The Board Of Control For Cricket In India (BCCI)
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Intrigue, politics
`Srinivasan involved in move to oust Manohar'
`Srinivasan involved in move to oust Manohar' Oct 19 2016 : The Times of India
Days before BCCI president Anurag Thakur was made head of the development committee of the International Cricket Council, the Indian board had tri ed to oust its former chief, Shashank Manohar, from the helm of the world governing body, sources told TOI.
BCCI had backed the can didature of Giles Clarke, head of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and a one-time N Srinivasan acolyte, to take over as ICC chairman by dislodging Manohar, sources said.
They said the BCCI top brass wanted to float this proposal for voting in the Cape Town ICC executive board meeting last week. But in a great embarrassment, none of the Test playing nations `seconded' the motion.
“To remove Manohar, BCCI was looking to get a Test playing nation to se cond the motion. But none of them came forward. All backed Manohar to continue,“ a top BCCI official told TOI on Tuesday .
“Now that the mat ter is over, BCCI has decided to move on. The board has enough on its plate at home,“ the official said.
Both Thakur and Shirke were unavailable for comment when TOI tried contacting them. BCCI officials had reached Cape Town two days be fore the meeting began.Through teleconferences from India via secretary Ajay Shirke, the BCCI top brass even took the help of former ICC chairman N Srinivasan to mobilise opinion against Manohar and discussed how he could be removed, the sources said. “It is true that Srinivasan was involved in the discussion to remove Manohar,“ a BCCI official confirmed. The board thought that by pressuring Manohar and trying to find his replacement, BCCI had a good chance of getting a post in the various ICC committees responsible for running the game. In their lobbying, the BCCI even offered Clarke the ICC chairmanship and had approached all Test playing nations with the proposal, the sources said. The BCCI was promised plum ICC committee posts in the previous ICC meeting in Edinburgh.“This was one of the reasons why Shirke skipped the ICC meeting. He didn't want to face Manohar,“ the source added.
If any of the Test-playing nations would have seconded BCCI's motion, at least 75% votes out of 13-member ICC executive board would have been needed to remove Mano har. Out of 10 Test playing nations, ICC board would need at least eight full members to support the move. The rest three members of the ICC executive board are from the associate nations. The BCCI is at loggerheads with the ICC over the latter's decision to not write a letter protesting against the Lodha panel's reforms and how it would harm a member country if the reforms are forced on the Indian board.
Mudgal report
Srini knew of code breach, IPL COO of betting, both kept mum: Mudgal
TIMES NEWS NETWORK The Times of India
Nov 18 2014
`Kundra Took Player To Bookie; CSK Official Meiyappan Guilty Of Betting' BCCI Battle Hinges On SC's Nov 24 Order
The Supreme Court-appointed Justice Mudgal panel has said ICC chief N Srinivasan was not involved in betting or match fixing in the Indian Premier League and did not attempt to scuttle investigations into match fixing. However, it also said that Srinivasan and four other BCCI officials were aware of violations of the players' code of conduct by an unnamed person identified as `Individual 3', but did nothing about it. The panel has also reiterated that Srinivasan's sonin-law, Gurunath Meiyappan, was involved in betting and was indeed a “team official“ of Chennai Super Kings. Srinivasan, it may be recalled, had said that Meiyappan was only a “cricket enthusiast“ and had no role in the CSK management.
The strongest statements in the panel's report have been reserved for Rajasthan Royals' co-owner Raj Kundra. The report states that Kundra “was in touch with bookies about betting, and by not reporting this has violated the BCCIIPL anti-cor ruption code“. It adds that one of Kundra's friends was a known punter and has given a statement that he placed bets on behalf of Kundra.This punter has also claimed that Kundra introduced him to another bookie who dealt with larger stakes. Further, the report quotes a player as having said that Kundra introduced him to a bookie. IPL chief operating officer Sundar Raman was held guilty of being aware of Meiyappan and Kundra's betting activity but taking no action on it or even informing anybody ostensibly because the chief of the ICC's anticorruption squad told him that the information he had was “not actionable“.
Is Sundar just an IPL numbers whiz or there's more
K ShriniwasRao Sundar Raman is called many things in the world of cricket: a number-crunching wiz, moneymaking machine, marketing genius, proven media consultant and even a wannabe commentator. But one thing he has never been called: a link between the big bettors in the game and illegal bookmakers. On Monday, when the Supreme Court made certain parts of the Mudgal Committee report public, and he was decreed to have been `in touch with a contact of a bookmaker eight times during the last Indian Premier League (IPL) season' everybody assumed the worst.
There was, however, hardly a flutter on his officially accredited Twitter handle, nor did he say anything to defend himself or clear his name.Those who have his ear only said that he was vainly trying to figure out why exactly his face was being flashed on TV screens along with words like `betting' and `fixing'.
“What does the (Mudgal) report say about him,' asked one of Sundar's associates. “Does it say that he was in touch with bookmakers? No.“
The report says (verbatim): `This individual (Raman) knew of a contact of a bookie and had contacted him eight times in one season. This individual admitted knowing the con tact of the bookies but however claimed to be unaware of his connection with betting activities. This individual also accepted that he had received information about Individ ual 1 (Gurunath Meiyappan) and In dividual 11 (Raj Kundra) taking part in betting activities but was informed by the ICC-ACSU chief by the ICC-ACSU chief that this was not actionable information.' That contact is TV actor and former reality show contestant Vindoo Dara Singh who has been investigated by the Mumbai crime branch for his alleged role in spot-fixing.
Those who know Sundar's style of working say “meeting all kinds of peo ple“ is his job. “He has to be in touch with cricketers, administrators, ground staff, hotel staff, VIP guests, match officials, sponsors, advertisers and many more. That's his job.But he can't keep a personal tab on everyone he meets,“ they say .
Vindoo would arrive at IPL matches in elite company where the possibility of him and Sundar meeting socially was always a possibility . “Does that mean he revealed information to bookmakers? “ they ask.
As the Supreme Court further hears the matter, Sundar's friends say his lawyers will study the report and file their reply.
Those who've tracked IPL's progress during its most feverish phase between 2008 to 2010, when it changed the very complexion of the game worlrwide -will know of a swanky 36th floor makeshift office in a five-star luxury hotel in Mumbai from where Sundar and Lalit Modi operated. Those were days when the perception was that the two league-runners were each other's closest confidantes.
How Sundar survived in the aftermath of BCCI suspending Modi, and how he went on to become Modi's arch-rival N Srinivasan's closest colleague in cricket administration is still something outsiders cannot fathom. But neither Modi nor Srini vasan would deny the ability of the man boss of the 3 billion dollar league for all practical purposes to make money and infuse fresh en ergy into the game. Sundar has been called many things by his adver saries: arrogant, prejudiced, op portunistic and maybe more. No body dared call him corrupt, though, until the Mudgal report mentioned his name last week. Time will tell if even that is actually a case of the media jumping to the wrong con clusion or if there's more.
KUNDRA STRICTURE ADDS TO ROYALS' TROUBLES
It used to be among IPL spot-fixing scandal's juiciest gossips how and why Rajasthan police stopped investigating Rajasthan Royals co owner Raj Kundra in June last year after Delhi police had grilled him for close to 11 hours and the Mudgal Committee had mentioned him in its investigations.
More than a year later, the string of “gossips“ find a serious mention in the report submitted by the Mudgal panel to the Supreme Court, which was made public on Monday. Kundra and his wife, actor Shilpa Shetty, co-own 11.7% stake in Rajasthan Royals, which they bought in 2009. They were invited by the franchise to add glamour to the side. However, if their acrimony with the BCCI in the following years owing to Lalit Modi's association with one of the franchise's co-owners wasn't enough, Kundra's name being dragged into the betting scandal has made life difficult for the Jaipur-based team.
The year Royals enjoyed their biggest high in the IPL, 2008, was the only time Kundra and Shetty weren't around. Their marriage and buying of the RR stake both happened in 2009. His work profile at present lists his interests in real-estate, mild-steel production, stock-broking and interests in a sports and media company.
IT COULD GET TOUGHER FOR MEIYAPPAN
Gurunath Meiyappan's most popularly tweeted picture in recent times would have to be the one in which he's seen enjoying a day off with his friend on a private yacht somewhere in the seas down south. They're enjoying a drink and the picture is a postcard of serenity.
Back on land though, life hasn't been so easy for BCCI chief N Srinivasan's son-in law who's been clean bowled by the Mudgal Committee report. Coming from a family n of notable repute -the AVM production house -Guru's production house -Guru's enthusiasm to be associated with his father-in-law's cricket franchise has brought him and his family a great deal of trouble.
“If he's guilty, action will be taken,“ Srinivasan had said when preliminary investigations had revealed Guru's interests in betting on the game.There was an effort to hide his identity as Chennai Super Kings' Team Principal, a fact that has been brought to light once again in the Mudgal report.
None of the other names from the Mudgal report that were released on Monday has gone through any forensic investigation either, barring Guru. His yacht picture is a far cry from that frenzied evening at the crime branch in Mumbai, where he was first questioned about the IPL spot-fixing scandal. Since then, Guru has stayed far away from the spotlight.
The findings about Srinivasan could provide ammunition to both his supporters and detractors in the jostling for power within the BCCI. While the supporters would be keen to pounce on the “clean chit“ given on his involvement in betting or fixing, the detractors may point out that he has been held guilty of not acting against a corrupt player and his claim about Meiyappan not being a CSK team official has been proved wrong.
Regarding Kundra, the Mudgal report adds that investigation against Kundra was “abruptly and without reason stopped by Rajasthan Police upon receiving the case papers from Delhi Police.“ If the charges against Kundra are upheld by the Supreme Court, Rajasthan Royals could face severe action, including a possible ban, under IPL rules.
Responding to the report, Kundra told journalists, “Let's wait till the 24th (November, when the Supreme Court is scheduled to de clare its verdict in the case), everything will be clear. You will be happy , don't worry. It's sub judice. Let's wait. Let the court take their calculated decisions after I put forward my facts.“
About Meiyappan, the report states, “Investigations have confirmed that he was a team official of a franchisee. He was frequently meeting `Individual 2' (an identity that the report doesn't disclose) in his hotel room.“ It adds, “...the finding about his betting activities and the finding that he was a team official stand confirmed.“ However, it gives Meiyappan a clean chit with regard to match fixing, saying there is no material available on record to show that he was involved in manipulating matches.
As directed by the apex court, the portions of the report made public on Monday do not contain the names of any players. The reference to Srinivasan along with four other BCCI officials being “aware of the violation of the Players Code of Conduct by Individual 3“ but not acting on it makes it seem likely that `Individual 3' is a player, though what his violation was is not spelt out.
The code of conduct is a sprawling set of rules that cover everything from breach of clothing regulations to match fixing and any activity that brings the game into disrepute.
The law and BCCI
BCCI is subject to judicial review
Jan 23 2015
Dhananjay Mahapatra & Amit Choudhary
SC bars Srinivasan from contesting for BCCI prez
The Supreme Court has disqualified N Srinivasan from contesting the BCCI elections to be held in the next six weeks after it found him in murky conflict of interest waters for wearing two hats one as cricket administrator and the other as owner of IPL team Chennai Super Kings. Worse, Srinivasan will have to wait with bated breath for the decision of a freshly constituted committee comprising former Chief Justice R M Lodha and former SC judges Ashok Bhan and R V Raveendran, which would in the next six months quantify the punishments for those guilty of betting in IPL 2013. A bench of Justices T S Thakur and F M I Kalifulla asked the committee to determine punishment for Srinivasan's son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, who as an official of IPL team Chennai Super King indulged in betting, and Raj Kundra, who as part-owner of Rajasthan Royals was also found guilty of betting.
Srinivasan could also find himself at the receiving end of the three-judge committee, as he was the owner of CSK. The bench ordered: “The quantum of punishment to be imposed on Meiyappan, Kundra as also their respective franchiseesteamsowners of the teams shall be determined by the committee.“
Srinivasan was caught in the `conflict of interest' web after the court struck down a five-year-old amendment to the BCCI rules through which cricket administrators, including the BCCI president, were allowed to have commercial interests in the Board's IPL tournament. Prior to the amendment, the rule prohibited administrators from having commercial interest of any form in BCCI events.
The conflict of interest arose because CSK is owned by India Cements, in which Srinivasan and his family hold a controlling 29.4% stake. The court said the conflict of interest was the real villain in sullying the fairness of the game of cricket passionately followed by millions in India.
The court found it unacceptable that a cricket administrator should have commercial interests in matches organized by the BCCI, including IPL T20 tournaments. It asked the board to hold in six weeks the much-delayed elections, initially due on September 26, 2014. They were first deferred to November 20, then to December 17 and finally to January 31, 2015 to await the SC's judgment in the case.
A bench of Justices T S Thakur and F M I Kalifulla said, “No one who has any commercial interest in the BCCI events (including N Srinivasan) shall be eligible for contesting elections for any post whatsoever.“
In the next sentence, it appeared to create an option for Srinivasan. For, it said “disqualification for contesting elections applicable to those who are holding any commercial interest in BCCI events shall hold good and continue till such time the person concerned holds such commercial interest or till the committee considers and awards suitable punishment to those liable for the same, whichever is later.“
On a plain reading, this might seem to mean that Srinivasan could contest the elections if he completely disassociates himself from CSK ownership, which is possible if India Cements sells off CSK to another entity.
But the bench's “whichever is later“ comment read with the directive to determine punishment even for team owners appeared to clarify that he would have to wait till the new committee quantified punishment for Meiyappan, CSK, Kundra and RR.
Accepting the findings of the Justice Mukul Mudgal probe panel, the court held Meiyappan to be a team official of CSK who indulged in betting during IPL 2013.It also held Kundra, part-owner of Rajasthan Royals, guilty of betting.
If one took into account, the “whichever is later“ condition imposed by the Supreme Court, then it could mean Srinivasan, even if he completely disassociated from CSK ownership by making India Cement sell the IPL franchisee team to another entity, would have to await the decision of the Justice Lodha committee that would come at least six months from now.By that time, the BCCI elections, directed to be held within six weeks, would be over.
Importantly, the court wanted further investigation into the role played by Sundar Rajan, the chief operating officer of IPL. “We are of the view that once we appoint a committee to determine and award punishment, we can instead of referring the matter back to Mudgal Committee, request the new committee to examine the role played by Raman, if necessary, with the help of the investigating team constituted by us earlier.”
BCCI should come under RTI Act: Law Commission
April 18, 2018: The Times of India
Should it come under RTI Act?
From: Krishnadas Rajagopal, April 18, 2018: The Hindu
HIGHLIGHTS
Law Commission said RTI Act be made applicable to BCCI
"When all other national sport federations are covered under RTI Act, why not BCCI," it added
BCCI operates as a private entity under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act
The Law Commission of India recommended the central government to include the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) along with its constituent member cricketing associations under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The report, submitted to the Law Ministry, states that BCCI ought to be classified as 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
"When all other national sport federations are covered under RTI Act, why not BCCI," Law Commission said.
Law Commission further added that BCCI exercises state like powers affecting the fundamental rights of the stakeholders, guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the world's richest cricket body, operates as a private entity under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.
If the government accepts the commission's recommendations and classifies BCCI as a public body or an organisation under the RTI Act, anyone can file PILs in the SC or HCs questioning the selection of players representing India, states and zones. PILs could also question the agreements signed by BCCI with other cricket playing nations and the International Cricket Council.
In its July 2016 judgment, the SC had asked the commission to examine the legal framework to bring BCCI under the RTI Act.
"An analysis of the functioning of BCCI also shows that the government does exercise control over its activities and functioning.
"... BCCI, falling in line with the foreign policy of India, did not recognise a player from South Africa due to their practice of apartheid; and that the cricket matches between India and Pakistan in view of tense international relations were made subject to government approval. The foregoing positions BCCI as a 'limb of the state'," the law panel report said.
It said though the BCCI is continued to be regarded as a "private body", owing to its "monopolistic character coupled with the public nature of its functions, it can still be termed as a 'public authority' and be brought within the purview of the RTI Act.
The report pointed out that BCCI has received "substantial financing" from appropriate governments in the form of tax exemptions and land grants.
The BCCI has enjoyed tax exemptions of "thousands of crores", the report said. "To be precise, between 1997-2007, the total tax exemption amounted to Rs twenty-one billion six hundred eighty-three million two hundred thirty-seven thousand four hundred eighty-nine. It may also be noted here that from 2007-2008 onwards, the registration of BCCI under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as a charitable trust, was withdrawn," it noted.
To support its case further, the law panel said the uniform Indian team wears contains the national colours and their helmets display the Ashok Chakra.
"BCCI, though not a national sports federation, nominates cricketers for the Arjuna Awards. Parliament and state legislatures chose not to enact a legislation to govern the sport of cricket reflecting tacit recognition on the issue afforded to BCCI," it said.
The panel is of the view that the BCCI virtually acts as a national sports federation.
It said the BCCI's memorandum of association states that the Board's objects and purposes are to control, improve quality, lay down policies pertaining to the game of cricket in India as well as select teams to represent India at international fora.
"Moreover, as per the statement made in the Lok Sabha, the central government has already been regarding BCCI as a national sports federation... since all other sports bodies which are listed as NSFs are covered under the RTI Act, it is inconceivable as to why BCCI should be an exception," it said.
The recommendations of the Law Commission are not binding on the government.
Lodha Committee: 2016
Tender guidelines for BCCI
The Times of India, Sep 09 2016
K ShriniwasRao
Lodha committee spells out tender guidelines for BCCI
A day after the Indian cricket board (BCCI) batted for `absolute transparency' in the Indian Premier League (IPL) media rights deal and called for an open tender process to ensure a fair bidding opportunity for all interested parties, sources close to the Supreme Court-appointed Justice Lodha Committee said it is waiting for the BCCI to present a detailed policy on how they would like to go forward from here. Well-informed sources told TOI on Thursday: “The story that appeared in TOI on Wednesday speaks of the stance BCCI is willing to take on the issue, and that is fine. But as much as they have been posturing on transparency, so far they have only been talking. What they (Lodha committee) expect from the BCCI is a detailed policy in place, on how they want to go about with this tender process. That will be the first step forward.“
When asked why the BCCI officials haven't already discuss the issue with the Lodha committee, a top BCCI functionary said, “While we aren't really obliged to keep them informed on everything we do, we are certainly willing to sit across the table and discuss the way forward if they call us for a meeting. We haven't heard from them.“
When told about BCCI's intent to be part a meeting to discuss the tender process if they are called, sources close to Lodha committee said: “We haven't heard from them (BCCI) even once post the July 18 judgment that they want to discuss the tender process. We only keep hearing they want to meet, they want to meet. We are more than willing to hear them out if they decide to come to us for a discussion.“
Meanwhile, sources also spelt out clear guidelines on the process the LOdha committee would want the BCCI to follow before coming out with an Invitation To Tender (ITT). “They (committee) are curious to know what exactly is BCCI's policy?“
DESIRED CHANGES
These are basic guidelines the Lodha Committee expects BCCI to follow before the two parties meet to chalk out the way forward.
As per the timeline given to the BCCI, they have to first draw up a policy in terms of transparency.
Next, whatever tender or contract they come out with, they have to comply with that policy at all times. So the first step is to have a policy in place.The awarding of IPL rights has already been delayed and the delay could only be because the board is yet to draw up the policy on the way forward.
The ideal thing would be to have a third party looking at it.
Most importantly, a pre-qualification criteria needs to be laid down somewhat on the following lines: A) Company should have been in the business of sports broadcast for certain number of years (whatever the policy stipulates); B) there should be an objective quality assessment of those eligible to take part in the bid; C) what is the body of work that the potential bidder brings to the table and what's the specific revenue stream that allows him to pour money into this new business.
Once these boxes are tick marked in the pre-qualification bid, BCCI should move into the bid stage one being technical and the other being financial.
Between these two bid stages, financial is the second and last one. It is the technical bid that first needs to be ascertained, and the BCCI needs to bear in mind if the bidding party has the necessary wherewithal to take this forward.
If two parties are shortlisted after the technical bid assuming they have met the full criteria, then the financial bid needs to be opened.
“Lodha committee `unconstitutional, illegal'”:Katju
The Times of India, Aug 08 2016
Arani Basu & Indranil Basu Roped in by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to advise the on matters relating to the implementation of Lodha committee's recommendations, former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju came down heavily on the SC-appointed panel and dubbed it `unconstitutional and illegal'.
Katju, who has also been empowered by the BCCI to interact with Lodha committee, advised the board mandarins to file a review petition in the apex court and not hold any parleys with the panel members before that.
Katju handed over a 43-page interim report to the BCCI on the legality of the SC verdict to implement Lodha's recommendations within six months and said: “I recommend that they (BCCI president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke) should not meet Lodha's team. The BCCI should file a review petition first before a larger bench of judges. The court can't outsource legislative and punishing powers to a committee. That's why the Lodha committee is illegal under our constitution.“
The Lodha committee had summoned Thakur and Shirke for a meeting on Tuesday to discuss the implementation process of the sweeping reforms it has suggested. Shirke, however, refrained from commenting on BCCI's. “We will go through the report (Katju's) and take a call after that,“ Shirke said.
A source close to the Lodha Committee said if Thakur and Shirke did not turn up for the meeting, the panel would be left with no option but to move the Supreme Court seeking a contempt of court notice against them and their re moval as BCCI president and secretary . An interim committee could be appointed to run BCCI till fresh elections are held.
“We understand that BCCI is in a transition phase. The board members also have all the rights to explore all their legal means not to implement the reform. But the panel is firm on implementing all the suggestions -which are at par with the SC's wish,“ the source told TOI.
In his report, Katju has observed that the SC order is legislative in nature. “The Supreme Court could have forwarded Lodha committee's recommendations to the Parliament with their own recommendation -that the recommendations be enacted by Parliament. But to itself direct the recommendations be implemented is clearly a legislative act and not within the court's domain,“ he wrote.
BCCI's defence against implementation of Lodha panel's suggestions has been the fact that the board is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The 69-year-old former SC judge also said that it will be illegal to implement any of the recommendations till the existing Act is amended. “How can Lodha or the Supreme Court amend an Act? That is violation of judicial discipline,“ Katju asserted while adding, “If there are problems with the Societies Act, then it has to be brought to the Registrar of Societies notice and then there can be an amendment. By forcing the BCCI to toe their line, the Lodha panel is violating 36 (1) of the Act.“
Katju, however, did concede that the BCCI needed certain reforms. “We all want cricket to be clean. The BCCI too needs reforms but not at the expense of law. This doesn't mean you shelve the laws of the country and constitution.“
The Supreme Court and BCCI
2017, Jan: SC orders overhaul of BCCI
BCCI boss didn't ensure compliance, says SC, Jan 3, 2017: The Times of India
Court May Act Against Thakur For Contempt
The Supreme Co urt virtually purged India's cricket administration on Monday, declaring Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president Anurag Thakur “unfit“ to head the body for resisting court-orde red reforms. It decided to appoint a committee to oversee the board's functions.
Though not sacked, Thakur was rendered powerless, as was BCCI secretary Ajay Shirke, with the SC passing a “cease and desist“ order against both. The SC also inched towards acting on its “apologise or go to jail“ threat by initia ting contempt of court proceedings against Thakur.
Ordering an overhaul of BCCI, the court decided to appoint a committee of administrators and requested senior advocates Fali S Nariman, amicus curiae Gopal Subramaniam, BCCI and petitioners, including Cricket Association of Bihar, “to suggest names of persons with integrity and experience in managing a similar enterprise“ who would take over BCCI's management.
Till the management is taken over by administrators, BCCI's affairs would be carried out by the senior-most vice-president of the board, the court ordered. All state boards and office bearers who are in violation of SC orders will be removed as the court asserted that “the turf of the cricket field is not a personal turf or fiefdom“. Qualified office-bearers must give an undertaking that they will implement reforms. A bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud held that Anurag Thakur has “rendered himself unfit“ to continue as BCCI chief by his conduct and actions. It passed a “cease and desist“ order against Thakur and BCCI secretary Ajay Shirke, ousting them from the affairs of the management and functioning of the world's richest cricket body .
The bench initiated criminal contempt proceedings as well as perjury (lying to court on oath) against Thakur for misleading the court and obstructing implementation of its order. The court said Thakur was prima facie guilty of misleading the court by making false statements and obstructing implementation of its July 18 judgment.
In the July judgment, the court had ordered implementation of all recommendations of Justice R M Lodha committee, including ban on ministers and bureaucrats from becoming members of the governing body of the board and setting an age limit of 70 years for office-bearers.It had also disqualified a member of BCCI or state association if he held posts in any other sports administration body . The court had also enforced `one-state-one-vote' rule.
Riled by the continuous dillydallying by BCCI and its office bearers on implementation of the reforms directed by the SC, the bench said: “Thakur's own version is that he has been rendered totally incapable and without any authority to compel the members to comply with the orders of this court. This is in dicative of his having washed his hands of a duty and obligation to ensure compliance.“
“Anurag Thakur, president of BCCI and Ajay Shirke, secretary, BCCI shall forthwith cease and desist from being associated with the working of BCCI. A notice to show cause shall issue to Anurag Thakur to explain why he should not be proceeded against under the provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 of criminal procedure code (perjury). A notice to show cause shall issue to Thakur to explain why he should not be proceeded with under the contempt of courts,“ it said. The court posted further hearing in the matter for January 19.
The writing was on the wall for the BCCI chief on Dec 15 when the apex court minced no words in castigating him. The bench had asked Thakur's counsel Kapil Sibal to ask his client to “either apologise or be ready to face criminal proceedings“. Standing in defiance, Thakur chose not to apologise, leaving the SC with no option but to initiate contempt proceedings.
The court said BCCI and Thakur had tried to evade compliance with its order on cricket reform by seeking a letter from ICC chief Shashanak Manohar to oppose its order to appoint a CAG nominee on the board to keep an eye on BCCI's financial transactions. The court also removed office bearers in BCCI and state boards who are now rendered ineligible.
An office bearer shall be disqualified if he has attained 70 years or is a minister or government servant or has been holding post for a cumulative period of nine years or holds post in other sports body .
2017: CoA’s Status Report
Indranil Basu, CoA to SC: Remove BCCI office-bearers, August 17, 2017: The Times of India
See graphics:
Perquisites and allowances paid, 2015-17
Key points of status report
Incumbent Board Officials Stonewalling Efforts To Implement Lodha Reforms, Says Status Report
The Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) , tasked with ensuring the implementation of the Lodha committee's reforms, has requested the apex court to remove the current office bearers of BCCI acting president CK Khanna, acting secretary Amitabh Choudhary and treasurer Anirudh Chaudhary from their posts for having failed to follow the orders of the court.
In its fifth status report submitted to the court on Wednesday , the Vinod Rai-led committee requested the court to let it take over the governance, management and administration of BCCI as they are “unfit to continue and ought to be removed“ till fresh office bearers are elected under the new constitution.
The CoA asked for the court's go-ahead for drafting the new constitution of the BCCI and also a new funds disbursal policy to end misuse of money by some state units of BCCI.
In the report, the CoA said that BCCI office bearers have failed to ensure the implementation of the Lodha reforms in the last six months, and hence should be removed like former president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke were for failing to comply with the court's orders.
“The CoA submits that since the then president and secretary of BCCI had been removed because the board failed to implement the reforms mandated by the judgment despite a period of six months having elapsed, it is only fair that the current office-bearers be treated in the same manner because a further period of six months have elapsed since the said office-bearers submitted their undertakings and the reforms mandated by this Hon'ble Court have still not been implemented.
“It is clear that the current office bearers are not in a position to make good on their undertakings and ensure that the reforms mandated by this court are implemented,“ CoA wrote in its report.
In the 26-page report (with 176 annexures), the CoA also requested for court-appointed administrators to oversee the elections of each state unit.
When TOI tried to reach out to the BCCI office-bearers, none of them were available for comment. “The matter is in the court. Let us wait for the August 18 hearing,“ a source close to an office-bearer said.
The CoA has cited several anecdotes from the board's July 26 SGM, saying it was “totally contrary“ to the recommendations of the Lodha reforms.It also highlighted how BCCI CEO Rahul Johri was illegally barred from attending the SGM. The COA has written that the Supreme Court's July 24 order was “deliberately misconstrued“ during the SGM, where office-bearers asked Johri, the administrative staff and the legal team to leave the meeting.
“First, the CEO of BCCI as “First, the CEO of BCCI as well as the administrative staff including the legal team were asked to leave the meeting on the basis that they are not office bearers. Secondly , the totally neutral expression `etc' (mentioned in the SC order of July 24) was treated as an excuse to bring in a series of issues aimed at unravelling the fundamental core of the reforms mandated by this Hon'ble Court, including disqualification of office bearers, constitution of apex council, clear demarcation of functions, powers, duties and obligations between professional management and Apex Council,“ the report stated.
“It appears that the intention was to ensure that the Committee of Administrators would not receive a firsthand account of the proceedings during the SGM and hence the CEO of BCCI and other administrative staff including the legal team were asked to leave the meeting,“ the report said.
The report quoted from TOI's interview of Justice Lodha, where the former Chief Justice had said that the BCCI officials, by rejecting key five reforms in their July 26 SGM, had taken the “heart, lungs and kidneys“ out of these reforms.
The report pointed out that the BCCI office-bearers are spending huge amount of money for attending meetings in Mumbai where the BCCI head office is located. It said that the board was incurring huge expenses when professional managers are supposed to run the management of the game.
The CoA released a list of expenses incurred on the board's office bearers the amount runs into several lakhs (see box). TOI had reported on Wednesday how the officebearers' perks could be affected if the Lodha reforms are implemented.
The COA also blamed the board officials for not looking into basic issues like `conflict of interest' and the appointment of an ombudsman. CoA says it tried to bring in transparency but its efforts were “stonewalled by state associations“.
2018: some BCCI powers restored, one state-one vote abolished
Dhananjay Mahapatra, SC scratches one state, one vote, August 10, 2018: The Times of India
But Accepts Most Clauses, Tweaks Some Others While Ordering BCCI To Adopt Constitution In 4 Weeks
The Supreme Court restored crucial aspects of the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s functioning by junking Lodha committee reforms like the one state-one vote rule and relaxing the cooling off period for officials while finalising the board’s governance code.
The court recognised the validity of BCCI’s traditional structure and the cricketing legacy of associations like Vidarbha and Mumbai in Maharashtra and Baroda and Saurashtra in Gujarat and reinstated these entities as full members of the board with voting rights. The one state-one vote rule had extinguished their representation while giving voting rights to states with feeble cricketing presence, raising fears of proxy or dummy voting. The SC also increased the number of selectors from three to five while the relaxation in the cooling off period is expected to help the BCCI and state boards function smoothly. Restriction in the composition of the selection committee had led to a situation where persons with limited experience were found to be eligible and made it to the committee.
Two years after accepting the Lodha panel’s recommendations, the SC ordered that the finalised constitution be registered in four weeks under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1976, and asked member associations to ensure conformity of their constitutions with the BCCI’s and register them in 30 days, clearing the way for elections under the Committee of Administrators’ supervision.
Fresh elections to BCCI would see a whole new crop taking the reins of the richest cricket board in the world as the SC denied any role to ministers, bureaucrats, holders of public office (MPs and MLAs), office-bearers of other sports or athletic associations and those against whom charges have been framed in any criminal offence.
The SC also retained Lodha panel recommendation on age cap of 70 years for members. But other than that, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud made significant changes, including grant of full membership to three associations each from Maharashtra and Gujarat as also to Railways, Services and Association of Indian Universities.
Discarding its earlier proposal of rotating membership among multiple associations from these states, which historically had full membership, Justice Chandrachud while writing the judgment for the bench said, “To utilise territoriality as a basis for exclusion is problematic because it ignores history and the contribution made by the associations for development of cricket and its popularity.
“Having due regard to the contributions made by Mumbai and Vidarbha in the state of Maharashtra and by Baroda and Saurashtra in state of Gujarat to the game of cricket, it would be appropriate to also grant them full membership of the BCCI. We, however, maintain the decision not to grant full membership to National Cricket Club and Cricket Club of India. Neither of the two clubs field teams in the Ranji Trophy. They cannot be placed at par with other state associations.”
For Railways, Services and Association of Universities, the SC said they will be represented by a former cricketer as member in BCCI. They would be chosen former players of each of these organisations and not nominated either by government or their sports promotion boards.
On cooling off period, Lodha panel had recommended an officebearer would enjoy a three-year tenure with a cap of three terms. But there will be a mandatory cooling off period after each term both in BCCI and state associations. The cooling off period will now apply after two consecutive terms, that is six years. The officebearer will be eligible to contest for one last term after completely disassociating from cricket management, both in BCCI and state association, for three years.
The provision on cooling off period reads, “An office-bearer who has already held any post for two consecutive terms either in a state association or in the BCCI (or a combination of both) shall not be eligible to contest any further election without completing a cooling off period of three years. During the cooling off period, such an office-bearer shall not be a member of the governing council or of any committee whatsoever of the BCCI or of a state association.”
The verdict: key points
Dhananjay Mahapatra, SC scratches one state, one vote, August 10, 2018: The Times of India
The Supreme Court approved the new BCCI constitution but some key recommendations of the Lodha committee were either diluted or significantly altered.
ONE STATE ONE VOTE
Original recommendation: Every state should have one vote only. Membership should be split into two types, Full and Associate, with the latter denied voting rights.
Implication: In states with multiple but important BCCI members — like Maharashtra and Gujarat — voting rights would have rotated on an annual basis. Also, key members like Railways, Services, NCC (Kolkata) and CCI (Mumbai) would have no voting rights.
What SC approved: Restoration of Full Membership, with voting rights, to all state cricket associations in Mumbai, Maharashtra, Vidarbha, Saurashtra, Baroda and Gujarat. Likewise for Railways, Services and All-India Universities. No membership to CCI (Mumbai) and NCC (Kolkata) since they don’t field teams.
What SC said: “To utilise territoriality as a basis of exclusion is problematic because it ignores history and the contributions made by the above associations to the development of cricket.”
COOLING-OFF PERIOD
Original recommendation: Office bearers should serve one term of three years either at BCCI or state level, followed by a 3-year cooling off period. A maximum of three such terms (totalling 9 years) should be allowed.
Implication: Intended to prevent the formation of hegemonies within BCCI.
What SC approved: Three-year cooling off period approved, but only after administrators serve a cumulative term of 6 years — 2 consecutive terms of three years each — at state or BCCI. An administrator can serve a total of 9 years.
What SC said: “Cooling off must be accepted as a means to prevent a few individuals from regarding the administration of cricket as a personal turf. The game will be better off without cricketing oligopolies.”
SELECTION COMMITTEES
Original recommendation: Threemember panel at junior and senior level for men.
Implication: Compact selection panels would coordinate with a cricket talent committee, which would scout talent, thereby reducing selectors’ burden.
What SC approved: All selection panels to have 5 people.
What SC said: “Increasing strength of selection panels…will help selectors evaluate carefully the talent pool across the country across various age-groups.”
Justice Lodha disappointed
‘Disappointed that recommendations have been diluted’, August 10, 2018: The Times of India
“They were core recommendations. Very significant points which really wanted to bring a lot of independence in the working of BCCI and usher in accountability and transparency. It was also about maintaining balance of power among the members,” lamented Justice (retd) RM Lodha on the dilution of his committee’s recommendations.
“So all the ills which we wanted to eradicate by recommending these reforms, they have been diluted. It was a full package of reforms and it was intended to give a very strong administrative and governance structure to the BCCI. If you pull out a few important bricks from that strong structure, it is bound to affect its strength and that is what has happened,” Justice Lodha told TOI.
Lodha said it was sad to see the government getting into BCCI through the back door. “We just wanted to ensure that the government doesn’t have any role in these autonomous bodies – the autonomy of the BCCI. Now these three – Railways, Services and Universities –will have votes and that will make a huge difference in the BCCI affairs. Whenever there is a tight contest these votes may tilt the balance. This could lead to a lot of manoeuvring, manipulation and machinations,” he said. Lodha said that they wanted to end monopoly in the BCCI. “The very idea of actually breaking the monopoly of these office-bearers is now weakened because for two consecutive terms these officebearers can now contest.”
“Thirdly, one state-one vote. The idea was to keep all the states at par. With these two Western states, Maharashtra and Gujarat, having six votes the entire election will have a different colour. They will have a dominate role to play with six votes as they will have a lot of bargaining power,” he said.
Justice Lodha said it was a very disappointing day for him. “I don’t feel betrayed but am disappointed as we had put in so much of work and labour and the Supreme Court had accepted the recommendations on July 18, 2016. As a judge and man of law, I am more interested in knowing what legal principles have been actually applied by the Supreme Court in changing its own order which had a finality to it.”
“I am figuring out the legal principles which have been applied by the Supreme Court in modifying the final order which was passed on 18th July,” he said.
I don’t feel betrayed but am disappointed as we had put in so much of work and labour and the Supreme Court had accepted the recommendations. As a judge and man of law, I am more interested in knowing what legal principles have been actually applied by the Supreme Court in changing its own order which had a finality to it.”
—Justice (RETD) RM LODHA
Issues with the International Cricket Council (ICC)
2017/ Denying India its rights from revenue
In its gripe that the International Cricket Council (ICC), led by independent chairman Shashank Manohar, is denying India its rights from revenue and governance perspective, the BCCI old guard is aghast at a particular remark that was made ahead of the governing body's Board meeting in Dubai in February 2017.
A paragraph in the ICC proposal to Member Boards sent out ahead of the Board meeting categorically states: “There is no scientific formula or technical analysis behind the % distribution allocations that are being proposed. Instead, it is a good faith attempt by the working group to try and allocate in a simple manner what it considers to be a reasonable and fair % distribution of ICC's surplus“.
The Indian cricket board is crying foul and their logic states: “There was a scientific formula to the 2014 model.It stated that India, England and Australia would earn maximum revenue based on the logic that they brought maximum revenue to the ICC“.
The ICC proposal further states that “this model is not intended to represent an indefinite model and is rather only to be viewed as a tempo rary solution until the end of the 2015-23 rights cycle“.
If the model is a temporary solution, India's question is still left unheard. “What is the hurry and logic in stating that Zimbabwe or Afghanistan should earn the same as India? The ICC itself is admitting that there's no scientific formula to this,“ says an old guard. The 2014 theoretical model's eight-year projections from 2016-23 states that from a projected revenue of US$2.5b, $800m would go towards contribution costs, $550m towards event expenses, $250m for central expenses and $70 towards cricket fund. From the net surplus of 830m, constitutional share of US$623m would go to the full members and $208m to associate members.
The 2014 reality model (see box) is based on the 2016 model wherein the event expenses and central expenses have been factored in as per 2016.
However, the 2017 Board meeting, which projects total revenue of US$2.7b for the same cycle has done away with the contribution costs.While US$600m has been reserved for event costs, $300m for central expenses, $40m as contingency funds and $25m have gone towards reserves, the ICC has also proposed to do away with the cricket fund.
And therefore, the net surplus the governing body's been able to show now of US$1.735b is higher than the 2014 model from which full members stand to gain $1.535b while associate members get $200m.
The math goes like this.Earlier, the % distribution of the ICC was made on revenue, now it is made on surplus. So, if the ICC earned Rs 100 according to the 2014 model, BCCI would earn Rs 20.3 on revenue but close to Rs 33.5 if calculated on surplus. The proposed 2017 model works out very differently , which is precisely BCCI's grouse.
2018/ ICC India Must Compensate For Taxes of 2016 World T20
K ShriniwasRao, ‘Pay $23m or lose 2023 WC’, December 22, 2018: The Times of India
ICC Reminder: India Must Compensate For Taxes Incurred During 2016 World T20
The International Cricket Council (ICC) has put the proverbial gun to the head of the Indian cricket board, asking it to cough up US$23m (roughly Rs 160 cr) before December 31 to compensate for the tax deductions incurred in hosting the 2016 World T20 in India.
The game’s global governing body, which is headed by former BCCI president Shashank Manohar, expects BCCI to compensate them for the tax deductions when India hosted the tournament two years ago and did not get a waiver from the central or state ministry. BCCI has been reminded of this demand, mentioned in the minutes of ICC’s board meeting in Singapore in October.
The Indian board, now governed by the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators, has less than 10 days left to comply with the ICC’s demand. The international body has threatened that should BCCI fail to do the needful, it will deduct that amount from India’s revenue share for current financial year.
The ICC has also threatened that should India fail to comply, the governing body will look at “other options” to host the 2021 Champions Trophy and the 2023 50-over World Cup, which are scheduled to be played in India.
Star TV, the official broadcast rights holder of all ICC tournaments, had deducted all taxes before paying the global body for the World T20 played in 2016, and the latter now wants the BCCI to compensate for it.
The BCCI, in turn, has asked the ICC to share the minutes of any meeting where it is recorded that India had agreed to tax waiver. “The ICC hasn’t provided any minutes to the BCCI yet,” sources in the know told TOI.
The BCCI was headed by former president N Srinivasan then and at no point, say those in the know, did the Chennai-based administrator tell the ICC that BCCI would compensate them for tax deductions should they not receive a waiver from the government.
“And now, the ICC is shying away from sharing any minutes because they don’t have any. They just want to recover that money from India,” sources said. There are indications that this bickering over tax-related matters is only an extension of the acrimony that ICC’s present independent chairman and Srinivasan have shared over a period of time. “Time and again, Shashank has targeted BCCI for his own personal agenda,” say members.
The board, nevertheless, is convinced that should ICC fail to share the minutes, no payment will be made and should the ICC deduct the money from India’s revenue, legal recourse will be sought. “It’s become fashionable to blame BCCI,” said a board member.
“Biting the hand that feeds, eh? Is that what it has come down to? A sports body that has economic value primarily because it feeds on India’s commercial stake in the game is telling India that it cannot host a World Cup? And that too with an Indian heading that organisation right now? What a joke,” said a senior BCCI member.
The bickering brings to light ICC’s weak tax policies when scheduling tournaments.
2018/ ICC orders PCB to pay 60 per cent of cost claimed by BCCI
December 19, 2018: The Times of India
The ICC's Dispute Resolution Panel ordered Pakistan to pay 60 per cent of the cost demanded by the BCCI after the world body's rejection of the PCB's compensation claim which blamed India for lack of bilateral series between the two nations.
Nearly a month after rejecting the Pakistan Cricket Board's (PCB) compensation claim against India for allegedly failing to honour a Memorandum of Understanding on bilateral cricket, the ICC announced the costs award for the two Boards.
"...the Panel orders the PCB to pay the BCCI sixty percent (60%) of: (a) the Claimed Costs; and (b) the administrative costs and expenses of the Panel...," the ICC committee said in its fresh judgement, which is binding.
The BCCI, on the other hand, has been asked to pay 40 per cent of the administrative costs and expenses of the DRC. The judgement did not specify the exact amount that was claimed by the Indian Board.
The PCB had demanded Rs 447 crore compensation after alleging that the BCCI didn't honour the MoU that required India to play six bilateral series between 2015 and 2023.
The BCCI, on its part, maintained that the alleged MoU was not binding and did not stand as Pakistan failed to honour a commitment to support the revenue model suggested by India for the ICC.
The ICC then constituted a three-member Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) to look into the PCB's compensation claim. The hearing took place at the world body's headquarters here from October 1-3.
"For the BCCI, the victor in the arbitration, to be deprived of all its costs would appear to the Panel to be inappropriate, where the BCCI too had disputed the claim in good faith," the ICC panel stated.
The BCCI had demanded that the PCB "pay the full amount" of its legal costs and the costs of arbitral proceedings including any administrative fees of the ICC, and the fees of the panel, among other expenses.
The PCB, on its part, argued that BCCI's claims are no more than "incomplete summaries". However, the panel rejected the PCB's assertion that there should be no order on costs at all.
The panel observed that since it had rejected the PCB's claims for compensation, costs award had to be decided as well.
"However, for the BCCI to be granted all of its costs would also be inappropriate...," the panel noted and cited the letter that the Board had given the PCB which spoke of bilateral cricket between the two countries and which was the basis of Pakistan's claim.
The ICC committee felt that the BCCI could have made it clear to the PCB at the very outset that the letter was merely a declaration of intent and not the MoU that Pakistan perceived it to be.
"Such misapprehension - indeed these proceedings - would have been avoided if the BCCI, who proposed the letter, had - as it could so easily have done - made clear that it was only a declaration of intent," the DRC stated.
Finances
Financial obligations, as in Dec 2017
The Indian Premier League(IPL) has madetheBCCIextremely rich over thelast10 years, but itis alsofastbecoming the reason for theboard to be potentially looking at a cash outflow of nothing less than Rs 4900 crore going forward, which is a little in excessof US$750m.
Here’s a break-up of the kind of payments that BCCI could be looking to pay in the near future: Rs 2420 crore: All cases related to the Enforcement Directorate(with regardstothe 2009 IPL in South Africa); Rs1250 crore: Other legal cases and settlements including Kochi Tuskers; Rs 540 crore: Income Tax; Rs 600 crore: Service Tax; Rs 90 crore: SalesTax / MVAT; Rs 52.54 crore: Fine slapped by the Competitions Commission of India.
The above break-up does not include the potential penalty that could be levied on individuals with regards tothecases pending withtheEnforcement Directorate. That aside, the Supreme Court of India last week appointed former Justice SN Variava as the arbitrator between BCCI and terminated IPL franchise Sahara Pune Warriors. Former SC judge RV Raveendran was the arbitrator earlier but had to recuse himself from the case after being appointed on the threemember panel comprising the JusticeRMLodha Committee.
The arbitration involving Sahara will begin even as the board is busy with another franchise-related arbitration with sacked Deccan Chargers. Those in the know of things say “all these arbitrations won’t be making lives easy for those who run the affairs of thecricketboard”.
At present it is the SC-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) which is running BCCI and thosekeeping an eye on their daily operations say: “If CoA wants to look into matters like Future Tours Program (FTP) and player salaries – which is not their brief – then they should also be looking intothese matters.”
It is ironical that these payments are all related to a property that has become theenvy of worldcricketover the last 10 years. “Whose money is it anyway? For once CoA and BCCI members can agree on one thing: This is not a very pretty picture,” say thosein theknowof things.
In September 2017, Star India Pvt Ltdboughtthe media rightstothe IPLfor a massive Rs16,347crore. With the revenue model of the IPL set to change from 2018 onwards, the money committed by Star, along with other revenues generated from the Central Pool, will be divided between BCCI and the franchises at a 50:50 sharing ratioover the next five years.
Terms, conditions, rules, obligations
Players not paid according to agreed formula
Is the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) short-changing Indian cricketers on their share of earnings from broadcast rights? Players are eligible to receive 26% of BCCI's gross revenue from broadcast rights.But in reality, the Supreme Court-appointed committee of administrators has discovered, Indian cricketers get just about 8% of BCCI's gross revenue as salaries and bonuses.
The 26% revenue-sharing formula was cleared by a resolution passed by the BCCI general body in 2001, which was finally put into place in 2004 by BCCI president Jagmohan Dalmiya after prolonged discussions with senior players led by Anil Kumble and Rahul Dravid. This 26% is meant to be split three ways -13% for international players, 10.6% for domestic players and the rest for women and juniors.
However, sources told TOI that BCCI gives 70% of its gross revenue to state associations. It pays the players 26% of the remaining 30% of gross revenue. The amount left over is used for stadium construction, infrastructure maintenance and running the board administration. When TOI tried to contact BCCI secretary Amitabh Choudhary , he wasn't available for comment.
Revenue from IPL is not part of the gross revenue from which the players' share is calculated. It, too, is distributed to state associations. The Supreme Court-appointed committee of administrators has found that the players are paid a meagre percentage of earnings from sponsorship rights and for participating in ICC events. “The CoA has been trying to change the formula for a long time to give players more, but the members are not willing.The cricketers are making a small share. The bigger problem is that the board members who are spending the 70% are unwilling to share details with the CoA.Whenever the CoA points fingers at them, they keep saying that it their money,“ a top source told.
BCCI is meant to deduct only the production cost to arrive at its gross revenue, and the players are meant to get a share of that figure.But the board subtracts 70% -after deducting the production cost -and this considerably lowers the “gross revenue“ of which the players are to get 26%.
The income from media rights has risen sharply over the years but the cricketers haven't gained in proportion. As coach of the Indian team, Kumble tried to regularise the formula, which apparently didn't go down well with the BCCI general body.
A top source revealed that the CoA's hands are tied because the decision to dole out cricketers' salaries from the gross revenue is a general body decision and, till a BCCI special general meeting doesn't take a call, this discrepancy cannot be rectified. Further, till an SGM decides the payment structure, the annual contracts of players, selectors, coaches and support staff -which are renewed during the annual general body meeting -cannot be looked at, the source said.The Indian team's contracts ran out on September 30 this year. Right now, the men in blue are playing without contracts.
When TOI reached out to top board officials, they agreed that players weren't being paid as per the formula defined by the BCCI general body resolution. But they argued that a player like Virat Koh li can earn nearly Rs 200 crore per year from BCCI, the IPL and endorsement contracts. However, of the 100-odd Indian cricketers in the IPL, only 15 to 20 are in the crorepati club; most fall in the Rs 10 lakh and Rs 20 lakh categories.
“If cricketers are paid as per the original ratio, they could be banned from doing personal endorsements, like the Australian cricketers. If today the top cricketers are making between Rs 100 crore and Rs 150 crore per year through endorsements, it is because there is no restriction from BCCI,“ a top board official said, adding that the state bodies would not agree to give India's cricketers more money .
Sources said the current BCCI regime has again worked out the same ratio (26% of 30%) for cricketers this year, which is yet to be cleared formally by the BCCI finance committee. But the CoA isn't on the same page with board officials. According to sources, the CoA wants a formal adoption of a new “Fund Disbursement Policy“ that will take care of cricketers' demands for pay hikes.
Year-wise statistics
2019
SC ends CoA era in BCCI as Team Sourav takes over
Dhananjay Mahapatra, Oct 23, 2019: The Times of India
The Supreme Court signalled the end of its six-year-long monitoring of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), clearing the way for elected office-bearers to once again run the affairs of the influential board.
A bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao asked the Committee of Administrators (CoA), which was put in place by the SC in 2017 to run BCCI and implement reforms suggested by the Justice R M Lodha panel, to demit office after board members, chosen through elections on Wednesday, take charge. Former India captain Sourav Ganguly has already been elected the BCCI president unopposed.
The SC’s intervention, which eventually resulted in cricket’s administrators losing control of one of the richest sports bodies in the world, started in 2013, after the Indian Premier League (IPL) got mired in spot-fixing and betting allegations which led to massive outrage.
Importantly, the bench provided a shield to CoA members Vinod Rai, Lt Gen (retired) Ravi Thogade and former cricketer Diana Edulji, as well as officers who carried out the committee’s orders, from litigation.
The office bearers
Oct 15, 2019: The Times of India
NEW DELHI: The reins of the most powerful and richest cricket board in the world, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will now be in the hands of a new team, headed by former Indian captain Sourav Ganguly, who will be taking charge on October 23.
Here's a brief look at the new top team of the BCCI and the men who are likely to rule Indian cricket in the near future:
Sourav Ganguly (President)
One of the most successful captains in Indian cricket history, Ganguly retired from international cricket in 2008 having accumulated 7,212 Test runs and 11363 ODI runs. He scored a total of 38 international centuries. In 2009, Ganguly became a working committee member of the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB). 2014 saw Ganguly becoming the CAB joint secretary. In 2015 he took over as CAB President after the death of Jagmohan Dalmiya. And next year, the former Indian captain became the CAB president. Last month, Ganguly was re-elected president of the Cricket Association of Bengal, unopposed. Having been very close to the late Jagmohan Dalmiya, perhaps BCCI's most enigmatic former boss, Ganguly knows how to walk that path.
Jay Shah (Secretary)
Son of India's Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Jay Shah will be the next BCCI Secretary. Jay is a qualified engineer, having completed his B. Tech from the Nirma University in Ahmedabad. Jay was said to be a decent batsman and used to train under Gujarat coach Jayendra Sehgal. He became an executive member of the Gujarat Cricket Association (GCA) in 2009 and was elected as the joint secretary of GCA in 2013. In the words of former Indian Premier League (IPL) chairman Rajeev Shukla, "Jay Shah has contributed a lot in BCCI for nine years, he has been attending the BCCI meetings, and he is building the biggest stadium of the country in Ahmedabad."
Jayesh George (Joint Secretary)
Kerala Cricket Association (KCA) president Jayesh George is all set to become the new BCCI joint secretary. The 50-year-old filed his nomination on Monday. Former Indian captain and newly-elected president of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) Mohammad Azharuddin proposed George's name for the joint-secretary's post and Brijesh Patel, who was also initially in the race for the post of BCCI President seconded it, in an effort to show that there was general acceptance amongst the board members over his name. However, Jayesh will be able to continue in his new post and in the BCCI apex council for 10 months only as he will have to go into a mandatory three-year cooling-off period after that as per the new BCCI constitution. Before assuming charge as joint-secretary of BCCI, Jayesh will have to also relinquish his position as KCA president.
Arun Singh Dhumal (Treasurer)
Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association's Arun Singh Dhumal has filed his nomination for the post of BCCI treasurer. Dhumal is the younger brother of MoS Finance and former BCCI president Anurag Thakur. Dhumal was elected president of the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) unopposed, during its Annual General Meeting (AGM) in September. There was no opposition against the Dhumal-led panel. Former Himachal CM Prem Kumar Dhumal's younger son will have to relinquish his state body's position now. In the words of former IPL chairman Rajeev Shukla, "Arun Singh Dhumal who is most likely to be the BCCI treasurer has also built the Dharamshala stadium, has got vast experience of the state association, and has been attending the BCCI meetings also.”
