BCCI to bash Sky through NZC?
The first reports of the latest dastardly move by the BCCI took the line that the IPL sponsor Sony weren’t happy with McMillan commentating on Sky on the current Indian series because of his involvment with the ICL. No real evidence for this claim was put forward apart from the fact that Ravi Shastri, who has been commentating on the ODIs, suggested it might be a problem. And no indication that the BCCI are involved.
It seems incredible that this infantile feud should spread to the commentary box, but enough insanity has been perpetuated in the pursuit of exiling the ICL that it didn’t seem impossible.
The development of the story, reported later today, is that the BCCI themselves are involved and that they are requesting that NZC stand McMillan down.
There has to come a point when this insanity will bite the BCCI on the arse. How embarrased would the BCCI be if McMillan does get to publically talk about the Indian team? I’m pretty sure that Macca won’t get his chance to commentate. But there are some barriers for the BCCI getting their way. Firstly, they can’t tell NZC to get McMillan off the Sky commentary team. Surely. What influence does NZC have over Sky? And what right would they have to use any influence? Secondly, Sky and Sony may have a bit more business sense than to allow themselves to get themselves involved in feuds between sporting organisations. Maybe one of them can knock some sense into the BCCI.
Does Radio Sport get anything from Sony? Perhaps McMillan could get a gig there.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
These BCCI morons are overdoing it. I’m not sure who authorizes their actions.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:06 am
I think the word “infantile” pretty well sums it up, although “juvenile,” “inane” or “completely f*cking insane” might do as well. That said, as much as I’d like Sky or NZC to tell Sony and the BCCI to get stuffed, with the way things have gone the past few years I would be completely unsurprised to see the BCCI get their way here.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:44 am
I understand that NZers are annoyed at the India’s internal dispute impacting events / people far away from India. I observe that there are some paralells with Kerry Packer-ACB (Australian cricket board:predecessor of CA) imbroglio. Packer was annoyed that Australian TV rights were handed to ABC instead of Channel 9 and enticed the cream of the world’s cricketers to his WSC series (including Glenn Turner; but Sir Richard Hadlee turned Packer down. Turner was banned by NZC). ICL was promoted by Subashchandra of Zee TV to cut into the BCCI’s revenues after they accepted a more lucrative offer from Sony and turned him down. (okay – slight difference here). While Packer was financially stronger than ACB leading to their capitulation, BCCI is nowhere as weak as ACB and the dispute might carry on a season or two longer.
What I fail to understand is how NZC cleared Bond for ICL despite the past history of banning Packer players. Did they assume that BCCI would limply roll over and recognise ICL? Even a financially weak ACB held out for 2-3 seasons.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. BCCI seems to have learnt more from the Packer imbroglio than NZC/ICC etc. The are combining ACB tactics of blowing up a domestic quarrel into a and international issue and Packer’s financial ruthlessness to squeeze out ICL. They have harnessed their financial strength to set up IPL and are meeting ICL head on. Seeing as how they have rendered dozens of Indian cricketers/coaches into non-entities – from the legendary Kapil Dev to prospective superstar Ambati Rayudu with all levels of stars and promising talent in between – it is not surprising that people like McMillan are easy meat.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
The freezing of the Packer stuff worked.
Let no repeating of history forget that. OK, the Peace Deal meant we got Grieg on TV, but the attitude of the ACB at the time was right.
And so is that of the BCCI, even if it is a bit jehadis-like in its approach.
And seriously, who will miss Macca on the TV.
2 faced selfish turncoat that he is.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
The freezing of the Packer stuff worked.
Really? My understanding is that in the end not only did Packer’s WSC survive, but Channel 9 obtained the rights to televise Aus cricket.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Channel 9 got the rights, but at a price that suited the ACB, and the ACB remained in control.
OK, a lot of the Packer initiatives were taken on board, but only the ones that helped the game.
The ICL, of course, offers nothing.
And, as for the mass outpouring of sympathy for Macca. Have people forgotten that he ripped up his NZ contract in the middle of last season as his body couldn’t take it any more? Only to sign with the ICL a few weeks later. Rat.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Channel 9 got the rights, but at a price that suited the ACB, and the ACB remained in control.
I didn’t think the price was the issue, for either side. The ACB wanted to keep the cricket with the ABC, whatever Packer offered, and Packer was prepared to offer astronomical amounts (famously: “There is a little bit of the whore in all of us, gentlemen. What is your price?”). Channel 9 also got the rights to market the game, so the ACB lost some control.
The ICL, of course, offers nothing.
Well, considering the IPL is an ICL clone, the ICL has changed cricket, for better or worse.
And, as for the mass outpouring of sympathy for Macca. … Rat.
The enemy of my enemy…
I really must add to everything I have said about the BCCI, that I hold the ICL and all the non-retired players who joined in very low regard. The ICL as a whole is just a vanity project for Zee TV and was formed knowing full well it would not serve the better interests of cricket.
However, while I am no fan of laissez-faire capitalism, the ICL does appear to be playing by the natural rules. Whereas the BCCI seems to be playing some sort of perverse Stalinist political game. I’m half expecting them to airbrush Kapil Dev out of the old team photos.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I must check up on my Packer history, but I seem to recall that the ACB were happy with the peace deal, and that the only real loser was the ABC; and nobody mourned that.
Would the IPL have been created without the ICL? Who knows, but I probably think it would have.
And you can’t have people popping up with rebel tournaments all over the place.
As for my assertion that the ICL has offered nothing, I retract that. After further thinking I guess it has brought to cricket what has existed for years in golf and tennis; a Seniors’ Tour.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:42 am
BTW, good point you make in differentiating the non-retired players who joined the ICL.
If it was Astle, say, who was being treated like H Marshall and Macca I’d have some sympathy for him.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
And you can’t have people popping up with rebel tournaments all over the place.
Absolutely. But if cricket is going to run itself like it is a business and sell itself as if it is a product, then it is going to have to accept that there may be competition. If the various cricket boards want to be national monopolies (which is almost certainly the best for cricket) then they should run cricket as if they are the custodians of it. If Zee is desperate to run a cricket league, then the BCCI should partner up with them in some way.