan's matches hosted in the UAE, which are numerous.

I have yet to hear of any significant benefit of hosting the Pakistani matches in the other three nations, and I have yet to hear of a single good reason for the other co-hosts to be the obstructionists they are (other than greed), since they would not have hosted the 14 matches allotted to Pakistan anyway.

Yes may be there are advantages, but at the cost of other hosts.

Completely wrong - ther is no cost to the other hosts since they woudl not be asked to pony up any extra money and these matches were not going to be hled in their nations in the first place.

Even PCB has to bend sideways and backwards to hold matched there in a different place unless you come up with a reason saying how brotherly Abu Dhabi authorities are with PCB and other BS. Again shows its a prestige issue for PCB.

I have no clue what you are ranting about here - the advantages of having Pakistan's matches hosted in the UAE are numerous, as already illustrated. The comparable advantages of having them hosted in the other 3 nations are none.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What he forgot was to remember the fact that it was because of Pakistan that the security situation in Srilanka has improved and at this time of hour where Pakistan is suffering from bad time and we need support, they are acutally going against us.

I do think it is extremely ungrateful of the Sri Lankans to show this attitude - I don't remember whether there was a time when Pakistan refused to play in Sri Lanka because of the civil war there (which in terms of how much of Sri Lanka it affected comes no where close to the Pakistani insurgency). There were suicide bombings in Sri Lankan cities, other teams refused to play (was it Australia and WI in the 1996 Cup?), but Pakistan, AFAIK, stood by them.

Now not only are they refusing to play (for which I'll cut them slack given their cricket team was attacked recently in Pakistan) but they are also trying to steal Pakistan's matches and Pakistan's right to host those matches at alternate venues of her choosing if the original ones are not acceptable.

 

[wtf]

DAWN.COM | Cricket | ICC rejects request for World Cup matches in UAE

LONDON: Matches in the 2011 World Cup due to be staged in Pakistan will not take place in the United Arab Emirates, International Cricket Council president David Morgan said here on Thursday.

Instead, the 14 fixtures will, despite the wishes of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), take place in the three subcontinent co-host nations of India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Mr Morgan said the Dubai-based ICC had looked at staging matches in a ‘fifth country’, amidst speculation that matches could be shifted to the UAE. But he told reporters at Lord’s here on Thursday: ‘The (ICC) board has considered that but it has decided the 14 matches originally allocated to Pakistan should take place in the three other subcontinent countries of the full members, that is India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.’

How many games will be played in each of those countries has yet to be decided. The ICC has referred the matter back to the tournament’s central organising committee and Mr Morgan said he expected a decision within a fortnight.

‘We need a recommendation from those four host nations, including Pakistan. They will come forward with the location of those matches to the commercial board of the ICC.’

Asked how long it would take for the ICC to receive that decision, Mr Morgan said: ‘I would expect two weeks.’

The ICC ruled out matches in violence-hit Pakistan following the militant attack on the Sri Lankan team bus in Lahore on March 3 while it was on its way to the Qadhafi stadium to resume a Test match.

But Pakistan, who last weekend beat Sri Lanka in the World Twenty20 final at Lord’s, remains a co-host of the World Cup.

Mr Morgan, flanked by ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat, stressed the PCB, who have taken legal action against the ICC, would still receive a hosting fee of $750,000 per match — $10.5 million in total.—AFP

 

[wtf]

Let me try and draw up a cost-benefits. (AM, does the list cover all issues?)

Hold match in Abu Dhabhi

• There are a lot of Pakistani people in Abu Dhabhi,so they don't have to travel. (Can put a number to this)
• Home advantage (?) to Pakistan. (Can't put a number to this).
• Possible extra revenues to PCB other than match fees.(Can put a number to this).
• Pakistan sticks to its "Rights" it gained from negotiations.(Can't put a number to this).

Costs of moving match to Abu Dhabhi

• Sri Lanka/India/BD lose non-match revenues. They'd rather have it than give it to Abu Dhabhi. (Can put a number to this).
• ICC will not allow this. Can't appeal.
• Travel costs for spectators of other 3 countries (SL/BD/India to fly to Gulf).(Can put a number to this).

Other issues

• Sharad Pawar promised to support Pakistan, but others in BCCI don't want to do it. (Can't put a number to this -but probably split opinion means lower costs).
• Pakistan wanted matches to be moved to NZ/Aus - possibly irritating Sri Lanka (Can't put a number to this)
• Claims against Dhaka security irritated BD (Can't put a number to this)
• Pakistan has not asked for more money (Can put a number to this)
• Pakistan may find the move out of Pakistan insulting/PCB won't get to host a WC for another 11 years atleast.(Can't fully put a number to this)
• PCB has no supporting countries. It is standing alone.
• PCB representative walking out means that the debate was not concluded.(Can't put a number to this).

I can see a fair split of good arguments on both sides. What I can also see is a lot of emotionality (all the arguments which cannot be quantified in numbers). But I can no longer see an unfairness in the offered positions.

 

[rubyjackass]

First, calm down - this isn't the first time you've just gone off half cocked because you don't like someone's argument. If you can't respond with civility, don't respond.

Chill dude!! Why do you want to count my periods? I have seen you get them a lot. Did I complain or count?

I did respond with civility. You did with civility make, seriously I mean it, BS arguments. I am not sensitive about the topic either. You seem to be...
This is the tongue I have by nature.
Once again I will lay the point threadbare for you.
PCB has already lost its prospects for the gains it saw when it joined the bid. Now why do they want to take away the pie from others?

Btw PCB's official press statements did not carry the arguments you make. Not even close. So THEY are either being obstructionist or feeling too sensitive about prestige.

My 'logic' does not indicate that the PCB is greedy - the PCB is merely asking for its rights that were granted it as an integral part of the winning bid for the 2011 WC. The Australian/New Zealand bid was very strong as well, and it is technically their turn to host the WC, since Asia hosted it after Australia in 1996. It was the combined presentation of the four countries that won it for Asia.

PCB is not greedy. because your logic is flawed. Call it obstructionism.
They are either too obsessed with prestige and their only basis is rights. So now the other hosts use THEIR rights.

The rights PCB got were gotten assuming that whatever happens everyone will think about the group or the gains stay within the group.
Or is it more reasonable that UAE should have been included in the bid? Think about 'all the facilities and logistics'. Your words...(FYI this para came out as sarcasm. So dont bother)

Each nation was allotted a certain number of matches, and Pakistan earned that right, as did the other nations, for the reasons mentioned above. Pakistan is not demanding that the other nations fork over 'extra money' or give up the matches allotted to them. Pakistan is merely asking for the right to hold the matches allotted to her at a venue of her choosing, provided the infrastructure and logistics are not an issue. The countries trying to usurp something and being greedy are the other three boards. They were not going to hold these 14 matches and they were not going to get the revenue form these 14 matches in the first place, so to try and steal the right away from Pakistan is just that - greed and theft.

Again the same story. You are rejecting the partners profits when you are not able to get them ANYWAY.
So why will they accept it? Why is it called stealing? In the extreme case, after all they would be dropping one of the member from the host group for incompatibility. I dont wish it in anyway.

And dont tell the(really i mean it, not for effect) c&b story about UAE is Pakistan's brother. Everything is economics.

There is nothing 'BS' about the fact that the Pakistani team is extremely familiar with the UAE pitches, and that by having Pakistan's matches in the UAE, and therefore playing on familiar grounds, and attracting the huge Pakistani diaspora, a 'home field' advantage can be replicated.

Pakistani team is also familiar with all Asian pitches.
"Home field advantage huh"? Are you kidding me? You want matches there for more fans? How many matches is Pak slated to play for sure among those?

The ease of travel for Pakistani spectators is undeniable - Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are both quite far in comparison, and India will likely involve Visa headaches and security and safety issues for Pakistani travelers.

This is one point I agree with as I mentioned earlier.

The PCB is appealing for the right to decide where to hold its matches - we don't really know what the details are and likely will not until the PCB is given that right or it has to make arguments to the ICC or in Court explaining why. I am merely pointing out the benefits of having Pakistan's matches hosted in the UAE, which are numerous.

Yeah for the sake of an argument in a court. Benefits not for the other hosts so they disagree. Is it so hard?

I have yet to hear of any significant benefit of hosting the Pakistani matches in the other three nations, and I have yet to hear of a single good reason for the other co-hosts to be the obstructionists they are (other than greed), since they would not have hosted the 14 matches allotted to Pakistan anyway.

The money and gains stay with the family. One member of the family even after it realised it cannot eat its pie doesn't want the family to have it. So the family thought for the good of the family. What else would you decide if you were there?
And this is not the case of sick child-apple scenario mind you. Whatever apple directly measurable is still being offered. The other indirect benifits PCB cannot get anyway.

Completely wrong - ther is no cost to the other hosts since they woudl not be asked to pony up any extra money and these matches were not going to be hled in their nations in the first place.

This is not what they signed up for. They thought all boards will think for the group. But here one wants to think about UAE.

I have no clue what you are ranting about here - the advantages of having Pakistan's matches hosted in the UAE are numerous, as already illustrated. The comparable advantages of having them hosted in the other 3 nations are none.

Let the family prosper. Not your 'friends'.

 

[IceCold]

I also think its not nice to take credit for some one elses triumph...!!!

Right! supporting LTTE is something only India deserves credit for.

 

[IceCold]

DAWN.COM | Cricket | ICC rejects request for World Cup matches in UAE

LONDON: Matches in the 2011 World Cup due to be staged in Pakistan will not take place in the United Arab Emirates, International Cricket Council president David Morgan said here on Thursday.

Instead, the 14 fixtures will, despite the wishes of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), take place in the three subcontinent co-host nations of India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Mr Morgan said the Dubai-based ICC had looked at staging matches in a ‘fifth country’, amidst speculation that matches could be shifted to the UAE. But he told reporters at Lord’s here on Thursday: ‘The (ICC) board has considered that but it has decided the 14 matches originally allocated to Pakistan should take place in the three other subcontinent countries of the full members, that is India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.’

How many games will be played in each of those countries has yet to be decided. The ICC has referred the matter back to the tournament’s central organising committee and Mr Morgan said he expected a decision within a fortnight.

‘We need a recommendation from those four host nations, including Pakistan. They will come forward with the location of those matches to the commercial board of the ICC.’

Asked how long it would take for the ICC to receive that decision, Mr Morgan said: ‘I would expect two weeks.’

The ICC ruled out matches in violence-hit Pakistan following the militant attack on the Sri Lankan team bus in Lahore on March 3 while it was on its way to the Qadhafi stadium to resume a Test match.

But Pakistan, who last weekend beat Sri Lanka in the World Twenty20 final at Lord’s, remains a co-host of the World Cup.

Mr Morgan, flanked by ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat, stressed the PCB, who have taken legal action against the ICC, would still receive a hosting fee of $750,000 per match — $10.5 million in total.—AFP

If the news is true we should quit the world cup as a sign of protest. Let the 3 nations host it, go **** off.

 

[third eye]

What he forgot was to remember the fact that it was because of Pakistan that the security situation in Srilanka has improved and at this time of hour where Pakistan is suffering from bad time and we need support, they are acutally going against us.

Welcome to the real world.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This is the tongue I have by nature.

Keep it under control and stop throwing tantrums because you can't refute an argument.

Once again I will lay the point threadbare for you.
PCB has already lost its prospects for the gains it saw when it joined the bid. Now why do they want to take away the pie from others?

That is precisely the point about the other boards being greedy comes in - the other boards have a clear conflict of interest in insisting that Pakistan not host any matches and that it be denied the right to determine where those matches are held. Pakistan is contesting the decision to allocate the matches to the other hosts without consulting it.

Btw PCB's official press statements did not carry the arguments you make. Not even close. So THEY are either being obstructionist or feeling too sensitive about prestige.

And the only arguments we have read from the other boards are that 'the matches should be held in the subcontinent' - that's argument makes no sense since Asia won the bid, not the subcontinent, and the other boards face no loss since none of the matches they were allotted are affected.

PCB is not greedy. because your logic is flawed. Call it obstructionism.
They are either too obsessed with prestige and their only basis is rights. So now the other hosts use THEIR rights.

Let ME make it s imple for you

The PCB was allotted 14 matches after being the second largest contributor to a joint bid to host the 2011 WC against a very strong challenge from Aus/NZ. The PCB is the one losing revenue and the right to host matches it earned, not the BCCI or other 2 boards. The PCB is merely asking for the right to host the matches that it earned the right to host at venues of its choosing.

How from this you can extrapolate that the PCB is being 'obstructionist' you have as of you been incapable of illustrating.

The rights PCB got were gotten assuming that whatever happens everyone will think about the group or the gains stay within the group.

There is no such 'assumption', stop making things up.

Or is it more reasonable that UAE should have been included in the bid? Think about 'all the facilities and logistics'. Your words...(FYI this para came out as sarcasm. So dont bother

)
Well no one could have expected Pakistan to lose hosting rights either.

Again the same story. You are rejecting the partners profits when you are not able to get them ANYWAY.

The other co-hosts were never supposed to get these 14 matches, so the argument of them losing revenue or profits does not arise - they only stand to gain in addition to the existing profits and revenues from their allotment of matches.

So why will they accept it? Why is it called stealing? In the extreme case, after all they would be dropping one of the member from the host group for incompatibility. I dont wish it in anyway.

And dont tell the(really i mean it, not for effect) c&b story about UAE is Pakistan's brother. Everything is economics.

Don't come up with Strawman arguments - I have not said anything about the UAE being a 'brother'. Quit distorting and making things up.

Pakistani team is also familiar with all Asian pitches.
"Home field advantage huh"? Are you kidding me? You want matches there for more fans? How many matches is Pak slated to play for sure among those?

Six matches, and possibly a semifinal.

The arguments in favor of the UAE offering home field advantage are pretty clear, as I pointed out in my earlier post.

Yeah for the sake of an argument in a court. Benefits not for the other hosts so they disagree. Is it so hard?

The other hosts are not losing any benefits, Pakistan is, and the other hosts have a clear conflict of interest in seeing Pakistan lose matches.

The money and gains stay with the family. One member of the family even after it realised it cannot eat its pie doesn't want the family to have it. So the family thought for the good of the family. What else would you decide if you were there?
And this is not the case of sick child-apple scenario mind you. Whatever apple directly measurable is still being offered. The other indirect benifits PCB cannot get anyway.

We are not 'family', and any arguments you made from this line of logic are invalid. I have no clue what absurd analogy you are trying to make with the 'sick child, apple' comments.

This is not what they signed up for. They thought all boards will think for the group. But here one wants to think about UAE.

Pakistan did not sign up and help in winning the bid so that its matches could be stripped away either. I don't see the boards respecting the PCB's right to host matches and perhaps competing to host them vs other venues the PCB might consider in the UAE.

Let the family prosper. Not your 'friends'.

We aren't 'family'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Neutral venues ruled out for 2011 World Cup​

Nagraj Gollapudi at Lord's, and Ajay S Shankar

June 25, 2009

The ICC has ruled out the possibility of Pakistan's 2011 World Cup matches being held at a neutral venue, including UAE. The governing body agreed that those 14 matches will be held in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, the other co-hosts, as previously decided.

The ICC board had decided in April that Pakistan would not host any of its World Cup matches due to the deteriorating security situation in the country, and the event's organising committee decided later that those games would be realloted to the other co-hosts. These decisions have now been reaffirmed at the ICC annual conference at Lord's in London after Pakistan launched a legal challenge against the ICC on the issue.

David Morgan, the ICC president, said that the IDI (ICC Development International) - its commercial wing - has asked the 2011 World Cup's central organising committee (COC) comprising the four host nations, namely India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, to recommend a feasible schedule and locations for the 14 games.

"The IDI board reaffirmed its earlier decision that matches in the tournament will not be played in Pakistan," Morgan confirmed, "and asked the four host countries to come together to determine where the matches originally set to take place in Pakistan should now take place."

Asked if Pakistan agreed to the ICC decision, Morgan said he "believed" so. "In the discussions I've had with the chairman [Ijaz Butt] and chief executive of Pakistan Cricket Board I believe that there is an acceptance on their part that the board has taken a decision in its previous meeting such that Pakistan will not be a location for matches in 2011 World Cup."

Morgan also said that the PCB has accepted an offer from the ICC to set up a task team, which will be headed by Giles Clarke, the ECB chairman, to protect the country's position in international cricket. "We are delighted the PCB has accepted the ICC's offer of assistance as we seek to ensure Pakistan is not isolated as a result of circumstances beyond the control of cricket administrators," Morgan said. "We look forward to working with the PCB over the coming months on the issue."

Last week, after its meetings with the subcontinental neighbours proved inconclusive, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) indicated that it would carry on with its legal proceeding against the ICC on the issue of hosting the World Cup. Denying that the ICC decision was linked to the legal proceedings, Morgan said he was still optimistic. "We have not given up hope of reaching a settlement but I couldn't go into any more details than that."

Another important plea of Pakistan, to be allowed to outsource its games to Abu Dhabi and Dubai, was ruled out by the IDI board, which is the final authority on the matter as per the host agreement for the event.

"There is no question of a fifth country," Haroon Lorgat, the ICC chief executive, who chaired the media briefing with Morgan, said. "The board has considered that and decided that 14 matches that were allocated to Pakistan should take place in the other three host countries - India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh."

Morgan also rejected suggestions that Pakistan could boycott the event, should the PCB be disappointed with the decision made today, coming as it does after Pakistan's remarkable victory in the recent ICC World Twenty20. "There has never been any suggestions that Pakistan will not participate in the tournament," Morgan said. "That would be most unfortunate, highly unlikely."

The COC is expected to report to the IDI in two weeks' time to provide recommendations about the schedule and the location of the 14 games that would be moved to India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. "Pakistan would be involved in the COC assuming they adopt certain venues within the other three nations. They would get involved with the logistical preparations at those venues," Lorgat said. Both Morgan and Lorgat reiterated that Pakistan would receive the hosting fee of US$750,000 for each of the 14 games they were supposed to host. Still, it remains to be seen if Pakistan will rest their case.

Cricinfo has learnt that the boards from India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh were adamantly against Pakistan's suggestion that matches be played in the UAE, because they felt it would dilute the concept of the event being held in the sub-continent. The PCB argued its case on the basis that during the 1999 World Cup, England held some of its matches in Ireland and Scotland; and in the 2003 edition, South Africa held some of its matches in Kenya and Zimbabwe.

The ICC will consider itself to be on a strong wicket, however, because the host agreement clearly states that the IDI board has the final discretionary powers to allot matches, so their decision will stand.

Neutral venues ruled out for 2011 World Cup | Cricket News | Global | Cricinfo.com
------------------------------------------

Unfortunate really. As the highlighted part suggests, if the host agreement gives the IDI the final authority on where to host the matches, not sure whether the PCB case will hold in court, if they pursue it. We'll find out I suppose.

As I mentioned before though (and the underlined part illustrates this) the three other co-hosts have offered no strong arguments in their favor other than the whole 'subcontinent' canard.

The article, to me, indicates that the only reason the ICC might be able to legally deny Pakistan's request is because it can claim the IDI has final authority, and not because of any 'assumptions' that the matches should only be held in the subcontinent.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

PCB keen on UAE venues despite ICC snub​

Osman Samiuddin

June 26, 2009

Pakistan will continue to suggest Dubai and Abu Dhabi as surrogate home venues for the 2011 World Cup and also pursue its legal case against the ICC who, they say, unlawfully stripped Pakistan of its right to host matches in cricket's premier tournament.

ICC officials on Thursday reaffirmed that in light of the Lahore terror attacks, Pakistan will not be hosting any games - though they do stand to benefit financially as co-hosts. More pertinently, the ICC also said that the option of neutral venues - which Pakistan had been pursuing - had also been rejected.

"There is no question of a fifth country," Haroon Lorgat, the ICC chief executive, said. "The board has considered that and decided that 14 matches that were allocated to Pakistan should take place in the other three host countries - India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh."

But Ijaz Butt, PCB chairman, said the option would be discussed again at a meeting of the ICC's central organizing committee (COC). The ICC has asked the COC to meet and report back to the governing body on how Pakistan's share of matches will be divided among the rest. "Without having the full ICC release in front of me, I can say this much that we will make an effort [on trying Abu Dhabi and Dubai as neutral venues] and that remains our suggestion," Butt told Cricinfo.

It will not be easy, as the three co-hosts - India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka - are very resistant to any such move, arguing that it dilutes the concept of a subcontinental World Cup. The PCB's relations with the three are not ideal either for such negotiations; the most recent manifestation is the cancellation of a Pakistan Under-19 tour to Bangladesh on security grounds, a tour scheduled as far ahead as October.

But Pakistan's legal push has already reaped benefits; they still stand to make nearly US$10.5 million from a tournament in which no matches will be hosted on their soil. Further push might bring further reward. "We fully respect the IDI [commercial arm and decision-making body of the ICC] and its capacity to make decisions, but our legal action will continue," Butt said. "We made six requests to the ICC, which we said must be met; four of them have been accepted, including the fact that we cannot be denied our hosting rights and the revenue from that. Two issues remain, one of which is the Abu Dhabi and Dubai option. This we will discuss at the COC meeting."

The other issue is the location of the COC's headquarters. The tournament secretariat was set up in Lahore but was relocated to Mumbai after the terrorist attacks on the Sri Lankan team in March. The PCB, says Butt, wants to keep the secretariat in Dubai, but that, it seems, would be largely dependent on whether matches are held in the Gulf area.

"Though cases are still pending, we are more than keen on a settlement with the ICC over the issue. Some hurdles have been created by other members but we are still hopeful that a solution will be reached," Butt said.

Osman Samiuddin is Pakistan editor of Cricinfo

PCB keen on UAE venues despite ICC snub | Cricket News | ICC World Cup 2011 | Cricinfo.com

------------------------------

One other option could be to host Pakistan's six group matches and possibly one semifinal in the UAE, with the remaining matches divided amongst the other 3 nations.