Print

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

[kban1]

No certificate, no play

ICL players face county bar

Cricinfo staff

February 27, 2008

 
A number of counties face starting the 2008 season without their high-profile overseas players after it was revealed that anyone who has signed with the breakaway Indian Cricket League is unlikely to be given the necessary clearance to play by their own boards.

Any non-English player needs a "no objection certificate" (NOC) from their home board before being allowed to play in England, and it is believed that several, including New Zealand Cricket and the Pakistan Cricket Board, are refusing to issue them. It comes as the leading boards adopt a hard line towards unauthorised tournaments.

Shane Bond, who signed with the ICL last November, in effect had his career ended by NZC as a result, but earlier this month he signed for Hampshire for the 2008 season. However, without the NOC he will not be allowed to play.

Cricinfo has learnt that one Pakistan player - believed to be Yorkshire's Rana Naved-ul-Hasan - has already been declined an NOC and it seems likely that others, such as Mushtaq Ahmed and Mohammad Sami, will also be left out in the cold.

© Cricinfo

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/340103.html

[kban1]

ECB adopts tough stance on unofficial tournaments

Cricinfo staff

February 27, 2008

The ECB has taken a hard line against unofficial tournaments with a clear message that anyone participating in or hosting them will in effect be ostracised.

In a non-nonsense statement, the board said no member, or venue receiving any funding from it, would be allowed to host such events. That was a clear message to the Indian Cricket League which had mentioned the possibility of playing games outside India.

The move was "in order to protect the genuine interests in the development of grassroots and county cricket and protecting anti-doping and anti corruption measures".  --- ROFLMAO

The ECB, which was acting with the backing of the first-class counties, also in effect barred overseas players who had signed with the ICL as they would be not be granted the required "no objection certificates" from their home boards. This raises the prospect of a number of high-profile players who had signed with counties not being able to fulfill their commitments.

With regards to English players who have signed, the ECB reaffirmed the policy "clearly demonstrates a preference towards players and officials who do not participate in unofficial events". Australia and New Zealand have announced guidelines that any players in the ICL will be banned from duties with their national and provincial teams.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/340101.html

[LosingNow]

Looks like SRK is going do the first firing of a coach in the newly formed IPL

[OldPal]

Here is one more hurdle for players. They cant even play county cricket now   

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/sport/2008/02/28/scbrig228.xml

ECB play hardball over Indian Cricket League

The England and Wales Cricket Board bowed to global pressure yesterday to debar any cricketers appearing in the rebel Indian Cricket League from taking on contracts as overseas players in county cricket. Their bold response is likely to force at least three clubs - Yorkshire, Hampshire and Sussex - to change their plans, and marks an escalation in the campaign to send the upstart competition to the wall.

Nick Hoult: Sad state of the Antigua Rec
The ECB put out a press release announcing that it was "determined to disassociate and distance itself from any promoter, agent or individual involved in such events". Those individuals include Rana Naved-ul-Hasan, the Pakistan fast bowler who was heading to Yorkshire, as well as Shane Bond, who had been linked with Hampshire. Even Mushtaq Ahmed, virtually a Sussex citizen after five years with the club, may find himself in the cold unless he can wriggle out of his ICL contract.

   
Collision course: Mushtaq's Indian contract may cause him problems
After taking legal advice, the ECB believe that they can reject these players on the grounds that they need a "No Objection Certificate" from their home boards before they can be registered to play county cricket. That certificate is not likely to be forthcoming, because every Test-playing nation has fallen in line with the Board of Cricket Control for India and its campaign to stamp the ICL into the ground.

The BCCI, which is already estimated to have earned $1 million (£500,000) from selling franchises and broadcasting rights to its Indian Premier League competition, is determined to wipe out any rivals in the lucrative 20-over market. Teams with ICL players have been threatened with exclusion from the Champions Twenty20 League in October, and there have even been suggestions India's national team could refuse to play any dissenting nation.

At a meeting of the county chief executives on Tuesday, it was suggested that if England did not comply, the IPL - whose season extends this year from April 18 to June 1 - might come along in future with irresistible offers for the likes of Andrew Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen. In other words, this is a quid-pro-quo arrangement in which opposition to the ICL is the price of immunity from the IPL.

"It seems bizarre that county cricket should be affected by a political row in India," said Kent chief executive Paul Millman. "We're about to start the season and suddenly some counties will have to reconsider deals struck some time ago. It would have been good if a line could have been drawn, and any agreements made in good faith before that left alone. I don't think you should abandon contracts on a whim. But this is a complex situation."

Four English players - Paul Nixon, Chris Read, Vikram Solanki and Darren Maddy - participated in last October's ICL tournament, which was held near Chandigarh. The four should all be exempt from the ban as long as they do not return this autumn. The same dilemma may be particularly acute from Stuart Law, Lancashire's new captain.

The ECB may add further protection for county cricket by introducing 12-month contracts for all clubs, thus supplying players with income during the winter, but at the same time introducing clauses that prohibit them signing with unauthorised tournaments. The ECB will have to help bankroll the extensions, which could cost between £1.3 million and £2 million, but they see it as a wise investment to protect them from a serious threat.

While the counties will be concerned about these developments, many clubs will also be relieved that the ECB's plans to exclude ICL players do not apply to Kolpak signings. That was the impression many chief executives had after Tuesday's meeting. This would have affected clubs such as Northamptonshire, who have four South Africans involved in the ICL.

Yet one agent working with the ICL said he expected the campaign against its players to intensify. "There's been a lot of activity over the last few days but at the end of it all, only a handful of players will be affected by this ruling. I have a feeling that the ECB are not finished with this one yet."

[dextrous]

surely, an english court would hear a challenge?!

[kban1]

FICA slams 'anti-competitive behaviour' over ICL

Cricinfo staff

March 1, 2008

 
Tim May, the chief executive of FICA, the international players' association, has expressed his concern over attempts by national boards to impose bans on players who have signed for the unauthorised Indian Cricket League.

Making clear that FICA "neither supports nor rejects the ICL", May said that his organisation's primary aim "is to ensure that players rights are upheld and that governing bodies do not unreasonably restrain players from plying their trade".

He said players were only under an obligation to play exclusively for a body when they enter into a contract with them to that effect. "Where a player has chosen not to enter a contract with a particular governing body or alternatively has not been offered a contract the player should be free to play wherever he likes."

His comments come in the light of reported moves by the Pakistan and New Zealand boards to refuse to grant their players No Objection Certificates which are needed by them to play for English county sides. "What we are now seeing is that governing bodies are introducing a variety of measures that will limit the ability of players who play in the ICL being considered for competitions under the jurisdiction of those [boards].

"A governing body can devise its own qualification rules - it's whether they are unlawful or not, whether these will be acceptable to player associations. These are where the issues of unreasonable restraint of trade, discrimination and various anti-competitive behaviour arise."

May made it clear that "FICA and its player associations will defend the right of players to seek employment without fear of unreasonable restraint of trade, discrimination and the collusion of a number of bodies to monopolise employment and restrict movement in the market".

He said it remained unclear what the objection to the ICL is, "apart from it being an unwanted competitor. No governing body has yet satisfactorily explained to players' associations why ICL is such a danger to cricket. In any other walk of life, it's accepted that competitive markets are more desirable than monopolistic markets.

"We have heard public comments that ICL has the propensity to take a significant amount of the games' revenues away from the global revenue stream and that all countries will suffer accordingly. Incredibly the other countries just sat aside silently when the BCCI derived US$2 billion out of the games' potential revenues for the BCCI's exclusive use - which I presume was pretty much the same US$2 billion that ICL were suppose to suck out of the system.

"Countries have also objected to ICL revenues being diverted to private enterprise rather than the development of the game - they have conveniently cast a blind eye to the fact that a significant proportion of the ongoing profits of the 'official' IPL tournament will be distributed to private enterprises, not the game.

"I am staggered given cricket's significantly small number of professional cricketers that the creation of a further 60 or 70 professional positions is viewed as a negative for the game."

One argument put forward against the ICL is that it has no effective anti-doping policy. "Neither do half of the ten Test playing nations," May countered. "I don't hear countries saying they won't play other countries because they don't have anti-doping policies.

"For many, if not all, countries, the number of these players that will embrace IPL will only increase, as players are increasingly frustrated by low remuneration, lengthy absences from family and the direction and governance of our game. While all other sports are bending their backs to attract talent - cricket seems hell bent on ridding itself of its talent.

"The big question is ... what is more of a risk to the game. The ICL, or the policies being constructed by our governors?"

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/icl/content/current/story/340433.html

[kban1]

Welcome to the inquisition

The IPL, and its creator the BCCI, is sparing no rod to make sure the ICL is ground into the dust - the rest of world cricket be damned

March 1, 2008
 

Witch-hunts are odious things, whether in fact or fiction - in Miller's Salem, Stalin's USSR, McCarthy's USA or Bush's. Morally they are bankrupt, for only the persecutor can be right; the other is wrong and all in between can stick it. Often it is not enough to prove the other as just wrong. Often that is not even the purpose. The point is to discredit them, to demolish them altogether.

Nothing less than what went on in those times is being carried out now in cricket, a sport where more grey exists between any two opinions than most others. Miller's witches, McCarthy's reds, Stalin's non-reds and Bush's Muslims are now joined by cricket's Indian Cricket League (ICL) signatories. World cricket's establishment doesn't want to just stop the ICL, it wants to grind it into the dust, taking along anyone associated with it.

Players who signed up for it have not only been banished from international cricket, but possibly will be banished from first-class cricket, and any other means they have of making a living. Daryll Cullinan and Moin Khan have been prevented from carrying out their broadcast commitments because of their ICL involvement. Soon media outlets might be barred from covering matches because they have given coverage to the ICL.

In Pakistan, where the hunt has had a particularly zealous fervour to it, organisations that employ ICL players - banks and some such - have been advised to terminate those players' contracts. If this isn't a witch-hunt, what is? And as with the ugliest of these things, fears are deliberately misplaced, or grossly exaggerated.

To date, no one has expressed precisely how the ICL, or those involved with it, will harm cricket. Or at least harm it in any way different to how the sanctioned Indian Premier League (IPL) also might. Unofficial leagues are vulnerable to match-fixing is one feeble whimper from some. Mostly it is heard from the same men who presided over an official circuit in which three leading captains, and numerous other players, happily fixed games for five years before being found out. The IPL, incidentally, is not yet under the purview of the ICC's Anti-Corruption Unit.

Cricket cannot be run by outside bodies is another fear, though the ICL is trying to make some money from the game - as opposed to run it. In any case, in Pakistan and India, where the PCB and the BCCI have arguably harmed the game more than nurtured it, who or what is to say their monopoly can't at least be questioned?

Does the ICL poach talent away from international cricket? If so, how that is the case we know not. The ICL's contracts state that international cricket takes priority over the league. Pakistan argues it is not fair to have players playing in the ICL over domestic cricket. That is fair enough.

But rash as prophecies might be, here's a dead cert: when the IPL calendar potentially moves forward next year to avoid a clash with the English county season, possibly eating into Pakistan's domestic schedule, Pakistan will not have a problem if a player - particularly a big name - wants to skip matches for Sindh at Rs 25,000 a month, and instead go to Delhi for US$25,000 a week.

And what little substance remains in the argument vanishes when you consider Nottinghamshire's plight. They have just signed on David Hussey for two years but he has also signed with Kolkata in the IPL, and what takes priority, according to the coach, Mick Newell, is uncertain. No action is proposed against Hussey, yet Shane Bond, Rana Naved-ul-Hasan and Mushtaq Ahmed, who are in similar situations, except that they have ICL contracts, are likely to be forced out of county cricket by their own boards.

All the fears, the scare-mongering, only provide a thin veil that barely cloaks the real issue. And that is of money, and specifically of the BCCI losing out on it. For the IPL, the market is free and proud - as the auction symbolises. Not so much for the ICL, at which obstacle after obstacle is thrown.

The BCCI is the only board to benefit financially from the IPL and it is the only board to stand to lose if the ICL thrives. Not anyone else, just the BCCI, above the doors of which must now be placed the placard "Power without responsibility" - nothing captures this attitude more than Lalit Modi's remarks damning county cricket's future. This is the insanity of it, that a TV-rights tangle in an overcharged, loud, brash industry is threatening relations between players and boards, players' livelihoods and domestic cricket around the world.

These men are not dopers, or match-fixers. They're not even rebels. These are men who have served cricket honourably. Some do not see an international, and thus lucrative, future ahead of them, so they choose to somehow secure themselves financially. Others are unhappy with the hand life, and their cricket boards, have dealt them and are expressing it. Some are just plain greedy. But what have they really done to have their careers sabotaged? Played for an Indian-based Twenty20 league, funded by private money, or just played for the one that the BCCI doesn't like?

Morally this is wrong, but soon might come a time when it is legally bereft as well. One group of ICL players in Pakistan, including Imran Farhat and Taufeeq Umar, is planning legal action against the board, and it is believed that they will argue that any bar is restraint of trade. Rana, Mushtaq and Bond, none centrally contracted, and who haven't or might not be given an No-Objection Certificate from their home boards to play county cricket, have even stronger cases.

Nobody forgets that there is a precedent here, in the battle Robert Alexander QC fought on behalf of Kerry Packer 30 years ago. The legal minutiae may be different now - central contracts, for example, may make a difference - but the broad legal argument remains the same: what Alexander called "a naked restraint of trade."

At one stage in the Packer hearings, Alexander argued that John Snow had no future in Test cricket, and neither, because of South Africa's ineligibility, had Mike Procter. Further, their absence from English county cricket would reduce its attractiveness to the public. The very same could be argued, could it not, for Rana and Mushtaq? And no man, sane or otherwise, can say that county or international cricket will be a better place without Bond in it.

Legal action may be inevitable. It is sad, for these are not matters where a hammer is needed, where force is deployed. These are delicate matters, where loyalty, patriotism, big money, greed, and the value of modern-day sportsmen all collide. These are matters where, for example, if a Pakistan player needs to ask himself why he jumps ship after one axing, then the board needs to ask itself why so many of their stars are doing it, instead of just wiping them out. These are matters where debate, discussions, negotiations and compromise are needed.

That, though, has never been the way of witch-hunts, whenever the time, wherever the place.

Osman Samiuddin is Pakistan editor of Cricinfo
 
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/340430.html

***********************************************************************************************
Modi's comments referred to in the article above can be found here:

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ipl/content/story/340233.html

Relevant excerpts:

"Most of the English players say they'd like to play," Modi told BBC Sport. "It's not that we couldn't sign them [but] because it directly conflicts with the English games.

He also said that with top international stars opting for the IPL, county cricket in England would suffer. "They have decided to sign with us over and above the counties. The counties are going to be deprived of these players going forward."

One of the conflicts to have emerged already involves David Hussey, who has an existing contract with Nottinghamshire. Hussey was bought for a whopping $625,000 deal with the IPL's Kolkata franchise, and has indicated he will play for them as opposed to the county.

"We were expecting him to come to us in the middle of April," Mick Newell, Nottinghamshire's director of cricket, said. "We all want to work towards a compromise. David is keen to play in the IPL, the sums people are talking about are mind-blowing for cricket, so I'm sure both sides are keen to find a solution."

Modi suggested players didn't need permission from the county they are contracted with to play in the IPL. "David Hussey has nothing to do with Nottinghamshire, as far as we are concerned he only needs an NOC [No Objection Certificate] from his home board."
***********************************************************************************************

[gouravk]

Actually I agree. The BCCI now is just being vindictive. This might just backfire spectacularly on them. We'll see.

[broadbat]

I am totally against any sportsman being banned unless he has done something illegal. I do not see how a player, who plays a game of cricket for any side, can be banned! However I am also not sure why the ICL is seeking recognition from the ICC. I do not see how the ICC can give the same within the existing framework. This could lead to a situation where similar leagues spring up in other countries and clamor for recognition.
Why not form a new international organization and name it say, the World Cricket Council. Then like it is in the boxing and wrestling worlds amongst a few other sports, they can have their own championships and the public can choose what they like to follow. If the idea succeeds there will be two international cricket bodies running the game worldwide or as tends to happen usually, after a few years either the ICC will fold into the WCC or the other way round.

[kban1]

BB:

However I am also not sure why the ICL is seeking recognition from the ICC.

I think you got this backwards. The ICL is not asking for recognition.

The ICC prodded by the BCCI. first invented the rule that players can only play in ICC sanctioned events. Then it refused to recognize ICL as a sanctioned event.

Quite a different picture than what you are thinking of.

I do not see how the ICC can give the same within the existing framework.

Why not ? The same good that IPL brings, the ICL also brings. The same negatives associated with the IPL are also associated with the ICL. Why could it recognize IPL (and not just recognize but be willing --in the future --to alter its test schedule for IPL) and not ICL  ?

Is it the source of money from BCCI ? revenues ? The BCCI's money power ?

This argument is hollow.

This could lead to a situation where similar leagues spring up in other countries and clamor for recognition. Why not form a new international organization and name it say, the World Cricket Council. Then like it is in the boxing and wrestling worlds amongst a few other sports, they can have their own championships and the public can choose what they like to follow. If the idea succeeds there will be two international cricket bodies running the game worldwide or as tends to happen usually, after a few years either the ICC will fold into the WCC or the other way round.

Why do we have to think of doomsday ?

Why is IPL recognized ? Why is Stanford 20-20 recognized ? What makes these leagues different from the ICL -- other than the ICL interfering with BCCI's  cash cow and the BCCI wish to protect its golden goose by squashing the ICL ?

let us make any mistake --the only power that has the ability to create a separate league for itself that can challenge the ICC is the BCCI. Not a single other cricket country or organization has that ability.

And the main point is that the ICL didnt ask to be a rival league. They would have preferred recognition from the BCCI and ultimately the ICC --to be just another santioned event.

Its amazing that the ICC and the BCCI has time and money to organize ICC vs Aus XI or Afro Asia games and count them as official --all for money, but has the hypocrisy to embark on such a draconian game plan.

Whats even more amazing is to see rational fans falling hook line and sinker for these scare tactics and old wives tales peddled by the BCCI and ICC against ICL.

[broadbat]

Why is IPL recognized ? Why is Stanford 20-20 recognized ? What makes these leagues different from the ICL -- other than the ICL interfering with BCCI's  cash cow and the BCCI wish to protect its golden goose by squashing the ICL ?

I would think that they would have first got ICC approval before going ahead with the leagues. Not started one and then asked to be approved. As far as I know the ICL never took that line.

I think you got this backwards. The ICL is not asking for recognition.

I think it is the ICL that got it backwards. They are now finding that they have bitten off more than they can chew. Starting a rival sports body and then hoping for support from the opposition is rich. As I mentioned right at the begining of this entire business, it did not seem very well thought through and now we are seeing what happens when two bodies go head to head. The stronger one will win.

[kban1]

I would think that they would have first got ICC approval before going ahead with the leagues. Not started one and then asked to be approved. As far as I know the ICL never took that line.

Did you not read my post -- I just explained this to you ?

Till a couple of months ago, you did not need ICC permission or sanction to start a league. You could sign players as long as they were ok with it and it did not conflict with their existing contracts (priority wise).

Once again -- The ICC came up with the whole sanctioning rule at the behest of the BCCI just a couple of months ago. And then said it does not recognize the ICL.

I think it is the ICL that got it backwards. They are now finding that they have bitten off more than they can chew. Starting a rival sports body and then hoping for support from the opposition is rich. As I mentioned right at the begining of this entire business, it did not seem very well thought through and now we are seeing what happens when two bodies go head to head. The stronger one will win

Let us pause with the stronger vs weaker scenario, or the business strategy theory (even though both are  achieved through use of monopoly power) -- we have already heard of that ad nauseum via a gazillion threads. That is not the purpose of this thread --there are several threads devoted to that. if that is the thrust of your argument, then we should call an end to this discussion right now.

We are talking here of an entirely different issue --the use of power to create unfair working conditions, vendetta not just against the rival organization but against players and the concerted effort to finish careers in cricket as well as professional careers -- using coercion, arm twisting and collusion with other cricketing Boards.

Those are issues which are way beyond the pure ICL vs IPL issue --these are issues which relate to what the BCCI is about.

I dont know about you but I find this reprehensible and morally bankrupt. This is just plain low.

[kban1]

And more....

***************************************************************************
Lehmann, who also retired this season and is president of the Australian Cricketers' Association, said Cricket Australia needed to allow players contracted to the ICL to represent their states or risk a drain in experience that could harm the best first-class competition in the world.

Cricket Australia recently distanced itself from the rebel league - a direct competitor of the Indian board's Indian Premier League - warning state players that selectors would treat them less favourably than players who take part only in sanctioned events.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/lehmann-warns-of-brain-drain-as-dizzy-joins-rebels/2008/02/29/1204226993034.html

[kban1]

Bond accuses boards of bowing to BCCI

Cricinfo staff

March 6, 2008

Shane Bond, the former New Zealand fast bowler currently signed up with the Indian Cricket League (ICL), has accused international boards of succumbing to pressure from the Indian board to ban players believes players who join the unofficial Twenty20 league.

"I'm just disappointed that players are getting banned. I just don't think that is fair," Bond, 32, said. "All boards want to make money and they have been quick to jump in with the BCCI, basically doing what they told them.

"They [boards] are really the ones who are breaching contracts and probably aren't acting ethically very well."

The BCCI has refused to recognise the ICL and later launched a multi-million dollar official version, the Indian Premier League (IPL). International Cricket Council regulations prevent contracted players from taking part in any league or tournament not sanctioned by the home board where they are based. The popular belief is that the financially-powerful BCCI has pushed various boards to ban players who play in the ICL from appearing in international or domestic competition.

Bond believes these boards could have made a joint demand that the ICL pay a fee in return for each player, with the money going into facilities and grassroots development projects. "We're professional cricketers and we should be able to play anywhere and for anyone," Bond said, criticising NCZ for retracting their permission to allow him play in the ICL.

Bond, who took 79 wickets in 17 Tests and 125 wickets from 65 ODIs, will debut for Delhi in the ICL's new tournament starting on Sunday. "It is a job and we are trying to provide and look after families," he said. "We are forced into a situation where we are getting banned from a job we want to do."

Bond also warned that legal action could be taken if more players were prevented from competing in the ICL. "I think we are going to see it get a ruling in the high court or supreme court. Something like that will happen one day because it will get over the top ... people would have had enough."

© Cricinfo

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/icl/content/current/story/341245.html