Really feeling shame for them as these women's are doing amazing job in last few years but sadly no positive things happening for them in their own country where BCCI is having world's most prestigious franchise league and having the biggest profit in sports industry around the world really sick mind peoples are these who doing things like this because they can manage this easily even having some lost which is affordable for them because they are fearing few things are going to be not good for them, but they have to start as this could be good and positive if they look into long run.

Australia and England doing good job even they are having small market instead of India, and they are having nothing positive just because of their poor tactics which are surely not going to help them if they are not going to work in this way as well.

Pacific teams (especially PNG and Fiji) are not dependent on foreign players, as they have a long cricketing history. But recently these teams have seen their fund inflows reduced to 5% or 10% of the previous amounts, due to the changes in distribution criteria. Most of the ICC funds now go to teams with foreigners such as Oman, United States and UAE, because these teams are able to win matches as a result of their foreign imports.

I would classify associate nations to three categories:

Category A: Teams with nearly 100% native players - Scotland, Namibia, Nepal, PNG, Vanuatu, Argentina, Israel, Myanmar, Iran.etc. These teams in general are getting more and more irrelevant, as they are unable to compete against teams such as Oman who pack their XI with foreigners. Only exceptions are Scotland and Namibia.

Category B: Teams that used to have 100% native players, but now transforming towards 100% foreigner composition - Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Japan.etc. These teams want to stay competitive and they realize that the only way to do that is to pack their teams with foreigners. Two decades ago, 90% of the players in the Denmark team used to be natives. Now they usually have XI without any native players.

Category C: Teams with 100% foreign composition - UAE, United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Oman.etc. These countries doesn't have any native players and no one supports their matches from their respective countries. But in the end, they end up with the largest chunk of the ICC revenues, because they are able to defeat teams comprised of natives.

ICC funding policy is a joke when it comes to associate nations. They could potentially solve this issue if the ICC stop romanticizing test cricket for the associate nations and just focus on T-20.

Also about the highlighted part, if that was the case then BCCI will run away with more than 50% of revenue because ICC's 70-80% revenue comes from the Indian market only.

And this is why the election for the post of ICC chairman is so important (due in a few months from now). Already there are rumors that the BCCI may nominate Narayanaswami Srinivasan, who first came up with the pig-3 formula. However, it is not going to be easy. In order to win, BCCI needs 9 out of the total of 16 votes. At this point they can count on 6 votes. Getting the remaining 3 votes will be tricky, but some of the Associate nominees are reported to be very close to the BCCI. Imran Khwaja, Pankaj Khimji and Neil Speight are currently the associate representatives and out of that Khimji (Oman) is in BCCI camp.   

I think that the election is going to be really important for the future of cricket. It might determine the future of cricket for the associate Nations as I think in order to spread cricket more ICC needs to divert its attention more towards Associate nations. BCCI have always found advantages from ICC and I hope that this thing change after the selection and  ICC will treat almost all if not all team the same.

Virtually no debate on Srinivasan's dodgy history as everybody is well aware of it.

But you are implying that BCCI was directly responsible for the Associate's suffering. This might surprise you, it was ICC that reduced the fund for associates when they dismantled the BIG-3 system and added Ireland and Afghanistan.

And another fun fact about the 2 board's names you mentioned. In a recent ICC meeting (regarding media rights auction) one of the board was very keen to push for 8 year deal only instead of 4 years. No cookies for any guess that which board and why the focus was on a longer deal. 

@JSRAW I would like to ask a question. Why do we have to choose between two shit? Why do we always have to make a choice between which one is less snitty or which one is more snitty? There are times when we know that none of them are going to be of any use to us in the future. Is it not possible to bring another candidate forward? Is there no one else eligible for this position of work? If any of the individuals you are being suggested for nomination are nominated, I don't see any improvement for cricket.

@Sithara007 Srinivasan is obviously going to do a terrible job and there will be a lot of corruption no doubt about that. If he is selected again, there is not going to be any improvement for cricket in my opinion. We will be back in the old days again.

BCCI is quite desperate to get the chairman post this time. Ganguly and Shah are not interested, since they can continue with their respective posts in BCCI for another three years. That leaves just 4 eligible candidates - Sharad Pawar, Narayanaswami Srinivasan, Shashank Manohar and Anurag Thakur. We can rule out Pawar due to ill health and Thakur as a result of his ministerial commitments. That leaves Srinivasan and Manohar. And BCCI has quite stormy relations with Manohar. So who is left? Just Srinivasan.

Out of the $15 million deducted from the associate pot, $5 million each went to Ireland and Afghanistan, while $5 million went to BCCI. And this is why I don't side with BCCI so often. This was an open case of the richest member of the association stealing from the poorer members. Ideally, this amount could have come from the funds allotted to ECB or ZC. But why allot extra funds to BCCI from the associate pot? And apart from all this, the funding distribution within the associate pot changed drastically. ICC's new formula favors teams such as UAE and Oman, while being detrimental to teams such as Nepal and PNG.

Srinivasan's hatred towards associate members is no secret. This was the first model proposed by Srinivasan and the BCCI:

BCCI wanted to reduce associate funding to ZERO and transfer all those funds to the BCCI. Under their proposal, both Ireland and Afghanistan would receive no funds from the ICC. Shashank Manohar and others wanted to reach a compromise and got something in between. The mindset of the BCCI is very clear from this proposal and I don't think that anyone can defend them.