Big Three finally end. India lost both governance and revenue vote.

[Verve]

Hindu thinks that he has control over ICC that in fact is controlled by the white man! Hahahaha .. that bubble has finally burst!

Start your own international league and be done with moaning.

 

[Peshwa]

Point is, India has much bigger source of income via cricket. It can dictate terms. It can offer better deals to other teams on a bilateral basis while still getting bigger piece of the pie by kicking ICC out.

As much as I agree that BCCI deserves a greater share, it should also be seen as a leader and not a greed machine built to line its pockets.
BCCI has the pole position to be able to give International cricket more limelight. It should make its move wisely and let other countries grow their cricket programs too. Arm twisting is not the way to go.

 

[DHARMICACE]

Hindu thinks that he has control over ICC that in fact is controlled by the white man! Hahahaha .. that bubble has finally burst!

Start your own international league and be done with moaning.

well icc chairman was a HINDU while pankis have no control on icc whatsoever.

 

[ito]

Hindu thinks that he has control over ICC that in fact is controlled by the white man! Hahahaha .. that bubble has finally burst!

Start your own international league and be done with moaning.

It is not white man, but an Indian man named shashank manohar that ended the big three.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Population by country for major cricket nations:
India: 1.3 B
Pakistan: 196 MM
BD: 164MM
SA: 55MM
Zim: 16MM
AUS: 24MM
ENG: 53MM
NZ: 4.5MM

Viewership with India: 1.8B
Viewership w/o India: 512MM

That is a HUGE markdown on viewership and GRPs. And even within the remaining nations, Cricket except in Pak and BD is only mildly popular.
So purely based on numbers, the advertiser decision will be heavily dependent on the viewership which it loses without Indian participation.

And what kind of revenues do the Ranji Trophy and domestic Indian ODI competitions generate?

The viewers and advertisers are there because other countries participate - it's a two way street, like I said.

Point is, India has much bigger source of income via cricket. It can dictate terms. It can offer better deals to other teams on a bilateral basis while still getting bigger piece of the pie by kicking ICC out.

India is a bigger source of income because of international participation - both sides need each other, hence the proposed more equitable distribution is the fair solution for ICC organized events.

 

[ito]

And what kind of revenues do the Ranji Trophy and domestic Indian ODI competitions generate?

The viewers and advertisers are there because other countries participate - it's a two way street, like I said.

As far as I know Ranji Trophy is not marketed, but used for talent selection. So I guess Ranji Trophy is kept that way by BCCI.

 

[Shajida Khan]

As much as I agree that BCCI deserves a greater share, it should also be seen as a leader and not a greed machine built to line its pockets.
BCCI has the pole position to be able to give International cricket more limelight. It should make its move wisely and let other countries grow their cricket programs too. Arm twisting is not the way to go.

BCCI is a private club and they work like that. If they want bigger piece of the pie, they need to workout utility for all party. ICC is, well, the extra luggage which needs to be kicked out.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As far as I know Ranji Trophy is not marketed, but used for talent selection. So I guess Ranji Trophy is kept that way by BCCI.

Which domestic Indian competition (aside from the IPL) is marketed?

 

[ito]

And what kind of revenues do the Ranji Trophy and domestic Indian ODI competitions generate?

The viewers and advertisers are there because other countries participate - it's a two way street, like I said.


India is a bigger source of income because of international participation - both sides need each other, hence the proposed more equitable distribution is the fair solution for ICC organized events.

Indians too are asking for equitable distribution and not a lopsided one that is present today.

Which domestic Indian competition (aside from the IPL) is marketed?

IPL is the only one that is commercial. Other tournaments are not. They are consciously kept that way.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Indians too are asking for equitable distribution and not a lopsided one that is present today.

The proposed financial model appears quite equitable.

IPL is the only one that is commercial. Other tournaments are not. They are consciously kept that way.

The BCCI should then consider generating revenues from such competitions instead of using other countries/international competition to pull in advertisers and then taking the lions share of the revenue that would not be possible without those other countries.

 

[Peshwa]

And what kind of revenues do the Ranji Trophy and domestic Indian ODI competitions generate?

The viewers and advertisers are there because other countries participate - it's a two way street, like I said.

That's an extremely poor comparison.
Of course Indian viewers want to see international competitions, but those that involve India! Keyword being India!
Losing 1.3 Billion eyeballs is HUGE for any advertiser! Do you think a consumer goods company would pump in millions of dollars into an event when the viewership falls from 1.8B to 500MM? Not saying that it wont pump money in, but the number of spots, sponsorships etc will also fall tremendously.
Theres is a direct correlation between GRPs and advertiser revenues.

The correct comparison should be the cost of a 30 sec. TV spot in a match involving India vs. the cost of the same 30s. spot without India.
Only then would you be able to see the difference in revenue generated as an effect of the Indian viewership and participation.
Ill bet you my top dollar that the former scenario wins hands down.

BCCI is a private club and they work like that. If they want bigger piece of the pie, they need to workout utility for all party. ICC is, well, the extra luggage which needs to be kicked out.

Yeah ICC is a legacy org that needs to be revamped.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That's an extremely poor comparison.
Of course Indian viewers want to see international competitions, but those that involve India! Keyword being India!

Keyword also being 'International'.

 

[ito]

The proposed financial model appears quite equitable.

The BCCI should then consider generating revenues from such competitions instead of using other countries/international competition to pull in advertisers and then taking the lions share of the revenue that would not be possible without those other countries.

BCCI doesn't think that the model is equitable. Well let us see what BCCI do next. I don't think this model will stay.

 

[Shajida Khan]

That's an extremely poor comparison.
Of course Indian viewers want to see international competitions, but those that involve India! Keyword being India!
Losing 1.3 Billion eyeballs is HUGE for any advertiser! Do you think a consumer goods company would pump in millions of dollars into an event when the viewership falls from 1.8B to 500MM? Not saying that it wont pump money in, but the number of spots, sponsorships etc will also fall tremendously.
Theres is a direct correlation between GRPs and advertiser revenues.

The correct comparison should be the cost of a 30 sec. TV spot in a match involving India vs. the cost of the same 30s. spot without India.
Only then would you be able to see the difference in revenue generated as an effect of the Indian viewership and participation.
Ill bet you my top dollar that the former scenario wins hands down.



Yeah ICC is a legacy org that needs to be revamped.

To add to this further, I remember recently in world cup India was eliminated from the finals race, this lead to huge downfall in earnings from viewership and loss for advertizers and organizers. As much hypocrite as it sounds, reality is that Indian are there only to watch few Indian players taking shots and bowling.

 

[Peshwa]

Keyword also being 'International'.

Like I said, If International is the keyword, then a tri lateral cricket series not involving India should generate the same zest from an advertiser (ie. pay the same amount for a 30s spot) as compared to a trilateral series involving India.
Then your proposal of equitable distribution makes sense.
Since that is NOT the case, my point stands.
ICC and the participating teams make more money when India is involved, than when its not!