Jump to content
Rajiv

Gavaskar Fired......not yet!

Recommended Posts

I like what he said, for I truly feel he is speaking his mind on the issue as he perceives it. As for the legality and repercussions etc...I am out of my depth. But from the arguments given above, on face value, I would give it to Hari. He appears to have a good grasp of employee and contractual issues.

Link to post
Guest HariSampath
Since Sunny is so convinced that Aussie/English have ruled the cricketing world unfairly and at the expense of brown people, let him produce one SHRED of hard evidence to corroborrate his viewpoint instead of just making headlines by fanning the flames of insecurity that he has.
John Lever using vaseline illegally to gain advantage in a test series in India, 1975 AND on being caught by umpire Rueben and reported, in Chennai, he got away scot free ( England were controlling the game then). Muralitharan no balled despite being cleared. Sachin being banned for ball tampering, without a shred of proof he wilfully tampered with the ball to gain advantage. Pakistan and the recent ball tampering/forfeit issue. Umpire Hair. Recent test series in Aus, Bhajji getting fined and Symonds getting away scot free. ad infinitum Q e D
Link to post
Guest HariSampath
He is merely speaking out against instituinalised racism of the ICC. As an employee he has this right.
Actaully that is not correct. Lets settle this argument once and for all. The following are ESTABLISHED facts, judge for yourselves. 1. Gavaskar is NOT an employee of ICC. Even ASSUMING he were, he had been employed with FULL knowledge that he was already employed as a media man with ESPN Star , and this was not seen as any conflict of interests by ICC. Conclusion. Being employed by ESPN by itself is not conflicting with being the chairman of cricket committee in the reckoning of ICC itself. 2. Gavaskar commented on the functioning of one of the employees of ICC , Mike Procter, and in the opinion of Gavaskar this ICC employee was influenced by views and long held wrong convictions on who is a liar and who isn't , based on the race/nationality of the person. Conclusion : Gavaskar had NOT called ICC a racist organisation, just questioned the ability of an employee to fairly judge an issue, due to that employee's basic prejudices. Point to be noted here is that ICC itself is a multi racial organisation and comprised of member coutries and men of many races, Gavaskar has neither called all people racist nor the member countries racist. 3. It cannot be established that a "conflict of interest" exists, because primarily, neither ICC's interests nor Gavaskar's interests have been defined, so conflict cannot be established in legal terms. Conclusion : Case against Gavaskar stands demolished.
Link to post

Man's a jacka$$ and deserved to be booted. He is part of ICC committee, is a columnist and a full time commentator. Like a typical cheating husband he wants it all! I am reminded of a recent "Analysis" of Indo-Australia series where he was constantly targetting and berating Australian team(much to the delight of pschycophant Indian fans). His colleague, Harsha Bhogle, kept musing how he(Harsha) would like to forget this series down Under due to the whole controversies but Sunny would keep raking the same old fata besura raag. Good to see ICC develop some brains(and more) and kick this man out.

Link to post
Guest HariSampath

For those who are STLL under the delusion that the ICC is right, here are two more points to chew and think :-) Sunny Gavaskar was performing his duties as a TV commentator , and NOT as in his capacity as chairman of ICC's cricket committee. The ICC needs to establish whether or not Gavaskar has been discharigng his duties as cricket committee chairman, a technical committee , and his discharge of his duties to his employer ESPN Star can only be judged by ESPN, and ICC can only analyse his performance on the committe as and when he had acted in that capacity.

Link to post

BCCI denies reports of Gavaskar's sacking The news of Gavaskar being removed as chairman of the ICC's cricket committee emerged out of a report in the London daily The Times. More... BCCI denies Gavaskar's sacking report Indo-Asian News Service Chennai, March 25, 2008 First Published: 21:34 IST(25/3/2008) Last Updated: 22:02 IST(25/3/2008) The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCC) on Tuesday denied reports of Sunil Gavaskar being removed as chairman of the International Cricket Council (ICC)'s cricket committee. Replying to a query on Gavaskar's removal, BCCI treasurer N Srinivasan said: "As far as we know, the ICC has not taken any action against Gavaskar and so, there is no question of commenting on these reports." He was speaking to the media after the meetings of BCCI's finance and working committees categorically said the reports were "not correct". The news regarding Gavaskar's sacking emerged out of a report in the London daily The Times, which reported that at last week's ICC executive committee meeting in Dubai it was decided in an unanimous vote that Gavaskar should be asked to resign because of a conflict of interest between his honorary ICC position and his paid role as a columnist and commentator. Apparently the ICC is incensed with Gavaskar's reaction in his syndicated column where the legendary batsman described England and Australia as "dinosaurs" who cannot "open their eyes and see the reality". Gavaskar wrote: "The cricketing world has found that India has no longer a diffident voice but a confident one that knows what is good for its cricket, and will strive to get it." Gavaskar was defending his criticism of Mike Procter, the ICC Match Referee, in January after he had ruled against Harbhajan Singh for an allegedly racist aside to Andrew Symonds during the second Test match between Australia and India in Sydney. There were reports that ICC were not happy with Gavaskar's strong statements as it amounted to "clash of interests" in view of his position as the chairman of the cricket committee and also a television commentator.

Link to post
Guest HariSampath

I too am not a qualified attorney, but I had the opportunity of witnessing international corporate legal procedures from a technology/int'l patents , and hybrid technology rights, design engineering employees' perspective etc.

Link to post
I too am not a qualified attorney' date=' but I had the opportunity of witnessing international corporate legal procedures from a technology/int'l patents , and hybrid technology rights, design engineering employees' perspective etc.[/quote'] Sweet Jesus ! Is their one thing in this frigging world at which either you or CC are not good at ! :D
Link to post
i like gavaskar for speaking his mind, but at times he needs to keep within certain boundaries like the comments made about england and aus being dinosaurs or whatever, wasnt really necessary
What are you saying? I think Gavaskar's recent comments on Mile Procter, England and Australia are really necessary. The subcontinent teams have had enough of ICC's bias towards them. Gavaskar is speaking the voice of Indians and truth rather than choose to be a puppet to ICC. Hats off to Gavaskar!
Link to post
Sachin being banned for ball tampering, without a shred of proof he wilfully tampered with the ball to gain advantage.
Sachin was caught on LIVE TV tampering with the ball, so was Dravid with his lozenge...they both got away scot free too....so i suppose by your logic, ICC is pro-India by letting these two 'cheats' get away, eh ? As for 'wilfully tampering', sorry, intent cannot be proven...the act however can be and its the act, not the intent that defines the law.
Pakistan and the recent ball tampering/forfeit issue. Umpire Hair.
If anything, pakistan got the better end of the bargain there.
John Lever using vaseline illegally to gain advantage in a test series in India, 1975 AND on being caught by umpire Rueben and reported, in Chennai, he got away scot free ( England were controlling the game then).
Just like how Dravid got away scot free despite being caught on live television tampering with the ball...India/BCCI doing its dadagiri with finance and bailing that 'cheat' out. Even stevens is how i call it.
No, he is not an employee as you repeatedly and foolishly but not surprisingly assert, and holding a post maketh not an employee.
Holding a post with an organisation = employee. Period.
Conclusion. Being employed by ESPN by itself is not conflicting with being the chairman of cricket committee in the reckoning of ICC itself.
But if you abuse your post with ESPN star by making baseless vitriolic attack against ICC, ICC has the full right to reassess its position and fire Gavaskar.
and his discharge of his duties to his employer ESPN Star can only be judged by ESPN, and ICC can only analyse his performance on the committe as and when he had acted in that capacity.
Err no, if you work for the media, it is not 'conflict of interest' by default, but if you do publish stories that are vilifying your other employer, it most certainly becomes conflict of interest....you are trying very hard to ignore the FACT that conflict of interest is not in the position alone,it is also in the actions of an individual. Gavaskar should be fired and someone should gag him and Bedi for being total retards.
Link to post
What can anyone debate with an idiot who thinks someone holding a honorary position is called an employee !!
As i said, check with your local lawyer on this. It does not matter if you are holding a honorary post, is volunteering or is paid- so long as you are working in capacity under a company and you have to be answerable to the CEO of that company(which Gavaskar most certainly is, as his role IS answerable to Speed), you are an employee. Its just that simple.
Link to post
Guest HariSampath

You are far too dense and less experienced professionally to be able to understand intricacies of professional relationships, responsibilities, accountability, contractual obligations , understanding what is meant by "conflict of interests etc"...I expect this and dont mind it, you will learn. But you do seem to have learning disabilities and comprehension issues, maybe you can start with slow reading and with "English for dummies" open. All issues on this topic have been dealt with in great detail...try reading

Link to post
You are far too dense
Oooo..i am sooo hurt....pffft.
less experienced professionally to be able to understand intricacies of professional relationships
Mate, i am experienced enough professionally to perhaps coach you a thing or three in professional behaviour...and my experience is not with two-bit shady corps, if you know what i mean.
I expect this and dont mind it, you will learn.
I am sure you will learn too....all you gotto do is speak with the same vitriolic diatribe about your company and your a$$ is going to be fired, nevermind if you actually published the diatribe.
But you do seem to have learning disabilities and comprehension issues, maybe you can start with slow reading and with "English for dummies" open.
Look, newbie, watch and learn- there are many others here who will warn you against getting into a semantics seminar with me.Trust me when i say this- you are not educated enough to challenge my reading and/or comprehension skills. Its funny to hear that, given you didn't even know the difference between paraphrasing and quoting someone. Now, enough with your personal barbs all the time- if i actually exposed my resume/experience here, a 40-something-virgin like yourself will be pretty embarassed if you attempted comparison...trust me on that.
All issues on this topic have been dealt with in great detail...try reading
Repeating yourself like a ninny does not change the outcome. If you think that holding a honorary post/volunteering exempts you from the employer-employee status quo with the company you are rendering your services for, you could not be more mistaken. And as usual, you have been found completely wanting in your logic, which is why you've been utterly silent when pointed out that conflict of interest is not solely a positional result, but also a result of personal actions even if the positions held arn't themselves in conflict.
Link to post

Gavaskar hasn't been asked to step down: BCCI The Board of Control for Cricket in India on Wednesday said media speculation about Sunil Gavaskar being asked to step down as chairman of the ICC Cricket Committee is 'totally incorrect'. 'The ICC has confirmed to the Indian Board that there has been no discussion to remove Gavaskar. The media speculation about removal of Gavaskar based on a report in a London paper is totally incorrect,' the BCCI said in a statement. More... Gavaskar hasn't been asked to step down: BCCI March 26, 2008 15:34 IST The Board of Control for Cricket in India on Wednesday said media speculation about Sunil Gavaskar [images] being asked to step down as chairman of the ICC Cricket Committee is "totally incorrect". "The ICC has confirmed to the Indian Board that there has been no discussion to remove Gavaskar. The media speculation about removal of Gavaskar based on a report in a London paper is totally incorrect," the BCCI said in a statement. It further said ICC representatives may discuss with Gavaskar about some of his media articles and report back to the Executive Board in its next meeting. A report in The Times, London, on Tuesday said that Gavaskar was asked to step down by the ICC. The 58-year-old former India captain is due to meet ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed [images] and present his case on the controversial media columns he has written. Gavaskar, a popular television commentator, described England [images] and Australia as "dinosaurs, still trying to voice their prejudiced opinions in the media, and may not open their eyes and see the reality" in a syndicated column at the weekend. The report said Gavaskar was defending his criticism of match referee Mike Procter, after he ruled against India's Harbhajan Singh [images] for alleged racial abuse of Andrew Symonds [images] in a Test match in Sydney in January. Gavaskar had reportedly claimed that white South African match referee Procter was biased against Indian players because of the colour of their skin.

Link to post

So can we have the debate when Gavaskar gets fired indeed, which I'm sure he'll never get? LINK A Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) press release in Chennai on Wednesday said: "An ICC representative may discuss with Sunil (Gavaskar) about some of his media articles and report back to the Executive Board in its next meeting." The BCCI reiterated its stand on the issue that the report in a London newspaper was "totally incorrect" and that the ICC has "confirmed to the Indian Board there has been no decision to remove Sunil Gavaskar".

Link to post
Guest HariSampath

You are right Chandan, Gavaskar is not going to get fired, and anyway the entire argument on whether or not ICC has a right to do so and whether he has acted in conflict has been settled on this thread

Link to post

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...