IPL mess : Why so surprised? - Gideon Haigh

[Chandan]

My only area of disagreement probably would be that I don't hold BCCI solely responsible for the mess that is Indian cricket. I believe every state cricket association are also culpable. The reason I believe though is because Indian cricket is run top down i.e. like the Congress Party all decision are made by the High Command aka Board President. How many of our state associations are bothered with the state of domestic affairs. Why don;t a few of them get together and take the control out of BCCI's hands on running the domestic shows or turn around and say right, whoever makes sure that more focus is given to the way domestic cricket is run gets my vote, but no none of them will do it. Sorry I am not good at getting my thoughts across in writing, but to sumamrise what I am saying is just as any Captain is as good as his team, the BCCI will only mirror what its State Associations are. The change neds to happen at the lower level. The BCCI is rotten and it will not cleanse itself on its own, something else has to force it to change.

GM, What is BCCI? It is the body with the majority of support from the state bodies. Who are BCCI Presidents or Vice Presidents or Secretaries? They are heads of one state or the other. So how will states take out the power from BCCI if BCCI is headed by a bunch people representing as many states? It is the collective decision of various states to ignore domestic cricket as most of them are headed by a politician who is least interested in the game. Some states do look after their domestic cricket and Mumbai is a good example of that. Hence I fail to get a point of your post. It seems your understanding of what BCCI is, is not very clear. But here once again Rahul Mehra is asking few very hard hitting questions: Fifteen Questions for BCCI Rahul Mehra, who successfully took the BCCI to court demanding transparency in its operations, seeks answers concerning the IPL. Q1 It has been settled by the Hon’ble High Court and Apex Court in my Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), though a private party and registered under the Societies Act, is amenable to writ jurisdiction as it performs key public functions. Why then does the BCCI not hold itself answerable or accountable to the cricket-viewing public? Q2 It is known that the BCCI is the richest board in the world. Why then is it concealing from the public its constitution, rules and regulations, minutes of meetings, annual audited financial documents such as profit & loss account, balance sheet, etcetera, documents pertaining to sale of TV rights, franchisee bids, sponsorship agreements, among others? Q3 The Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of India, has issued Revised Guidelines dated 14 August 2001 for Assistance to National Sports Federations, the violation of which can lead to de-recognition of the defaulting sports federation. Why then is the Sports Ministry not ithdrawing its recognition so granted tothe BCCI? Q4 It is amusing to know that office-bearers of the BCCI, the Indian Premier League (IPL) and office bearers of the Member State Associations affiliated to the BCCI simply hold honorary posts. Why is running cricket not handed over to qualified professionals and other persons, including former players of integrity? Q5 The BCCI has members and office bearers who were also a part of various sub-committees, including the governing council of the IPL. Why is the overning council of the IPL not collectively held guilty of acts of omission and commission surfacing in the IPL affair? Why is Lalit Modi the fall guy now? Q6 Is it not unethical for former treasurer of the BCCI and President of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association N Srinivasan to own the Chennai Super Kings franchise? Q7 What were Sunil Gavaskar, MAK Pataudi and Ravi Shastri doing as members of the IPL governing council when various irregularities were allegedly being committed by Modi? Gavaskar and Shastri should also reveal how much they earn from the cricket board and the IPL as commentators, since they are no longer employed by private TV channels, but by the BCCI. Despite the conflicting roles of Gavaskar and Shastri, why have they again been appointed to work with the interim IPL chairman, Chirayu Amin? Are there no other prominent cricketers in India? Q8 How many times in a year would the governing council meet to take IPL-related decisions? Do minutes of the meeting exist? Q9 Many Indian cricket administrators are sent abroad on expensive trips. Why can’t this huge expense be curtailed in case the BCCI wants the public to believe that its administrators work in an honorary capacity? Q10 The IPL claims to have made huge donations to various educational institutions in South Africa during Season 2. Has it been equally generous towards Indian charities? Q11 When will the BCCI use some of its vast funds to offer better amenities for the paying public? Q12 Why can’t the Government amend the definition of ‘public servant’ so as to bring so-called charitable institutions such as the BCCI and its office bearers within its purview? The Government should seriously consider the amendment of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act so as to cover so-called honorary office bearers within the definition of ‘public servant’. They should be asked to mandatorily declare their assets, and if these assets are found to be disproportionate to their known sources of income, they could be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the law. Q13 Why wasn’t trust built by the BCCI/IPL with its key stake holders, general cricket-viewing Indian public, by voluntarily disclosing the share holdings and ownership details of all eight franchisees so as to not only be clean but also be seen to be clean and above board? Q14 The IPL has indulged in use of fireworks at a massive scale, which has contributed to noise and air pollution. This was at cross purposes with their stated goal of being environmentally friendly. Can the IPL explain why it did not collaborate with the United Nations Environmental Program (Unep) in Season 3? Q15 Why was the report of Paul Condon, Director, Anti Corruption Unit, ICC, on possible match-fixing in the IPL not taken seriously by the BCCI? If mobile phones are not allowed in dressing rooms, why were team owners, their family and friends being allowed to enter dug-outs with their mobiles? Any supporters have any answers? There can't be. And I have lost all the respect for the 3 cricketers in the Governing Council who were acting as puppets of Modi.

[thevortex]

What an incisive and hard hitting article from Mukul Kesavan!! Hats off.

[Chandan]

All this while many of us has been wondering that leaving apart the corrupt businessmen and politicians in the Governing Council, what were our three famous cricketers doing there during this mess? Pradeep Magazine wondered about this too and he even went to extent of saying that Shastri and Gavaskar had become mouthpiece of Modi in these 3 years. He has an advice for them: Be visionaries, not sponsors’ puppets Pradeep Magazine, Hindustan Times When Ravi Shastri sanctified Lalit Modi by calling him the Moses of cricket, did he really mean what he was saying? Or was it the dazzle of glamour, money and the frenetic pace at which the IPL was conceived and executed that blew him over? The usually understated Sunil Gavaskar, the perfect symbol of Test cricket's virtues, too shed his inhibitions and found the slugfest so thrilling that he did not mind becoming part of a shrill advertising campaign for various sponsors in the guise of a TV commentator. By his own admission, amnesia induced by the stunning success of the event struck Tiger Pataudi so swiftly that he lost his powers of judgment and let the czar of IPL do what he pleased. None of us trusts the BCCI officials but we all expect three of our finest cricketers to protect the interests of the sport they have so well nourished by their heroic deeds on the playing field. When they speak, the public not only listens, it believes them. And when they betray that trust by becoming mouthpieces of what now is turning out to be a gigantic fraud, it hurts. I can understand they are no financial wizards and would have not known if fraud was being committed in various deals. But by endorsing auctioning of cricket — be it strategic breaks or the IPL Night parties which, combined with the gruelling schedule of the event, may have left our team completely exhausted for the World Cup — they have let us down. It is being said that the remuneration for being part of the Governing Council was so lucrative that anyone would have traded his conscience for promoting the product even at the cost of cricket and the players. So, why blame them more just because they happen to be players of repute? In a system which rewards sycophancy so that powerbrokers have a free run, it would be hard to stand up for what you believe in. It is easier to compromise and zoom ahead in life. Since the Board did not punish anyone (apart from Modi) in the Governing Council, making a mockery of the collective responsibility principle, the three still survive. Now this same triumvirate has been given the responsibility of dealing with the franchises for the conduct of IPL 4. Do we still expect them to first think of cricketers and cricket and not of profit generation for the board? Unlikely so, but one would hope that they would be sufficiently embarrassed by what has happened so far and would want to atone for their lapses. Let us not fool ourselves by believing that the only problem IPL has had is financial corruption. It is a brand which is here to stay and is still threatening the two other formats of cricket, especially Tests. The corporate takeover of cricket as a property may have got delayed by this scandal but the threat still remains. It is here that messrs Gavaskar/Shastri/Pataudi can act as visionaries in trying to find a middle ground which would safeguard the interests of the sport, its various stakeholders and even the new fan base created by this glitzy new event. After all that’s happened, it may be naive to expect the three to become the voice of the silent majority, but what else can one do apart from living in hope? And what have been the responses of these cricketers? While Tiger accepted his mistake fair and square, Gavaskar and Shastri have defended themselves. This is what Gavaskar says: 'We cricketers trusted IPL financial experts': Sunil Gavaskar Breaking his silence on the controversy surrounding the Indian Premier League (IPL), former cricketer Sunil Gavaskar has said he and his other fellow cricketers had complete faith in financial experts in the committee. In an article appearing in the 'Times of India', Gavaskar expressed regret over the fact that he did not have much knowledge of financial and legal issues, so was unable to understand what was discussed in IPL meeting. "Pity, we cricketers don't have so much knowledge, for then we would have been able to understand a lot of the financial and legal issues that came up in council meetings. We cricketers looked at all the others who were knowledgeable about finance and trusted their expertise," Gavaskar writes. "When it came to cricketing matters, they looked at us and when we talked cricket they nodded their heads too," he adds. The third edition of the cash-rich Indian Premier League (IPL) tournament was embroiled in controversies. And this what Shastri had to say: ‘My job was to only ask the cricketing questions’ Ravi Shastri defends his role in the IPL governing council, talks about the impact of the Lalit Modi controversy, and what lies ahead for the League By Ayaz Memon All talk by the IPL interim governing committee seems to be centred round cricket. Is there a perceived threat this was getting lost? No question about it. And the advantage is the essential product, which is cricket, is so good. If it wasn’t, you would have to find different things to create something that everyone wants to watch. You believe the paraphernalia took the focus away from cricket? Took it too much away, especially in the last fortnight when a lot of allegations and counter-allegations were made. Once this starts, everyone jumps in. It’s good that a charge-sheet is out and Lalit (Modi) has a chance to explain himself. Let’s not forget he did an outstanding job in conceptualising the product and taking it to where it is today. Now questions are being asked and the board has given him opportunity to answer them. But till he does so, I don’t think anyone should pass a judgement. A lot of what has gone wrong seems to have happened in the third season, not the first two... That’s what one would gather from reports that are coming out. Everything seems to be from the last six or eight months. How come nobody in the governing council asked questions? It’s not a case of not asking questions. My job is to ask cricketing questions, which I did. And we all did in different areas in different meetings. When it comes to deals and finance, there is the finance committee and the working committee of the board. Are you saying that Tiger (Pataudi), (Sunil) Gavaskar and you were restricted to only how cricket functions in the IPL? Yes, and only fair. If someone tells me I am going to do a television deal for 30million dollars, I can’t say make it 50m. It’s not my area of expertise. If you ask me whether there should be five overseas players instead of four, or there should be 80 matches instead of 60, then I have my opinion. Look at the minutes of meetings — there are several times when I have voiced my opinion. If anyone wants to point a finger about the cricket, I am willing to answer any query. What about things like the strategic time-out? It worked out beautifully. Wasn’t the greatest in the second year when we had extended breaks. But you learn and in the third season it was actually used as a strategic time out, not time out for TV ads alone. Yes, money was flowing into the system, but at the same time captains were also debating: should I take it before the 9th over, should I take it at the 16th... A contentious decision was the after party, made mandatory for players to attend... I went to a few of these. I am only a commentator, but I think it’s very hard on players, especially when you have had an intense day in the field to then have to attend a party post-midnight. Some players will say they enjoyed it, which is fine when you are not playing. The chairman (Chirayu Amin) has already made a statement that he’s not for it. You ask my personal opinion, I’m not for it either. The IPL’s success was largely also because of the way it was packaged. How do you now sell a sanitised version to the same audience addicted to a certain format? Are you telling me that 50,000 people pack into a stadium to watch just an opening or closing ceremony, not a match? Maybe a few do, but not the majority. Razzmatazz adds to the spectacle, but it’s important not to go overboard. I think 90 percent of the content should be cricket and ten percent masala. Don’t get carried away to the extent that it is 60 per cent cricket and 40 per cent masala! Lalit Modi said before IPL 3 began that monetisation of sport is something most people don’t understand. Did he veer too much in that direction instead of sticking to the straight and narrow the BCCI expected? He (Modi) will be the best person to answer this. He conceptualised the whole thing and has the best idea of what he was doing. The rapid rise of the IPL to become one of the top 5 sports properties in the world could blow away anybody’s perspective. No one’s perfect. You might in hindsight say it shouldn’t have been this way or that. Lalit too could now be mulling on certain things he could have done, certain things he shouldn’t have. That’s how I see it. It emerges clearly that the governing council was a house divided and therefore events spun out of control... It was well put by Mr Amin that the dazzle and success of the IPL overtook everything else. More questions should have been asked and a little more vigilance should have been there. If the allegations against him (Modi) are proved right then you would say much more vigilance was necessary. The controversy was precipitated because of the alleged rigging of the Kochi bid. Did this come as a surprise to you? Yes. You can’t believe everything you hear, but now BCCI president Shashank Manohar has given a charge-sheet that has to be answered. Do you see an area of concern with players being insecure about Season 4? The auction’s coming up in September... That’s the first task for Sunny, me and Tiger. But there are several things to look into not just auction of players. For instance the interests of franchise owners who have invested in players for three years. They’ll have their ideas. Two new teams coming in will have their own ideas. How to make it a level playing field is another key issue. It can’t be the case that all the top players are taken away by the eight original franchises. The strength of the league is in the strength of the teams. You can’t let it happen that a franchise owner who has more money can go and clean up the table. You have to be fair to the players as well as the franchises, while ensuring that the strength of the league remains. Let’s talk of conflict of interest... Like what? Like you were a commentator and also part of the governing council... So what? I speak on what I see, not what I am. I don’t push for a player just because he’s had dinner with me the previous night; never done that, never will do. But there are also a lot of people who don’t like the success of the IPL. Doesn’t mean I stop letting them know. It’s not because I am on the governing council I have to say it’s a great product. But if it is a great product why can’t I say it? There was talk of you becoming chairman... Pure speculation. But does it excite you? It’s not my area of expertise. I can contribute on cricketing matters but it needs someone with a fair idea of running a corporate to run the league. I would say though that the chairman and commissioner’s role could be split. The Board chief should head the IPL and there should be a commissioner to run the IPL. You worked with Lalit Modi for three years, seen his success and now the controversies. What’s your take on him? He’s flamboyant, he’s a visionary. To create a property like this, he’s thought a great deal and worked very hard. But there have been a lot of fingers been pointed at him, so he’s got to answer the charges. There’s scepticism that nothing significant will come out of this investigation, especially since politicians are running agendas through cricket administration... There were a lot of things done which shouldn’t have been, and lot of things which should have happened, that didn’t. I think not just the IPL, also the BCCI — Indian cricket in totality — will emerge stronger, bigger and more transparent. Well, these are some of the lamest excuses one could give. "We were there for cricketing matters"..well why didn't you put your foot down on not having parties if you thought that they were harming the budding cricketers? Why didn't you raise a question about not breaking the games momentum with those silly strategic breaks? Why did you not voice your concern for having such a tight schedule which would've sent the Indian players in a stage of fatigue just before an important ICC tournament? Why did you not make a rule that no cricketer will be allowed to play if he is injured (case in question: Sehwag)? These cricketers think that general public is absolutely idiot and would readily buy all their lame reasons. I had huge respect for Gavaskar which he earned through 16 years of hard work at international cricket. But it didn't take even a month to lose all that he had gained earlier. I haven't seen Tiger bat but have read great things about him. He at least saved some of it by admitting his mistake. And Shastri..? One always knew how opportunistic is is/was. Sorry guys. I'm not convinced and think that you all were hand in gloves in the corruption with Modi. Do any of you believe them?

[thevortex]

My question is - what gives anybody the authority to make players arrive mandatorily for after night parties - even on match days? Is that a contractual obligation? Did the players specifically sign some document to that effect? Do the home boards know about such conditions and did they give their consent? This is beyond crass. I would like for any of the IPL fans to try and explain why exactly the players' attendance should have been made mandatory. Chandan - please note that Shastri is still not ready to give Modi away to the wolves. He is waiting for Modi's answers and even if they turn out to be half decent then I get the feeling that Shastri will back him to the hilt. By the way, who are the members of this elusive and mysterious finance committee? Everybody is pointing fingers at them but nobody from that committee is being pointed out. Did they take those controversial decisions or were they an agreeing part of those decisions? Or did Modi pre-empt them as well?

[zubinpepsi]

im disgusted with these three cricketers.. are they reallly legends.. cuz legends do sell their souls for money... Difficult' for Modi to return - Pataudi Cricinfo staff May 4, 2010 Text size: A | A "The problem with him [Lalit Modi] was his style of functioning, which a lot of people had problems with." © Getty Images Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, former India captain and currently member of the IPL governing council, has said it would be difficult for Lalit Modi, the IPL's suspended chairman, to make a return to the tournament. Modi was suspended on several charges, including financial impropriety, upon the conclusion of the third IPL and is yet to respond to the show-cause notice issued to him by the BCCI. "We are awaiting answers to several questions put to him and, yes, it would help if he answers them to everyone's satisfaction," Pataudi told Indian Express. "But even so, coming back would be difficult as the problem with him was his style of functioning, which a lot of people had problems with." Pataudi added it was important for the IPL to continue and grow for the overall development of cricket in India( ja right.. :giggle:). "I personally feel this (IPL) is a good product and must be encouraged," he said. "All cricketers and world cricket accept that Test cricket is the purest form of the game and should not be allowed to die. (But) in a country where the longer form of the game gets little or no spectator support, the ODIs and IPL will have to subsidise it. If not, you are not going to see more of Tendulkars, Dravids, Kumbles and others (i cant believe this guy said this.. :wall:)- and that will be a shame. "What is happening with the IPL is exactly what happened in English cricket several decades ago. As interest in the basic form of the game, Tests and counties, was dying, the one-dayer was invented to cross-subsidise county games and Test matches."

[Gunner_Mania]

If not' date= you are not going to see more of Tendulkars, Dravids, Kumbles and others (i cant believe this guy said this.. :wall:)- and that will be a shame.

:omg::hatsoff:

[Gunner_Mania]

Ian Chappel's 2 cents on the IPL Fiasco. http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/457107.html

The virtues of the IPL are many. It attracts new fans to the game, rewards players generously, generally provides highly competitive contests because of well-matched teams, and run prudently it provides a pathway to globalise the game via the franchise system.

SJS, Vortex, Chandan - I know in general you are not very big on IPL, but what are your thoughts on this particular paragraph:) A point I made earlier in this thread, 5-10 years from now, I won't be surprised if even One-day international went the franchise model.

[SJS50]

I am in the process of writing a feature on IPL. When it is done (a few days now) I will post the link here.

[Chandan]

Ian Chappel's 2 cents on the IPL Fiasco. http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/457107.html SJS, Vortex, Chandan - I know in general you are not very big on IPL, but what are your thoughts on this particular paragraph:) A point I made earlier in this thread, 5-10 years from now, I won't be surprised if even One-day international went the franchise model.

I think Chappell means well for IPL and many were saying that this franchise-legue system would be the best way to globalise cricket and bring newer and richer countries on board. But IPL is shamely copying the foreign leagues with structuring itself and that is what has ;ead to this fiasco. Will BCCI take severe steps to put things right? Fat chance of that. And this is the reason why: Modi, and beyond May 5, 2010 prempanicker Elsewhere, with the Kasab trial all over bar the shouting — and hoo boy, what a lot of shouting there’s been — it’s time to brace ourselves for the next ‘trial’. To wit, the impending evisceration of Lalit K Modi.

Sorry not been tweeting as been working on my reply to the show cause. So have had no time. Thanks for all your support and messages

That was Modi, at 5.11 pm May 3rd, on Twitter. Around the same date, if not time, he lobbed this little number into the BCCI forecourt:

“The showcause notice generally refers to documents, records, messages, requests etc.,” Modi wrote in an email obtained by the Times of India. “It specifically states that it is being issued on the basis of available documents. “It therefore appears that there exists documents, records and materials which are proposed to be relied upon and/or used against me. “With a view to ensuring that I have a fair opportunity of responding to the allegations in the showcause notice, may I request your good self to provide me with copies of all materials which you intend to rely upon and use against me.”

I so love this man — Modi, not Barack, should have written about the audacity of hope. That line — “It therefore appears there exists documents, records and materials…” is a thing of beauty and a joy forever. Here’s why:

“The tax authorities and Enforcement Directorate officials are seeking a lot of papers connected with the IPL and in some cases we don’t have the original documents. We have only xerox copies, which they feel is not proper,” Shetty told CNN-IBN, an English news channel. “According to [iPL CEO] Sundar Raman the original documents are with Lalit Modi. My job is to put up a list of documents that were supposed to be with IPL and original documents obtained in each case.”

You can’t help liking a man with chutzpah to burn. Modi keeps all documents with him at all times; he vanishes inconvenient documents at will [remember the not-so-mysterious lady who scooted out of his office with a laptop and files, half an hour before he was first raided? Incidentally, no one has yet asked who tipped Modi off about the impending raid, and why -- stash that in the box file of questions it is too inconvenient for the establishment to ask] and then, when called to account, demands that relevant documents be produced. In the original, I’d assume. “It therefore appears there exists documents…”, says the man who more than anyone else knows exactly what documents “exist”. I don’t know about you, but when I read that bit, I sat up in my sickbed and applauded, then fell over laughing. Honest. What else can you do with a man who has cojones the size of medicine balls? Unintentional levity aside, can we all stop pretending that the hearing, as and when it takes place, has any point? probative value? The BCCI has no investigating mechanism; it has no legal sanction to “try” anyone; for all that both sides are stocking up on high priced lawyers, the proceedings have no probative value; and any determination the board arrives at is not worth the paper it will be written on, because its structure is so nebulous, its constitution a patchwork quilt of amendments and codicils inserted on a whim by successive bosses, that no one is quite sure what will and what will not stand up to legal scrutiny. In any case, none of it matters. Corruption is not per se likely to give the BCCI a conniption. Where Modi is concerned, therefore, it is not a case of malfeasance, proven or otherwise, but of antipathy. Where Modi is concerned, the attitude is ‘I dislike thee, Dr Fell/The reason why, I cannot tell.’ The “hearing” therefore is for show; the outcome has been predetermined. Pataudi, whose half-hearted mea culpa was taken down by Mukul Kesavan earlier, in one of the best opinion pieces to come out of the IPL fiasco, let the feline out of the bag recently:

“We are awaiting answers to several questions put to him and, yes, it would help if he answers them to everyone’s satisfaction,” Pataudi told Indian Express. “But even so, coming back would be difficult as the problem with him was his style of functioning, which a lot of people had problems with.”

So what can/will the board do? Removing him from the board is not an option — push too hard, leave the man with nothing, and a vengeful Modi is apt to tie the whole thing up in court, besides whispering in the media’s ears about the disposition, and whereabouts, of various interesting skeletons. So the only option left is to banish him to a kind of administrative purgatory — keep him on as vice president without the power to indulge in his own peculiar vices. When the decision comes, it will set off a media firestorm of febrile excitement, and keep talking heads occupied for a news cycle or two. And then we will all move on. That is the nature of the media: a prime time j’accuse buttressed by “sensational” revelations from faceless sources [while on that, check out Tehelka's latest], a sustained public blood letting, a human sacrifice as denouement — and there an end. It is theatre — but it is not constructive discourse. When the dust settles Chirayu Amin, and the governing council, takes over — and therein lies the ultimate irony. Amin, a member of the governing council that over the past three years manifestly did not govern, has already positioned himself as something of the antiModi, the puritan to Modi’s satyr, frowning publicly on cheer leaders and late night partying – statements consonant with his origins in the Dry State but, in terms of real reform, about as much use as prescribing an emetic to a patient diagnosed with terminal cancer. The question that merits asking, however, is not what Amin will or will not do, so much as what right an Amin or any other member of the governing council has to take over the reins. Consider what the board president has said, at various times, about the relationship between the BCCI and the IPL. When he was seeking to legitimize his right to hold Modi’s feet to the fire, he said the IPL is a sub-set of the BCCI, and that he as BCCI president is the overall authority. Nice — but then people began asking him to explain how he and his fellow council members spent three years mimicking the three monkeys, at which point Manohar realized that responsibility is a concomitant of power; that if he wanted to puff himself off as the ultimate authority, then his would be the ultimate responsibility. The buckshot, in other words, stops in his gut. That was when Manohar began walking it back, talking of how (a) the council’s job, and his, is merely to make broad decisions, not sweat the details and (b) that in any case, Modi was flying solo and the council was invariably being presented with a fait accompli. His minion, Professor Ratnakar Shetty, then took the argument further — and severed the umbilical cord between the two entities. From the story linked to at the start, this quote:

He also backed Manohar’s view that the board did not interfere in the IPL’s functioning. “The IPL started as a separate wing of BCCI,” Shetty said. “A separate office was set up and several people employed. Lalit’s being BCCI vice-president [showed] his authority and that he was running the show. And the administrative wing of BCCI therefore did not interfere in the IPL’s working.”

So the bottom line is: (a) The governing council [of which, do note, Amin was a member] is powerless when it comes to the IPL and (b) The governing council, and particularly Amin, will here on call the shots where IPL is concerned. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? The problem is that the IPL is an unstructured codependency of business and cricket and celebrity, cobbled together in such an unstructured fashion that it is almost guaranteed to throw up chaos and corruption at regular intervals. Change cannot come from outside the system [ignore the talking heads calling for a three-member team of former Supreme Court judges performing the function of ombudsman, or for government intervention in some form -- both measures likely to further broadbase corruption, not end it]. So get set for the Modi hearing, and a pyrrhic victory. But don’t brace for reform — because for that to happen, there needs to be a deeply felt acknowledgement that the existing machinery is broken. Thus far, what we have had is a total absence of soul searching, an obsessive focus on Lalit Modi as the source of all evil and his eventual public evisceration as the final solution, all accompanied by some fairly inspired buck-passing. Reform of the meaningful kind needs to start with the BCCI and its constitution, with a proper delineation of its powers vis a vis the IPL; it requires an overhaul of the governing council [if you have no responsibility and no authority -- hullo, Sunny, Ravi, Tiger et al -- then you have no business collecting a whopping salary for essentially warming a seat], a clear definition of authorities and responsibilities; it needs for airtight oversight mechanisms to be put in place… And none of this can, or will, happen, because the very people who can bring about that change are the ones who have deeply vested interests in preserving the status quo. So GM, no matter how much we wish that everything is set alright for IPL, its the perfect model for future, etc etc, the house of corruption will come down one day or the other and I don't see how they can set things right withough propering a professional structure for IPL where millions of dollars business goes on. With so much of money and no law, chaos has to set in.

[achilles]

One of the few times that Prem Panicker actually stood unbiased. And Shashank Manohar is conviniently the Big Boss and conviniently someone sitting in a corner for 3 yrs (its not 3 days, its 3 YEARS) and saying "Haan Saab, Jee Saab, Ho Jayega Saab" to Lalit Modi? I can't digest the "lets-make-Modi-the-fall-guy" campaign being run by the BCCI. Everyone is accountable. I'm shocked to see the responses of Ravi Shaz and Sunny Gav, significantly after Nawab sahab said everyone was responsible. I'm surprised it took Shashank 3yrs to suddenly realize he was the boss and could sack Lalit Modi. What was even more sudden was the way in which Manoharji woke up after a Congress Minister lost his job. Timing, anyone?

[thevortex]

Prem Panicker has outdone himself. A piece at once satirical as well as probing. Emotional as well as full of common sense. Thanks for sharing that Chandan. Achilles - yes indeed, Modi is the prime target of what is essentially a witch-hunt. But I guess the best way to see it is that at least one among those errant lords of Indian cricket is being held accountable. To me, anything related to Indian cricket which does not refer to Pawar, loses credibility. Here is a Union Minister to whom everybody defers on matters cricketing and who happens to be the prime mover and shaker. Yet nobody wants to talk about his role in decisions taken or of the future. For all this, he has no standing or official position insofar as the BCCI is concerned. Yes, he is the chief incumbent for the ICC but help me understand how that is an actual position in the scheme of things!

[The Outsider]

Shastri sounds like such an airhead and a moron in that interview above. Trying to use all the management jargon like 'product', 'conceptualizing', 'expertise', 'perspective', 'visionary' repeatedly while trying to say that he was only there for the cricket. Can't help but chuckle at his take on the strategic time outs :

It worked out beautifully. Wasn’t the greatest in the second year when we had extended breaks. But you learn and in the third season it was actually used as a strategic time out, not time out for TV ads alone. Yes, money was flowing into the system, but at the same time captains were also debating: should I take it before the 9th over, should I take it at the 16th...

[thevortex]

Oh man - strategic timeouts, dont get me started on that one! Captains were debating on that one? Like it has been said for centuries in India, one can only wake one who is asleep :).

[Gunner_Mania]

He seems to take the average cricket follower for idiots. I can understand Modi trying to sell Strategic time outs as useful for crickets, but for Shastri to say captain's where debating when to take it, shows he is talking from his backside.

[achilles]

Prem Panicker has outdone himself. A piece at once satirical as well as probing. Emotional as well as full of common sense. Thanks for sharing that Chandan. Achilles - yes indeed, Modi is the prime target of what is essentially a witch-hunt. But I guess the best way to see it is that at least one among those errant lords of Indian cricket is being held accountable. To me, anything related to Indian cricket which does not refer to Pawar, loses credibility. Here is a Union Minister to whom everybody defers on matters cricketing and who happens to be the prime mover and shaker. Yet nobody wants to talk about his role in decisions taken or of the future. For all this, he has no standing or official position insofar as the BCCI is concerned. Yes, he is the chief incumbent for the ICC but help me understand how that is an actual position in the scheme of things!

Precisely, pal. :hatsoff:

[SJS50]

My question is - what gives anybody the authority to make players arrive mandatorily for after night parties - even on match days? Is that a contractual obligation? Did the players specifically sign some document to that effect? Do the home boards know about such conditions and did they give their consent? This is beyond crass. I would like for any of the IPL fans to try and explain why exactly the players' attendance should have been made mandatory. Chandan - please note that Shastri is still not ready to give Modi away to the wolves. He is waiting for Modi's answers and even if they turn out to be half decent then I get the feeling that Shastri will back him to the hilt. By the way, who are the members of this elusive and mysterious finance committee? Everybody is pointing fingers at them but nobody from that committee is being pointed out. Did they take those controversial decisions or were they an agreeing part of those decisions? Or did Modi pre-empt them as well?

Exactly. Shastri and Gavaskar are biggest fence-sitters and knowers-of-the-side-of-the-toast-to-butter on the planet. Dont expect them to say anything negative about Modi until there is no doubt that he is never going to EVER make a come back. As for asking only cricket related questions, one has never heard of more BS than that. On our limited companies' boards we take on outside (un-interested) directors from various discipline viz lawyers, finance men, technical experts etc basically to make sure the Board of Directors covers all possible aspects of the company's operations BUT having said that, these 'experts' do not sit quietly with lips sealed when other weightier subjects are being discussed outside the area of their expertise. They are expected to raise red flags if they see signs of any slight unpleasant odour. And to even suggest that there were no questions to be asked regarding IPL for the last three years concerning the financial matters is to take everyone listening as to be bloody idiots. You don't have to be an expert on every field to be on BoD's or Governing Councils but you are expected to be smart enough to be able to ask questions. Why? even Managing Directors of public limited companies (I was one for 21 long years) do not bring personal experience of all aspects of management and operations. Most of them are specialists too but they are jolly well supposed to be smart enough to ask questions that the managers, senior executives need to provide answers to and that will tend to highlight any problem areas. If anyone is required who can not do this but has a special expertise that the GC.BoD can use, they are kept outside the BoD/GC as sub-committees who provide inputs to the board and report to the CEO or maybe to one GC/BoD member who is then held responsible. But no one can take a seat in the chamber and escape responsibility when the **** hits the ceiling. That's why so many highly talented people are hesitant to come on the Boards of Companies. Because once you are there the responsibility is shared. These guys get away with such idiotic statements and defences like sieves because the morons from the media who interview them have no clue as to how to ask a counter question.

[thevortex]

Precisely' date=' pal. :hatsoff:[/quote'] I dont think we agree on this point, Achilles :). I am saying that even if this is a witch-hunt, I would love to have wrong-doers punished. Even if it is only one of them at this point of time.

[SJS50]

I dont think we agree on this point, Achilles :). I am saying that even if this is a witch-hunt, I would love to have wrong-doers punished. Even if it is only one of them at this point of time.

Of course. Just because all are not caught (which is ideal and must be continuously striven for) does not mean anyone, even one of a hundred, that is caught should go scot-free.

[Chandan]

I might be late on this, but the fresh charge from BCCI on Modi was the based on ECB's Giles' allegation of Modi trying to run a parallel IPL in England. Wonder what the BCCI had been doing all this while its vice president was running riot in the entire cricket world and then suddenly woke to slap charges after charges on him, washing its hands completely off the entire shameful occurings!! Just read this blog : A medal for Modi? May 7, 2010 prempanicker Oooooo! A fresh charge-sheet, containing “grave allegations”, against Lalit Modi even before the man has had time to respond to the previous one. What fun! Seriously — are you kidding me? Walk with me through memory’s bylanes, if you will. In April 2009, the ECB mooted P20 — a two division Twenty20 tournament intended to replicate the success of the IPL. This being the ECB — a body whose chief characteristic is administrative incompetence — [Hey, I'm not saying it -- later that same year, the Sunday Telegraph ran a poll of professional cricketers across England, and discovered that a mere 11 per cent of the players had faith in Giles Clarke and the ECB -- an approval rating that is even worse than any George W Bush racked up at the very worst period of his presidency], missed the whole point about the IPL. Rather than opt for a crisp tournament with anything from 8-10 teams, the ECB opted to duplicate its existing county structure, with 18 teams and two divisions. In other words, it set itself the challenge of finding 18 big ticket sponsors, in an environment where the England team has in recent times struggled to find one [Vodafone, last year, ended its 12-year relationship with the team, and Brit Insurance took over.] MCC chief executive Keith Bradshaw pointed out at the time that the idea was doomed to fail.

“Looking to the future I’m disappointed we are not going with the franchise as we proposed,” Bradshaw told the Daily Telegraph. “I think it is the best model for English cricket and we are missing a massive opportunity as we can see by the success of the IPL. “There is still a lot of interest from investors and as recently as last week I had a new investor in touch with me. The fact is though they are not interested in getting involved in an 18-team P20.”

Soon thereafter, the counties joined the doomsday chorus — and the money on offer was central to their objections.

It transpires that, not only is there no firm deal from a broadcaster for the P20, but the sums mooted are much smaller than were originally suggested. For example, a county in the second division of the P20 could expect no more than £150,000 for their involvement, from which they would have to fund the inclusion of three overseas players. First division clubs would receive £250,000. ECB CEO David Collier however maintained a Panglossian optimism over the future of the project. And then it turned out that the ECB was not fired up by the prospect of building something original, cashing in on interest existing within the locals — the idea actually was to find a way to mop up some moolah from India. And the preferred route was to make it mandatory for each county participating in T20 to mandatorily sign on one Indian player. Vijay Mallya had by then offered to sponsor the league; Zee and ESPN were in talks with the ECB for broadcast rights — but the broadcasters were insistent that absent a sizable Indian participation, they had no interest in forking over big bucks for telecast rights. At which point the lawyers jumped in with a no-can-do – and to cut a long story down to the bone, the ECB was forced to pull the plug on its brainwave. Now consider the ‘charges’ against Modi — an edited version of the story below:

According to PTI, which said it had a copy of the document, the five-page notice issued on Thursday referred to a meeting Modi held on March 31 in Delhi with representatives of English counties including Yorkshire, Lancashire and Warwickshire, in which he is alleged to have discussed a parallel IPL in England and Wales in which eight existing franchises would bid for nine counties in UK.

In other words, Modi is being ‘accused’ of having discussed with the counties a way to make the franchise model, which the ECB had toyed with and failed miserably to pull off, work. While on that, who held a gun to the heads of the county representatives and forced them to the table? If discussing the idea is a crime meriting a charge-sheet, then why are the counties not similarly charge-sheeted?

The BCCI’s chargesheet, as quoted by PTI, was detailed. “You have allegedly discussed this as a commercial proposition…and also set out that IPL would guarantee each county a minimum of $3-5 million per annum plus a staging fee of $1.5 million if the counties supported this idea,” it said.

“Allegedly discussed that as a commercial proposition”? What, the ECB wanted to run its P20 as a branch of Mother Teresa’s outfit? I look at the graf above, and what I see is Modi throwing a lifebelt to counties that are currently drowning in debt. Give the man a medal, for christ’s sake.

“You have allegedly offered a structured deal, by which the returns would be shared 80:20 between the franchises and the counties, a player model based on the IPL model and offered inducement to gather the rest of the county members to support your ideas and goad them to overpower their own governing bodies.

Offering a “structured deal” [as opposed to the pie in the sky version the ECB mooted and had to abandon] is a crime? Modeling a T20 league in England on the basis of the financially successful IPL model is a sin? It is the wording of these “charges” that get your goat. What do you mean, “offered inducement” to “goad” the other counties? The inducement offered is a workable structure for something the ECB itself was incapable of pulling off — or are you suggesting that cash was paid under the table to the representatives who attended the meeting? Then charge-sheet them too, why don’t you? And “goad”? The offer on the table, at risk of repeating myself, was a properly structured league; the representatives were asked to go back and talk to other counties and see if there was interest in actually making some money, rather than running up more debt. “Goad”?

“You have allegedly planted a seed of thought of players’ revolt if the governing bodies of respective cricket boards do not allow them to participate in this extended version of IPL.”

Eh? Let’s see, now — if P20 had actually taken off [a chimerical possibility admittedly, considering it was the ECB that was trying to organize it], there would have been a calendar; international participation would have been on the same lines as currently exists in the IPL. Where did this “revolt” thing come from? Incidentally, players from the New Zealand, West Indies, even England and Australia and Sri Lanka, have over the last three seasons of the IPL regularly demanded that their boards do not schedule meaningless cricket matches [in the second season, the West Indies actually tried to drum up a Test series against Sri Lanka during the IPL season -- an idea that got nixed when both boards realized that its best players would far rather play in India at the time. "Players revolt", anyone?

If Clarke's allegations were true, it said, Modi's activities would amount to a blow to "the very foundation of the way cricket is administered and played across the world".

Ah, now we come to the crux -- this whole nonsense stems from the fear that the ECB would be shown up as incompetent. It would have tried to organize a T20 league, and failed. And then someone else would have come in and shown them how to do it. Which, naturally, would have been a blow to the way cricket is currently administered -- incompetently. No, seriously -- what exactly would have happened had the counties gone along with Modi's suggestion? England would have had a lucrative T20 league of its own. The league would have been not a challenge to the established order, but a sub-set of the ECB, just as the IPL is a league nestled within the BCCI. Is the concern time in the cricketing calendar? It is disingenuous of the ECB to suggest that would have been an issue, when it was contemplating a similar exercise, only involving more teams, and therefore taking more time. The ECB's protestations ring doubly false, when you consider this was the very same board that actively encouraged Sir Allen Stanford to organize a T20 match for a million dollars; that permitted, indeed facilitated, the unspeakably crass display of Stanford helicoptering down into Lord's to show off a plexiglass box packed with twenty million in hard currency; that was in intense negotiations with Stanford to underwrite just the sort of league Modi discussed with the county chiefs... The ECB, remember, was also the very same body that in late 2009 came to the BCCI, hat in hand, to discuss the possibility of hosting the Champions League. The ECB has regularly talked of the need for reform in county cricket and has, at various times, tinkered with various reforms -- to no avail. Meanwhile, the county championship continues to be run on life support -- specifically, on the earnings of the national team, some 60 per cent of which goes into the coffers of the counties. To fund this, the ECB has in recent years been seeking to pack its international schedule with as many matches as is humanly possible -- ironically, creating dissatisfaction among the players, and prompting them to question why they should sweat it out for 12 months in the year to fund the county structure, when for a fraction of that effort they can make far more money for themselves. The ultimate irony is this -- that T20 was the brainchild of an ECB marketing executive [stuart Robinson, to name a name]; it was England that first debuted the format in 2003 [to spectacular results, incidentally, with top grounds reporting sell out crowds]; and it was the ECB that then took the eye off the ball, waffled about the “traditional game” and generally twiddled its thumbs until Modi came along with the IPL and snuck the treasure chest right out from under the ECB’s noses. Even then, England could have cashed in, as the likes of South Africa and Australia did when they bought in wholesale into the IPL and its sibling, the Champions League. Instead, England decided to do its own thing, roped in Stanford, and fell flat on its face. Long story short — I am no supporter of Modi and some of his less savory antics, but this latest “charge sheet” makes absolutely no sense to me. In fact, knowing this was where Modi was headed sparks some grudging respect for the man: imagine a scenario where there are IPL type franchises in the major nations, for instance, with cross-pollination in the form of contests among the winners of the respective editions. Imagine, further, using these contests to develop and nurture markets that are currently untapped [the United States is a prime example; the Gulf is another]. And imagine, further, a situation where the proliferation of such leagues finally compels the ICC to sit down and makes sense of its own international calendar, and work towards a situation where the contests it organizes have context, and hence make for compelling viewing, while the country leagues take care of the popcorn element and bring in the real money. So where is this “charge sheet” coming from? It is, I suspect, the BCCI’s ham-handed effort to gild the lily, to continue the process of painting Modi in the darkest of hues, in order to further justify his inevitable ouster. The ECB would have only been too happy to play along, and convert a business meeting into a “charge sheet” the BCCI could brandish as its latest club — after all, the ECB hasn’t given up all hope of being slotted in as hosts of the Champions League, at least next year. Hidden in that litany of “charges” is the real key to the puzzle — that bit about this being a blow to the “very foundation of how cricket is administered”. Because in the final analysis, it is always about the administrators, and their attempts to ensure that they control everything — even if the hallmarks of their “administration” are neglect, incompetence, and worse. PS: How much are you willing to bet that Modi’s proposal, in some modified form, will be rolled out by the ECB, with the backing of the BCCI, within the next couple of years? UPDATE:

This is totally overblown,” Colin Graves, the Yorkshire chairman, told the Guardian on the accusation that Modi’s plans had the potential to “hijack” the game. “It was a fact-finding mission. Lalit Modi did not put a proposition on the table. There were no secret proposals, no secret agenda, nothing underhand,” Graves said.

And:

“IPL has been extraordinarily successful and we can learn a lot from it. There was a proper business discussion about how things might develop in the future, the sort of discussions that can benefit the whole of English cricket. Stewart Regan took notes of the meeting and forwarded them to all the Test grounds. I then passed those notes to Giles Clarke. Lalit Modi invited all representatives of the Test grounds to be his personal guests at the IPL final. We turned the invitation down as we were not in a position to discuss anything in detail.” According to Clarke, Modi had presented the counties with a commercial proposition wherein if they supported his idea, the IPL would guarantee each county a minimum of $3-5 million per annum plus a staging fee of $1.5 million. “We have not been guaranteed anything, but if anybody puts anything on the table we will discuss it. We have nine Test grounds and only seven Tests a year. We have to find ways to fill these grounds outside the England team. The nine Test grounds are united in the belief we cannot allow the status quo to continue. There is no future in us creating another Twenty20 competition for all 18 counties. It is not attractive enough to fill the Test grounds. We have to create something new and exciting, a tournament with the appeal of IPL, a British version. We will continue to put these ideas to Giles,” Graves said.

From Cricinfo. Also from Cricinfo, the master plan, in greater detail. The question I have is — the county representatives attended the meeting; Giles did not. Where did he get the details in this mail from? And finally, Modi has asked for more time to prepare his reply! He was supposed to reply today. Now tell me, how many of you are exhonerating other Governing council members from all this?

[SJS50]

Here is a hilarious piece from Gideon Haigh. As befits a thinking writer, their is a hard hitting and accurate assessment behind the sarcasm.

Cricketainment, eh?

To extract the maximum hilarity from the email of Yorkshire chief executive Stewart Regan to his fellow county bosses, imagine it read with the accent of one of PG Wodehouse's upper-class nincompoops. "The IPL model relies heavily on 'star players' and this is why they have been so successful," pants Regan. "Matches include fashion shows, after-match parties and entertainment. They have launched the word 'CRICKETAINMENT' which I think is really innovative." I say, that Lalit Modi is a jolly clever fellow, eh? He's launched a whole new word, dontcha know? In India, they have "star players" and whatnot. You can't miss what Wodehouse called the "certain what-is-it" in Regan's voice. Here's someone who seems to have just found out that cricket concerns more than the forward-defensive stroke. Perhaps this is news in Yorkshire, where they proverbially don't play for fun, tha knows. But is it any wonder that Modi looks like a genius when he keeps this sort of company? Let's just refresh our memories. Because Twenty20 cricket actually started in England in 2003, and attracted no interest in India for the next four years. Indeed, the Board of Control for Cricket in India regarded the game's new variant with distinct unease. They had a nice fat 50-over racket running: why endanger it with anything "really innovative"? If anyone can be credited with the idea of "cricketainment", it's the England Cricket Board's marketing director Stuart Robertson, who enticed the ambivalent with all manner of entertainment epiphenomena - as enumerated by Hugh Chevallier in Wisden:

Jacuzzis, fairground rides, bouncy castles, face painting, barbecue zones, boy bands, girl bands - you name it, it was there as a sideshow. Rather more in your face were the banks of loudspeakers blaring out frequent musical snatches - "I Don't Like Cricket, I Love It!" from 10CC (remixed for our times by the United Colours of Sound) greeted boundaries, while Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust" taunted dismissed batsmen as they sprinted for the dug-out.

And credit where credit is due - bank credit, mainly, in his case - but nobody out-cricketained Allen Stanford at Coolidge, with his carnivals, mobile discos, and hot-and-cold running WAGs. "The purists lose sight of that," lectured Stanford. "It's entertainment, that's it… Dancing, music, Twenty20, this is the way we play it, for entertainment." So it's a strange oversight for someone like Regan, suddenly so smitten with "fashion shows, after-match parties and entertainment", for he is actually detecting innovation exactly where it is not. The Indian Premier League does not succeed because of Modi's much-vaunted "cricketainment". It prospers because India has an economy finally growing fast enough to improve the standards of living for its 1.2 billion people, and because cricket is one of the few passions those people share, thus providing corporations with access to the country's growing consumer markets. You could scrap the fashion parades and celebrity self-celebration tomorrow - indeed, the BCCI has foreshadowed just that - and the IPL would be just as big, possibly bigger. Where Modi was genuinely innovative was in the matter of private ownership: that is, he basically bypassed the state associations composing the BCCI and sold franchises to big businesses and venture capitalists. But before English counties sign up for a system from which they extract a fifth of gross revenues, essentially running their game on the crumbs from the rich man's table, perhaps they should compare notes with the Indian state associations currently complaining about the two-thirds of three-eighths of not very much they're deriving from IPL. "They are absolutely convinced we are sitting on a goldmine!" chortles the excitable Regan in his email; it might just as easily be a shaft. There's all manner of strains in the structure of English first-class cricket. It's hard to blame counties, however previously hidebound, for seeking solutions wherever they might emerge. But they have picked a peculiar moment to get religion. It is difficult to believe, too, that they truckled so cringingly to Modi during a meeting in which, if the minutes are to be believed, he advocated that IPL franchises simply desert official cricket "if governing bodies try to block the development of IPL20", talked freely of usurping the ICC's role by staging "IPL Tests and ODIs", and relying chiefly on the greed of players to achieve his ends. Oh, who cares if it helps us save county cricket, eh? What's particularly striking about Regan's communiqué, however, is not its cloying naïvety, but its utter defeatism. It is swept up in the IPL fiction that cricket is really a bit of a naff old relic, and thank goodness Lalit Modi arrived in the nick of time with "cricketainment" to save it from itself. Does anyone talk about "footballtainment" or "golftainment"? No, because football and golf are confident enough of their own intrinsic excellence not to need "fashion shows, after-match parties and entertainment", or at least not to treat such juvenilia as evidence of Mensa-esque cleverness. Only cricket suffers from administrators who feel so frustrated by the game with which they have been entrusted that they must constantly be manhandling and mangling it in order to wring out an extra dollar. Modi has at least the redeeming feature of a vision with a certain epic grandeur - folie de grandeur, anyway. It betrays the decadence of English cricket administration that its proudest county is now run by a desperate coat-tail rider like Regan. Time was when cricket administration was the preserve of rheumy-eyed reactionaries so besotted with the game they would rather it rot away than reform. Now it seems dominated by a caste who really wish they were doing something else, something with a bit more glamour, celebrity and money, and hanker to change cricket into a product more congenial to them, usually in the name of the fans, but in reality largely for themselves.