Pete and Gid might have been a bit harsh about the second test. It was actually pretty close until day 4. Kavem looked a million dollars in first innings, Athanaze was old fashioned elegance, the joy on da Silva and Shamar's faces during their partnership was genuine and, as naive as it may seem, none of them seemed to be auditioning for the Abu Dhabi T10. Yep, the bowling was poor, esp Alzarri, but this is now the burden of test teams from the wastelands unless the leagues pay the ICC who set a min. wage for tests
Why should the leagues pay the boards? Did county cricket pay the boards for taking players? Man U wouldn’t pay my high school soccer coach if I get picked by them even though that coach and school might have developed me. Boards develop players for their own needs. If you don’t want IPL to take them; make them sign some sort of contract - and let players make a decision. Or if you want money from the T20 leagues, just become a wholly owned subsidiary farm system for the T20 leagues.
Read a bit of Ayn Rand, eh Lohktar? Why should hugely wealthy leagues get anything for nothing? Or else they can go into the talent identification and development business themselves. The rest of cricket should not be a T20 'farm' for the VC classes.
Oh goodness - can't stand Ayn Rand haha. But in this case, it's about the player and fairness - not about the board and not the elite billionaires of the wealthy leagues. That ten percent is going to come out of player payroll one way or another. The IPL isn’t going to decrease the owners profits for that. I don’t think a player ought to be subjected to a lifetime 10% tax on their earnings because they’re good enough for an overseas league to want them. Imagine you having to pay a permanent 10% tax to certain previous newspaper(s) because they argue that your writing skills may never have been honed and sharpened without the help and opportunity they may have given you. It would be a ridiculous notion. You provided a service to them from which they made money and you were paid. That’s the relationship. When it ended, so did your obligation to them.
Also, 10% of what Pat Cummins makes is one thing, but if you’re making $50k, an additional 10% tax stings hard. Yes, they don’t see it coming out of their own paycheck so they may not actively complain, but they are paying it nonetheless.
Also, if you want to have a certain percentage tax on all private leagues, and the money goes to fund grassroots cricket in associate nations, I could probably get behind that. But that would be equal for everyone and apply to every player and every stream of revenue, and it wouldn't be a direct payout to a specific player's previous employer.
It's not a 'lifetime tax', Lokhtar; it's a fee for use. This fee is payable because that player, for the period the relevant board has granted the NOC, is unavailable to them, and also at risk of an injury which the board will be forced to attend to. But thanks - alway a fertile area of discussion.
Good to know. If the home board is still responsible for injury incurred through IPL, it’s fair enough to pay them a fee. I didn’t realize the franchises wouldn’t cover that. Out of curiosity, how does it work if an overseas player plays in county cricket? Or other t20 leagues? Is there still a fee paid back to the home board? Or do the other leagues take care of the injuries themselves?
Good to know. If the home board is still responsible for injury incurred through IPL, it’s fair enough to pay them a fee. I didn’t realize the franchises wouldn’t cover that. Out of curiosity, how does it work if an overseas player plays in county cricket? Or other t20 leagues? Is there still a fee paid back to the home board? Or do the other leagues take care of the injuries themselves?
Pete and Gid might have been a bit harsh about the second test. It was actually pretty close until day 4. Kavem looked a million dollars in first innings, Athanaze was old fashioned elegance, the joy on da Silva and Shamar's faces during their partnership was genuine and, as naive as it may seem, none of them seemed to be auditioning for the Abu Dhabi T10. Yep, the bowling was poor, esp Alzarri, but this is now the burden of test teams from the wastelands unless the leagues pay the ICC who set a min. wage for tests
Why should the leagues pay the boards? Did county cricket pay the boards for taking players? Man U wouldn’t pay my high school soccer coach if I get picked by them even though that coach and school might have developed me. Boards develop players for their own needs. If you don’t want IPL to take them; make them sign some sort of contract - and let players make a decision. Or if you want money from the T20 leagues, just become a wholly owned subsidiary farm system for the T20 leagues.
Read a bit of Ayn Rand, eh Lohktar? Why should hugely wealthy leagues get anything for nothing? Or else they can go into the talent identification and development business themselves. The rest of cricket should not be a T20 'farm' for the VC classes.
Oh goodness - can't stand Ayn Rand haha. But in this case, it's about the player and fairness - not about the board and not the elite billionaires of the wealthy leagues. That ten percent is going to come out of player payroll one way or another. The IPL isn’t going to decrease the owners profits for that. I don’t think a player ought to be subjected to a lifetime 10% tax on their earnings because they’re good enough for an overseas league to want them. Imagine you having to pay a permanent 10% tax to certain previous newspaper(s) because they argue that your writing skills may never have been honed and sharpened without the help and opportunity they may have given you. It would be a ridiculous notion. You provided a service to them from which they made money and you were paid. That’s the relationship. When it ended, so did your obligation to them.
Also, 10% of what Pat Cummins makes is one thing, but if you’re making $50k, an additional 10% tax stings hard. Yes, they don’t see it coming out of their own paycheck so they may not actively complain, but they are paying it nonetheless.
Also, if you want to have a certain percentage tax on all private leagues, and the money goes to fund grassroots cricket in associate nations, I could probably get behind that. But that would be equal for everyone and apply to every player and every stream of revenue, and it wouldn't be a direct payout to a specific player's previous employer.
Btw, love the podcast and the articles, will subscribe!
It's not a 'lifetime tax', Lokhtar; it's a fee for use. This fee is payable because that player, for the period the relevant board has granted the NOC, is unavailable to them, and also at risk of an injury which the board will be forced to attend to. But thanks - alway a fertile area of discussion.
Good to know. If the home board is still responsible for injury incurred through IPL, it’s fair enough to pay them a fee. I didn’t realize the franchises wouldn’t cover that. Out of curiosity, how does it work if an overseas player plays in county cricket? Or other t20 leagues? Is there still a fee paid back to the home board? Or do the other leagues take care of the injuries themselves?
Good to know. If the home board is still responsible for injury incurred through IPL, it’s fair enough to pay them a fee. I didn’t realize the franchises wouldn’t cover that. Out of curiosity, how does it work if an overseas player plays in county cricket? Or other t20 leagues? Is there still a fee paid back to the home board? Or do the other leagues take care of the injuries themselves?