Talk:Indian Premier League

ajoy 09:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC) just started on the page .will come back later and enter more info as and when ava

IPL table

This page need not read like a reading board of what all is controversial about IPL. We can have a seperate page for that. What we really need here is a table listing the winners and runners up for every year with the location, number of teams etc. Let this page look like the EPL or the NBA page please.

Sponsorship

DLF has only been assigned sponsorship only for the tournaments for a period of 5 years. So this sponsorship isn't applicable for the entire marquee in general. Even for coming seasons,the tournament would be called DLF Indian Premier League purely for formal and sponsorship reasons. So please keep the name of the tournament as it is now. Also please do not remove entire (especially the lead section) entirely. If you have certain objections to the content please discuss it here. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, Grant65 has edited away the entire sponsorship section and now those citations have been lost. Can someone retrieve them if possible. The sponsorship section is NOT in violation of Wikipedia policy because it is not flagrant self-promotion. There is, or were, citable sources for the sponsorship of the league. It is in violation of none of Wikipedia's policy. "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.241.215 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think that you can rewrite section in line with the Wikipedia policies, please do so, along with the citations. But do not add only information or spam links otherwise. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant section there is: "Those 'promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." I interpret that as including the main text of articles. The BBC and many other media organisations have similar rules. Sponsors have no intrinsic relevance to any article on a sporting competition or team. While it may be a fact that they are sponsors, it is not a notable fact, i.e. one of vital importance or interest. If, on the other hand, a sponsor become a team or competition owner, or there is some controversy involving the sponsor's relationship to the competition/team, then they would became worthy of mention.

Which brings me to another point: 59.183.241.215 (and similar IP numbers): what is your interest in this matter? I hope it does not constitute a conflict of interest. Grant | Talk 02:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if you read this part, where that THREE relevant sentences as opposed to one then you will see why this is relevant.

"Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style."

This is firstly not an article on the product and secondly it IS objective. Where is the hint of bias?

" Article topics must be third-party verifiable,"

If you have seen any IPL games (I doubt you are awake till 3/4/5am watching this where you are) or read of this elsewhere in the online media, you will see it is not hearsay and biased. It is third-party verifiable on many sources.

"commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic"

there's a part here that says MAJOR organizations ASSOCIATED with this topic are acceptable. Which part of this fails the Wikipedia test?

Now just because you have a some sort of anti-corporate world-view doesn't mean anything with sponsors is biased. The citations are in place if you see the bottom.

And at any rate if you read the sponsorship SECTION and not just the title headline, you will not it leads up to something. Where the money comes in goes into how the league is funded, how the player purchases are, and where the money is pooled.

unsigned comment added by 59.183.241.215 (talk) 2:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, and by the way, if you see the television rights column you will see that mentions companies and sponsorships. Looks like you didn't bother to read what it says, but was simply put off by the word sponsorship. I know the game is all about eating money these days. 20/20 is not cricket to the connoisseurs of the game. But alas, it doesn't matter what we fans of the truly beautigul game think; It's still happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.253.213 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The only way that sponsors should be mentioned in Wikipedia sports articles is if they have naming rights to a competition or are embedded in the name, as in Pura Cup or Bangalore Royal Challengers.

For an article on a highly-commercialised sporting competition comparable to IPL, see Major League Baseball. There is no mention of sponsors by name. The article on its most prominent team, New York Yankees, mentions a sponsor in 1964, in relation to a material issue, but that is all.

The suggestion that my world view is "anti-corporate" would seem to be a breach of Wikipedia's requirement to assume good faith. Moreover, if I am anti-corporate then so is Wikipedia in general, along with every other encyclopedia, the BBC and other credible news organisations. I ask again: what is your interest in this matter? Grant | Talk 23:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Then have you read the television part? What does SONY have to do it with? if it is not a sponsor. There is an explanation in this paragraph as to how the money is allotted. As for YOUR breach of good faith the suggestiong that I have a conflict of interest would do the same as yours. What is your intesrest in the matter? Suggest you stick to the 2020 tourney down under b/c you don't kjnow, or hear, half the matter in this regard. Have you been to India? Have you ehard a word about corporate relations in the 202?59.183.241.156 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The rules and style are the same for all sports articles, regardless of country. Sony owns the broadcast rights, which means they have a stake in the governance of the competition. If and only if a sponsor has control some control of the sport (as is normally the case with broadcasters) and this can be supported with a reference, then it too would be worthy of mention. Otherwise sponsors are completely interchangeable and irrelevant, except to themselves and their business associates. Which brings me back to the old question: I have no interest in IPL, apart from being a cricket fan. I guess it's the same for you? Grant | Talk 05:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sony have a stake in the GOVERNANCE of the competition? Can you back up these unsubstantiated comments anywhere? Furthermore, have you what does the oofficial website and its sponsorship have to do with this? Why didn't you edit this out? 59.183.241.111 (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting edits to an earlier version with no sponsorship info. Please stop reverting/undoing edits in this regard unless the issue is entirely sorted out here. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Governance: any company that controlled the broadcast rights would have a say in fixturing for instance. The official website is a commercial product, but it is directly related to this subject. Unlike airlines or beer. Grant | Talk 13:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

what is this? your own defintition? the fixtures are not altered by sony's demands. And if you read the what i said above, the AMOUNT coming in was directly relevant to the league. Kingfisher (not beer, btw. figure out who's sponsoring it) and Pepsi, etc have PAID for this. The passage shows where the funds go and how its directed. READ the passage first !!! 59.183.241.111 (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Furthermore, why was the editing sealed at grant65's version of this page? If you see the edit history and discussion, I brought this into discussion while he was merely removing the section till it suited him. See above LeaveSleaves: you said "If you think that you can rewrite section in line with the Wikipedia policies, please do so, along with the citations. But do not add only information or spam links otherwise." You told me to rewrite, where's the violation? I'm showing and arguing why it is relevant. Should we simply say an unknown sponsor paid XX?? Does that make any sense? Does it make Wikipedia look professional? Or is it not a vias on the other side that sponsors are removed for the sake of it. 59.183.241.135 (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My primary purpose of semi-protecting the page was to decrease the edit war that's going on for quite some time. And as for the version I chose for this is entirely irrelevant, since I'd have suffered similar accusations from other side. So the important point here is to discuss this issue out in a sensible way rather that pointing out each other's mistakes. And also, although I know it's not my position to say this, I'd appreciate if you'd open an account as this would streamline the discussion a lot. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous:

"What is this? your own definition?" No, it's simply standard practice in Wikipedia to mention the owners of sports teams and broadcasters, but not sponsors.

Your attempt to show the broader relevance of the sponsors does not make sense.

"Should we simply say an unknown sponsor paid XX??" No, we should ignore the matter, as is the case with every other sports article in Wikipedia, unless the sponsorship becomes notable for some reason other than the mere fact of its fleeting existence.

"Does that make any sense?" Yes. Consider (for example) the case of sporting competitions that have dozens of sponsors. They would take up a large part of each article, would be subject to constant revision and, I suggest, no-one is interested apart from them and their cronies (breaching not only WP:ADVERT but WP:UNDUE — that something is a fact does not make it encyclopedic).

"Does it make Wikipedia look professional?" Absolutely. Much more than if we indulged the vanity and status of businesses, by including tedious lists of commercial hangers-on. This is, as I have said repeatedly, standard practice not only of Wikipedia, but any other encyclopedia you care to name, and most major media organisations.

"Or is it not a bias on the other side that sponsors are removed for the sake of it?" WP policy is certainly biased against covert advertisements masquerading as articles and undue emphasis.

I have already declared that I have no conflict of interest here. Since you have avoided more subtle questioning — and remembering that such a plethora of IP numbers can be traced with great precision — do you have a conflict of interest that you need to declare?

Grant | Talk 11:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that someone (59.183.252.116 (talk)) has again installed a "Sponsorship" section in the article. Having looked around various sports event pages on wikipedia, it seems that Grant is largely correct that sponsorship arrangements are not generally mentioned, and certainly not in as much detail as shown here, but that TV coverage is often detailed. I suggest that the English Premier League Football article is used as a model for this article (it seems an appropriate comparison) to work off, where the details of sponsorship are not explored, but the main sponsor is mentioned. In the IPL article this could mean that the "Fixtures" and "Sponsorship Rights" are combined into one section called "Competition format and sponsorship". This section could have 2 subsections:

• "Competition". This would essentially contain what is currently in the "Fixtures" section, but it could also mention that the top 2 teams will qualify for the Champions Twenty20 League.
• "Sponsorship". In this section the only things mentioned would be: the naming rights sponsor (ie DLF); what the total sponsorship pool comes to; and how these funds are distributed.

I also suggest that the "Television Rights" and "Official website" sections become subsections of a new "Media coverage" section (and that the "Official website" section is cleaned up a bit)

What does everyone think? Juwe (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit to the page, which comes with the edit summary "edit to Juwe reccomendation", wasn't quite what I had in mind. The new page is essentially just the old page with this extra sentence:

"For a term of five to ten years the IPL has brought the BCCI a princely sum of $1 billion, making the body even more lucrative than its previous tag that made already made it the richest board in world cricket."

In any case, it might be best to have a discussion here before implementing changes about these matters. Juwe (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, inclusion of sponsors with naming rights in the first paragraph is consistent with some other articles on sporting competitions.

However, I do think that it a separate section devoted to DLF's sponsorship opens the door (again) to a dreary list of companies with no involvement in the IPL, apart from the handing over of a wad of cash. Grant | Talk 03:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Squads

Perhaps the squads should be removed from this page, as they are already present on the individula team pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.153.87 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Indian Premier League

I have removed the Fixtures section from the article as it discusses primarily the fixtures for coming season. So please add all the relevant information in that particular article. LeaveSleaves (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A separate article must be created for the 2008 season. All info which can change after this season should move out of this article and into the 2008 season.For eg,if the player signings are for one year we have to move the team rosters to the respective team articles and mark it by year. The NBA article is a decent prototype. The information relating to the LEAGUE should remain on this article everything else should be moved out.this is the only way to keep articles relevant and useful. ajoy (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Player Costs

Why are player costs in United States Dollars instead of Indian Rupees? 208.2.17.2 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The auction itself used USD as the currency for bidding. The Indian Rupee valuations given by the media are roughly based on currency conversion. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The players were auctioned for USDHotsshot (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Franchises article

Just in case anyone wants to know - I redirected "Indian Premier League Franchises" to this article since it was an exact duplicate of the "Franchises" section of this article. -- Chuq (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please put up the logos if each of the teams too in the main article for completeness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.136.1 (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2008 (UTCItalic text)

Unfortunately that isn't possible. See this from the 2008 IPL talk page. Juwe (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Player Signings

Will auctions for players be held each at the beginning of each season? If so, should this section be on the season article?? - Allied45 (talk) 07:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand, the player signings are for at least 3 to 5 years. So there won't be another auction soon, unless a lot of new players (particularly from the England team, which currently hasn't allowed any of the players to play for IPL). There is provision of player transfers, but that too won't begin before 3rd season. LeaveSleaves (talk) 08:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if they don't go in the season articles, I think the list of players would make more sense on each individual team articles. Before the auctions, of course it made sense to list the "pool" of players here, but now they are just duplicated here. -- Chuq (talk) 11:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd partially agree with you Chuq. Although the lists are simply duplicates from original articles (or vice versa), I'd still say they might be an important part of the article in order to signify the auction, which remains an integral part of the league formation. What we could consider is shelving down the list a little. Perhaps remove the information about coaches etc. LeaveSleaves (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chuq, the list of player signings for each team seems to clutter the page needlessly and obscures more important information. I think the list of players makes more sense on the individual franchises page. If the auction is considered important I'd suggest adding a separate article for the IPL 2008 Player Auction. Forzaps (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sohail Tanvir got sold for U$100,000. http://www.hindu.com/2008/03/12/stories/2008031256412100.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.43.51 (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

National Affiliation

Consistent with other articles within WikiProject Cricket it seems to make sense to refer to the national flags (whether real or derived in the case of the West Indies which I am conscious is a sporting entity rather than a political entity) rather than the flags of the constituent teams such as Jamaica or Guyana as has been the trend of some of the edits to this page. Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Why do you keep removing the link to cricket20 (thetwenty20cup.co.uk) from the site, we are covering the IPL but you keep removing the link

Our site is updated 24 hours a day seven days a week yet you still ink to the Official Site which hasnt been updated in a month, how does that work?

You link to cricinfo so why not cricket20?

Please read WP:EL. thetwenty20cup.co.uk is not a suitable external link for this page; Cricinfo is allowed because it is one of the two go-to sources for cricket, and is a reliable source to boot. This page has been semi-pro'd because of various sites repeatedly adding their own links despite numerous warnings; once the semi-protection runs out please don't attempt to re-add them as they will still be removed and the page potentially protected again. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Cricinfo is allowed because it is one of the two go-to sources for cricket" According to who, you? cricket20 is the ONLY website dedicated to twenty20 cricket, we have covered EVERY Twenty20 game ever played in international or domestic levels. Why should you decided what links go on the page, We know we are a source for news, we know that when a Twenty20 story breaks people come to our site. I thought wikipedia was open source, allowing people to contribute and giving people fresh information not just the same old same old like linking to cricinfo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.62.7 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise; I phrased it poorly, but the fact of the matter is that Cricinfo & CricketArchive are both reliable for being used as sources and suitable for being linked as an external source. Bear in mind you are referring to it as "we" suggests you have a conflict of interest over the addition of the link - which doesn't really help over it being a suitable addition. Please read the additional guidelines for more information: WP:EL, WP:SPAM. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link to TalkTwenty20? This is the only forum that is devoted to Twenty20 cricket which provides a specific forum to discuss the IPL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.54.43 (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL carefully before adding such links. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 10:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mohali article title

Shouldn't it be "IPL Mohali" and not "Mohali Twenty20 franchise"? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

All the franchise articles during their initial stages of development (when their names weren't announced) were titled in the current Mohali article format. In any case it hardly makes any sense to change article name now since the official name would eventually be announced soon enough and you'd have to move the article again. In case you see this change important enough you can also redirect IPL Mohali to the changed article later. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I didnt find any reliable sources in the web that says that the name of the IPL Mohali team is Punjab kings. and use two different names to denote the IPL Mohali team. Unless an official announcement comes from the team owners, I think we should revert the name back to Mohali Twenty20 franchise. CSumit (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Although Cricinfo uses the same name (Punjab Kings) throughout the site. LeaveSleaves (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian Cricket League

nothing about the IPL being set up in response the Indian Cricket League? 86.26.63.135 (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The IPL was being considered long before the ICL was established,the ICL however threatened the authority of BCCI and speeded up the establishment of the IPLHotsshot (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hotsshot (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the ICL should be mentioned through. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Player list

How about removing the players list from the article. It is unnecessary as the information is already duplicated in the team articles. Instead we can have a section explaining how the auction worked, mention the bidding amount for some players and also explain how other players were selected. The list from the auctions can be moved to a separate article titled 2008 IPL player signings or something else. If there's consensus on this proposal, then I'll remove the player list. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed move for a separate article. Plus I'd suggest that similar lists on franchise articles be also be removed and accordingly incorporated in the said new article. The franchise articles would then contain the necessary list of player names only. LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Just the list of the teams with their logos and stuff like that is enough here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.136.1 (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree,a new article should be made for the teams Hotsshot (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The player lists are already in each of the respective team articles. There's no point in them being here or in yet more new articles. —Moondyne click! 06:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy With PCB sections talks about ICL

I think the Pakistan cricket board section here is irrelevant as it talks about ICL only.

However, the current Shoaib Akhtar controversy can be added under this section. Vote please :)

WikiOn ( t | c ) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The trophy

Doesn't the trophy deserve special mention? It is the costliest trophy in the world, and probably the only one to have gold, diamond, ruby and yellow sapphire all together in it (mentioned by Ravi Shastri during the final game, so that airing could be used as a reference if someone slaps a ). --soum ^talk 19:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would be good if a section like this Cricket World Cup#Trophy was created. Of course, we need to know the relevant details and get a decent picture of the trophy, but fundamentally I support the idea. Juwe (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Images won't be a problem. Since we are talking about the trophy itself, having a copyrighted image would fall under Fair Use. --soum ^talk 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

The controversies mostly relate to the 2008 season i think it should be moved to the article on hte 2008 season .Any body disagree?ajoy (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is really embrassing to say having individual world class players will not help win matches . We indians r known to cheer the players even if we dont win matches sayin he has done his job the others didnt, and it goes on and on and on . when will we become a team .Just give few months to mend these so called individual stars i will c to it that they will b better than the australians . Do the board have the guts to challenge me if s take as post of the coach is vacant so y look for a foreign coach when ther is a challenge in our own land .do u guys hear me. I will c to that we will become a great team and not GREAT INDIVIDUAL PLAYER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.158.151 (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.36.42 (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this topic can't be empty ever, you can see this year also Lalit Modi facing some trouble for not organizing match in some specific states of India and many more like Andrew Flintoff facing difficulties in joining the match.(Kush Soni 15:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

IPL v ICL - out of the box please

The stand off between BCCI and the Zee Group over the IPL-ICL situation makes me wonder - are they really doing it right? My comments may seem sarcastic or degrading for the ICL but by creating the two leagues, the BBCI and Zee have paved the way for making T20 cricket more competitive. Why cant the two groups consider the two leagues similar to the premier league and the first division in English football. The obvious options would be to have the IPL as the Premier League and the ICL as the first division - going by the quality of players on those leagues. Things like the cities linked to each club could be sorted out because it will also bring in the spirit of derbies. Two clubs from the same city would be a great treat to watch with their respective batch of fans. I suppose that the two parties will one day come to this agreement. And imagine what could have happened had they done this already. The Hyderabad team from IPL - Deccan Chargers would be in the first division (relegated) while the Hyderabad Heroes from ICL would have been in the premier league. Come on guys, please think out of the box. We want to see both the ICL and the IPL create the same hype and fun. We want both Tony Greig and Ravi Shastri do commentary for a match. We want to see SRK and Mithunda fight for supremacy in the Kolkata derby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.36.42 (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I think other television's channel should also show matches of IPL...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.79.3 (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Salaries

Do the top players get paid $1m/year each? Or do they get paid $1m over 3 years? Tri400 (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2009 (jokjpoiokpkopkkpiljiu

top players get like 1 - 1.5 mil a year but the lesser players get like 700- 800 thousand a year, just like aussie rules football or Heinekikn cup--Gargabook (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

The article looks like an advertisement from Modi himself. Many experts have criticized the IPL. There should be section that covers criticism from all quarters. User:Timofeyevich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC).

Other controversies

Why is the controversy part only limited to conflicts with national boards ? There are plenty of other criticisms levelled at the IPL, notably overcommercialization (DLF "maximums", Citi "moments of succcesses" etc), cheerleaders and 65 metre boundaries. Why arent these mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.100.52 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

What about the current ongoing issue? Modi.. match fixing.. betting..financial fraud etc etc ? None of this seems to be mentioned - Incase people are not aware, it looks like Modi will be removed from this post. And yet non of it is mentioned. I hope IPL is not sponsoring this page! This article seems to only show the positive spin .. as if Modi himself wrote this!

And what about the criticisms on their sponsorship phrases? "Malinga thows a pepsi full toss to Kallis. Kallis has hit it onto the coca-cola legside. They're going for a Hero-Honda single, no wait there going for a Vodafone two runs. Oh nooooo.. it looks like its a Godrej run out! And thats the end of Kallis.. And it looks like its the Max mobile time out. But wait, the camera is now pointing at that dumb MRF balloon in the air, I mean 'blimp', they sponsored the pace foundation which is responsible for all the great bowlers in india, please look at that blimp and buy MRF tyres. OK, back to the max mobile time-out" -- LogicDictates (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added current ongoing issue. -- 12afser12 (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Global Following?

the article about global following is extremely biased, ipl is not that popular internationally, in australia and england the only ppl who follow it are indian students. IPL is not a major international league —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabook (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you know ? Just Guessing ? SyberGod (chat)

Contradiction

the article states that the average wage for players is 2.5 million pounds (6 million dollars) but says the highest paid player flintoff is paid no more than 1.5 million dollars. Biased writing from a person who is obviously way too patriotic--Gargabook (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

where ? SyberGod (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Players in Indian Premier League

Please contribute to the above article. --Budhajeewa (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How does the auction system actually work?

I don't really know anything about the IPL (heard it mentioned and came to this article) and whilst I understand that some sort of auction for players happens, the article didn't really explain how it works. This is the sort of thing that's probably obvious to people who follow the IPL, but for someone like myself, who has never followed the sport, perhaps there could be a brief outline of how the system works.