Some English counties cant qualify for the Champions League

Zat wrote:According to Lalit Modi "any ICL player playing for any team automatically disqualifies that team from participating [in the Champions League.] No exceptions will be made under any circumstances."

Given that about two-dozen ICL-contracted players are also signed up to play county cricket, which counties won't even get the chance to play in the CL?

Basil wrote:I thought Cricket Australia were drawing up the rules for the Champions League.

Modi said he would be able to provide a clear picture only after the BCCI's working committee discusses the issue during a meeting scheduled on June 22.

The row over the rebel Indian Cricket League intensified yesterday with one player threatening legal action if he is prevented from playing in this autumn's lucrative Champions League.

Hampshire's Nic Pothas, who played for Delhi in the ICL, has said he will resort to the courts if threats of a ban materialise. "It is a ridiculous situation," he said. "What the Indians fail to acknowledge is that there are rules and regulations on this side of the world.

"We have rights as professionals and, if I needed to, I would seek redress through the law. This is my job, and if someone tries to stop me working I would go to court."

Pothas will have a good case under restraint of trade laws. Andrew Fitch-Holland, who helped Andrew Hall win his recent appeal against an England and Wales Cricket Board ban for playing ICL cricket, confirmed that the players would have a case and could sue either the ECB or their county.

But Lalit Modi, the commissioner of the IPL and the driving force behind the ban, underlined his stance yesterday. "One of the rules for ICC tournaments is that players cannot appear in unofficial tournaments. That is that," he said. "We have all discussed this issue, and the boards know where they stand. New Zealand even went as far as dropping Shane Bond from their team because he played for the ICL, and there will be no exceptions made for English counties."

Stuart Law, the Lancashire batsman who played in the ICL, said he had offered to stand down from the Twenty20 Cup.

"I've spoken with Mike Watkinson, our cricket manager, and Jim Cumbes, the chief executive. I said: 'I don't want to spoil it for the rest of these guys, who have an opportunity to be involved in something great. If you want me to stand down, I will.'

"But they keep saying: 'We want to pick our best team, we want to win this competition. If we're lucky enough to win the trophy, we'll worry about the consequences then.'

"We're not starting a war, we're just playing cricket. We're providing for our families, and if we do that in other parts of the world and in other competitions we're not trying to hurt anyone."

Zat wrote:From another Telegraph article "Only three counties do not have players on their books with ICL connections. At the moment, players who appeared only in the first season of the ICL are in the clear, but 10 counties employ players who played in the second competition. If two of those counties reach the Twenty20 Cup final they will not appear in the Champions League."

So, does Bas think this is what should happen by 'reaching an accommodation with the businessmen running t20 cricket' for the good of the game?

Dello wrote:Good piece by Athers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article4116010.ece

Basil wrote:

Zat wrote:From another Telegraph article "Only three counties do not have players on their books with ICL connections. At the moment, players who appeared only in the first season of the ICL are in the clear, but 10 counties employ players who played in the second competition. If two of those counties reach the Twenty20 Cup final they will not appear in the Champions League."

So, does Bas think this is what should happen by 'reaching an accommodation with the businessmen running t20 cricket' for the good of the game?

I'm totally against anyone trying to dictate to a county, or a state who they should and should not pick. What I'm trying to get across is that if 20/20 is ignored, the game as we know it will not exist in ten years time. We will be left with competing 20/20 tournaments with the odd test played here and there as a museum piece.

Zat: you and I would both hate that. If you have an alternative soultion - post it here!

Basil wrote:

Dello wrote:Good piece by Athers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article4116010.ece

Just about everything I see as a "good thing" about 20/20 is covered in the second paragraph of that article. I defy anyone to disagree.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

Basil wrote:

Dello wrote:Good piece by Athers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article4116010.ece

Just about everything I see as a "good thing" about 20/20 is covered in the second paragraph of that article. I defy anyone to disagree.

Didn't know you were so fond of Phil Neville to be honest.

JKLever wrote:I think all the counties will be eligible otherwise the whole competition is a nonsense.

I think the ICL players will miss out - meaning weaker sides.

I just hope there are copious amounts of legal challenges.

The One wrote:que?

only the english sides are to be decided. rajasthan and chennai are through from india and 2 teams each from aus and sa. india starts a test series against aus just a week or so later, so thankfully not too many indian test players in the two sides