BCCI loses ICC vote 2-8 .ICC resolution passed and Big three model struck down

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, Vilander said:

May be this comes as a pathetic wishful thinking but the more i see Manohar the more i wonder if its an elaborate ruse for any of Sharad pawars cronies to come in and save the day, may be its a play Srini's castle or what ever remained of it burnt to the ground, India shamed and a knight in shining armour comes in and saves the day. You can not discount Sharad Parwar ever, may be SC was just in it at that time incidentally and they decided to let it playout and dust to settle down.

It is done and dusted voting has been done, unless there is again some kind of big three formation where BCCI supremo who has full knowledge of BCCI/ICC politcs it is not easy thing to do.

 

When is BCCI's election going to take place and they get rid of these three stooges who are representing BCCI.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

It is done and dusted voting has been done, unless there is again some kind of big three formation where BCCI supremo who has full knowledge of BCCI/ICC politcs it is not easy thing to do.

 

When is BCCI's election going to take place and they get rid of these three stooges who are representing BCCI.

 

The main vote is in June.During the AGM.

[Vilander]

"

It is understood that both BCCI representatives wanted to try and find a "middle path" on the finance model. The idea was to get as close to the $445 million figure the Committee of Administrators (CoA, appointed by Supreme Court of India to supervise the BCCI) had asked Manohar for in March.

There was then a separate meeting between Choudhury and three members of the ICC working group, which had drafted the new constitution. Manohar, ECB chairman Giles Clarke and CA chairman David Peever once again placed the offer of an additional $100 million to Choudhury."

 

one thing is for sure. ECB and CA are in for some beating.

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/1094878.html

 

 

[Vilander]

"It is understood ZC could be given $19 million to clear its debt while the WICB had asked for $40 million as a grant."

 

elementary Manohar and Giles bought ZC and WICB from under BCCI's nose, this is what a few series worth over 2-3 seasons. 

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Vilander said:

"It is understood ZC could be given $19 million to clear its debt while the WICB had asked for $40 million as a grant."

 

elementary Manohar and Giles bought ZC and WICB from under BCCI's nose, this is what a few series worth over 2-3 seasons. 

 

We have been out-manouvered at the ICC level, while the BCCI was caught napping and its entire power structure forced to resign by the Lodha Commission.  

[surajmal]

Is the Supreme Court going to put sanctions against itself for causing losses running into 100s of crores for State Boards due to this ICC deal? 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Is the Supreme Court going to put sanctions against itself for causing losses running into 100s of crores for State Boards due to this ICC deal? 

 

The Lordships are all powerful.

[Vilander]

20 minutes ago, surajmal said:

Is the Supreme Court going to put sanctions against itself for causing losses running into 100s of crores for State Boards due to this ICC deal? 

hehe classic overreach SC judges, their honorable selves highness' are not administrators or politicians hope their eminences see this fact, in between their brain farts.

[Oldhere]

I dont know who is right or who is wrong in SC and bcci but one thing as a fan i do know is that bcci were crooks specially the state boards.

 

How can anyone support crooks like ddca or people who are not even letting kids in bihar play cricket or give them the opportunities.

 

what SC has done is, it has tried to kill these state boards and the corruption and the nepotism.

 

i hope people have heard on how ddca u-15 selectors have asked kids mother to sleep with them.

 

Also, bcci in 2014 were right to ask there share in icc but srini played it all wrong by setting up veto power or power to rule icc.

 

we as a nation ourselves have fought against autocratic people but somehow when we got power we became same.

 

India should get there share of money but shouldn't be ruling the same way aussies or english did.

[BeautifulGame]

With India's Champions Trophy participation in doubt, the International Cricket Council (ICC) is still willing to pay the BCCI $100 million more than the original share from the revamped revenue model.

According to a senior BCCI official present in Dubai, the ICC has not yet withdrawn its offer of $390 million -- nearly 100 million more than the original $293 million.

The offer, which came from ICC chairman Shashank Manohar, was originally rejected by the BCCI.

"We have told them (ICC) that we will place their offer before the BCCI's General Body and get back to them. ICC officials have in fact told us that if we agree to $390 million, they will get it ratified at a Board Meeting in May," a senior BCCI office-bearer told PTI on Thursday.

However, some of the other officials present in Dubai feel that the final offer should be $450 million with no change in governance structure.

"In fact, Amitabh told the members that if you can climb up to $450 million, I can take the offer back to my Board and convince them. But Shashank Manohar was in no mood to budge," the source said.

It is expected that many of the 30 voting members of BCCI, at its upcoming SGM, will be overwhelmingly voting in favour of a pull-out from Champions Trophy.

"At this point pull-out is an option. The middle path is if they are ready to go up to $450 million since they were initially ready to pay $390. Also, no change in governance structure," he reiterated.

The BCCI was outvoted 1-13 at ICC Board Meet where Manohar's formula of abolishing the 'Big Three' model was accepted.

BCCI's earlier share of $571 million was curtailed to $293 million with Australia not losing out on anything and England's loss being minimal.

The BCCI is also eagerly waiting to know the stance of Star Sports, which has given ICC a huge broadcast deal for the Champions Trophy.

"Will Star Sports give them the same deal that they would give if Virat Kohli vs Mohammed Aamir or Mitchell Starc vs MS Dhoni contest doesn't take place?" the official questioned.A cursory glance at the earlier model would tell why Australia and England, other proponents of 'Big Three' model, ditched India.

The earlier model was getting Cricket Australia $131.25 million and the new model gives them an additional 0.75 million. CA had no reason to stall the ICC move.

England are losing out on $40 million in the new deal while all others nations (Test playing) stand to gain significantly.There was no reason for them to vote alongside India opposing the resolution.

The setback at ICC has also triggered a blame-game with Committee of Administrators claiming that they had advised BCCI to accept the ICC's offer.

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/news/icc-still-ready-to-pay-390m-bcci-wants-450m/articleshow/58401358.cms?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&from=mdr

Edited April 27, 2017 by BeautifulGame

[Vilander]

5 minutes ago, Oldhere said:

I dont know who is right or who is wrong in SC and bcci but one thing as a fan i do know is that bcci were crooks specially the state boards.

 

How can anyone support crooks like ddca or people who are not even letting kids in bihar play cricket or give them the opportunities.

 

what SC has done is, it has tried to kill these state boards and the corruption and the nepotism.

 

i hope people have heard on how ddca u-15 selectors have asked kids mother to sleep with them.

 

Also, bcci in 2014 were right to ask there share in icc but srini played it all wrong by setting up veto power or power to rule icc.

 

we as a nation ourselves have fought against autocratic people but somehow when we got power we became same.

 

India should get there share of money but shouldn't be ruling the same way aussies or english did.

agree with the rest, all power to SC. 

 

But for the bolded part. 

 

So flowery , its naive to think that in the absense of a naturally just principled law to divide a share of profits there wont be politics involved. Infact when there is no clear way to share a pie, politics will happen. Its idealism to think otherwise, this SC idealism is just what landed India in this soup.

[Oldhere]

2 minutes ago, Vilander said:

agree with the rest, all power to SC. 

 

But for the bolded part. 

 

So flowery , its naive to think that in the absense of a naturally just principled law to divide a share of profits there wont be politics involved. Infact when there is no clear way to share a pie, politics will happen. Its idealism to think otherwise, this SC idealism is just what landed India in this soup.

Understand what you are trying to say but we moved away from how dalmiya got India at top by making friends with people who will support India whereas Srini just told them to * off and agree to what he is saying.

 

in my opinion dalmiya way would have got us the money as well as power.

 

PS: im on mobile and pressed an arrow key on your post and i dont know what that is, maybe it could be good or bad. Hence, apologies in advance if its bad.

[BeautifulGame]

ICC's $400 million offer to BCCI still on table

 

 

The door has not yet been completely shut on the BCCI as far as the ICC's finance model is concerned. ESPNcricinfo understands that immediately after the BCCI was outvoted at the ICC Board meeting on Wednesday, the ICC chairman Shashank Manohar informed Amitabh Choudhury, the BCCI secretary, that the settlement offer of an additional $100 million was still on the table.

Under the new finance model, the BCCI stands to receive $293 million from the ICC revenue across an eight-year cycle. The BCCI had wanted $570 million - the share it would have received under the previous Big Three finance model - but Manohar had made a counter offer of an additional $100 million over the $293 million to raise the Indian board's share to nearly $400 million.

On Wednesday, the ICC board read the letter submitted by Choudhury on the mandate given to him by the BCCI and rejected his proposal.

How did the BCCI lose?
Hours before before the ICC Board met, Choudhury and BCCI CEO Rahul Johri conducted discussions with heads of various boards such as the ECB, Cricket Australia, the WICB, Associates representative Imran Khawaja, and Manohar.

It is understood that both BCCI representatives wanted to try and find a "middle path" on the finance model. The idea was to get as close to the $445 million figure the Committee of Administrators (CoA, appointed by Supreme Court of India to supervise the BCCI) had asked Manohar for in March.

There was then a separate meeting between Choudhury and three members of the ICC working group, which had drafted the new constitution. Manohar, ECB chairman Giles Clarke and CA chairman David Peever once again placed the offer of an additional $100 million to Choudhury.

ICC chairman Shashank Manohar (right), ECB chairman Giles Clarke (left) and CA chairman David Peever once again offered the BCCI a settlement © Getty Images

"Earlier the offer had been made by Manohar, but this was a formal offer from the ICC working group. He [Choudhury] turned it down," an official said. "He was told that in that case the original proposal had already been approved in February and we can't change that. Hence the ICC model went through."

With Choudhury refusing to enter a discussion on the settlement deal, the ICC working group was left with no choice but to ask for a show of hands. The BCCI was taken aback when Full Members whom it understood to be in its corner swayed to the ICC side. The BCB, Zimbabwe Cricket and the WICB have been BCCI allies for a long time, but on Wednesday they voted against it. The case of the BCB and ZC was surprising only because both had submitted strong reservations at the outset of the ICC Board meeting. ZC even called the draft constitution "discriminatory."

The official said one main reason behind these three boards changing stance was the ICC's decision to provide them financial help. It is understood ZC could be given $19 million to clear its debt while the WICB had asked for $40 million as a grant.

What now for the BCCI?
A ray of hope still exists, considering Manohar wants the BCCI to be happy. A source who has worked closely with Manohar since he arrived at the ICC last year said he has no "desire to alienate" the BCCI. He has asked the ICC to continue engaging with the BCCI.

The other reason for the BCCI remaining optimistic was a significant decision the ICC Board agreed on: to move the finance model out of the constitution. The BCCI feels there is still some room for manoeuvre.

The working group will meet once again during the ICC's annual conference in June to approve the final changes to the constitution, governance structure and finance model - all of which would be finally ratified by the ICC Board. "All the boards want this resolved also," the official said. "What happened yesterday does not mean India has diminished."

Choudhury told the ICC that he would need to head back to the BCCI, which will take a final decision at a special general body meeting (SGM).

The official said India still had the bargaining power because of its importance in bilateral cricket. He pointed out that the ICC might need to increase its settlement offer and "go beyond" the proposed $100 million.

"There are two ways of resolving this now. One is the SGM says okay, 390 is good. Let us go ahead. The ICC will agree immediately and resolve it. Or [the SGM] says we need more time. Then there will be another round of negotiations [with the ICC]."

However, the scope of any further negotiations, the source pointed out, were remote. "He [Manohar] would still want to negotiate with the BCCI, but would he take it beyond $390 million? Questionable."

One other interested party, which could play the catalyst, is the CoA. It has been keeping a close watch on the events in Dubai this week. Any decision taken by the BCCI office bearers would need to be conveyed to the CoA, which would need to approve anything that is sent in writing to the ICC as per the court order. "The CoA can step in, but it will only step in also at $445 million," the official said.

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/1094878.html

[Vilander]

2 minutes ago, Oldhere said:

Understand what you are trying to say but we moved away from how dalmiya got India at top by making friends with people who will support India whereas Srini just told them to * off and agree to what he is saying.

 

in my opinion dalmiya way would have got us the money as well as power.

 

PS: im on mobile and pressed an arrow key on your post and i dont know what that is, maybe it could be good or bad. Hence, apologies in advance if its bad.

:) dont worry about the arrows its good fun most dont bother what ever one you press, you will get the hang of it as you post more, desktop site is far more comfortable. And yes Srini did a more autocratic way that paved way for this debacle, Dalmiya was looking inward and increasing Indian revenues - organic growth of revenue, but Srini had to do the dirty work and fight for a just share - consolidate profit share. Dalmiya route would have been slow route to growth with unfair share going to the rich, but no governance hurdles like now.

[Vilander]

9 minutes ago, Stumped said:

The discussion wasn't about their market, but whether the Indian government could block payments which they obviously can't do directly if the company isn't based in India.

OK flowchart is like this.

 

forex flowing out of India - a company needs to be registered in companies act of Indian or what ever the federal law - GOI can do what ever the hell it wants with it.

[Vilander]

 

Indian revenue service folks are really not nice people, no firm with any baap ka legal department would want to deal with them for any extended period of time.

[Zero_Unit]

so the 400 is on the table again? What is the amount BCCI is bargaining for? 450 ish?

[Vilander]

Just now, Zero_Unit said:

so the 400 is on the table again? What is the amount BCCI is bargaining for? 450 ish?

445 and COA will call it a deal. I think they will meed somewhere in between 420 (No pun intended)? and all will be forgotten before CT starts.

[Zero_Unit]

2 minutes ago, Vilander said:

445 and COA will call it a deal. I think they will meed somewhere in between 420 (No pun intended)? and all will be forgotten before CT starts.

Still a huge loss from that 500+ but I don't think there should be any problem to give atleast 20 more. A happy BCCI is good for rest of the nations. The sooner they understand that, the better.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Zero_Unit

[Gollum]

If ICC cuts 1$ from what we have been getting so long, we need to pull out. If we don't pull out, this will set a very bad precedent where others will take us for granted and trample all over us. This is a dharma yudh, no middle ground here.