The first deadline was missed altogether so the ICC created a second deadline for the four countries to submit a proposal. This new second deadline was met; however the content of the proposal was non-complying in several key areas and therefore could not be considered.

One of the bid guidelines created by the ICC concerned the maximum number of venues to be used in the competition. They stipulated that 15 should be the absolute limit. In their wisdom, the Asian bid ignored this seemingly straightforward condition and suggested within their bid proposal a whopping 37 different venues across the four countries to be used.

What is remarkable about this number, is not just that it falls so far foul of the ICC bid requirement, but that India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh actually believe that 37 different venues poses a logistically attractive way of hosting a world cup.

Rather than dismiss the late and non-complying proposal, the ICC have now created a third deadline for a qualifying bid from Asia. At least India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, will not be able to say they were not given a fair chance when they inevitably fail to secure hosting rights.

The alternate co-hosting bid from Australia and New Zealand, was submitted on time in a fully complying manner.

From what I read..the ICC 'allowed' the Asian bids to be re-submitted as it got the Asians (mainly BCCI) to accept the Twenty20 WC reality in bargain. So the multinational orgnaisation did gain something from the display of 'flexibility'..and I do believe multinationals work this way :-)

Ofcourse the clumsy behaviour of the Asian authorities in this particular issue sucks, no arguments there

37 different venues? Forget about luggage and kit-bags lost; perhaps this time we'll have players and coaches lost..(smiley)