Here you go: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/631508.html
This guy, Amrit Mathur was a former Delhi Daredevils COO, and now is a part of the BCCI.
Check out the para starting, "The peripherals are equally enticing..."
No jks, it's not full money, it's pro-rated to an extent if a player misses games.
It depends on the number of games he plays in. For the matches he plays, he gets full money, for the matches he misses out because of either injury or because he's dropped, there's a different pay-scale.
So according to some of the stats I was privy to, if you miss a game, you get 50% of the pro-rated value of that match.
For the sake of simplicity, if a player earns a million dollars and it's a 10-match long tournament for the teams, then that player's match fee will be million/10 = $100,000. So if he plays a game, he gets $100,000 and if he misses a game, he loses on $50,000 of his match fee.
To add to this there are minor daily allowances which were also paid.
I must add here that this figure of 50% might not be an exact one - and there's little clarity over it. However, rest assured it works on the basis of some form of pro-rated salary.
I don't think there should be any such rule.
There's no rule on the number of times a batsman can back away while facing up to a bowler. The umpire can warn him, can also penalise the team five runs if he thinks it's a case of deliberate time-wasting but there's no such rule that prevents him from backing away.
Same with the bowler missing his run-up or Mankading. If the umpire thinks it's a deliberate ploy, by all means penalise the team those five runs, but introducing a 'one unsuccessful Mankad' rule is only taking away from one of the forms of dismissals.
In any case, a fast bowler will end up tiring himself if he keeps running up and down just trying to 'Mankad'.