Revision as of 21:14, 11 September 2016

The BCCI as in November 2015: Its officials, its decisions; Graphic courtesy: The Times of India, November 10, 2015

Mudgal report

Srini knew of code breach, IPL COO of betting, both kept mum: Mudgal

Mudgal report

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.

BCCI is subject to judicial review

The Times of India

The N Srinivasan case:2013-15

The N Srinivasan case:2013-15

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.”

Lodha Committee’s recommendations: 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.