A largely unknown Kerry Packer arrived in London in late May 1977.[11] He appeared on David Frost's The Frost Programme to debate his concept with commentators Jim Laker and Robin Marlar. Marlar's aggressive, indignant interrogation of Packer came unstuck when Packer proved to be articulate, witty and confident that his vision was the way of the future.[12] The show significantly raised Packer's profile and converted some to his way of thinking. The main goal of his trip was to meet the game's authorities and reach some type of compromise. He made a canny move by securing Richie Benaud as a consultant. Benaud's standing in the game and his journalistic background helped steer Packer through the politics of the game.
Cricket's world governing body, the International Cricket Conference (ICC), now entered a controversy initially perceived as an Australian domestic problem. They met with Packer, Benaud and two assistants at Lord's on 23 June to discuss the WSC plans.[13] After ninety minutes of compromise from both sides had almost created common ground, Packer demanded that the ICC award him the exclusive Australian television rights after the 1978–79 season ended. It wasn't in the power of the ICC to do so[14] and Packer stormed from the meeting to deliver the following unadulterated declaration of war:[15]
Had I got those TV rights I was prepared to withdraw from the scene and leave the running of cricket to the board. I will take no steps now to help anyone. It's
Re: packer circus like wise IPL must be banned by court of LAW
by pravin sarode on Mar 29, 2013 08:43 PM
The case began on 26 September 1977 and lasted seven weeks. The cricket authority's counsel said that if the top players deserted traditional cricket then gate receipts would decline. Mr. Packer's lawyers stated that the ICC had tried to force the Packer players to break their contracts and to prevent others from joining them. Justice Sir Christopher Slade considered the following nine points:[20]
Are the contracts between WSC and its players void? Has WSC established that, as at 3 August, and subject to any statutory immunity conferred by the 1974 Act,[21] it was a good cause of action in tort against the ICC based on inducement of breach of contract? Has WSC established that as at 3 August and subject as aforesaid, it had a good cause of action in tort against the TCCB based on the same grounds? Subject to the provisions of the 1974 Act, are the new ICC rules void as being in restraint of trade? Subject to aforesaid, are the proposed new TCCB rules void as being in restraint of trade? Is the ICC an employers' association within the 1974 Act? Is the TCCB an employers' association? If either the ICC or TCCB or both be employers' associations, does this itself bar any cause of action that would otherwise exist? In the light of the answers, what relief (if any) should be given to (a) the individual plaintiffs and (b) WSC? Justice Slade in his judgment said that professional cricketers need to make a living and the ICC should not stand in their way just beca
Re: Re: packer circus like wise IPL must be banned by court of LA
by Geminian Personality on Mar 30, 2013 06:42 AM
Kyun thak rahe ho... chill brodah....
