Reports- Allen Stanford quitting his investment in cricket

http://content-eap.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/382556.html

Hardly a shock. Just goes to prove that it was a bored billionaire who wanted to have a bit of fun, rather than a guy who genuinely wanted to help West Indies cricket. Suddenly the credit crunch takes hold and the guy has to cut a few strings. C*nt.

Too late to repair the damage this year, I think.

Giles Clarke should resign immediately, imo. It was alarming how quick it was for him to unzip Stanford's pants and start sucking. He got it badly, badly wrong.

So in the past 24 hours, they have lost their major team sponsor, had their government funding slashed and their sugar daddy has now withdrawn. That's top stewardship of the game, is that.

Er, that was me, not Tom.

Meh, the only tears will be shed by Chris Gayle and his rasta millionaires.

WAGS were not all that they were hyped up to be ... ??

So lets blame BCCI again for this. Ban India!

I'll sign the petition.

The WAGS will be relieved.

Or their HABs. Physiologically speaking.

hardly a surprise. there was no financial in-flow for such a layout of money. how much did he sell the tv rights for?

the windies will have to build the game on sounder ground now. hope they can get together a proper plan

TO,

It was a sponsorship - it didn't need a "financial in-flow" any more than, say, DLF expects a "financial in-flow" from its sponsorship of the IPL. They expect to make their business a household name, with all the benefits that they can reap from that in terms of an increase in custom.

Personally, I'm amazed how much money companies spend on sponsorships and advertising, but there must be some kind of return for them by way of increased business or they wouldn't bother. Stanford was labelled a philanthropist, but there is rarely such a thing. His tinpot financial company is now a globally-known brand, and despite negative press on the cricket tournament itself, there was a strong statement in the global media that Stanford's financial services company had not been affected by the financial downturn - I'd say that makes it pretty attractive to people looking for somewhere to put their money at the moment. By pulling out of this arrangement, Stanford has actually cast doubt on whether this statement was true.

Oh, and to all those criticising ECB over this whole debacle, would you rather they rolled over and had their tummies tickled by BCCI and agree to release players for a tournament that will take place during half of their home international season every year? I'm not saying this is right, but the situation is much more complex than some of you would like it to be.

That's as may be, R, but I see it from different angles.

1) OF COURSE there is something in it for sponsors - always. As businesses, it is never likely to be simply low-cost altruism with tax writeoffs, or merely vanity on the part of a Managing Director.

Benefits can include:

1. Support of various sorts (gratitude, and immediate or potential custom) from the local/regional/national community whose team is being sponsored

2. Good publicity generally - sport sponsorship particularly always suggests an active, go-ahead, progressive, socially aware company - , and therefore

3. "Good will" (i.e. also in the more concrete senses of - immediate and potential custom already mentioned, and thus - a boost the estimated value of the business to investors)

4. Rubbing shoulders with other existing or potential partners (and customers or clients) in hospitality arrangements and informal tie-ins

2) As for the other aspect in your post, well I may be simplistic, but I think there is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence at least of considerable "collateral" damage having been done to the England team and its players by the whole shebang.

Since the complete and utter trouncing they received in The Match itself (and arguably even from the start of that series), the team has been lousy in all forms of cricket. Pietersen's captaincy, which seemed a magic wand at first, and which - in fact without magic - had a discernable effect on team spirit, bonding, individual morale (look at Harmison, as Exhibit A), has since then been pretty indistinguishable in effect from Vaughan's latter days or indeed Gatting's motivational powers. I agree there were signs of a revival in the First Test. But even including then, not a few of the England players have been playing too much like hungover phantoms, excluded from paradise. Not surprising, after all the hype, the toing an froing of argument and team inclusions and exclusions, and not least the million bucks and future security going up in farcical smoke. A hangover indeed. A nightmare.

What you say about "What then were the alternatives" may be true.

I only judge by the evidence of the shambolic team and individual performances, the hollow Vaughanspeak of Captain Kev etc etc ever since.

Peter,

The problem continues to be that England is a mediocre product. I would refer you to Tom's post yesterday when he noted that any change to the County system requires the full agreement of the Counties. There's a lot of criticism of Giles Clarke personally - who elects him? The County Chairmen.

Re: Sponsorship, I understand the points you have made, but I still don't think it's worth the vast sums.

Oh, and Sky Sports News tells me that Stanford is not pulling out after all, but merely 'considering his options', and that we won't know more until January...

Yup, that's another angle on the set of problems (for want of a better word). I accept it may well be that there is structural blockage (again for want of a better word) especially at the top.

Sponsorship - well, case to case, I suppose. Vodaphone for one appears to agree with you, in the current economic climate!

Who knows what Sir Alan S2 is considering. It's in the lap of the god.

Who knows what will happen?

Whatever happens he has changes some peoples lives with what he has done so far, and he has rekindled a lot of interest in cricket in the Leeward Islands where attendances have been very impressive.

rachel, i doubt ALL of his investment was earmarked as just pure sponsorship. a title sponsor like you say, DLF, is paying purely for the sponsorship, but does not have to build facilities, offer extremely inflated prize money, etc and gets a few hundred hours of cricket going to over a billion people. i cant see how stanford could justify his huge investment if it was purely from a sponsorship viewpoint, especially as his main target audience (america) saw it as significant as geryhound racing in sydney

if he had to sink in tens of millions of dollars for just sponsorship he could have found many better ways. he was probably looking at making up some of that investment by selling tv rights, but his first choice team refused to be part of it and his strategy probably collapsed at that point itself

Rachel wrote:Oh, and to all those criticising ECB over this whole debacle, would you rather they rolled over and had their tummies tickled by BCCI and agree to release players for a tournament that will take place during half of their home international season every year?

i wonder how long the ecb can hold out. esp if it really wants to ahead with its epl. its not even half the home season is it? the ipl gets over mid-may

I think he left at JUST the right time because he was almost inevitably going to hijack the game.

PlanetPakistan wrote:I think he left at JUST the right time because he was almost inevitably going to hijack the game.

Not that the BCCI would do that - oh no!

Basil wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:I think he left at JUST the right time because he was almost inevitably going to hijack the game.

Not that the BCCI would do that - oh no!

BCCI are taking large chunks out HENCE their actions are quite noticeable and the average fans have already turned against the BCCI(as we can see by this forum).

Sanford on the other hand was mincing along and his actions were NOT very noticeable.

I don't understand why all the fuss about Allen Stanford thinking about quitting T20 ... it's his prerogative ... he's a business man and an opportunist, and if he sees fit to move on to other ventures, then so be it.
Good while it lasted .... fill yer boots with the cash!

The guy poured upwards of $20 million into cricket - albeit in the pyjama circus japes - of which the ECB and as such, the Counties and grass roots cricket have benefitted to the tune of $3.5 million which at todays exchange rate equates to £2.25 million. Not a bad result IMO .... regardless of the embarrassing drubbing the England team suffered at the hands of the WIndies boys! But then, they too could have benefitted to the tune of $1 million a man had they won ... but they didn't ... so all they "lost" (apart from face) was money they never had in the first place !!
They'll get over it.

To castigate Stanford, Clarke, KP et al is bordering on the ridiculous frankly.
Giles Clarke (I'm no fan, trust me!) did what any astute business man would have done - ie., capitalise on a golden hand-out of 3.5 million bucks for a weeks work. Job done - and thanks for the cheque.

Where Clarke cocked it was in using the Stanford promisary note for more cash as a stick to beat the BCCI with. Wrong move and a stupid move ... but then, he did all that BEFORE the financial mayhem of last month ... when everything looked sweet and rosey! Bad call - but hey, no one died ... all it's done is left Clarke with egg on his face (if Stanford walks away) and an uphill task of finding someone with deep pockets to subsidise his dream of an English equivalent T20 to the IPL.

Good luck Clarkie ! In this economic climate he can forget it .... but, the end result showed a net gain for the ECB of £2.25 million.

I'll take that anytime ...

I've never liked the look of that guy. But then I've never liked the look of 20/20.

I've yet to sit and watch a 20/20 match for any longer than about 10 minutes at a time.

Crock of shit if you ask me.

Official statement from Stanford 20-20 group:

Official website

Stanford 20/20 announces review of cricket programme

Coolidge, Antigua – 17 December 2008 –

Stanford 20/20 LLC announces that, as is appropriate, a full review of the 2008 Stanford 20/20 cricket programme is being undertaken in light of the well publicised contractual issues with the West Indies Cricket Board which arose prior to the start of the Stanford Super Series.

The Stanford 20/20 Board was dissolved on Monday December 15th pending the review and Sir Allen Stanford personally thanked each of the legends of West Indies cricket for their involvement, guidance and counsel over the past three years. The Board has been integral to Stanford 20/20's commitment to the development of West Indies cricket and the board members continue to play an important role in the review process.

"Stanford 20/20 and the efforts of its board have reinvigorated widespread interest in the game throughout the Caribbean and have enhanced the image of West Indies cricket globally. The board has been instrumental in developing a whole new fan base in the region," said Sir Allen.

Contrary to some recent negative press speculation, in relation to Stanford's broader involvement with cricket and specifically the future of the Stanford 20/20 for 20, the Quadrangular Tournament at Lords and the English Premier League, Sir Allen reaffirmed his desire to continue to work with the England and Wales Cricket Board and discussions are currently ongoing between Stanford 20/20 LLC and the ECB.

Sir Allen confirmed that it was his intention to announce the programme for 2009 and beyond by the end of January 2009.

For more information about the Stanford 20/20 Tournament email info@Stanford2020.com or log on to www.Stanford2020.com.