Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[kban1]

The ire of the tiger

Dileep Premachandran

February 2, 2008


What will I do if I don't control the board?"

Urban legend or fact, those words will always be attributed to Jagmohan Dalmiya, the Kolkata-based businessman who was BCCI overlord until two years ago. President of the ICC between 1997 and 2000, Dalmiya was responsible for the game's great leap forward into the age of commercialism. When he was board secretary 15 years ago, the BCCI was still a fringe player on the world stage. Then the stars aligned in such a fashion that both he and Indian cricket became unstoppable.

In 1993, telecast rights for a series against England were sold for $US40,000. By 2006, a four-year deal had been inked with Nimbus Communications for $US612.18 million. How did the molehill become a mountain? There are three answers. Satellite TV, economic liberalisation and Sachin Tendulkar. Rupert Murdoch's Star TV network opened up the world to millions of middle-class Indians, while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's policies saw a clean break with the Soviet-inspired socialist past. Then, there was Tendulkar, the teenage prodigy whose dazzling displays across the globe made him an icon even bigger than the stars of the silver screen. And while he inspired a generation, many from small towns and villages that lacked even one proper cricket pitch, the Indian board reaped the benefits.

England and Australia lost their veto power at the ICC in 1993, and Dalmiya, with his fistful of dollars, elbowed his way into the void. With great power should come great responsibility, but for Dalmiya and those that succeeded him, a hand on the reins of power was an excuse to impose their will on the rest of the world.

Australia and New Zealand were favourites to host the 2011 World Cup, but a joint Asian bid - India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh - was given an extension until April 21, 2006, after it failed to meet the March deadline. The resulting vote was easily won, 10-3, and as a mark of gratitude, West Indies - who voted the Indian way - were invited to a triangular series [also featuring Australia] in Kuala Lumpur and a bilateral series in India. In Malaysia, they were paid $US1 million for each game against India, a sizeable sum for a board struggling to stay afloat.

In the aftermath of the regrettable events in Sydney, the BCCI also did an excellent job of manipulating easily inflamed public opinion, with emotive statements about India's stance in the anti-apartheid days. That should have surprised no one. After all, the man who succeeded Dalmiya as Indian cricket's primus inter pares is a career politician who is currently Union Minister for Agriculture.

Hailing from Baramati in Maharashtra's sugar belt, Sharad Pawar's ties with the game were strengthened by marriage - his father-in-law, Sadu Shinde, was a leg spinner who went to England in 1946. But after a lifetime of patronage to kabaddi players and wrestlers, it was only in the new millennium that he turned his attention to cricket. In the elections to the Mumbai Cricket Association in 2001, he wielded enough influence to defeat one of Indian cricket's titans, Ajit Wadekar, the man who had led the team to its first victory in England in 1971.

In 2005, he ended the Dalmiya years, and now has his eyes set on the top job at the ICC. The days of veto might be long gone, but little can happen in the corridors of power in Dubai without India nodding assent. With its wheels oiled by an endless queue of cash-rich sponsors - Nike shelled out $US43 million to kit the side for five years, while Air Sahara coughed up $US68m to have its name emblazoned on the shirt sleeve - the BCCI has become sport's biggest juggernaut. The New York Yankees and Manchester United may generate revenue on the same scale but are not backed by the kind of political muscle that can subvert a game.

Many Indians are discomfited by the board's greed and naked displays of strength but there's also a new, prosperous brigade that takes perverse pride in sticking it to the old world. The voices of reason look at the lack of facilities in small towns, ramshackle stadia and haphazard itineraries and wonder where all the money goes. Those that burn effigies and parade donkeys on the street couldn't care less.

Nearly a century ago, MK *hi returned from South Africa to lead a motley crew of princely states into the modern world. He did so with humility, common sense and an unshakeable belief that truth would prevail. Indian cricket awaits a similar statesman.

Dileep Premachandran is the associate editor of cricinfo and a regular contributor to The Sunday Times and Guardian Unlimited.


This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/01/1201801033663.html

[WicketView]

Kban,

I have no problems with the monetary dealings that he described. Cricket is a business today in numerous ways, and everyone in it is involved. Business is never without its own manoeuvres, and if we are excelling at it it is because we have done better than the others who have also tried. It is not so simple to wipe of everything in the name of a Sachin Tendulkar or the economy liberalization... even before Tendulkar we had stars. And other countries had liberalized economies and cable TV before us. It was a well measured move, and the then BCCI president deserves credit for it, without the sniggers that these people cannot write without.

And in the present fracas, I believe a bunch of moves by the Indians were right, though some were not. But, what is absolutely horrible in all of this, is that we have failed to explain the necessity of extreme actions, indeed we were not even transparent about what we were acting on. And so, I think we can expect a fair amount of flak for these. It is quite justified, and we only have our own board to blame.

PS: Are you sure that the author is Indian? I was under the impression that he was  brought up (if not born) in England, and so may actually be English by nationality.

[kban1]

Well, I did read a piece by him which alluded to him being brought up in UK -- but I didnt infer that he is a non Indian given his "expertise" of dealing with issues related to Indian cricket -- although it may well have been an off beat diversion that he undertook to bring about the end of the raj (read Lord Snooty) and attempt to legitimize the rule of the proletariat (read Lord Snooty's successor).

In any case, I find him to be pathetic in his bias and double standards, once again exemplified by this article (which has no semblance of balance, proportion or perspective to it beyond flaming the fires more for cheap change) its timing, and the publication source. IMO, he is an example of a Grand Prick - not to be confused with the type where karthikeyan or schumi compete.

[WicketView]

Well, I did read a piece by him which alluded to him being brought up in UK -- but I didnt infer that he is a non Indian given his "expertise" of dealing with issues related to Indian cricket -- although it may well have been an off beat diversion that he undertook to bring about the end of the raj (read Lord Snooty) and attempt to legitimize the rule of the proletariat (read Lord Snooty's successor).

In any case, I find him to be pathetic in his bias and double standards, once again exemplified by this article (which has no semblance of balance, proportion or perspective to it beyond flaming the fires more for cheap change) its timing, and the publication source. IMO, he is an example of a Grand Prick - not to be confused with the type where karthikeyan or schumi compete.

Oh but his displayed 'expertise' encompasses way too much ... reading cricinfo, I would then have to assume he has nationality of all cricket playing nations

[kban1]

Oh but his displayed 'expertise' encompasses way too much

I can only hope that the sarcasm inherent in my description of his "expertise" was not lost on you 

[WicketView]

sarcasm ...what sarcasm? Are you telling me that you are not a Premchandran bhakt?

[CLR James]

How low can one get? This fellow is the kind I absolutely abhore.

[caught and bowled]

I must be reading a totally different article. I didnt find anything pathetic here. He just factually describes the BCCI rising power and clout. The the that it appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald has no bearing because it could well have been Mid-Day and still the whole world and his uncle would have been able to read it.

[caught and bowled]

Could this then be the other pathetic Indian talking to the foreign press something nebative about India?



BCCI seen as a cash-rich bully, admits ex-chief
Posted online: Saturday , February 02, 2008 at 11:46:18
Updated: Saturday , February 02, 2008 at 12:03:31 Print Email To Editor Post Comments

Melbourne, February 2: Former BCCI President I S Bindra has admitted that the Cricket Board was battling an image crisis after being projected as a cash-rich bully which arm-twisted ICC and Cricket Australia (CA) to get Harbhajan Singh cleared in the race row.

"There is that perception and those people have the right to that perception. (But) I hope that perception is not correct and I like to believe it's not correct," Bindra was quoted as saying in The Australian.

http://publication.samachar.com/pub_article.php?id=1212103&navname=General%20&moreurl=http://publication.samachar.com/expressindia/general/onlineedition.php&homeurl=http://www.samachar.com
Bindra, however, insisted that the BCCI does not want to be seen as cricket's version of America.


"I would say that 95 per cent of those at the BCCI share that opinion, however the loud minority are the ones who have tended to show up in the media. That is not necessarily the media's fault, but also that the BCCI has not projected the right image," he admitted.


"But I believe and try to emphasise on others that Indian cricket does not want to be what America is to the rest of the world," he quipped.


Bindra, however, felt that the cricketing world at large might benefit from India's financial might.


"India is in a position where it can grow the game. It should be seeking greater responsibility, not more power. By using its resources wisely, and not just trying to impose a dictatorship, everyone should benefit from India's position in the game," Bindra said.


The former BCCI president said India only wanted to be treated as an equal in the cricket world but maintained that it has never intended to flex its financial muscle to get that respect.


"What we want is on the basis of every country being equal. We want equity, justice and fair play. We don't want money to be the main factor propelling the game of cricket. Of course money is important. But it shouldn't be important to the extent of dictating decision-making," he said.


Bindra admitted that some of the more talkative members of the Board have played a part in making BCCI look like a discordant house ready to wield financial power to push its agenda.


"Yes, there are people on the board who think in this way. But I am their critic, the first one to criticise them. I believe even the smallest country should have an equal say in the matter," he said.

[Cernunnos]

I must be reading a totally different article. I didnt find anything pathetic here. He just factually describes the BCCI rising power and clout. The the that it appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald has no bearing because it could well have been Mid-Day and still the whole world and his uncle would have been able to read it.

What is factual here?

He says Dalmiya had a fistful of dollars - incorrect. Neither he or the ICC had any money.
He casts a slur on the WI cricket board - completely unfounded.
He is propogating unfounded rumours about BCCI throwing it's power. Anyone reading the
Hansen judgement would see the only power in view is that of cogent arguments and reasoning.

[sudzz]

I must be reading a totally different article. I didnt find anything pathetic here. He just factually describes the BCCI rising power and clout. The the that it appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald has no bearing because it could well have been Mid-Day and still the whole world and his uncle would have been able to read it.

CnB,
The reference to MK *hi is uncalled for and this is a sport not a martyrdom that one is talking about.

Secondly how conveniently he chooses to gloss over the fact that the Imperial Cricket Conference/Council rode roughshod over India for decades together and today India is merely protecting its own players and its own cause.

Whether this guy is a Indian or of Indian origin or even a Brit in an Indian disguise I dont care, but what I do care about is the fact that this guys tone is downright derogatory.

[caught and bowled]

I must be reading a totally different article. I didnt find anything pathetic here. He just factually describes the BCCI rising power and clout. The the that it appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald has no bearing because it could well have been Mid-Day and still the whole world and his uncle would have been able to read it.

What is factual here?

He says Dalmiya had a fistful of dollars - incorrect. Neither he or the ICC had any money.
He casts a slur on the WI cricket board - completely unfounded.
He is propogating unfounded rumours about BCCI throwing it's power. Anyone reading the
Hansen judgement would see the only power in view is that of cogent arguments and reasoning.

The Dalmia's fitstful of dollars comment comes after he mentioned the 613 million USD offer from Nimbus for telecast right. IN 1993 thats was a lot of money for BCCI (he is refering the Dalamia as its president, not Dalmia the person)

Whats the slur on WI board. That it is bankrupt is well known. By inviting them to play in KUL and giving them money  the BCCI was helping them. Is stating this a slur.

Elsewhere Arjuna Ranatunga is quoted as saying that he is looking at India to bail the SL board out of its present financial difficuties. If someone quotes this in an article would it be a slur?

How is he propogating unfounded romoures about BCCI throwing its power? The enitre Criketing fraternity sees us that wayanyway. And this has been the case for the last few few years. Its because of the way the BCCI functioneries have conducted themselves and their posturing and grandstanding on every contentious issue. Even Bindra alludes to that in the article I have posted below. Its upto BCCI to project irself professionally  and responsibly for such notions to be dispelled...

[Cernunnos]

India in the last 10 years has played the following # of ODIs:

v Australia   1998-2007   43   
v Bangladesh   1998-2007   12   
v England   1999-2007   32   
v New Zealand   1998-2005   33   
v Pakistan   1998-2007   47
v South Africa   1999-2007   30
v Sri Lanka   1998-2007   43   
v West Indies   1998-2007   34
v Zimbabwe   1998-2005   33

The distribution is more or less proportionate, I feel.
As expected, Aus, Pak and SL we have faced max.
The next level is SA, WI, NZ, Eng, Zim
The lowest is BD

We have played too much against Zim and SL.

Again, no evidence of bias towards WI. since we have a W/L
record less than 1, we ought to be playing more against
them. Ditto SA.

[caught and bowled]

I must be reading a totally different article. I didnt find anything pathetic here. He just factually describes the BCCI rising power and clout. The the that it appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald has no bearing because it could well have been Mid-Day and still the whole world and his uncle would have been able to read it.

CnB,
The reference to MK *hi is uncalled for and this is a sport not a martyrdom that one is talking about.

Secondly how conveniently he chooses to gloss over the fact that the Imperial Cricket Conference/Council rode roughshod over India for decades together and today India is merely protecting its own players and its own cause.

Whether this guy is a Indian or of Indian origin or even a Brit in an Indian disguise I dont care, but what I do care about is the fact that this guys tone is downright derogatory.

I think the MK *hi reference is to show that   humility, common sense and an unshakeable belief that truth would prevail is what is needed for BCCI to project itself as the reponsible Cricketing power in the new millenium.

I think the whole crux of this article seems to be to to trace the emergence of BCCI as the power in the cricketing world. That Imperial Cricket Conference/Council code ran roghshod over other nations for decades is undenialble, but perhaps a matter for another article

[caught and bowled]

India in the last 10 years has played the following # of ODIs:

v Australia   1998-2007   43   
v Bangladesh   1998-2007   12   
v England   1999-2007   32   
v New Zealand   1998-2005   33   
v Pakistan   1998-2007   47
v South Africa   1999-2007   30
v Sri Lanka   1998-2007   43   
v West Indies   1998-2007   34
v Zimbabwe   1998-2005   33

The distribution is more or less proportionate, I feel.
As expected, Aus, Pak and SL we have faced max.
The next level is SA, WI, NZ, Eng, Zim
The lowest is BD

We have played too much against Zim and SL.

Again, no evidence of bias towards WI. since we have a W/L
record less than 1, we ought to be playing more against
them. Ditto SA.

There may be more to WI being invited for the tri series than just the stats you have mentioned above. By April 2006 WI Cricket team had become a thoroghly unattractive commercial proposition with just one star, Brian Lara.
By inviting them at that juncture, perhaps ou of turn,  a favour was being doled out to the WI board. We have already helped SL Cricket in its needs

[Cernunnos]

I must be reading a totally different article. I didnt find anything pathetic here. He just factually describes the BCCI rising power and clout. The the that it appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald has no bearing because it could well have been Mid-Day and still the whole world and his uncle would have been able to read it.

What is factual here?

He says Dalmiya had a fistful of dollars - incorrect. Neither he or the ICC had any money.
He casts a slur on the WI cricket board - completely unfounded.
He is propogating unfounded rumours about BCCI throwing it's power. Anyone reading the
Hansen judgement would see the only power in view is that of cogent arguments and reasoning.

The Dalmia's fitstful of dollars comment comes after he mentioned the 613 million USD offer from Nimbus for telecast right. IN 1993 thats was a lot of money for BCCI (he is refering the Dalamia as its president, not Dalmia the person)

Wrong. It was $40,000 in 1993.

Whats the slur on WI board. That it is bankrupt is well known. By inviting them to play in KUL and giving them money  the BCCI was helping them. Is stating this a slur.

Saying that they did this for a vote is a slur.

Elsewhere Arjuna Ranatunga is quoted as saying that he is looking at India to bail the SL board out of its present financial difficuties. If someone quotes this in an article would it be a slur?

Read the above.

How is he propogating unfounded romoures about BCCI throwing its power? The enitre Criketing fraternity sees us that wayanyway. And this has been the case for the last few few years. Its because of the way the BCCI functioneries have conducted themselves and their posturing and grandstanding on every contentious issue. Even Bindra alludes to that in the article I have posted below. Its upto BCCI to project irself professionally  and responsibly for such notions to be dispelled...

If BCCI was throwing it's weight around, then the match refees and umpires would have been
overhauled. Show many how many Indians are there in important positions in the ICC?
Only one Sunil Gavaskar, and even he might get replaced by Mark Taylor because he spoke
the truth.

[Cernunnos]

India in the last 10 years has played the following # of ODIs:

v Australia   1998-2007   43   
v Bangladesh   1998-2007   12   
v England   1999-2007   32   
v New Zealand   1998-2005   33   
v Pakistan   1998-2007   47
v South Africa   1999-2007   30
v Sri Lanka   1998-2007   43   
v West Indies   1998-2007   34
v Zimbabwe   1998-2005   33

The distribution is more or less proportionate, I feel.
As expected, Aus, Pak and SL we have faced max.
The next level is SA, WI, NZ, Eng, Zim
The lowest is BD

We have played too much against Zim and SL.

Again, no evidence of bias towards WI. since we have a W/L
record less than 1, we ought to be playing more against
them. Ditto SA.

There may be more to WI being invited for the tri series than just the stats you have mentioned above. By April 2006 WI Cricket team had become a thoroghly unattractive commercial proposition with just one star, Brian Lara.
By inviting them at that juncture, perhaps ou of turn,  a favour was being doled out to the WI board. We have already helped SL Cricket in its needs

What's this rubbish about WI having or not having a star? We got our
behinds kicked in that triseries, and it's churlish to raise questions
about why they participated there.

You can't pick up a short period in time and say we over-played them.
In a 10 year period, we have had the right proportion of matches
with them.

[caught and bowled]

I must be reading a totally different article. I didnt find anything pathetic here. He just factually describes the BCCI rising power and clout. The the that it appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald has no bearing because it could well have been Mid-Day and still the whole world and his uncle would have been able to read it.

What is factual here?

He says Dalmiya had a fistful of dollars - incorrect. Neither he or the ICC had any money.
He casts a slur on the WI cricket board - completely unfounded.
He is propogating unfounded rumours about BCCI throwing it's power. Anyone reading the
Hansen judgement would see the only power in view is that of cogent arguments and reasoning.

The Dalmia's fitstful of dollars comment comes after he mentioned the 613 million USD offer from Nimbus for telecast right. IN 1993 thats was a lot of money for BCCI (he is refering the Dalamia as its president, not Dalmia the person)

Wrong. It was $40,000 in 1993.

Whats the slur on WI board. That it is bankrupt is well known. By inviting them to play in KUL and giving them money  the BCCI was helping them. Is stating this a slur.

Saying that they did this for a vote is a slur.

Elsewhere Arjuna Ranatunga is quoted as saying that he is looking at India to bail the SL board out of its present financial difficuties. If someone quotes this in an article would it be a slur?

Read the above.

How is he propogating unfounded romoures about BCCI throwing its power? The enitre Criketing fraternity sees us that wayanyway. And this has been the case for the last few few years. Its because of the way the BCCI functioneries have conducted themselves and their posturing and grandstanding on every contentious issue. Even Bindra alludes to that in the article I have posted below. Its upto BCCI to project irself professionally  and responsibly for such notions to be dispelled...

If BCCI was throwing it's weight around, then the match refees and umpires would have been
overhauled. Show many how many Indians are there in important positions in the ICC?
Only one Sunil Gavaskar, and even he might get replaced by Mark Taylor because he spoke
the truth.

I stand coorected on the 613 million. Perhaps USD43000 were still a fistful of dollars in the nascent cricket marketing those day! If you think saying that we doled out some favours to WI and SL is a slur to them, thats your opinion. I dont agree.  the the grateful boards didnt seem to think so either. Arjuna has openly said it recently.

In spite of the fact that there are no Indians in important positions in ICC,  the BCCI has been throwing its weight around for a long time is for all to see: from exonerating Murali and Akhtar by bending rules to taking on Mike Deness and Proctor (and having the test nullified in the bargain) to the present posturing of threatening to go home if the verdic went against Harbhajan are all examples of that..

[caught and bowled]

India in the last 10 years has played the following # of ODIs:

v Australia   1998-2007   43   
v Bangladesh   1998-2007   12   
v England   1999-2007   32   
v New Zealand   1998-2005   33   
v Pakistan   1998-2007   47
v South Africa   1999-2007   30
v Sri Lanka   1998-2007   43   
v West Indies   1998-2007   34
v Zimbabwe   1998-2005   33

The distribution is more or less proportionate, I feel.
As expected, Aus, Pak and SL we have faced max.
The next level is SA, WI, NZ, Eng, Zim
The lowest is BD

We have played too much against Zim and SL.

Again, no evidence of bias towards WI. since we have a W/L
record less than 1, we ought to be playing more against
them. Ditto SA.

There may be more to WI being invited for the tri series than just the stats you have mentioned above. By April 2006 WI Cricket team had become a thoroghly unattractive commercial proposition with just one star, Brian Lara.
By inviting them at that juncture, perhaps ou of turn,  a favour was being doled out to the WI board. We have already helped SL Cricket in its needs

What's this rubbish about WI having or not having a star? We got our
behinds kicked in that triseries, and it's churlish to raise questions
about why they participated there.

You can't pick up a short period in time and say we over-played them.
In a 10 year period, we have had the right proportion of matches
with them.

A short period was picked because that was specifically referred to in the article in question. That we invited them for this triseries(implicit in that is the fact that they could make some money) is the fact. That our behinds were kicked is an aside...

[Cernunnos]

I must be reading a totally different article. I didnt find anything pathetic here. He just factually describes the BCCI rising power and clout. The the that it appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald has no bearing because it could well have been Mid-Day and still the whole world and his uncle would have been able to read it.

What is factual here?

He says Dalmiya had a fistful of dollars - incorrect. Neither he or the ICC had any money.
He casts a slur on the WI cricket board - completely unfounded.
He is propogating unfounded rumours about BCCI throwing it's power. Anyone reading the
Hansen judgement would see the only power in view is that of cogent arguments and reasoning.

The Dalmia's fitstful of dollars comment comes after he mentioned the 613 million USD offer from Nimbus for telecast right. IN 1993 thats was a lot of money for BCCI (he is refering the Dalamia as its president, not Dalmia the person)

Wrong. It was $40,000 in 1993.

Whats the slur on WI board. That it is bankrupt is well known. By inviting them to play in KUL and giving them money  the BCCI was helping them. Is stating this a slur.

Saying that they did this for a vote is a slur.

Elsewhere Arjuna Ranatunga is quoted as saying that he is looking at India to bail the SL board out of its present financial difficuties. If someone quotes this in an article would it be a slur?

Read the above.

How is he propogating unfounded romoures about BCCI throwing its power? The enitre Criketing fraternity sees us that wayanyway. And this has been the case for the last few few years. Its because of the way the BCCI functioneries have conducted themselves and their posturing and grandstanding on every contentious issue. Even Bindra alludes to that in the article I have posted below. Its upto BCCI to project irself professionally  and responsibly for such notions to be dispelled...

If BCCI was throwing it's weight around, then the match refees and umpires would have been
overhauled. Show many how many Indians are there in important positions in the ICC?
Only one Sunil Gavaskar, and even he might get replaced by Mark Taylor because he spoke
the truth.

I stand coorected on the 613 million. Perhaps USD43000 were still a fistful of dollars in the nascent cricket marketing those day!

Yes, you go down from $613,000,000 to $40,000, and still it's a big amount!
Few people want to acknowledge that Dalmiya is the father of modern
international cricket since it got it's independence in 1993.
The $40,000 btw was the Indian board's money. The ICC was bankrupt
when Dalmiya came, and he turned it all around, but few people want to
acknowledge it.

That is the perfidy of DP.

If you think saying that we doled out some favours to WI and SL is a slur to them, thats your opinion. I dont agree.  the the grateful boards didnt seem to think so either. Arjuna has openly said it recently.

Don't portray what I said incorrectly. Helping a Board is not a slur on that Board.
Accusing a Board of selling off it's independence is one. I can't help it if you don't
see the difference.

In spite of the fact that there are no Indians in important positions in ICC,  the BCCI has been throwing its weight around for a long time is for all to see: from exonerating Murali and Akhtar by bending rules to taking on Mike Deness and Proctor (and having the test nullified in the bargain) to the present posturing of threatening to go home if the verdic went against Harbhajan are all examples of that..

What has been done against Procter? In any case whatever was done
against Denness, was it morally unjustified?

Dalmiya was the guy who instituted the appeals process after the Dennes
fiasco. Think about it, today because of the action against Denness by Dalmiya,
Bhajji was able to appeal the ban by Procter. Otherwise today he would
have been known as a racist on the basis of what is proven as a disgraceful
Kangaroo court by Procter.

But how many commentators have had the guts to acknowledge this?
Not a single article in any newspaper anywhere.
None. OTOH they miss no opportunity to throw mud at him.

That's why the DP's of this world are stinking scums.

[caught and bowled]

I must be reading a totally different article. I didnt find anything pathetic here. He just factually describes the BCCI rising power and clout. The the that it appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald has no bearing because it could well have been Mid-Day and still the whole world and his uncle would have been able to read it.

What is factual here?

He says Dalmiya had a fistful of dollars - incorrect. Neither he or the ICC had any money.
He casts a slur on the WI cricket board - completely unfounded.
He is propogating unfounded rumours about BCCI throwing it's power. Anyone reading the
Hansen judgement would see the only power in view is that of cogent arguments and reasoning.

The Dalmia's fitstful of dollars comment comes after he mentioned the 613 million USD offer from Nimbus for telecast right. IN 1993 thats was a lot of money for BCCI (he is refering the Dalamia as its president, not Dalmia the person)

Wrong. It was $40,000 in 1993.

Whats the slur on WI board. That it is bankrupt is well known. By inviting them to play in KUL and giving them money  the BCCI was helping them. Is stating this a slur.

Saying that they did this for a vote is a slur.

Elsewhere Arjuna Ranatunga is quoted as saying that he is looking at India to bail the SL board out of its present financial difficuties. If someone quotes this in an article would it be a slur?

Read the above.

How is he propogating unfounded romoures about BCCI throwing its power? The enitre Criketing fraternity sees us that wayanyway. And this has been the case for the last few few years. Its because of the way the BCCI functioneries have conducted themselves and their posturing and grandstanding on every contentious issue. Even Bindra alludes to that in the article I have posted below. Its upto BCCI to project irself professionally  and responsibly for such notions to be dispelled...

If BCCI was throwing it's weight around, then the match refees and umpires would have been
overhauled. Show many how many Indians are there in important positions in the ICC?
Only one Sunil Gavaskar, and even he might get replaced by Mark Taylor because he spoke
the truth.

I stand coorected on the 613 million. Perhaps USD43000 were still a fistful of dollars in the nascent cricket marketing those day!

Yes, you go down from $613,000,000 to $40,000, and still it's a big amount!
Few people want to acknowledge that Dalmiya is the father of modern
international cricket since it got it's independence in 1993.
The $40,000 btw was the Indian board's money. The ICC was bankrupt
when Dalmiya came, and he turned it all around, but few people want to
acknowledge it.

That is the perfidy of DP.

If you think saying that we doled out some favours to WI and SL is a slur to them, thats your opinion. I dont agree.  the the grateful boards didnt seem to think so either. Arjuna has openly said it recently.

Don't portray what I said incorrectly. Helping a Board is not a slur on that Board.
Accusing a Board of selling off it's independence is one. I can't help it if you don't
see the difference.

In spite of the fact that there are no Indians in important positions in ICC,  the BCCI has been throwing its weight around for a long time is for all to see: from exonerating Murali and Akhtar by bending rules to taking on Mike Deness and Proctor (and having the test nullified in the bargain) to the present posturing of threatening to go home if the verdic went against Harbhajan are all examples of that..

What has been done against Procter? In any case whatever was done
against Denness, was it morally unjustified?

Dalmiya was the guy who instituted the appeals process after the Dennes
fiasco. Think about it, today because of the action against Denness by Dalmiya,
Bhajji was able to appeal the ban by Procter. Otherwise today he would
have been known as a racist on the basis of what is proven as a disgraceful
Kangaroo court by Procter.

But how many commentators have had the guts to acknowledge this?
Not a single article in any newspaper anywhere.
None. OTOH they miss no opportunity to throw mud at him.

That's why the DP's of this world are stinking scums.

I have basically said my peice and dont want to go on debating this endlessly. I for one, believe that on balance, Dalmia did Indian and World Cricket a lot of good . And Indian Cricket, where it is in terms of the money or the game itself, has a lot to do with Dalmia. Thats all..

[Cernunnos]

India in the last 10 years has played the following # of ODIs:

v Australia   1998-2007   43   
v Bangladesh   1998-2007   12   
v England   1999-2007   32   
v New Zealand   1998-2005   33   
v Pakistan   1998-2007   47
v South Africa   1999-2007   30
v Sri Lanka   1998-2007   43   
v West Indies   1998-2007   34
v Zimbabwe   1998-2005   33

The distribution is more or less proportionate, I feel.
As expected, Aus, Pak and SL we have faced max.
The next level is SA, WI, NZ, Eng, Zim
The lowest is BD

We have played too much against Zim and SL.

Again, no evidence of bias towards WI. since we have a W/L
record less than 1, we ought to be playing more against
them. Ditto SA.

There may be more to WI being invited for the tri series than just the stats you have mentioned above. By April 2006 WI Cricket team had become a thoroghly unattractive commercial proposition with just one star, Brian Lara.
By inviting them at that juncture, perhaps ou of turn,  a favour was being doled out to the WI board. We have already helped SL Cricket in its needs

What's this rubbish about WI having or not having a star? We got our
behinds kicked in that triseries, and it's churlish to raise questions
about why they participated there.

You can't pick up a short period in time and say we over-played them.
In a 10 year period, we have had the right proportion of matches
with them.

A short period was picked because that was specifically referred to in the article in question. That we invited them for this triseries(implicit in that is the fact that they could make some money) is the fact. That our behinds were kicked is an aside...

Again, it's completely unfounded that the WI vote was bought at that time.
There is zilch proof, even to raise eyebrows. Of course teams are invited to
play tri series, duh!
At any rate, the vote was 10-3, WI or no WI!