Stanford has the right idea wrong implementation

Stanford has the right idea wrong implementation

Post by jzfredrick » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:39:53


Quote:
> > Why?
> Because I want the best players to be available for IPL.

if they were also available for your comp, would u want Stanford's to
succeed?
 
 
 

Stanford has the right idea wrong implementation

Post by Moha » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:48:49


Quote:
> > > Why?
> > Because I want the best players to be available for IPL.

> if they were also available for your comp, would u want Stanford's to
> succeed?

Then I will have no problems.

 
 
 

Stanford has the right idea wrong implementation

Post by James Farra » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:49:08

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:26:39 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

Quote:

>> > Time will tell if it works. I hope it does, as WIs cricket needs a
>> > fillip

>> I hope it doesn't.

>Why?

Because it would prove there is life outside India, perhaps?

 
 
 

Stanford has the right idea wrong implementation

Post by ganes.. » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:56:18


Quote:

> > > Since the money is there coutesy Stanford
> > > all it needs is the right marketing and concept.

> > the bloke is worth $2,000,000,000.

> > I think he knows what he's doing.

> Subhash Chandra of Zee is worth $2 billion too. We know how his ICL
> turned out, don't we?

> Mohan

I think what Mike was trying to say, and I agree,  is that we don't
quite know what Stanford's motivations are.
Stanford''s short term goals seem more to do with reviving West Indian
cricket and making it more attractive to the younger generation, who
are being lost to other sports and interests. ( I read an article
about kids in Trinidad who did'nt even know about Lara. Their heroes
were the likes of 50 cent and Kobe.)

Unlike the ICL, Stanfords games have official backing and they is no
reason why they should'nt be a big hit in the region.

 
 
 

Stanford has the right idea wrong implementation

Post by SultanOfSwin » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:42:26


Quote:


> > > > Since the money is there coutesy Stanford
> > > > all it needs is the right marketing and concept.

> > > the bloke is worth $2,000,000,000.

> > > I think he knows what he's doing.

> > Subhash Chandra of Zee is worth $2 billion too. We know how his ICL
> > turned out, don't we?

> > Mohan

> I think what Mike was trying to say, and I agree, ?is that we don't
> quite know what Stanford's motivations are.
> Stanford''s short term goals seem more to do with reviving West Indian
> cricket and making it more attractive to the younger generation, who
> are being lost to other sports and interests. ( I read an article
> about kids in Trinidad who did'nt even know about Lara. Their heroes
> were the likes of 50 cent and Kobe.)

> Unlike the ICL, Stanfords games have official backing and they is no
> reason why they should'nt be a big hit in the region.

   Yes, Stanford's T20 games should be a big hit in the Caribbean.
   But it's a myth that these games are "official". As Angus Fraser
   in the Independent says, "The matches are authorised but
   unofficial because of Stanford's desire for his trademark black
   bats to be used. The MCC, the guardians of the Laws of cricket,
   will not sanction matches when such kit is present, making
   the richest game in the history of cricket nothing more than
   an exhibition match."

   More in the URL below.
   http://tinyurl.com/5kgytd

 
 
 

Stanford has the right idea wrong implementation

Post by jzfredrick » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:37:53

Quote:
> ? ?Yes, Stanford's T20 games should be a big hit in the Caribbean.
> ? ?But it's a myth that these games are "official". As Angus Fraser
> ? ?in the Independent says, "The matches are authorised but
> ? ?unofficial because of Stanford's desire for his trademark black
> ? ?bats to be used. The MCC, the guardians of the Laws of cricket,
> ? ?will not sanction matches when such kit is present, making
> ? ?the richest game in the history of cricket nothing more than
> ? ?an exhibition match."

Black bats? LOL

surely they are wood? Which means paint? I can't see MCC making these
games unofficial due SOLELY to black paint.

There must be more to the story

 
 
 

Stanford has the right idea wrong implementation

Post by Mike Holman » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:47:40

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:37:53 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks

Quote:
>> ? ?Yes, Stanford's T20 games should be a big hit in the Caribbean.
>> ? ?But it's a myth that these games are "official". As Angus Fraser
>> ? ?in the Independent says, "The matches are authorised but
>> ? ?unofficial because of Stanford's desire for his trademark black
>> ? ?bats to be used. The MCC, the guardians of the Laws of cricket,
>> ? ?will not sanction matches when such kit is present, making
>> ? ?the richest game in the history of cricket nothing more than
>> ? ?an exhibition match."

>Black bats? LOL

>surely they are wood? Which means paint? I can't see MCC making these
>games unofficial due SOLELY to black paint.

I can. The new Law specifically states that other than advertising
logos, any covering of the bat must be transparent.

If a covering were non-transparent, like black paint, it might be
possible for someone to infiltrate, say, a carbon fibre layer between
the surface of the bat and the paint and for that to be virtually
undetectable. Rather than have umpires perform forensic examinations
and taking samples of bats, it is simpler and less open to abuse to
declare that painting bats is illegal.

MCC is deadly serious about regulating bat manufacture because
otherwise the game will cease to be a contest between bat and ball.

Cheers,

Mike
--

 
 
 

Stanford has the right idea wrong implementation

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:09:35


<snip>

Quote:
> Stanford may not be doing the right thing to fulfil your business
> plan. Consider, though, the possibility that he may have other things
> in mind: he has made his fortune from long-term investments which pay
> off very slowly to start with and he has not yet told anyone what his
> long term goal is.

For now I'm happy to stick with my opinion that Stanford is The Devil and I
find the sight of English cricket falling over backwards to get into bed
with him unedifying in the extreme.

Andrew

 
 
 

Stanford has the right idea wrong implementation

Post by Reverse Swin » Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:37:26


Quote:

> <snip>
>> Stanford may not be doing the right thing to fulfil your business
>> plan. Consider, though, the possibility that he may have other things
>> in mind: he has made his fortune from long-term investments which pay
>> off very slowly to start with and he has not yet told anyone what his
>> long term goal is.

> So where was this consideration for billionaires' ability to think
> long term when you were deriding ICL as Imaginary Cricket League? Or
> even questioning the viability of IPL which has many more billionaires
> involved, some orders of magnitude bigger than Sir Allen Stanford.

You know Mike and his biases.  Anything that's remotely connected with
England has to have an element of 'good' about it.  The rest, especially
anything to do with India, has to be 'bad'.  If Stanford now were to ask the
members of the MCC to run *** from St. John's Wood to Trafalgar Square,
that too would be good for cricket from Mike's POV.

For mine, what Stanford is doing is great.  This would make the ECB
dependent on external funds.  If things work out, some Indian business house
can buy the whole thing off.

SP