No comment on Stanford 20/20 ...A million a man ?

[Sir X]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...ctid1883561284

Cricket has awaken in the carribbean , its alive and about to kick the world ass.

W.I will reign again .

[Gamma]

i meant to .... a thousand pardons...i watched it on espn international last night.

[Sir X]

Thanks for the link now to break it...lolol .

[Sir X]

Seriously though the indian MDs bruk dem all the time , they watch all the games live.

[Sir X]

No Dull moment in Antigua


We always suspected that this week would be full of intrigue and already the Stanford Super Series has not disappointed.
On the field we have already had four highly enjoyable matches, despite concerns about the quality of the pitch and the difficulty of catching the ball under the lights at the Stanford ground.
The best game of the week so far came on Tuesday night as England won a dramatic match against Trinidad and Tobago by a single run.
Off the field we've had the bizarre incident concerning Sir Allen Stanford himself, in which the Texan billionaire apologised to Kevin Pietersen and Matt Prior after pictures of him with Prior's pregnant wife on his lap were shown on the big screen at the ground.
Then as we were preparing to go on air on Tuesday we heard the news that England were down to just 11 fit players with a stomach bug sweeping through the camp.

We even heard rumours that a couple of the Middlesex players, also taking part in the Super Series, had been put on stand-by to make a dramatic England debut. Just imagine if something similar happens on Saturday morning.
Its also been great fun in the BBC commentary box, especially with the calibre of people we are fortunate to have this week. It is always a great thrill to work with one of cricket's greatest ever batsman Sir Viv Richards and we've also welcomed another former West Indies captain Jimmy Adams into the box, as well as fast bowling great Colin Croft.
For Tuesday's thrilling encounter we were joined by Middlesex pair Shaun Udal and Andrew Strauss. There was some good natured banter from the back of the box. When Strauss was explaining how he had found playing with the Stanford black bats, Udal shouted out "shame you haven't got any white marks on yours yet... except on the edge."
It must be a rather strange week for Strauss playing for his county whilst his international team mates are preparing for a potentially life-changing payout on Saturday.
Strauss had an interesting take on what might happen: "In some ways it could be like witnessing a train crash and it might be horrible to watch. On the other hand If someone plays a blinder we'll all stand up and applaud how he coped under such pressure."
Strauss, Shaun Udal, Sir Viv and others will be joining us again for the big match on Saturday on Five Live from nine - and if you'd like commentary on Middlesex v the Stanford Superstars then that will be on the BBC London website on Thursday evening from 2120 GMT. Before that on Five Live don't miss our Special Stanford preview programme featuring Andrew Flintoff, Steve Harmison, Chris Gayle and a host of other guests joining Arlo White and Jonathan Agnew from 2000.

[Jangle]

Yow X, yuh get the email weh me send yuh? Why yuh don't share it with our fellow forumites? A jus thru me nuh know how fe post it here.

[Sir X]

which email dat

[Peter R]

I've been watching the series...entertaining so far in spite of the "low" scores. T&T v England was great entertainment... I was hoping for an upset...oh that means a T&T victory... a young acquaintance of mine just broke into the T&T squad and I'd like to see him do well.

The Caribbean players epitomised by T&T seem to play with a lot more passion for their country (the earlier this year Stanford 20/20 final aside when Jamaica basically rolled over and got jooked) than when playing for the West Indies.

As the game evolves we'll probably see fewer tests played and more shortened games...For 20/20 I can see a FIFA type development for the WC where there would be no Windies team but a playoff in the region for a couple representative finalists.

[Sir X]

Stanford parade raises serious concerns

• Jonathan Agnew
• 31 Oct 08, 12:20 PM

Everyone knew this week in Antigua would be controversial, interesting and a massive talking point, but it has exceeded expectation on every level.
Almost lost in the early days of the Wags and presidential walkabouts was the main reason we are here - the winner-take-all play-off on Saturday night.
Lost, that is, except in the England camp, where the tension has noticeably heightened in the last few days.
There, two facts the media has been discussing for weeks have now hit home: that nobody gives you $1m for nothing; and they are in a no-win situation.

If they scoop the cash on Saturday, they will genuinely feel uncomfortable about it (in sharp and unfair contrast to their opponents, incidentally who do not have any of this baggage) and if they lose, some players feel that people at home will actually be pleased.
I have some sympathy for them, too, because they have been put in this position by the ECB.
However, a rare word of support for the board on this aspect (and only this aspect) I can guess what the players' reaction would have been had they heard in June that the ECB had been in a position to play this game with its massive prize money, but turned it down.

Now to Mr Stanford. As Mihir Bose has now discovered, he is an amiable, well-intentioned man with an ego even bigger than his financial empire.
There is no doubting what he has already done for cricket in this part of the world - and he aims to do a lot more. This week, though, he and his camp have made a series of surprising blunders.
Although this is staged in Antigua, they failed to recognise the audience they had to convince this week will be sitting at home in England.
We do not yet know the full depth of the association between the ECB and Stanford and everyone, including the MCC and the county chairmen, needed reassurance.
Therefore the PR gaffes have been disastrous.
I do accept that there is a cultural difference here, and that the Caribbean cricket experience is entirely different to ours, but you would have thought that for this week at least, Stanford would have kept a low profile, remained out of the England dressing room and left us all to leave on Sunday wondering what the fuss had been about.
Frankly, having given a series of excellent interviews on Thursday, I was astonished to see Stanford on his walkabout again later in the evening.
It is not that he goes into the crowd - but that he always takes a TV camera with him. Why, if he simply wants to meet the punters, does he need the camera showing his every high five? Make your own minds up.
And now the ECB. Had they taken a different direction with the Indians, we would surely be in a better position. The Indian Premier League would probably have negotiated a window with our backing, and the EPL would have its own too.
England's players could appear in the IPL with impunity and vice versa - there being a global acknowledgment that Twenty20 cricket needs to be controlled by the world community rather than encouraging rogue, unofficial tournaments to spring up here and there.
But English cricket chose the confrontational route, and we find ourselves isolated with only the dysfunctional and bankrupt West Indies Cricket Board and a maverick Texan for company.
And that is why the heat is now on the chairman, Giles Clarke and his chief executive, David Collier.

[Peter R]

Well, my question is ; What have the powers that be, WICB, ECB, ICC been doing for cricket.invariably it takes "mavericks" like Kerry Packer, Stanford, Indian Premier League etc. to shake up the stick in the muds.

Certainly Stanford and those of his kind are putting a different face on cricket but also paying the players. My concern is that like Obama I would really like to see the wealth spread among players.

[Peter R]

Now Fletcher can buy a helmet that fit him! Congrats superstars!

[Sir X]

Giles Clarke fails to justify ECB freak show in Stanford Super Series

Only posterity – or rather, more unfortunately, auditors with forensic skills – will be able to judge whether it was morally justifiable to stage the most lucrative cricket match ever played.



By Scyld Berry in Antigua
Last Updated: 10:55PM GMT 01 Nov 2008

Freak show: ECB's Giles Clarke and David Collier have sought wrong kind of attention in Antigua Photo: PA


Giles Clarke, the chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board, and David Collier, the chief executive, made a brave defence of England’s participation in Sir Allen Stanford’s business empire. They fended off several bouncers – accusations that the dignity of the England cricket team has been betrayed and they should never have become involved – but then allowed a straight ball through their defence.
Clarke said that 95 per cent of people who had emailed their views about Stanford to Sky TV were in favour of the venture, and the ECB, by way of hostile public reaction, had heard nothing. “We carry out a review wherever we go, and all contracts have termination clauses,” said Clarke. His implication, though, was that England would see out the five-year deal, although the review might suggest that the name of 'England’ might not be used in future and the team could be called Kevin Pietersen’s Superstars or suchlike instead. In the contract, Stanford does not insist that the team should be called England.
The needs of West Indian cricket were the paramount justification, according to Clarke. Their board were very keen on the Stanford tournament involving England because “it would bring real benefits to them,” Clarke said. “Without the full support of the West Indian board we wouldn’t have considered it.”
For the past two years the ECB have been supplying coaches to West Indies in the hope that their glorious eras of the 1960s and 1980s can be recreated. World cricket needs the West Indies, as Clarke said; and, as Clarke did not say, English cricket needs the West Indian vote to help England in their fight against the Asian countries who, by weight of numbers, hold the upper hand in the International Cricket Council.
Then the auditors will come into play. Out of the $20million for the winners, $1million went to each of the 11 players, with another million shared by the reserve players in the squad, and another million by the management staff. So far, so good – or bad. Nobody deserves such a large amount of money for playing a game of cricket, but if Stanford wants to spend his money that way – in return for a huge amount of publicity – then the players surely cannot be criticised for competing for it.
Stanford’s five-year contract with the ECB also specifies that $3.5 million a year will go into the development of West Indian cricket. Over the next five years, out of that money, $10 million has been earmarked to develop cricket in 170 schools throughout the Caribbean.
Admirable stuff. But will it happen? Stanford’s relations with the West Indian board hit a new low after the row between Digicel and Cable and Wireless to be title sponsors of this tournament had to be settled, in the former’s favour, by the High Court in London. There is speculation that Stanford might not be too happy about paying up $3.5 million a year to the West Indian board after their latest display of incompetence – and what would that do for cricket in Caribbean schools? Nothing, as now.
The remaining $3.5 million was originally scheduled to go to the ECB for the development of English cricket, but the goal posts seem to be shifting rapidly. If 170 state schools in England were to be properly funded by being given excellent facilities for cricket, that would be a huge contribution to the game’s welfare – and moral justification in itself for England’s participation in this enterprise.
But when questioned yesterday about where this money will go, Collier spoke of the current recession, and how difficult it was for some of the 18 first-class counties to make ends meet. Here is the crux. If the majority of this 'development’ money goes into even bigger subsidies for overmanned playing and administrative county staffs (the counties already receive a handout or 'distribution’ of £1.5 million a year), the ECB’s defence of this Stanford venture is blown away.
Probably unbeknown to the ECB, the chairman of the Professional Cricketers Association, Sean Morris, had given the game away on Friday in a press conference at the England team hotel. Morris said he understood that out of the Stanford money going to the ECB, $1.5 million a year would probably go to the Chance to Shine programme which funds cricket in state schools, and $2 million to the counties.
Another consideration for the ECB was the American market, Clarke admitted. Stanford was hoping for up to 90 million viewers in North America for his big match.
Collier added that he had liaised last week with Stanford’s management team about the poor quality of the lights and pitches, and about Stanford’s visits to the England dressing room, which the players had considered to be sacrosanct. But if these issues had been addressed before the tournament, much of the bad publicity would never have been generated.

• Former England batsman Graeme Hick, 42, has joined Chandigarh Lions in the Indian Cricket League, for the remainder of the competition. The Lions sit fifth in the round-robin stage of the controversial Twenty20 tournament with three matches remaining. Hick, who played 65 Tests, retired from county cricket at the end of the 2008 season after scoring 41,112 first-class runs in a 25-year career.

Giles Clarke fails to justify ECB freak show in Stanford Super Series

Only posterity – or rather, more unfortunately, auditors with forensic skills – will be able to judge whether it was morally justifiable to stage the most lucrative cricket match ever played.



By Scyld Berry in Antigua
Last Updated: 10:55PM GMT 01 Nov 2008

Freak show: ECB's Giles Clarke and David Collier have sought wrong kind of attention in Antigua Photo: PA


Giles Clarke, the chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board, and David Collier, the chief executive, made a brave defence of England’s participation in Sir Allen Stanford’s business empire. They fended off several bouncers – accusations that the dignity of the England cricket team has been betrayed and they should never have become involved – but then allowed a straight ball through their defence.
Clarke said that 95 per cent of people who had emailed their views about Stanford to Sky TV were in favour of the venture, and the ECB, by way of hostile public reaction, had heard nothing. “We carry out a review wherever we go, and all contracts have termination clauses,” said Clarke. His implication, though, was that England would see out the five-year deal, although the review might suggest that the name of 'England’ might not be used in future and the team could be called Kevin Pietersen’s Superstars or suchlike instead. In the contract, Stanford does not insist that the team should be called England.
The needs of West Indian cricket were the paramount justification, according to Clarke. Their board were very keen on the Stanford tournament involving England because “it would bring real benefits to them,” Clarke said. “Without the full support of the West Indian board we wouldn’t have considered it.”
For the past two years the ECB have been supplying coaches to West Indies in the hope that their glorious eras of the 1960s and 1980s can be recreated. World cricket needs the West Indies, as Clarke said; and, as Clarke did not say, English cricket needs the West Indian vote to help England in their fight against the Asian countries who, by weight of numbers, hold the upper hand in the International Cricket Council.
Then the auditors will come into play. Out of the $20million for the winners, $1million went to each of the 11 players, with another million shared by the reserve players in the squad, and another million by the management staff. So far, so good – or bad. Nobody deserves such a large amount of money for playing a game of cricket, but if Stanford wants to spend his money that way – in return for a huge amount of publicity – then the players surely cannot be criticised for competing for it.
Stanford’s five-year contract with the ECB also specifies that $3.5 million a year will go into the development of West Indian cricket. Over the next five years, out of that money, $10 million has been earmarked to develop cricket in 170 schools throughout the Caribbean.
Admirable stuff. But will it happen? Stanford’s relations with the West Indian board hit a new low after the row between Digicel and Cable and Wireless to be title sponsors of this tournament had to be settled, in the former’s favour, by the High Court in London. There is speculation that Stanford might not be too happy about paying up $3.5 million a year to the West Indian board after their latest display of incompetence – and what would that do for cricket in Caribbean schools? Nothing, as now.
The remaining $3.5 million was originally scheduled to go to the ECB for the development of English cricket, but the goal posts seem to be shifting rapidly. If 170 state schools in England were to be properly funded by being given excellent facilities for cricket, that would be a huge contribution to the game’s welfare – and moral justification in itself for England’s participation in this enterprise.
But when questioned yesterday about where this money will go, Collier spoke of the current recession, and how difficult it was for some of the 18 first-class counties to make ends meet. Here is the crux. If the majority of this 'development’ money goes into even bigger subsidies for overmanned playing and administrative county staffs (the counties already receive a handout or 'distribution’ of £1.5 million a year), the ECB’s defence of this Stanford venture is blown away.
Probably unbeknown to the ECB, the chairman of the Professional Cricketers Association, Sean Morris, had given the game away on Friday in a press conference at the England team hotel. Morris said he understood that out of the Stanford money going to the ECB, $1.5 million a year would probably go to the Chance to Shine programme which funds cricket in state schools, and $2 million to the counties.
Another consideration for the ECB was the American market, Clarke admitted. Stanford was hoping for up to 90 million viewers in North America for his big match.
Collier added that he had liaised last week with Stanford’s management team about the poor quality of the lights and pitches, and about Stanford’s visits to the England dressing room, which the players had considered to be sacrosanct. But if these issues had been addressed before the tournament, much of the bad publicity would never have been generated.

• Former England batsman Graeme Hick, 42, has joined Chandigarh Lions in the Indian Cricket League, for the remainder of the competition. The Lions sit fifth in the round-robin stage of the controversial Twenty20 tournament with three matches remaining. Hick, who played 65 Tests, retired from county cricket at the end of the 2008 season after scoring 41,112 first-class runs in a 25-year career.

[Sir X]

England will keep taking money... but in disguise

</EM>
By Stephen Brenkley in Antigua
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Related Articles

• 'There is a chance my career may be over,' says Jones
• On the Front Foot: Sir Allen's detractors make an exhibition of themselves

• Print
• Email

SearchSearch Go
Independent.co.uk Web Bookmark & Share

• Digg It
• del.icio.us
• Facebook
• Reddit

What are these?

Change font size: A | A | A


England are unlikely to take part in the Stanford Super Series again, it was confirmed yesterday. After a long week of criticism and recrimination leading up to the winner-take-all $20m match here, it was more or less conceded that the national team should no longer be involved in the showbiz proceedings.

Instead they will compete in disguise, effectively England but playing under another name. That, it is hoped, will make the match, which has another four versions to go under the terms of the contract between Sir Allen Stanford and the England and Wales Cricket Board, less susceptible to censure from critics alarmed at some aspects of the event.
All week here there has been an uncomfortable feeling that England were being demeaned. Perhaps they should have known what they were letting themselves in for, but from players' wives bouncing on the lap of the man bankrolling this Twenty20 cricket circus to his wandering into the England dressing room, they have been clearly taken aback.
Giles Clarke, the ECB's widely derided chairman, launched a spirited and measured defence of the decision to form an alliance with Stanford. But if he was determined he was not gung-ho, recognising that things had to be different again.
"We discussed the issue about whether it would be England when we began looking at this," he said. "In the end the feeling was that if one of our objectives was breaking into the United States market, the brand England was essential. But it is a legitimate point. We have talked to the players about this and it will be in the review we undertake into the whole event. We have no contractual obligation to play as England."
Contractual obligation or not, Stanford wanted England for obvious reasons. It lent the whole affair, and his privately raised Stanford Superstars team, a kudos and legitimacy that would not have existed had they been playing against the same team calling themselves, say, the Giles Clarke Cavaliers. He is likely to fight a hard bargain.
Clarke simply dismissed calls that he step down as chairman after the week's shenanigans. He said that he had no intention of resigning and will definitely stand for re-election next spring. "I expect to win certainly because there'll be no opposition."
That remains to be seen and the fallout from Stanford is not over yet. There are many in cricket who have been alarmed at the presentation, which cannot be masked whatever the team are called, and the fact England have been so blatantly keen to chase the money.
Stanford's business practices are being investigated on several fronts in the US, and while that might be common in the world of tycoonery it would be dreadful for England if anything stuck. Rumours have been rife about Stanford's personal life as well.
England, outflanked by India in recent affairs, have seemed forlorn at times this week. It was as if they had sold their soul and were now paying a price beyond money. But Clarke made some worthy points. "We are doing something completely novel, but there are some cultural issues and philosophical issues which we're going to think very carefully about."
He looked at Sean Morris, the chief executive of the Professional Cricketers' Association, and said: "It would be interesting to hear what Sean might have said if we had turned down this opportunity for the players to make major money, turned down the chance to get some money for the domestic game in England and turned down the chance to spread the Chance to Shine concept to the West Indies."
Among other issues to be addressed in the review that the ECB are determined will be carried out quickly are the whole idea of winner-take-all and the division of the money. At present the 11 winning players in the Stanford Twenty20 for 20 match each receive $1m with another $1m being shared among the other four squad members. Morris said: "That has created a different dynamic among the players. They recognise that it does have an impact on the relationships in the dressing room." The least change that Morris may want in future is that the team play for some base fee. As it stands the losers get nothing. "They're professionals and professionals are normally paid for playing," he said.
There is no doubt that the ECB have been astonished by the pace and power of what has happened. They insist the Stanford quadrangular tournament they signed to play in England from next summer will take place at Lord's. But MCC are known to have concerns after what they have seen. That was why Clarke was so anxious yesterday to stress it would be a normal match played in the normal way at Lord's.
Again, that might not suit Sir Allen's wishes. But Clarke and his team insist all will be well. He claimed to have been approached by another team sport – probably rugby union – which wanted to stage a winner-take-all match. "We've started something," he said. Yes, and it isn't finished yet.