cricket
Submitted by rickeyre on July 3, 2010 - 9:32am
John Howard was always going to be a bad choice for the ICC presidency. But with his nomination collapsing at the first hurdle, no one could have understood how bad it would get.
In accordance with due process agreed to in 2008, Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket jointly submitted the name of John Winston Howard to be vice-president of the ICC from 1 July 2010 for two years, and thence to become its president from 2012-2014. The hearing for this nomination was due for this Wednesday June 30 at the ICC Executive Board's meeting in Singapore. Howard himself flew to Singapore to address the board.
On Wednesday afternoon, the ICC issued a three-paragraph statement with the euphemistic title "ICC Board considers the nomination for ICC Vice-President 2010-12". In full it reads:
"The ICC Executive Board today met to discuss the nomination of the Honourable John Howard AC for the role of ICC Vice-President for the period 2010-12.
Following lengthy consideration it was recognised that the nomination put forward by Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket did not have sufficient support within the ICC Board. No vote was taken.
Under the ICC's regional rotation process for the nomination of the ICC Vice-President, which was adopted by the ICC in October 2007, Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket have now been invited to re-nominate a candidate by 31 August, 2010."
Although no vote was taken, it is believed that six of the ten voting members (South Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the West Indies) were opposed with Zimbabwe set to abstain - enough to preclude the necessary two-thirds majority.
But there are two more disturbing aspects of this rejection. One is that John Howard himself was not afforded the opportunity to meet with the Board. The other is that no one is saying why Howard's nomination was rejected.
I have written previously on why I believe John Howard was the wrong choice for this position, but having said that, Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket were entitled to make a decision, which they did by legitimate (if reportedly robust) means.
I don't suggest that the CA/NZC nomination should have been rubber-stamped by the ICC Executive - although if rubber-stamping is culturally accepted within an organisation, one would have to ask why that culture would be inconsistently applied.
I do expect the peak administrative body of a major world sport (if cricket can indeed be called "major") to show some professionalism in the way it conducts its business together with respect for its own rules and protocols. The International Cricket Council comes out of this episode with all the panache and transparency that we have come to love in the Government of North Korea.
There have been a number of good articles written about this episode over the past few days - Cricinfo hosts some, by Harsha Bhogle, Gideon Haigh and Sambit Bal.
Cricket Australia, whose demeanour has been both heavy-handed and undiplomatic in the manner in which it pushed Howard's claims for the Aus/NZ nomination, have been rightly humiliated by this rejection. Crazily, there are suggestions in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald that Mark Taylor may be put forward as a replacement nomination. Current CA board member, former Australian captain, current Channel Nine commentator and TV salesman for air conditioning systems. Where is Tubby's proven high-level track record of business leadership, which should be the number one pre-requisite for presidency of a major sports governing body?
And as for John Howard, he has shown yet again since Wednesday's fiasco that He Just Doesn't Get It. He had said that he is standing firm and he won't give up the nomination - as if that were his decision to make. And check this Fairfax press photo showing Howard at Sydney Airport on Thursday night having returned from Singapore, not quite empty-handed... but carrying the prized possession of a souvenir vuvuzela. (Source: SMH.com.au) No Vodafone Wallabies tracksuit any more...
For John Howard, the presidency of the International Cricket Council would have been one more item of sporting memorabilia to put in the trophy cabinet. Perhaps another bid for the post-NRL independent commissioner's post is in the wings?
Finally, and as a bit of perspective when considering Howard's suitability for the role, a reminder that Indian Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar began his two-year stint as ICC president on Thursday. It was for Pawar that the role of Vice-President was created in 2008 to break the deadlock in bidding for president against England's David Morgan (who ended his two-year stint on Wednesday). Pawar believes he will have no trouble carrying both his ICC and Indian Government roles at once, telling Press Trust of India:
"Fortunately the ICC headquarter is in Dubai and Dubai works on Saturday and Sunday. So, it's a matter of two hours flight. I think there won’t be any difficulty."
Running world cricket is just a hobby that can be done on weekends apparently.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Submitted by rickeyre on May 28, 2010 - 3:42pm
"John Howard for President". It makes about as much sense as "Joh For PM" and now looks just as doomed. The supposedly-innocuous bid to parachute Howard into the vice-presidency of the International Cricket Council from July this year, and by virtue of succession, its presidency from July 2012, appears dead in the water.
The nomination of Howard, jointly sponsored by Cricket Australia and Cricket New Zealand after much reported internal acrimony, seems likely to be rejected at the next ICC Board meeting. Seven out of ten full ICC members need to vote in favour of his appointment. Today it appears that as many as four (South Africa, Zimbabwe, India, Sri Lanka) will be opposed.
The reasons being reported are varied, but some are downright nebulous. Zimbabwe are said to be opposed because of Howard's hard-line stance against the Mugabe regime. Sri Lanka are opposed, and Sri Lanka Cricket chief DS de Silva appears to be on record over this, because of Howard's lack of cricket playing or administrative background. Howard's apparent support, in 2004 in one of his "I'm not a social commentator but..." radio interviews, of the opinion that Muthiah Muralidharan was a chucker, has also been cited as a reason for possible Sri Lankan opposition.
India's opposition is mere speculation at this stage, somewhere along the lines of claims that the man who would precede him as ICC president, Minister for Agriculture Sharad Pawar, "doesn't like him". One self-aggrandising politician uncomfortable at having a self-aggrandising ex-politician breathing down his neck? Hopefully, this is just scuttlebutt.
South Africa's opposition? Solidarity with Zimbabwe, it would seem, together with an assessment of the bleeding obvious... John Howard is not a consensus candidate. Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket had trouble agreeing on his nomination.
And as a public figure in Australian political life for almost four decades, John Howard has left a nation intensely polarised over his legacy. Strong leader, yes. Autocratic even in meetings, so it seems. Politically astute, few have been wilier than he. Businessman, never. Cricket follower, a mug. Sports administrator, no experience. Diplomat, no non-political experience.
I've already had plenty to say over my opposition to John Howard's nomination to the ICC. It shouldn't be overlooked, however, that Howard had earlier been mentioned as the possible head of an independent commission to oversee rugby league in Australia. (Think the Bud Selig or David Stern of the NRL, or, drawing a much longer bow, the Lalit Modi.) The commission, agreed to in principle, has yet to get off the ground, but Howard's name seems well off that agenda now.
The unanswered question with the NRL and ICC job offers is: who approached whom? Did these bodies approach Howard or did he or operatives on his behalf approach them? I don't know the background to this. Could his name turn up in other ceremonial capacities in the world of Australian sport? (NB: unless I am sadly mistaken, he has been noticably absent from Football Australia's 2018-2022 FIFA World Cup Bid campaigns - one sport for which he has little interest.)
John Winston Howard is clearly not going to be the unifying face of world cricket for the years 2012-2014 or any other years, and the numbers are shaping up against him. Time for Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket to go down to the corner bakery, buy the biggest humble pie in the shop, and come up with another candidate. Sir John Anderson even.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Submitted by rickeyre on May 27, 2010 - 11:10am
The Times Online's cricket blogger, Patrick Kidd, posted on Monday a list of his Top 50 cricket websites. I didn't make the list - no surprises and no complaints there when I can go up to two months without writing a new blog entry about cricket.
So I was surprised and delighted this morning to learn that Patrick had added a supplementary list of ten more blogs to his Top 50, and that I was on that list. (Maybe the comment I posted to his blog helped.) Anyway, thanks to Patrick for the shout, and I should recall a previous mention of this blog in 2007.
Not sure about the six listings for Cricinfo properties in the list however (the main site, Statsguru and several blogs), but I'll let that go through for four byes...
If you do want to view that list on The Times, be aware that it's available to registered users only at this stage - for free until they launch the paywall next month. Not that this the time or place to be talking about paywalls...
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Submitted by rickeyre on May 13, 2010 - 4:11pm
After the Indian Premier League, the ICC World Twenty20 has been like a breath of fresh air. Sort of like escaping from Dante's Inferno (think Eyjafjallajökull with cheerleaders and DLF Maximums) and entering the Garden of Eden (with its Guyana wing being a rainforest).
Over the past two months, we've witnessed the IPL and all it's contrived excitement, crass commercialism and its (yet to be fully explored) off-field cronyism. The ICC's Caribbean escapade seems casual by comparison, and begs the question... is it really necessary?
The "World Twenty20" is not an official World Cup. The ICC is very careful to hang on to that title for the fifty-over competition, next scheduled for February-March 2011 and still the jewel in its crown (and, to a lesser and non-competing extent, for the Women's World Cup and Under-19 World Cup). Nor, it seems, is the "World Twenty20" to be regarded as a World Championship. It is, therefore, just a tournament, albeit one with a seeding system for its best teams and qualification rounds to make up the numbers.
If the game of cricket needs to be global, then the International Cricket Council needs to continue to stage tournaments such as this and the otherwise forgettable Champions Trophy. This is where they make their money - from broadcast rights, sponsorship and other lucrative marketing deals.
The reason for being can, indeed, be encapsulated in one word - Afghanistan. There would be no competitive Afghan team in international cricket if the ICC did not have the resources to set up an intricate, multi-layered World Cricket League structure. For the Afghan team, it gave the opportunity to raise a national team from next to nothing, through the ranks from Division Five of the League, through to Division One, scoring official One-Day International and four-day first-class status and almost a 2011 World Cup berth.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Submitted by rickeyre on March 13, 2010 - 7:32pm
With all the unsubtlety of the smashing of sixes and fours in the third Indian Premier League, I am curious to see how many batsmen plays shots that are worth three runs in this year's series. The all-run three must surely be the antithesis of the Crash! Bang! Wallop! philosophy, and in my opinion far more entertaining.
I started keeping track in last year's IPL, but - as you will probably understand - got bored. Let's see if I can make the distance this time.
So, instead of the DLF Maximums (Maxima?), I give you the NSR Half Measures. (NSR standing for No Sponsor Required).
In Game One (KKR v DC), no threes were scored.
Follow the progress of this tally throughout the tournament (or until I get sick of it) in the comments below.
(Update April 26: Follow the comments thread through for proclamation of the winner.)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Submitted by rickeyre on March 6, 2010 - 10:44pm
The International Cricket Council is one of those organisations which will never truly satisify its public with the way it runs the game. No number of ex-politicians fed through the presidential revolving door will change that, but not all of the criticism is warranted. However, the ICC's approach to player discipline seems to win very few friends indeed.
One case study of the ICC's questionable disciplinary practices comes from last Wednesday's ODI between New Zealand and Australia at Napier. NZ match-winning batsman Scott Styris became entangled in a heated exchange with his frustrated Australian bowling victim, Mitchell Johnson. At one point in proceedings, Johnson nudged his head forward in a muted head-butting action, making contact with Styris's helmet, before probably realising that even his hard head would be no match for the metallic grille.
Johnson was charged by the umpiring team of Rudi Koertzen, Tony Hill and Chris Gaffaney with "inappropriate and deliberate physical contact between players in the course of play" - a Level 2 Offence under the relevant Code of Conduct. With a maximum penalty of a suspension for either one Test or two ODIs, Johnson pleaded guilty, thereby saving match referee Ranjan Madugalle the trouble of conducting a hearing.
Madugalle responded by giving Johnson a fine of, in the words of the ICC statement, "equivalent to 60 per cent of the player's match fee". Styris, for his part, pleaded guilty to a charge of a Level 1 offence, and was fined 15 per cent of his match fee.
Having seen the video of the incident, I believe that Johnson should have received nothing short of a suspension. Physical contact in anger with an opposing player should not be tolerated to any degree. Johnson has, instead, been issued with a fine, and one towards the lower end of the scale, 50 per cent of match fee being the minimum punishment for a Level 2 offence.
I have a huge problem with this kind of punishment by imposition of a fine. What is the "match fee", and how can we feel confident that payment of a portion of the "match fee" is a suitably chastening punishment for a player?
There is an answer. Maybe. In appendix 3 of the "ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel", the "designated Match Fee" for men's Tests, ODIs or T20Is is defined as:
"A country-specific amount which is to be determined by the ICC’s Chief Executive’s Committee in consultation with the relevant National Cricket Federations."
(source PDF)
Yes I found it just as helpful as you did. What about bonuses? What about prizemoney? What about a cut of the team's series or tournament winnings? I can understand the need for country-specific pay scales because of the different economic levels in different countries, but don't we deserve a little more transparency than this?
What proportion does "60 per cent of the match fee" represent in terms of the player's annual earnings? Does he actually pay the fine or does a mate, sponsor or wealthy WAG do it for him?
When does the fine get paid? And does the ICC send the Sheriff around to collect if the player hasn't paid up?
Most important of all: Does the player actually feel as if he has been punished? And will he do it again?
For the record, here's the ICC Naughty Book, with details of all the Code of Conduct hearings since inception in 1992, together with all the slaps on the wrist penalties handed out.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Submitted by rickeyre on March 2, 2010 - 8:06pm
"Howard's future in retirement? I've come up with three options:
(a) A ceremonial role (eg: patron, no.1 ticket holder, mascot) with one or more of the Australian Rugby Union, Cricket Australia or the Australian Olympic team...."
- Rick Eyre, 1.12.07
How can the selection of a nomination for International Cricket Council vice-president be so long and exhausting? How can a man so clearly the heir apparent be overlooked? How can a man so lacking in experience be chosen? The answer to these three questions, in order: Dunno; Because he's a New Zealander; Because he's John Howard.
Today, Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket have jointly announced that John Winston Howard will be their nominee to become ICC vice-president in the middle of this year, and thereby become its president for two years from 2012 to 2014. The announcement came only after a selection process in which Howard was chosen over New Zealand Cricket's preferred choice, Sir John Anderson.
Howard, a practising solicitor for twelve years after graduating in law from Sydney University in 1961, was elected to Federal Parliament in 1974 becoming Prime Minister from 1996 until 2007, when both his government, and he personally, were thrown out of office by voters. More recently, Howard has been busy on the conservative think-tank public speaking circuit.
Howard has no adult experience as a competitive cricketer, nor in sports administration. His interest in cricket as a fan received much public exposure while he was Prime Minister.
John Anderson (not to be confused with the leader of the National Party who was Howard's deputy prime minister from 1999-2005), has been chairman of New Zealand Cricket from 1995 to 2008 and NZ's representative on the ICC executive. Six years younger than Howard, he started out as an accountant and stockbroker before founding a merchant bank in 1972, which through mergers and acquisitions, led to him eventually being the executive director of the ANZ Bank in NZ. Among his former chairmanships is the NZ branch of the WWF.
John Howard's influence on Australia in the past decade and a half has had a polarising effect, and I should note that I have written many thousands of words over the years sitting on one of those poles. The fact that he is so disliked among so many Australians represents one reason why his nomination to the ICC, initiated by Cricket Australia, is such an embarrassment.
His lack of any appropriate experience, when put alongside New Zealand's Sir John Anderson, is bemusing, even if age is not considered a factor (Howard will be 75 when his term as ICC president expires - Anderson will be 70 then). In January former NZ Cricket CEO Martin Snedden said that Sir John Anderson's appointment as future ICC president should be a "no-brainer".
So why was Howard, of all capable Australians, the choice of Cricket Australia? And why have they so aggressively pushed his claims against those of Anderson's?
One wonders how conciliatory a president he will be when his time comes. He maintained a ruthless discipline over his Liberal Party whilst Prime Minister. Can anyone imagine how the BCCI and PCB will sit with that style of presidency?
There's another reason why I believe John Howard is an inappropriate choice for the ICC presidency. His nomination gives Antipodean endorsement to the notion that there is a place for self-serving politicians to indulge in sports administration as a part-time hobby. For example, Sharad Pawar, the man who John Howard will be following, who also happens to be the man for whom the compromise VP-progressing-to-President arrangement was created, who also happens to be Indian Minister for Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution.
This news report from the ABC contains eight minutes of audio from a press conference John Howard gave this afternoon, despite having earlier said in the official press release that "he would make no further statement at this time". Howard's superficial knowledge of the intricacies of world cricket are laid bare, along with his cloying vanity. He continues to cling to Mark Taylor's jocular 1998 description of him as a "cricket tragic" as if it were a Doctorate of All Cricketing Expertise.
One thing for sure is that John Howard has a steep learning curve before he steps up to a post that ought to make him the equal of Jacques Rogge, Sepp Blatter or Bud Selig. I wish Sir John Anderson well in his retirement.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Submitted by rickeyre on February 27, 2010 - 7:11pm
November 19, 2009 - the long, complex, logistical exercise was at a climax. It was the day that The England and Wales Cricket Board released its full domestic program for the 2010 season. Eighteen counties, visiting teams from seven nations. Five months packed with three domestic competitions plus 80 days of international cricket.
Lots of work ahead for two dozen multi-million pound professional sporting clubs. Many tickets to sell. Much to look forward to, from the first university matches on April 3 to the forty-over final on September 18.
February 10, 2010, 11.59am GMT - Champions League Twenty20 Commissioner (and Indian Premier League Commissioner) Lalit Kumar Modi issues a press release via his favourite method, Twitter:
"Champions League 2010 - dates are finalised as Sep 10 - Sep 26 this year."
(source: Twitter)
This announcement, not to mention its method of delivery, left the ECB and all of the counties dumbfounded. A direct clash with the last week of the county season for the two English teams expected to be invited to play in the Champions League. A clash including the semi-finals and final of the "Clydesdale Bank 40" as well as the last round of the county championship. Not to mention the entire five-match England v Pakistan ODI series.
And the identity of the two qualifying teams would be known only once the finals of the Friends Provident Twenty20 are held on August 14. The Guardian, The Times and the Telegraph report some of the reaction.
Modi subsequently said that he had "consulted" the ECB prior to making the announcement and had asked them to somehow tweak their season. He also claimed that the tournament had to be held between September 10 and 26 as the Australian team was playing a one-day series in India commencing October 2.
That last assertation raises two so far unanswered questions:
1. If the India v Australia ODI series begins on October 2 why, then, have neither the BCCI nor Cricket Australia made any announcement to that effect?
2. If no announcement had been made of the venue of the Champions League (and as at February 27 this still hasn't happened, despite rumours that it will be staged in South Africa), then why the fuss about a clash of dates with an ODI series in India, while a clash with an ODI series held in England is not a concern?
Another concern, yet to be reported as resolved, was the non-payment of the winner's prizemoney to 2009 Champions League winners, New South Wales by tournament organisers, Global Cricket Ventures (a joint venture of the BCCI 50%, Cricket Australia 33.33% and Cricket South Africa 16.67%), as reported in January.
For many people, it is hard to delineate between the Indian Premier League and the Champions League. While the BCCI are entitled to name whoever they like to their half-share of the Champions League board, it is a completely unacceptable conflict of interest for Lalit Modi to be personally Commissioner of both events. Sometimes, it sounds like he himself can't tell the difference between the two.
Postscript: Commissioner Modi gave his justification for Announcement By Twitter in a reply to a tweeted question on February 18:
"its the fastest way to get to everyone.Press release takes time to reach.We do that too.This allows us to get info to u real time"
As I said the other day, methinks the commish doth tweet too much.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Submitted by rickeyre on February 25, 2010 - 10:52am
(This article also appears at The Roar)
Back on May 21, 1997, I was logged into that great 20th century social medium, IRC, when Saeed Anwar smashed 194 against India to break Viv Richards' thirteen year-old record for the highest score in a One-Day International. The big question that was being asked by the Indian fans, who made up the vast majority of IRC participants following the game that night: How soon until Sachin Tendulkar claimed the world record and became the first to break the 200 barrier?
Now we know the answer. It took Tendulkar another twelve years and nine months to pass Anwar's milestone and reach 200. He scored exactly 200 not out on Wednesday evening as India went on to defeat South Africa by 154 runs at Gwalior. What is amazing is that no one, in the intervening years, beat Tendulkar to it, despite Zimbabwe's Charles Coventry drawing level last year.
Tendulkar's latest achievement is a delightful and, frankly, unexpected twist in the long career of one of the sport's true geniuses. If it had been premature to do so before, I think we can now finally proclaim Sachin Tendulkar to be India's Don Bradman.
Sachin is 37 in April, and the body is well past its peak. How much more is there for Tendulkar to achieve? For India, there is a number one Test ranking to preserve, subject to the whims of the BCCI's erratic scheduling philosophy. More definite, however, is India's campaign at home in the 2011 World Cup.
For himself, there are already world record run aggregates to build upon (13447 in Tests and 17598 in ODIs). Not too far into the future, there are the milestones of fifty Test centuries and fifty ODI centuries (he currently has 47 and 46 respectively), and, by extension, the attainment of 100 centuries in all full internationals combined.
There's also the prospect of an Indian Premier League triumph for the Mumbai Indians. This seems far less important, and perhaps there's a message in that somewhere.
How long will Tendulkar's 200 world record last? It could be quite a while. Take a look at the list of highest individual innings in ODIs. Only Anwar, Coventry and Tendulkar have yet surpassed Richards' 1984 mark of 189 not out. Clearly the onset of Twenty20 hasn't inspired its exponents onto greater heights in the slightly-longer-form game. Indeed, it may be discouraging batsmen from having the patience to bat that long.
Looking at the way the record has developed, you could mount an argument to say that we will be waiting till 2023 (if the goose that laid the golden T20 egg hasn't been killed long before then).
But there's another statistic from Wednesday's Gwalior ODI that is possibly very instructive. Tendulkar's 200 not out (achieved, incidentally, as an opening batsman) was part of an Indian fifty-over total of 401 for 3. That's 49.87 per cent of the team total. Compare that with Richards (189 from 272, 69.48%), Saeed Anwar (194 from 327, 59.33%) or earlier record-holder Kapil Dev (175 from 266, 65.79%). With 400-plus team totals more common these days, is an individual ODI 250 a possibility?
Despite the expansion of the ODI circuit to include the top six Associate nations since 2006, we have yet to see any massive individual scores by anyone in a "Minnow versus Minnow" ODI. I'll stick my neck out and predict that Tendulkar's world record will be broken in the near future by someone from Afghanistan.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Submitted by rickeyre on February 24, 2010 - 9:47pm
There is much I dislike about IPL Commissioner Lalit Kumar Modi, but one cannot doubt his eagerness to connect with his public via his chosen medium of Twitter. I personally appreciate the fact that he took the time to engage in conversation with me on Twitter last October over an op-ed piece of his that was published in the Times of India.
He has been up front in breaking news about this year's third Indian Premier League. Sometimes, however, he can be too eager. One particular (subsequently deleted) tweet in January attracted the ire of Chris Cairns and his lawyers and is currently the subject of further action.
Modi has made frequent visits to the twitterverse in recent weeks to deny reports of franchise sales and other financial dramas, but over the past hour or so we've witnessed a remarkable tirade in response to claims that players might withdraw from IPL3 because of security concerns, or that the IPL may again be relocated.
Here's a transcript, sourced from the @LalitKModi Twitter feed. I have not included messages which are replies to other twitterati:
Security - seems to be the new mantra of Players association to arm twist us of sitting on the table withg us. We inform all boards.
The government has already given ample assurances for safe conduct of games. We are working with all agencies in this direction.
Dlf ipl will be played in india. World cup hockey is on as we speak and so is south africa tour. All are satisfied with the arrangements.
If a few players play into the hands of the fica and not show up - no issues.
We will allow replacement for those who decide not to show up. They risk being in future IPL. The call will be there's.
We will not be dictated by players associations where to play. DLF IPL will be played in India.
I have been sent messages thru various quarters to entertain Fica Preisdent Tim May. Unfortunately we do not recognise Fica or any agents.
Been told Ricky Ponting pressuring players not to come. Maybe its due to the fact he was dropped from KKR.
Chances Champions League will be in India - will teams say they will not come ??? Doubt it.
Australia tour to india in oct - will australian players association dictate them not coming then ? Doubt it.
South african players - touring india as we speak - securtity is fine for them now as provided by the Governement. All happy now.
How will that situation change in two weeks - so what's the motivation about these issues being raised now is the question one needs to ask.
Aussies arrived at the end of the tournament in 1st and 2nd season. This year too they are due to arrive in last two weeks.
We allow only 4 intl players per team. Few miss - no issues. We have great talent in each team. More oppertunity for replacement to others.
We have 98 players on the waiting list eager to get called in for replacement. So they have hope now if some drop out.
DLF IPL is for India and will remain for India. No one can dictate to us how we should conduct our tournaments and on there terms.
IPL is for our Fans in india and globally people who love the game of cricket. We have set new standards and are proud of it.
Lots to note there, but for now, let me just repeat that statement that "Unfortunately we do not recognise Fica or any agents."
Could be very unfortunate. Methinks the commish doth tweet too much.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
|
