Monopolist, don't rest easy
Some of the language in this article, detailing the legal/economic situation concerning the BCCI and the ICL is a little flowery (and does not serve as a very good advertisement for the legal profession) but it nails the central points, nowhere better demonstrated than in the following gem:
The BCCI’s retort to the ICL is typical of an insecure legacy monopolist – player and service provider bans, limiting access to stadia and revoking financial benefits that players have earned over long and, often, distinguished careers. This reaction stems from self-awareness that the BCCI could have been delivering far more value to its players (present and past) and sponsors.
posted by Samir Chopra at 8:10 AM
3 Comments:
I like the way that the Indian blogging community is avoiding talking about England's slaying of Dravid's troops. It's an understandable strategy.
Atheist: :) But seriously, I'm finding this BCCI-ICL spat more interesting than the one-days. It'll likely have more influence on Indian cricket than these seven games. But anyway, congrats on the win - India was hardly ever in the game!
Atheist, the one off win for England is a huge celebration for them, cos they dont win that often in ODIs and with this degree of emphatic nature, hardly ever, so their going over the roof board is understandable.
As of ICL, the cracks are visible with few players looking to go back to BCCI and few players getting served the notices by their employers.
Post a Comment
<< Home