( BCCIs threat of parallel body laughable - Mani ) Former ICC President Ehsan Mani said: I am talking from personal experience, when I was ICC president, when a country threatened not to take part in ICC events. And all I did was to speak to other Full Members, and that included countries like England Australia, Pakistan and West Indies at that time, and they made it clear to this country that was making threats that they would only work within the ICC and would not break ranks with the ICC. And once this country got that message, it realised its threat was absolutely hollow. They [the ECB and CA] should have just stopped and thought about what is in the best interest of the game, instead of panicking which they clearly did - and started trying to compromise the organisation. What they have done is terrible for the governance of world cricket by their very actions… This should not have been rushed through, this should have been done pragmatically, looking at the pros and cons. In the very least, the BCCI would have been asked to put its proposals in writing and say fine, well look at it, well have it analysed, and come back to you. But to actually then delegate England and Australia to talk to the BCCI, they started looking after their own interests. If you take out the foreign players from the IPL, it wouldnt be that attractive, it would just be a national tournament being played in India. Its the foreign players that make the difference and what the cricket boards dont appreciate is that without their players or their former players, it [the IPL] wouldnt be as attractive for people to come and watch. People tend to sometimes overlook the values that they bring to an event or a party as it were. And I think that is what happened in this case, particularly with England and Australia, since they are ones who call themselves the so-called part of the Big Three. Who produces the players? It is the cricket boards, right? They have contracts with their players, so the current players would have found it difficult to break their contracts. Yes the BCCI might have attracted a few players but, on the other hand, other countries would have had their players on contracts. But there would have been big litigations for breach of contract, they would have got stay orders against all their players who would try to come out of existing contracts. The BCCI would have been liable for huge amount of damages for inducements to break contracts. I dont think the Indian public opinion backs the BCCI in these things. What the India public wants is yes, for India to do well. It is a great nation, it produces a lot of income for world cricket, but it doesnt give the BCCI the ownership of that income of world cricket, which is what they have tried to do now. Mr Patel said somewhere that they came up with the figure of 72% and the ICC came back and said 68%. To my knowledge, this is absolutely not correct, They were told by India, Australia, England that they [the figures] were not up for discussion, you take it or leave it. So these are figures that maybe these three countries have come up with. It is not the other way around. And my big issue with the BCCI is that the BCCI does not own the proprietary rights to the Indian economy. Whats that got to do with the BCCI? Nothing. Whereas I absolutely acknowledge that India produces a huge revenue for world cricket, it is not the BCCIs money. (Had the BCCIs bluff been called, its own revenues would have reduced considerably) by 70 to 80% because no one would like to see India playing Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and New Zealand day in and day out. It would be worth nothing, the television channels and broadcasters want high-profile teams, teams that play good cricket to play against India. Its a two-way thing, its not a one-way thing. (Rmra)
Posted on: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:15:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015