Jump to content

BCCI vs PCB at the ICC Disputes Resolution Committee, Is the decision fixed to screw BCCI?


Recommended Posts

 

From October 1st Bcci and PCB will put in their arguments over the $70mn compensation claim by PCB.

 

BCCI has hired law firm Herbert Smith Freehills and Ian Mills as their lawyers.

 

PCB has hired law firm Clifford Chance.

 

Veteran Bcci members are aghast at the CoA for allowing ICC to intervene in Bcci matters.

 

The matter will be heard between Oct 1 to Oct 3.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Link to comment

“India have done nothing wrong to appear in a judicial hearing and that too summoned by the ICC. India and Pakistan is a bilateral matter; what business has ICC to do with it? ICC cannot compel us to play and any pressure (on BCCI) can lead to an international crisis,” said Thakur.

Saying “India should not pay a penny to Pakistan,” Thakur, a BJP MP, said: “Let Pakistan stop terror and then we can think about playing cricket.”

Link to comment

Former Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) presidents N Srinivasan and Anurag Thakur have refused to attend the International Cricket Committee’s hearing on Pakistan Cricket Board’s $70 million (roughly R500 crore) claim for India twice refusing to play a bilateral series against their arch-rivals. The three-day hearing starts in Dubai on October 1.

Link to comment


The ICC hearing in the matter is scheduled from October 1 to 3.

A day before India meet Pakistan on the cricket pitch, the BCCI geared for an off-the-field battle with the PCB by hiring a Dubai-based law firm and a British lawyer for next month’s ICC hearing on the compensation claim filed by the Pakistan Board.
Pakistan has claimed damages of approx Rs 447 crore for India not playing any bilateral cricket with them despite a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which guarantees six bilateral series between 2015 and 2023. The BCCI has asserted that the MoU is not binding on them and the PCB failed to honour some of the commitments made in the document.
The ICC hearing in the matter is scheduled from October 1 to 3.
“The BCCI has hired Dubai-based law firm Herbert Smith Freehills along with British Lawyer QC Ian Mills to represent us at the Dispute Resolution Committee hearing. Since the case is happening in Dubai, we needed a Dubai-based law firm. Also, the ICC follows British law so, QC Ian Mills is on board. We will fight this case till finish,” a senior BCCI official told PTI Tuesday.
The BCCI held a meeting with its legal team in Dubai which was attended by acting secretary Amitabh Chaudhary and CEO Rahul Johri.
“Look, the PCB has been fighting this case based on a one-page letter signed by erstwhile secretary Sanjay Patel which stated that we are ready to play six bilateral series in an eight-year cycle. Now there were a few terms and conditions applicable for the series to become a reality,” the official said.
“That letter had a specific condition that BCCI will play bilateral series against Pakistan only if the PCB votes for the revenue sharing model and ‘Big Three’ Concept at the ICC Board meeting.
“However, the PCB voted against the plan which means they voted against India. So, our agreement was based on Pakistan’s acceptance and it fell through. So where’s the question of compensation,” said the official.
The PCB is also irked that India didn’t choose them as one of the six teams for the World Test Championship.
When queried, the official replied: “They voted for a four-year FTP cycle (bilateral series) from the existing eight-year cycle and we decided on our six opponents for the World Test Championship. I think it’s a fair deal.”
“Also, we have time and again maintained that any bilateral series with Pakistan is subject to approval from Government of India. We cannot move ahead if we don’t get government nod,” he added.



https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/pcb-compensation-case-bcci-hires-dubai-based-law-firm-british-lawyer-for-icc-hearing/article24978140.ece/amp/
 

 



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Link to comment

Former Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) presidents N Srinivasan and Anurag Thakur have refused to attend the International Cricket Committee’s hearing on Pakistan Cricket Board’s $70 million (roughly R500 crore) claim for India twice refusing to play a bilateral series against their arch-rivals. The three-day hearing starts in Dubai on October 1.
Both Srinivasan and Thakur were banished from Indian cricket administration during the two-year-long Supreme Court hearing on the RM Lodha committee’s proposals that finally culminated in the apex court signing off on a new BCCI constitution on August 9, 2018.
BCCI has called up several witnesses to face the three-member ICC Disputes Resolution Committee that will be headed by English barrister Michael Beloff, who is also the chairman of the ICC Code of Conduct Commission. To be adjudicated under English laws, BCCI has hired UK-based international law firm Herbert Smith Freehills and sports disputes specialist Ian Mill to front the legal exchanges.

Among the witnesses are Srinivasan, Thakur and former BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel, who in 2014 had signed on a MoU that scheduled six India versus Pakistan (bilateral) series between 2015 and 2023 with PCB hosting the first series in 2015/16.
“India have done nothing wrong to appear in a judicial hearing and that too summoned by the ICC. India and Pakistan is a bilateral matter; what business has ICC to do with it? ICC cannot compel us to play and any pressure (on BCCI) can lead to an international crisis,” said Thakur.
Saying “India should not pay a penny to Pakistan,” Thakur, a BJP MP, said: “Let Pakistan stop terror and then we can think about playing cricket.”

A former high-profile BCCI official, who didn’t want to be quoted, said India were on a sticky wicket and “it was a poor decision to attend this hearing.” He attacked the Committee of Administrators for agreeing to ‘fight’ Pakistan, who will be represented by British law firm Clifford Chance.
“If the BCCI was run by a set of office-bearers who had the experience of handling board room issues at the ICC, India would not have faced this situation. It’s a white versus brown battle and it will be a massive loss of face if BCCI lost, and the signs are not good,” he said.
Thakur said the ICC never constituted a disputes resolution panel when Australia refused to tour Bangladesh in October, 2015 citing security reasons. The Bangladesh tour was scrapped after Cricket Australia was warned by the Australian government about a potential security threat to Australians there. “How is India’s position any different?” asked Thakur.


While Srinivasan will not attend the hearing, one of his closest allies, former IPL Chief Operating Officer Sundar Raman, will turn up as a witness. Former External Affairs Minister and senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid is also a witness.
Sundar, who is currently CEO – Sports of Reliance Industries Limited, was the brain behind ex-ICC president Srinivasan’s 2014 financial model that gave the ‘Big Three’ -- India, Australia and England -- the lion’s share of ICC’s revenues and sweeping powers to pick a nation of choice for a bilateral series. This case is coming up in the ICC when an Indian, Shashank Manohar, is its chairman.


https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/m.hindustantimes.com/cricket/india-should-not-pay-a-single-penny-to-pakistan-anurag-thakur/story-vRs1QL9jsqQhClCXlSjduN_amp.html

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Lannister said:

Why nobody is asking as to how did BCCI sign that agreement without GOIs consent? Shouldn't those officials be held accountable in the first place? They acted up on it based on their own selfish reasons and now they find themselves in a hiccup. Yeah, let's blame this on COA. 

Under Srini regime it happened but if I am not wrong series would have been played after the government's permission.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

Should be detained under NSA.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

Giving money to PCB means funding terror. If ICC is hell bent supporting a organisation funding terror, We should rethink about ICC restructuring and start with banning ICC individual involved in whole saga.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...