A Children's Tale
arahim
countries were tasked by the ICC to hold the world cup matches and
therefore legally (contractually) if PCB cannot hold the matches in
Pakistan it should forfeit its rights and a fifth country should not
be allowed because of the wording of the contract (Not that anyone has
yet seen the contract or whatever document is being used). The BCCI
held its IPL tournament in South Africa due to security concerns so
why isn't this valid for the PCB? Because they say its contractually
so and if the other boards (meaning BCCI) do not wish it so then
contractually it cannot be done (again never mind that we have not yet
seen this piece of paper).
For the moment let us grant them this position that this line is
present in the contract. I would like to tell you a children's story
that I wrote and I think would make a fabulous children's book, if I
say so myself, with a few nice illustrations. So here we go ...
The Tale of Two Loggers
(Doe Lakrharay: That is the Urdu version)
There were once two loggers Ghatia and Barhia.
They were hired by a log cabin builder, Thali Ka Baingan, to deliver
logs to his new cabin site. Ghatia had many yellow trucks and Barhia
had a Green truck.
"Deliver the logs in five days in your trucks", said Thali Ka Baingan,
"and I will give you each a thousand dollars."
Four days before the delivery Barhia's truck broke down.
He went to his friend Mudadgar and asked him if he could borrow his
truck to deliver the logs.
Mudadgar was happy to help Barhia.
When Ghatia found out about this his greedy eyes lit up. He had
thought up a way to get Barhia's share of 1000 dollars.
He told Barhia that Thali Ka Baingan had told them to use their
trucks. "You cannot use Mudadgar's truck.", said Ghatia, "I will use
another one of my trucks and I will rent it to you for eight hundred
dollars."
"But what's wrong if I use Mudadgar's Truck?", said Barhia dismayed,
"He is not charging me anything."
"No you cannot do that it will cause dilution of concept.", said
Ghatia.
Author's aside: At this point in the story usually some kid gets up
and asks "uncle what is dilution of concept?" You have to shush the
child and tell him he will find out in due course. Ok, back to the
story.
"I am going to use Mudadgar's truck and I will let Baingan know that I
will arrive in his truck.", said Barhia.
Now Ghatia had already talked with Thali Ka Baingan and told him to
tell Barhia to use the Ghatia Truck Company. He threatened Baingan, "I
control most of the trucks. If you do not do as I say you will not be
able to build another cabin."
Therefore when Barhia came to talk with Baingan he was ready. Said
Baingan, "I explicitly said use your trucks. You cannot use anyone
else's trucks but we will let you have two hundred dollars for doing
nothing."
Barhia was angry and went to the judge. The judge called in everyone
and listened to Barhia's complaint. After Barhia had finished the
judge said to Thali Ka Baingan, "If Barhia uses Mudadgar's truck will
all your logs be delivered on time?"
"Yes.", said Thali Ka Baingan.
The judge then turned to Ghatia and asked, "If Barhia uses Mudadgar's
truck would it cut into your original share?"
"No.", said Ghatia.
The judge was perplexed. "So why wouldn't you two let Barhia use
Mudadgar's truck."
Thali Ka Baingan kept quiet but Ghatia said, "It will dilute our
concept."
"What is that?", asked the judge.
"Well Thali Ka Baingan had specifically stated that we use our trucks.
The concept of "our trucks" would be diluted.", said Ghatia.
The judge looked at Thali Ka Baingan and asked him whether he agreed.
Baingan mumbled something about that he had used the words their
trucks.
Now kids if you are the judge what do you decide. Do you let Barhia
use Mudadgar's truck or would you let Ghatia go forward with his plan?
For the adults who still do not get it they can read that play by
Shakespeare which said something about a pound of flesh.
http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2009/06/childrens-tale.html
RSC Poster
<snip stuff>
There is a clause in some contracts which my company signs which
forbids sub-contracting unless agreed upon earlier. In other words,
the contract has to be executed using the facilities of my company and
by the people of my company. If the company is not able to execute the
contract, it cannot get the job done by another company and narrate
wood-cutter tales to the arbitration tribunal.
Regards,
Jayen
Don Hines
Typically contracts take in to account extenuating circumstances,
which means even those contracts which initially don't allow for
subcontracting will allow for it if something extraordinary like
terrorism happens. As you mention an arbitration tribunal, rather than
simple mediation, a binding decision will be made between parties in
this case. Also, since spirit of the law is as important as the
letter, arbitration panel will most likely make a quick decision here
as it is pretty straight forward i.e. allow for subcontracting.
Cheers,
Don
cricketrulez
Don,
not sure which part of the world you live. In the corporate and sports
"world" in the US, people make boat load of money by simply writing
iron clad contracts which doesn't care much for extenuating
circumstances. If and only if both parties agree to mediation
beforehand it becomes an option.
In the specific case of Pakistan, the security provided to SL team was
not even close the promised "presidential level security". If it was,
I'm fairly sure the Butcher of KARGIL would be worm food by now. This
lack of presidential level security has given the perception that PCB
is either a) Untrustworthy or b) incompetent.
Having not seen the contract between pak and ICC in regards to the
world cup 2001 and established that PCB is untrustworthy or
incompetent, cut us some slack if we scoff at the alternatives
suggested by PCB.
CR
noman
> Having not seen the contract between pak and ICC in regards to the
> world cup 2001 and established that PCB is untrustworthy or
> incompetent, cut us some slack if we scoff at the alternatives
> suggested by PCB.
While you and other Indians of the like mind may scoff at this, the
Aussies apparently had no trouble playing a bunch of ODIs at the same
neutral venue which the PCB is advocating for the World Cup matches.
It's a simple business decision, where the idea of good-will or spirit
of the law is not applicable due to BCCI's greed. That much *is*
established.
--
Noman
arahim
That's strange coming from the supporters of an organization which was
reminded by PCB to file two days before the deadline because they had
not filed their papers for the worldcup and then Mani sat down and
explained the paperwork to them and gave them extra time to finish off
the application. It is also the same organization that sent the
physio's report rather than the doctor's to the replacement committee
for Sehwag for the twenty20 cup. PCB is run by amateurs but what is
BCCIs excuse with all the seasoned politicians and businessmen.
> CR
RSC Poster
I agree with the general principle that a contract can, and frequently
is, rewritten during the course of execution. However, I am curious as
to why you believe that an arbitration panel would make a quick
decision to allow sub-contracting. I assume that you are referring to
my example of companies and not the BCCI/PCB case.
A number of companies prefer dealing with the actual entities which do
the work. They don't want middle-men and one way of eliminating them
is to specifically disallow them. For example, if the NSW government
wants to demolish the Sydney Opera house and build a multi-storey car-
park, I (or any company I run) is completely unfit for this purpose.
However, I can bid for the contract, win it, plead inability to
execute and then, taking a leaf from the PCB's book, demand that both
I and my sub-contracting company be paid. The NSW Government might not
consider this a desirable outcome.
Taking the PCB example, being allowed to host the WC or Olympics is a
big deal. Let's assume that India were to be awarded the right to host
the Olympics. They can then put it up for auction, hawk it to the
highest bidder (let's say Dubai), plead inability to the IOC and
demand the right to sub-contract it to Dubai. Would this be an
acceptable way of working? Let's say that Bangladesh now decide that
they can't be bothered to host the WC 2011 and demand that the matches
allotted to them be played in Malaysia, a venue where cricket has been
played earlier, with a cut to be paid to them for the strenuous
exertion of sitting on their backside. They throw a fit and call the
BCCI "greedy" for not agreeing to this.
What kind of a WC would all this lead to?
Regards,
Jayen
Mohan
But the question here is not just whether to allow sub-contracting or
not. Changing the location means changing the product itself. What if
ICC chose Pakistan as the location first and chose PCB as the service
provider because they have the most experience hosting matches there?
Now, if matches cannot be held there and they have to find a new
location, then it is ICC's right to choose the location of *their*
choice, not PCB's choice. PCB were in the picture only so long as
Pakistan was the venue.
A better analogy than arahim's wood-cutter story is this. You have
chosen a resort to host a party. Most resorts usually come with their
own event managers, caterers etc. and you have gone with them. Now
that resort owner has a fall-out with his former business partners, so
control over the resort is in dispute and no event can be held there.
So the event planner you had contracted with says, hey my friend has
another resort, why don't you move your party there. You might do that
if you like the new location, but you are not obliged to. You are more
likely to say, no thanks. I chose you only because you were the
default service provider for that resort, but now that it is no longer
available, I will move my party to the location of my choice, which
need not necessarily be your friend's resort 50 kms away from the city
and where no event of this magnitude has ever been held. Here is your
cancellation fee.
Mohan
noman
> Let's say that Bangladesh now decide that
> they can't be bothered to host the WC 2011 and demand that the matches
> allotted to them be played in Malaysia, a venue where cricket has been
> played earlier, with a cut to be paid to them for the strenuous
> exertion of sitting on their backside.
Except that your analogy doesn't hold. Pakistan didn't ask for the
games to be staged elsewhere. It's the ICC which took the games away
(and for the right reasons). Also, PCB is not content sitting on their
backside and getting the hosting fee as the ICC promised, rather they
want an alternative to their share of the games.
> They throw a fit and call the BCCI "greedy" for not agreeing to this.
Yes, and your point is...
--
Noman
cricketrulez
Sorry, bashing PCB doesn't necessarily mean I carry BCCI's water or
that I'll not rip them for their screw ups and behavior. Eg: their
attitude and treatment towards ICL players in international cricket.
It s also telling about you isn't it, that you compare filing a report
late or from physio to screwing the security details of your guests
(or was it lying about your commitment their life)
Keep it up, makes life easy for us.
cricketrulez
I don't hear CA or ECB or for that matter aussie and england players
making public statements of support for PCB's position.
Goodwill and spirit of the law went the way of security arrangements
to the SL players. Or did pak mean presidential level security is
spirit only?
Gilly's Danda
> Jayen,
>
> Typically contracts take in to account extenuating circumstances,
> which means even those contracts which initially don't allow for
> subcontracting will allow for it if something extraordinary like
> terrorism happens.
I'm not sure they do. As we've canvassed before, terrorism usually
presents a force majeure which would typically result in the contract
being cancelled - with or without damages. If a variation can be
agreed upon by all parties, then fine. If it cannot, then the game's
over.
> As you mention an arbitration tribunal, rather than
> simple mediation, a binding decision will be made between parties in
> this case.
Yes.
> Also, since spirit of the law is as important as the
> letter, arbitration panel will most likely make a quick decision here
> as it is pretty straight forward i.e. allow for subcontracting.
Not really. The spirit of the law only matters where statutes are at
play. Most parties elect to use extra-national arbitral panels
precisely because they don't remake contracts on the basis of such
woolly terms as "spirit of the law". Arbitrators are most likely to
read the contract, hear from the parties, and set an award. By the
time parties get to arbitration, a lot of bad blood has already passed
between them. Specific performance or some variation thereof is seldom
- if ever - an option.
In any event, specific performance or variation by way of sub-
contracting would be an alternative to compensatory damages, rather
than an addition. The PCB may be asking for both now. They're unlikely
to get both - or anything - if it gets to arbitration.
A
RSC Poster
> RSC Poster wrote:
> > Let's say that Bangladesh now decide that
> > they can't be bothered to host the WC 2011 and demand that the matches
> > allotted to them be played in Malaysia, a venue where cricket has been
> > played earlier, with a cut to be paid to them for the strenuous
> > exertion of sitting on their backside.
>
> Except that your analogy doesn't hold. Pakistan didn't ask for the
> games to be staged elsewhere. It's the ICC which took the games away
> (and for the right reasons).
In other words, the PCB cannot hold the games with the required amount
of security. That's where the whole thing starts. There's no point
saying "We are perfectly willing to hold the matches in Pakistan, but
these sissy cricketers have a strange aversion to having their bus
pumped with bullets".
> Also, PCB is not content sitting on their
> backside and getting the hosting fee as the ICC promised, rather they
> want an alternative to their share of the games.
Once they are not able to host it themselves, why should they have an
exclusive right in determining where these games are hosted? Yes, they
suggested Dubai, but the other hosts rejected it (for whatever
reason). There ends the matter.
>
> > They throw a fit and call the BCCI "greedy" for not agreeing to this.
>
> Yes, and your point is...
... in the very next sentence "What kind of a WC would all this lead
to? ".
Regards,
Jayen
arahim
No its telling about you that you draw such conclusions:) It was a
failure of the security agencies. So was it when Mumbai was attacked
and a hotel was attacked where two weeks later an international team
was going to stay. So it was when Idira and Rajiv Gandhi were
assasinated. To draw the conclusion from that that the Gandhi family
should stop having children or that India should stop having prime
ministers would be idiotic.
> Keep it up, makes life easy for us.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
arahim
Makes no sense. Everyone agrees that PCB is the host. There is no
dispute over the control of anything. Its not even subcontracting. PCB
will do its work. Only its truck or computer or whatever was not
working and it got borrowed or rented one from someone. Or if you must
insist on the party analogy then its roof was leaky and it rented
another hall. It is still the host. No one is questioning that.
> Mohan
cricketrulez
and I wouldn't blame a foreigner hesitant or refusing to visiting
india.
Regarding Indira and Rajiv, it comes with the territory of being head
of state. Lincoln, Kennedy, Sadat, Zia, benazir, julius ceasar etc.
Reneging on promised security arrangements? can you quote me examples?
this is not six months after champions trophy got whacked for security
reasons. There is going to consequences to such lapses and negligence.
Suck it up and deal with it
Like I said before, logic is not your strong point. Keep it up
Mohan
No, the dispute over control I referred to had nothing to do with PCB
or the WC. Resort owner = Pakistan govt (or army, one and the same
thing). Former business partners = You know who. Dispute over control
- what is currently going on in Pakistan. PCB was the event management
company ICC had contracted for arranging the world cup.
> Its not even subcontracting. PCB
> will do its work. Only its truck or computer or whatever was not
> working and it got borrowed or rented one from someone. Or if you must
> insist on the party analogy then its roof was leaky and it rented
> another hall. It is still the host. No one is questioning that.
That you think PCB is the host explains the root of your confusion.
They are not. World Cup is an ICC event. PCB by virtue of being a
member of ICC is a joint host, but so are CA, ECB, NZC, everyone. That
is, irrespective of where the matches are held, all the members of ICC
are equal hosts for the tournament. The organizing board plays a
separate role that has nothing to do with their joint host capacity
and that of a service provider to ICC and their job is to arrange
matches for ICC. Hence the event manager analogy. So, by shifting the
matches to India, no one is taking away the host position of PCB. They
are still 1/10th the host for WC, as much as any other board is. But
what they are taking away is their event organizing role, because the
matches can no longer be played in Pakistan.
Mohan
arahim
No you are very confused.
> is, irrespective of where the matches are held, all the members of ICC
> are equal hosts for the tournament. The organizing board plays a
And certainly not equal:) as we are finding out.
> separate role that has nothing to do with their joint host capacity
> and that of a service provider to ICC and their job is to arrange
> matches for ICC. Hence the event manager analogy. So, by shifting the
> matches to India, no one is taking away the host position of PCB. They
> are still 1/10th the host for WC, as much as any other board is. But
> what they are taking away is their event organizing role, because the
> matches can no longer be played in Pakistan.
>
This is beyond the realm of ridiculous.
> Mohan- Hide quoted text -
Mohan
or beyond your capacity to understand in your current state of mind
(one hopes it is temporary).
Mohan
arahim
Ok can you quote me something by the ICC with this 1/10th host theory.
Very specifically the 1/10th thing. Perhaps Morgan doesn't know
anything and I wouldn't be surprised but he keeps mentioning four host
countries.
Mohan
What he means by host countries is the boards which are organizing the
event. However, they are not hosts in the sense you meant. ICC is
still the owner of the event and hence the host. They just use the
services of these "host country" boards for arranging matches.
If we agree that ICC is the owner of the event, then it follows that
all the members have 1/10th ownership of the event.
Mohan
arahim
Why leave out the associates then? Show me some release or comment by
someone in the ICC with this 1/10th thing.
Mohan
ok, include the associates and make it 1/whatever. Point is, it is an
ICC event. If you want a link to prove that, I am sure you can google
it yourself. Hence ICC is the host. That's why ICC signs a staging
agreement with the local board and the role of the local board is to
only organize the event and they get compensated by ICC for that.
Mohan
arahim
Very interesting. Now observe closely:) If Associates are hosts as
well then UAE is a host as well. By definition you cannot have a
dilution of concept if you are holding matches at one of the host
sites.
> ICC event. If you want a link to prove that, I am sure you can google
> it yourself. Hence ICC is the host. That's why ICC signs a staging
> agreement with the local board and the role of the local board is to
> only organize the event and they get compensated by ICC for that.
>
arahim
Well one can never prove a negative:) No matter how good or bad I am
at googling if I don't find something it does not prove that it does
not exist. However, you can show it and prove that it does exist.
> agreement with the local board and the role of the local board is to
> only organize the event and they get compensated by ICC for that.
>
Mohan
Dilution is not of host, but a sub-continental world cup concept. All
the hosts together had decided that the next world cup should be a sub-
continent world cup in terms of the venue and look and feel. Now, if
you include a non-subcontinental venue, then it does dilute the
concept.
But in any case, whether they want to award those matches to UAE or
not is ICC's call. PCB doesn't have any say except as one of the
members of ICC. i.e. they don't have any special rights to decide or
insist on where those matches are to be held just because they were
originally supposed to organize them in Pakistan.
Mohan
arahim
Is this look and feel thing in the contract:) I certainly would like
to see that wording. By the way we have already gone over the fact
elsewhere that in look and feel UAEs grounds will be subcontinental
(your objection to sheikhs in the VIP box noted. I suppose they are
going to ban sheikhs from coming and watching matches in India).
> you include a non-subcontinental venue, then it does dilute the
> concept.
>
> But in any case, whether they want to award those matches to UAE or
> not is ICC's call. PCB doesn't have any say except as one of the
> members of ICC. i.e. they don't have any special rights to decide or
> insist on where those matches are to be held just because they were
> originally supposed to organize them in Pakistan.
>
Mohan
No. BCCI was just being cordial in explaining why it cannot be held in
Dubai. If they wanted to give a contractual response, they could have
simply told PCB, once you cannot stage the matches in Pakistan, your
role is over. Now shut the f**k up.
Mohan
arahim
Ah finally to Morgan's point:) because we say so. At least he was
smart enough to not talk about "the lotion of constipation". Also note
his very careful wording of three full members of the subcontinent:)
So now here is the big question? Did BCCI use its influence unduly,
was it a party in the conlict and also the judge, jury and excutioner
(Conflict of interest). Did it use armtwisting and kickbacks in the
nature of extra games to other hosts and other such things to gain an
unfair advantage? I think all are as plain as daylight to see. I think
PCB has a very strong case. The PCBs problem is lack of concerted
effort, and unfamiliarity in dealing with things like this, and lack
of sustainability. And ICC (BCCI) knows it.
arahim
Ah, I thought ICC was supposed to say that. Getting testy there
Manmohan:)
Mohan
Are you really asking for proof that World Cup is an ICC-owned event?
Well, you can look at the name of the event. ICC Cricket World Cup. Or
here: ICC signing telecast rights deal for the world cup:
http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2006/dec/11espn.htm "Included in the new
eight-year period are 18 ICC tournaments with two ICC Cricket World
Cups, in Asia (2011) and Australasia (2015), and a minimum of three
ICC Champions Trophy tournaments."
Mohan
Mohan
<snip>
> So now here is the big question? Did BCCI use its influence unduly,
> was it a party in the conlict and also the judge, jury and excutioner
> (Conflict of interest). Did it use armtwisting and kickbacks in the
> nature of extra games to other hosts and other such things to gain an
> unfair advantage? I think all are as plain as daylight to see.
Of course they did. Who is denying any of those?
> I think
> PCB has a very strong case.
No, they don't. They have no locus standi - at least not as the
"original organizer". If they just want to go to court as a member of
the ICC to bring more accountability and transparency in the working
of the ICC, then they may have a case. But if they try to argue that
"those were our games and we will decide where they are to be staged"
as you have been doing, then they will be thrown out of the court.
Mohan
arahim
Ch ch ch Mohan that was a reply worthy of dechucka and alvey:)
arahim
Perhaps the words were not clear enough, I am doing a graphic novel:)
http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2009/06/tale-of-two-loggers-graphic-novel.html
> Mohan
Nirvanam
> The BCCI supporters main argument now seems to be that the four
> countries were tasked by the ICC to hold the world cup matches and
> therefore legally (contractually) if PCB cannot hold the matches in
> Pakistan it should forfeit its rights and a fifth country should not
> be allowed because of the wording of the contract (Not that anyone has
> yet seen the contract or whatever document is being used). The BCCI
> held its IPL tournament in South Africa due to security concerns so
> why isn't this valid for the PCB? Because they say its contractually
> so and if the other boards (meaning BCCI) do not wish it so then
> contractually it cannot be done (again never mind that we have not yet
> seen this piece of paper).
>
> For the moment let us grant them this position that this line is
> present in the contract. I would like to tell you a children's story
> that I wrote and I think would make a fabulous children's book, if I
> say so myself, with a few nice illustrations. So here we go ...
>
> The Tale of Two Loggers
> (Doe Lakrharay: That is the Urdu version)
>
> There were once two loggers Ghatia and Barhia.
> They were hired by a log cabin builder, Thali Ka Baingan, to deliver
> logs to his new cabin site. Ghatia had many yellow trucks and Barhia
> had a Green truck.
> "Deliver the logs in five days in your trucks", said Thali Ka Baingan,
> "and I will give you each a thousand dollars."
> Four days before the delivery Barhia's truck broke down.
> He went to his friend Mudadgar and asked him if he could borrow his
> truck to deliver the logs.
> Mudadgar was happy to help Barhia.
> When Ghatia found out about this his greedy eyes lit up. He had
> thought up a way to get Barhia's share of 1000 dollars.
> He told Barhia that Thali Ka Baingan had told them to use their
> trucks. "You cannot use Mudadgar's truck.", said Ghatia, "I will use
> another one of my trucks and I will rent it to you for eight hundred
> dollars."
> "But what's wrong if I use Mudadgar's Truck?", said Barhia dismayed,
> "He is not charging me anything."
> "No you cannot do that it will cause dilution of concept.", said
> Ghatia.
>
> Author's aside: At this point in the story usually some kid gets up
> and asks "uncle what is dilution of concept?" You have to shush the
> child and tell him he will find out in due course. Ok, back to the
> story.
>
> "I am going to use Mudadgar's truck and I will let Baingan know that I
> will arrive in his truck.", said Barhia.
>
> Now Ghatia had already talked with Thali Ka Baingan and told him to
> tell Barhia to use the Ghatia Truck Company. He threatened Baingan, "I
> control most of the trucks. If you do not do as I say you will not be
> able to build another cabin."
>
> Therefore when Barhia came to talk with Baingan he was ready. Said
> Baingan, "I explicitly said use your trucks. You cannot use anyone
> else's trucks but we will let you have two hundred dollars for doing
> nothing."
>
> Barhia was angry and went to the judge. The judge called in everyone
> and listened to Barhia's complaint. After Barhia had finished the
> judge said to Thali Ka Baingan, "If Barhia uses Mudadgar's truck will
> all your logs be delivered on time?"
> "Yes.", said Thali Ka Baingan.
> The judge then turned to Ghatia and asked, "If Barhia uses Mudadgar's
> truck would it cut into your original share?"
> "No.", said Ghatia.
> The judge was perplexed. "So why wouldn't you two let Barhia use
> Mudadgar's truck."
> Thali Ka Baingan kept quiet but Ghatia said, "It will dilute our
> concept."
> "What is that?", asked the judge.
> "Well Thali Ka Baingan had specifically stated that we use our trucks.
> The concept of "our trucks" would be diluted.", said Ghatia.
> The judge looked at Thali Ka Baingan and asked him whether he agreed.
> Baingan mumbled something about that he had used the words their
> trucks.
> Now kids if you are the judge what do you decide. Do you let Barhia
> use Mudadgar's truck or would you let Ghatia go forward with his plan?
>
> For the adults who still do not get it they can read that play by
> Shakespeare which said something about a pound of flesh.
>
> http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2009/06/childrens-tale.html
Arahim,
I have read this thread, read your arguments, read others' counter
arguments but I don't see what you want as an outcome of the same
issues you are raising in different threads on this group. Please help
us understand the outcome you are aiming for?
a. Do you want people to say that PCB has been cheated by ICC and the
cricket world in general?
b. Do you want people to say that PCB has been cheated by BCCI?
c. Do you want cricket nations to agree to play at a venue that PCB
chooses and trust PCB for security arrangements?
d. Do you want people to have pity on the PCB and say what a wretched
life they are living?
e. Do you want to propose a "solution" to this whole issue?
Or is there some other outcome you want out of this?
My question is, even if BCCI comes out and openly says that it has
cheated PCB and it hates PCB, how will it help PCB's case in staging
this World Cup in Pakistan or any other venue PCB chooses? Do you
think if BCCI claimed that it is purposely fucking PCB mindlessly and
without any compassion, it will make other cricket nations suddenly
believe that PCB can be trusted with staging some matches (including
security, and other logistics) of the World Cup?
Almost everyone accepts that BCCI has muscle and is flexing it, many
even condemn it, but few are sympathizing with PCB...is that your
issue? Do you want people to have pity on PCB and say few kind words?
Try to make arguments focused and structured such that a particular
outcome or variants thereof can be achieved. Just arguing for the sake
of it does not move you one square ahead.
Don Hines
be running high, so take it easy man! I have not seen the contract
either, but regardless PBB (or whatever) will be well-served hiring a
good lawyer as there is no such thing as an iron-clad contract in
International business anymore(Contracting 101). IMHO for whatever it
is worth, the judge will consider at least the following:
1. Which party is pushing to change the venue?
2. Suitability of the alternative? (Facilities/Security/flight
distance etc)
3. Impact on the prestige of the tournament
From the thread i assumed, may be wrongly, that it is ICC which is
trying to change the venue. The alternative is suitable if not better
and no one has been able to make a definitive argument about the
impact on prestige. Henceforth my comment about the easy decision.
Don
cricketrulez
Don,
Good post. what I'm wondering about this legal business is where is
the jurisdiction? Where are they going to sue? Pakistan? dubai? What
exactly is the cause of action which cannot be nullified by the lahore
event?.
Its not the attack itself, its the pathetic security arrangements in
comparison to what was promised, presidential level security.
Mushy has had multiple attacks targeting him, yet he never had to lie
in his bus/ car/ limo, while the attackers took their time.
CR
noman
> I don't hear CA or ECB or for that matter aussie and england players
> making public statements of support for PCB's position.
CA sent out its team to Dubai to play a five ODI series.
> Goodwill and spirit of the law went the way of security arrangements
> to the SL players. Or did pak mean presidential level security is
> spirit only?
You are losing your awesome reasoning prowess. The issue at hand is
holding Pakistan-bound WC matches in Dubai, which has very lately held
a series to great success.
--
Noman
noman
> On Jun 30, 6:31�am, "noman" <no_m...@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
> > RSC Poster wrote:
> > > Let's say that Bangladesh now decide that
> > > they can't be bothered to host the WC 2011 and demand that the
> > > matches allotted to them be played in Malaysia, a venue where
> > > cricket has been played earlier, with a cut to be paid to them
> > > for the strenuous exertion of sitting on their backside.
> >
> > Except that your analogy doesn't hold. Pakistan didn't ask for the
> > games to be staged elsewhere. It's the ICC which took the games away
> > (and for the right reasons).
>
> In other words, the PCB cannot hold the games with the required amount
> of security. That's where the whole thing starts. There's no point
> saying "We are perfectly willing to hold the matches in Pakistan, but
> these sissy cricketers have a strange aversion to having their bus
> pumped with bullets".
If that was your point, you shouldn't have started with an idiotic
analogy - "Let's say that Bangladesh now decide that they can't be
bothered to host the WC 2011". If you can't understand the difference
in the two scenarios, you might as well apply as Arun Lal's substitute.
>
> > Also, PCB is not content sitting on their
> > backside and getting the hosting fee as the ICC promised, rather
> > they want an alternative to their share of the games.
>
> Once they are not able to host it themselves, why should they have an
> exclusive right in determining where these games are hosted? Yes, they
> suggested Dubai, but the other hosts rejected it (for whatever
> reason). There ends the matter.
And it shouldn't end there. Pakistan was awarded a certain number of
games, and if they can arrange it somewhere else (due to
*extraordinary* circumstances) and that place has until very recently
held international standard games, and where Pakistan team feel
somewhat at home, then what's the problem?
> > > They throw a fit and call the BCCI "greedy" for not agreeing to
> > > this.
> >
> > Yes, and your point is...
>
> ... in the very next sentence "What kind of a WC would all this lead
> to? ".
A WC where BCCI will get less revenues.
--
Noman
cricketrulez
Well, we will find out soon at the ICC hearing how much support is
their for shuttling back and forth on 5 hrs of travel each way in the
middle of major tourney like the WC. I'm pretty sure it is same as
playing 5 matches in row at the same venue.
what a Bonehead!
eusebius
> Dilution is not of host, but a sub-continental world cup concept. All
> the hosts together had decided that the next world cup should be a sub-
> continent world cup in terms of the venue and look and feel.
Depends what and indeed whom one is feeling.
RSC Poster
> RSC Poster wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 6:31 am, "noman" <no_m...@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
> > > RSC Poster wrote:
> > > > Let's say that Bangladesh now decide that
> > > > they can't be bothered to host the WC 2011 and demand that the
> > > > matches allotted to them be played in Malaysia, a venue where
> > > > cricket has been played earlier, with a cut to be paid to them
> > > > for the strenuous exertion of sitting on their backside.
>
> > > Except that your analogy doesn't hold. Pakistan didn't ask for the
> > > games to be staged elsewhere. It's the ICC which took the games away
> > > (and for the right reasons).
>
> > In other words, the PCB cannot hold the games with the required amount
> > of security. That's where the whole thing starts. There's no point
> > saying "We are perfectly willing to hold the matches in Pakistan, but
> > these sissy cricketers have a strange aversion to having their bus
> > pumped with bullets".
>
> If that was your point, you shouldn't have started with an idiotic
> analogy - "Let's say that Bangladesh now decide that they can't be
> bothered to host the WC 2011". If you can't understand the difference
> in the two scenarios, you might as well apply as Arun Lal's substitute.
>
Surely even you can understand an argument that goes "If you allow A
then you are on a very slippery slope which leads to B, which is
ridiculous. Hence, allowing A should be done only after a lot of
thought". Or did I sadly overestimate your cranial capacity?
To make it clear to the meanest intelligence in the hope that you
might have a slight chance of getting it,
A: Allowing a country that has been allotted the WC exclusive powers
to re-allot it to another country.
B: A country abusing the powers given in A beyond all measure
>
>
> > > Also, PCB is not content sitting on their
> > > backside and getting the hosting fee as the ICC promised, rather
> > > they want an alternative to their share of the games.
>
> > Once they are not able to host it themselves, why should they have an
> > exclusive right in determining where these games are hosted? Yes, they
> > suggested Dubai, but the other hosts rejected it (for whatever
> > reason). There ends the matter.
>
> And it shouldn't end there. Pakistan was awarded a certain number of
> games, and if they can arrange it somewhere else (due to
> *extraordinary* circumstances) and that place has until very recently
> held international standard games, and where Pakistan team feel
> somewhat at home, then what's the problem?
>
Once Pakistan is unable to host it as per the original agreement, they
don't have the right to dispense of the games as they see fit. Yes,
they provided an alternative, and if it is acceptable to the powers
that be, that's great. However, as in this case, if it isn't Pakistan
doesn't have any further say in the matter.
I am not entering into a discussion of whether the ICC should accept
Pakistan's suggestion or not. I am just saying that the ICC has
exclusive right to accept or reject Pakistan's suggestion. If
tomorrow, the ICC reverses itself and agrees to Pakistan's proposal,
that's also fine with me. However, given the rejection, Pakistan (and
its group of supporters) has no cause to whine, snivel and sob.
> > > > They throw a fit and call the BCCI "greedy" for not agreeing to
> > > > this.
>
> > > Yes, and your point is...
>
> > ... in the very next sentence "What kind of a WC would all this lead
> > to? ".
>
> A WC where BCCI will get less revenues.
You have achieved the near-impossible. By adopting a wierdo,
ridiculous position, you have actually made a set of people who have
spent a lifetime in BCCI bashing to defend it. Your next challenge is
to come up with a position that makes Alvey come out in Brett Lee's
defence.
Regards,
Jayen
Gilly's Danda
> You have achieved the near-impossible. By adopting a wierdo,
> ridiculous position, you have actually made a set of people who have
> spent a lifetime in BCCI bashing to defend it. Your next challenge is
> to come up with a position that makes Alvey come out in Brett Lee's
> defence.
That's what I find hilarious about this - aside from Mohan, almost
everyone arguing against the PCB's position has been a fairly
vociferous critic of the BCCI, for a host of reasons. (Its negligence
towards Tests, its retarded selection policies, its moronic coaches,
the eyesore that is the IPL, and so on.) Yet, through a lack of
comprehension of basic contract theory and a whining "but we want it
to be so, so let it be so, the other parties' rights be damned" a few
posters here have made anti-BCCI zealots seem like its strongest
advocates.
A
cricketrulez
alvey
A Kiddies Tale eh?
Here's one.
Once Upon A Time there was a country where the men stood tall, mainly
because it made it easier to hide rifles under their robes, and the women
were, well, they were just cattle so we don't need to bother with them.
Anyway, despite this country being a complete & utter shithole its
residents thought that they were better than everyone else. They thought
that the ability to grow straggly beards, have bad teeth, burn effigies and
shout louder and longer than anybody else made them so. But there was a
problem. They couldn't understand why, if they were so much better than
Everyone Else, then why was their country a shithole? Eventually they
realised that it wasn't their fault that their place was a shithole! It was
Everyone Else's! Well! Weren't there some effigies burnt that day! And
shouting? Lawdy! They shouted this for so long and loud that the streets
were ankle deep in rotten teeth. So then they decided that the obvious
thing to do next, as ignorant droolers often did, was to start beating up
Everyone Else to right this terrible wrong! This was jolly fun for a while
but finally Everyone Else said; "We're not coming to your place anymore.
It's not just a lousy shithole anymore, now it's a lousy, *dangerous*
shithole." Well! Didn't the stragglies howl! Yet again they wailed, "It's
not our fault!", they chorused, "It was someone else's!".
"We don't care." said Everyone Else, "Your place is a murderous, dangerous
& lousy little shithole and we won't come anywhere near the dump. Now stop
your fucking whinging and do something constructive about it for fucks
sake."
Butt they didn't, so they all existed wretchedly for quite a considerable
period of time.
as
cricketrulez
"The PCB got a clear message that if it pursued any legal options
against the ICC on the World Cup issue it could face more isolation in
the international cricket community and also face possibility of the
ICC freezing its share of revenues from different tournaments until
the case is decided and the PCB is not in a position to accept this
situation," the source said.
So Arahim, what are the odds of Pak winning the FTP battle?
RSC Poster
> http://cricketnext.in.com/news/pak-to-sign-truce-with-icc-on-wc-games...
>
> "The PCB got a clear message that if it pursued any legal options
> against the ICC on the World Cup issue it could face more isolation in
> the international cricket community and also face possibility of the
> ICC freezing its share of revenues from different tournaments until
> the case is decided and the PCB is not in a position to accept this
> situation," the source said.
>
> So Arahim, what are the odds of Pak winning the FTP battle?
What battle is that?
Is it the one where they insist on a change in the FTP right now to
include more matches involving Pakistan (esp. against India)? They
have very little chances of winning that. Given the current situation
in India, the BCCI has thought it wise not to be seen together with
the PCB for some time, which sounds reasonable. Not that any of this
is the PCB's fault.
Or is it the one where they are looking to play tests in the future
after the situation improves? They have a very good chance of winning
that battle. Pakistan is a team that can be excellent on its day, and
most teams would want to play them. They just need to be a little
patient and wait for the situation to improve. Posturing publicly
right now is quite futile.
Regards,
Jayen
cricketrulez
Looks like we might have an answer Jayen!
Pak is getting the STICK!
cricketrulez
a neutral venue. "There's no such clause in the agreement among the
four co-hosts, so it's not possible," PCB chairman Ijaz Butt said.
http://www.cricinfo.com/wc2011/content/current/story/416969.html
So What was all the birching and moaning about?