BBC Home

Explore the BBC

15 comments

user rating: 3 star

Any Stanford Twenty20 Tears?

Twenty20 England
by teej_07 (U9580164) 17 December 2008
comment on the article

There are considerable doubts that The Stanford Twenty20 competition will make a return to the cricket calendar, the BBC reports.

I can't say I'm too disappointed - whilst I'm an England fan I was really pleased that some of the young West Indian cricket players won the jackpot money a couple of months ago.

I'm a huge fan of Twenty20 cricket, i think it's exciting and good for the game, but the rich show-off antics that "Playboy Stanford" brought to the whole episode made the whole thing look a desperate charade... It was more like a "Super Sweet 16" kid treating himself to his own party... for a tournament that was billed to bring excitement to cricket, I think I'll stick to a good healthy dose of the good stuff on the Test International scene... so long as Monty can rescue us a draw on the sub-continent.

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own
comment by FromNY (U10252917)

posted Dec 17, 2008

Glad that Circuis is over. It's not possible in today world to run a multi-million competition single-handedly. Now that ECB relations with BCCI has improved a lot (after they allowed England to resume cricket in India), I don't think they need another sponser for the sake of money.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 17, 2008

Don't put your mortgage on it.cool

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Will (U1720095)

posted Dec 17, 2008

It's so distressing to learn that he lost money on the whole pantomime...it must constitute the most expensive lap dance ever!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 17, 2008

It's West Indies players to suffer. Bad news for them and Standford fans!

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by shivfan (U2435266)

posted Dec 17, 2008

Yes, I see it as bad news....
sadface

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 18, 2008

England needs Stanford like it needs the E.coli virus. This vulgarian, aided and abetted by his equally vulgar conspirator in crime Giles Clarke, has brought cricket to an unimaginable new low. Good riddance to the pair of them...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 18, 2008

Why are people so ready to criticise someone who opened their massive wallet for cricket. If I were giving $20M, I would hope to have some say in how it was to be used, I would also hope I would gain some benefit from it as well. In Stanford's case, it was self-promotion, massaging his ego, etc. West Indies managed to work with Stanford, yet we here seem hell bent on "biting the hand that feeds us". I suspect an element of jealousy within the media for promoting an unfavourable picture of Stanford.

The loss to West Indian cricket is massive - as the Stanford 20/20 single-handedly revitalised the game. Players could dream of earning vast sums in packed stadiums.

Let's see if we can find another beneficiary mad enough to throw millions at the game, yet receive so little gratitude in return.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by gr8ron (U10006550)

posted Dec 18, 2008

Ha. Ha , ha ,C HUCKER man i love your comment ("most expensive lap dance ever").beatiful pun considering emily prior is not available for comment.-(cricinfo).

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by gr8ron (U10006550)

posted Dec 18, 2008

"English cricket is stanford's wags".

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 18, 2008

Thought this 'circus' was dead and buried where it should be!!
The sooner this p**** Stanford disappears - the better for world cricket.
His money is 'tainted' with the power he 'thinks' he has.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 40.00%
    2 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3 40.00%
    2 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 20.00%
    1 votes

average rating:
3.40 from 5 votes