why Lalit modi should cut the ICL players some slack

Murali gets paid 100,000 US pesos to play cricket for his country.

Sure he probably gets the odd island, but it’s pretty ordinary pay.

New Zealand & West Indian cricketers wouldn’t be on much more.

Fringe players from any country would be lucky to see this kind of money in general.

So when some coked up billionaires ask you to come to India for a few weeks to play in a tournament, you don’t worry if it’s a ICC accredited tournament, you take the money and run.

You have wifes, girlfriends, boy friends, kids, dogs, and nasty drug habits to support.

Alimony, palimony, hush money, travel expensive, greedy family members and rent boys all cost money.

What does Lalit Modi expect people to do, continue the good fight while their family eats stale bread.

When you are rich, you can make the odd decision that puts your morals above your bank account.

Most professional cricketers are not rich.

Modi is inconveniencing professionals from making some money, while he sells cigarettes for a living.

Yet Modi makes out that the ICL players, and the competition itself, is evil.

Isn’t the IPL already kicking the ass of the ICL.

The IPL has all the best players, the ICL has Russel Arnold.

Leave the players alone Modi, burn the ICL down if you want to, I couldn’t give a possums scrotum, but the players are just doing their job.

Like you are when you sell people a product that is addictive and linked to several fatal diseases.

The graph was sourced from here.

See how i avoided Sehwag’s failure and Mendis’ continued mystery.

Advertisements
Tagged

0 thoughts on “why Lalit modi should cut the ICL players some slack

  1. Straight Point says:

    i guess it was modi who called every board to deliberately pay players peanuts…players too were cow…they suddenly got to know how little they will be paid…tut tut…

  2. narkins says:

    wheres Malinga? or do the Sri Lankan cricket board have a special 6th catergory, “paid with funky hairdoos”

  3. Jrod says:

    Cricket players have generally been underpaid in the sports world SP, but Modi only wants them paid the big money if it is with him. Nark, no one knows why he isn’t on the list, but the 6th category could exist.

  4. ©hinaman says:

    BCCI/IPL/Modi is too scared of the competition to signup players that will result if and when ICL gets the recognition.Either they will lose many of their glamour boys, or will have to uncap the franchise spendings to keep it more attractive to the players. Either way it will cost them ‘pesos’. For those who only looks for the profits, that hurts. Honesty and fairness are words they have erased from dictionaries.ICL started a legitimate ‘business’. IPL is muscling in on the big-money-short-format cricket and wants to make it their own racket. They are in a gangwar – to eradicate ICL from their territory. I blame cricketers from the world over. If for one season they had refused to sign for IPL till ICL had the recognition they could have got Modi/BCCI by the short and curlies.Solidarity amongst cricketers?Not when there are pesos being scattered like birdfeed.

  5. Homer says:

    Atleast 2 Sri Lankan Boards were dissolved by the Govt because of financial impropriety – maybe that should explain why the Sri Lankan Board is in the red and underpays its players – or is that Lalit Modi’s fault too?The ICl to the BCCI is what the WSC was to the Australian Cricket Board – an anathema.The ACB went as far as to bring a 42 yer old Bob Simpson out of retirement to captain the side – WSC players were regularly overlooked for selection till a settlement was reached.Cheers,

  6. Jrod says:

    I will state for once and all, Modi has nothing to do with Sri Lankans getting paid peanuts, or New Zealanders, or West Indians. But when he restricts free trade of professionals, so his competition can make more money, when it is already making obscene amounts, that pisses me off.And Homer, could you explain why Kent can’t play in the Champions League because they used ICL players, but the team that replaces them also used ICL players?

  7. Homer says:

    Graham Ford!

  8. Jrod says:

    If an Indian team was banned from a competition because they used “rebel” players, so an English team with “rebel” players could play, you wouldn’t mind then?

  9. Homer says:

    UJ,First things first – “when he restricts free trade of professionals, so his competition can make more money, when it is already making obscene amounts, that pisses me off.” – is that why we see a flock of foreign players in the Sheffield Shield?Taking that argument further, any player not selected in the IPL can argue restraint of trade..I have said this before and I say it again – The ICL to the BCCI is what the WSC was to the Australian Cricket Board – an anathema.And as far as Sialkot goes, do you have any clarity on whether they WILL field their ICL players because I dont. Ditto for Kent.If Kent insists on playing its ICL players, I can understand why Modi and co will not be too keen to invite them!And if an Indian team with “rebel” players is not invited for a tourney, I wont lose my sleep over it. Rebel or not, we are not exactly welcome for Stanford’s bash, are we?Nor are India in the picture for the proposed T20 games between Australia, South Africa and New Zealand – can we argue “restraint of trade” ?Cheers,Cheers,

  10. Jrod says:

    1. The Sheffield Shield is not a money making enterprise, infact it loses millions every year, it purely exists so Australia can pick it’s test team. The IPL/ICL are purely money making, so you can’t compare them. 2. The major difference between the ICL and WSC is that the establishment (IPL) is paying more than the rebels (ICL) so that analogy doesn’t work. Also the IPL is the premium league, all the worlds top current cricketers are there, the ICL is a league for people who were never that good, are never that good, or are retired. How does that compare to a competition with the best current players in it, they have two different player pools to shop from. 3. Kent haven’t been kicked out because they are going to play ICL players, they were told they couldn’t play because they used them to qualify, as did the stallions. 4. Have I ever supported Stanford? Or the ICL? I support the players, and you and I know cricket players are underpaid, and trying to ban a rebel league that fringe players are using for their pension fund is not good enough. If the ICL was a genuine threat to the IPL or cricket as a whole, i wouldn’t have a problem with Modi getting involved, but the truth is it is no threat. As far as sponsorship and world wide marketability the IPL is McDonalds, and and the ICL is a dodgy chain of hamburger shops in memphis.He is just trying to eke out every last cent, when i think players like Russel Arnold, Ian Harvey and co should be allowed to pick up a few pieces of pie before they have to look into getting real jobs.

  11. Homer says:

    I dont get your argument UJ – Modi is the brains behind the Champions League – why would he want to share a piece of the pie with players who are associated with an entity he is viscerally opposed to?And Kent – the ECB and the BCCI have been going at it hammer and tongs – isnt Kent collateral damage?Cheers,

  12. Jrod says:

    Basically Homer, If I am making a feature film about Keith Miller, and a tv company is making a telemovie to try beat me to the punch.I don’t go out of my way to make it difficult for the actors from the telemovie, they are just plying their trade, it’s the Producers of the other movie i am angry at. Even if I make it impossible for these actors to find work, others will still go to the telemovie, because people need to get paid, but the best of the best will still want to work on feature films, let the lesser talented actors work on telemovies.