IPL mess : Why so surprised? - Gideon Haigh

[The Outsider]

Why no monkey took the initiative if they had so much guarantee before Modiji?:yay:

If you or I were to go to the BCCI with a franchise based cricket proposal, they sure would have lapped on to it, right? Just on this forum, the idea of franchise based cricket was discussed many times before the ICL or IPL. The reason BCCI got into action was because of ICL and the success of India in the T20 WC. A failed businessman and administrator cashed in on the opportunity. A case study for management students! :hysterical:

[Precambrian]

If you or I were to go to the BCCI with a franchise based cricket proposal, they sure would have lapped on to it, right? Just on this forum, the idea of franchise based cricket was discussed many times before the ICL or IPL. The reason BCCI got into action was because of ICL and the success of India in the T20 WC. A failed businessman and administrator cashed in on the opportunity. A case study for management students! :hysterical:

You just elaborated my question. It still remains, why Modi only could it? Why not anyone before him??? (I am not talking about the idea, but the successful execution of an idea into a billion dollar enterprise)

[The Outsider]

You just elaborated my question. It still remains' date=' why Modi only could it? Why not anyone before him??? (I am not talking about the idea, but the successful execution of an idea into a billion dollar enterprise)[/quote'] What makes you say only Modi would have been able to do it? The BCCI gave Modi the opportunity to do, that is why he was able to do it. If they had given that responsibility to the proverbial monkey, he would have been able to do it as well given the BCCI's monopoly and cricket's popularity.

[Precambrian]

What makes you say only Modi would have been able to do it? The BCCI gave Modi the opportunity to do' date=' that is why he was able to do it. If they had given that responsibility to the proverbial monkey, he would have been able to do it as well given the BCCI's monopoly and cricket's popularity.[/quote'] Well, duh, the idea has been there since Dalmiya's days. T20 cricket was there since 2003-04(?), and yet it took till Modi to convert all these into the IPL as we know today. BCCI's monopoly has existed since it's formation. Surely looks like your so called "monkeys" were a little late to the party, or never bothered to show up. ;)

[The Outsider]

Well, duh, the idea has been there since Dalmiya's days. T20 cricket was there since 2003-04(?), and yet it took till Modi to convert all these into the IPL as we know today. BCCI's monopoly has existed since it's formation. Surely looks like your so called "monkeys" were a little late to the party, or never bothered to show up. ;)

As I already said in my earlier post, the catalysts for the BCCI to jump into action were ICL and India's success at the T20 WC. At which point anyone could have made IPL a success.

[Precambrian]

As I already said in my earlier post' date=' the catalysts for the BCCI to jump into action were ICL and India's success at the T20 WC. At which point anyone could have made IPL a success.[/quote'] Yeah, and any monkey instead of Kapil Dev could've captained us to World Cup 1983 BTW, speaking of World Cups, why didn't we have such leagues coming up then? BCCI was monopoly then also, we had Packer tournament for inspiration, and we had won a World Cup? No monkeys back then?

[The Outsider]

Yeah, and any monkey instead of Kapil Dev could've captained us to World Cup 1983 BTW, speaking of World Cups, why didn't we have such leagues coming up then? BCCI was monopoly then also, we had Packer tournament for inspiration, and we had won a World Cup? No monkeys back then?

Don't see the relevance of Kapil leading us to a win in the World Cup. If India was the only team competing, then yes any monkey could have led us to the win, but it was not a monopoly with 7 other teams in the fray. BCCI was still a poor board when we won the World Cup in '83. Cricket was nowhere close to being the national passion it is now and there was no private entity like ICL threatening to take control of cricket away from BCCI. Not to mention T20 being a much more marketable product for the masses than 50 over cricket.

[Precambrian]

Don't see the relevance of Kapil leading us to a win in the World Cup. If India was the only team competing' date=' then yes any monkey could have led us to the win, but it was not a monopoly with 7 other teams in the fray.[/quote'] AFAIC there are 9 other test nations, and some like England playing for years, yet only one IPL styled tournament happened. I wonder why?

BCCI was still a poor board when we won the World Cup in '83. Cricket was nowhere close to being the national passion it is now and there was no private entity like ICL threatening to take control of cricket away from BCCI. Not to mention T20 being a much more marketable product for the masses than 50 over cricket.

:hysterical: Cricket was not a passion? 50 over not a marketable product? Ever followed cricket in the 90s? Were you under a rock till IPL came? If you notice, BCCI have hardly "invested" in the IPL. What it did was facilitate investments by major companies/individuals into cricket and took a cut off it. So whether BCCI was a rich or poor entity is of least relevance. We winning the cup was one of the chief reasons why cricket took of so well, and TVs were also becoming quite common. We were also getting sponsors (see World Cup 87), so all we lacked was your proverbial monkey to put all these together.:--D

[The Outsider]

^ You're incapable of an honest discussion when you start blabbering stuff like cricket was a national passion in '83! How old were you in '83? Don't bother answering, not wasting anymore time with you. :bye:

[Gunner_Mania]

This is just like it took a Jagmohan Dalmiya to mint money for the BCCI. Up untill then the BCCI had a monopoly but was as good as Doordarshan having a monopoly

[Precambrian]

^ You're incapable of an honest discussion when you start blabbering stuff like cricket was a national passion in '83! How old were you in '83? Don't bother answering, not wasting anymore time with you. :bye:

:haha: If the reason behind 100k crowds for "test" matches was'nt passion, then Elvis Presley is Obama. Please continue to keep that head buried in sand.

[Precambrian]

This is just like it took a Jagmohan Dalmiya to mint money for the BCCI. Up untill then the BCCI had a monopoly but was as good as Doordarshan having a monopoly

Precisely. Had a "monkey" like Modi or Dalmiya been there around mid eighties, we'd have seen a much richer BCCI by now, if that were possible.

[Gunner_Mania]

You seem to be forgetting the fact that Indian economy wasn't opened up untill the early 90s.

[thevortex]

@the vortex, There are cases for both. It is virtually impossible for a Company go to go from growth to growth without a strong leadership, and in environments like ours, which call for immediate response to dynamic environment, sometimes "near - autocratic" approach by Modi helps. do you think that IPL 2009 would have really happened if Modi decided to play safe and waited for consensus from everyone? Including the Govt? Nobody is saying he is 100% perfect. But who is? People seem overeager to jump to the Modi bashing bandwagon, but when asked to present concrete proof of something that he did, they are all at sea. But why should that bother the bashing? Lage Raho.

Leadership is about empowerment, Precambrian. It is not to overpower. I am sure you can make the association. You can make hundreds of cases as to why people actually have to be cunning and have to aim below the belt to make it big in India. I get that. But seriously you would not consider that a valid defense, would you?! Forget legal. You talk moral or human perspectives. Any which way that is not standing. Finally - I cannot speak for others. But I have been clear on which aspects of Modi (actions and character) I appreciated (and to be frank there are a few things on those lines) and which ones I did not. What I specifically do NOT appreciate is making him an object of study for management graduates. That is a DIRECT encouragement for them to forget empowerment. To forget about the institution and instead indulge in a systematic overpowering of the system to achieve whatever goals they might have. All in the name of achieving a dream. Actually there is a curious irony in it all - dont you think? :)

[Chandan]

Modi's defence: BCCI in on IPL deals hindustantimes EXCLUSIVE REPLY Sacked IPL chief says cricket brass knew ownership fineprint; HT with so far unseen details Gaurav Choudhury NEW DELHI: For the fortnight following Lalit Modi's dramatic just-after-midnight suspension from the post of Indian Premier League chairman on April 26, everyone from the tax authorities to the media, from irate bloggers to unnamed “sources“ in the Enforcement Directorate, speculated on who really owned the IPL teams. According to the Indian cricket board (BCCI), only one man (Modi) had foreknowledge of the gory details and he wasn't talking. According to Modi's reply to the first showcause notice issued by the BCCI, how- ever, every detail was known to the BCCI-IPL brass and they had signed off on ownership details, including those pertaining to change of ownership. Modi's 156-page, triple-spaced reply 10 days ago, to the BCCI's 35-page showcause notice contains detailed minutes of Governing Council meetings and documents he says have been signed off on by top IPL and BCCI officials. It also has one very important annexure -- the `secret' ownership details of teams, a copy of which is with the Hindustan Times The bulwark of Modi's defence is illustrations, anecdotes and incidents supported by detailed documentation, which Modi's camp says it will implicate senior BCCI-IPL officials and dam- age their credibility. Modi's camp insists that the fact that BCCI is yet to respond shows that it has something to hide. BCCI officials were unwilling to comment till Modi replies by May 31 to the second show- cause notice issued to him. However, a source said that the BCCI believed Modi's reply to be “weak“. “He has concentrated on the charge of proxy ownership of three teams, which, in any case, is up to the ED to prove. Apart from that, he has nothing of sub- stance regarding the $80m facilitation fee, the arm-twisting tactics and threats used by him to intimidate franchises or the other deals entered into by him.“ HT has learnt in addition to the `11,000-odd supporting documents' that are supposed to show that Modi was neither “taking unilateral decisions“ nor keeping other officials “in the dark about deals on behalf of the IPL“, he has directly taken on Srinivasan in his reply. He has reportedly stated Srinivasan is in serious conflict of interest because of his position in India Cements -- there- fore being “chief promoter of Chennai Super Kings“ -- and being BCCI secretary (and part of the IPL decision-making process). Interestingly, the only team for which Modi has not provided ownership details is Chennai Super Kings. “He is free to make whatever charges he wants, but Srinivasan is not being charged here,“ said a source. “Plus, of the 9,000 documents, about 8,000 come from AC Muthiah's petition (former BCCI president who has petitioned the Supreme Court against the `conflict of interest' specifically in Srinivasan's case), all the franchise papers and the tender documents. Of the reply itself, if you make it single- spaced, it will be only 50 pages instead of 150.“ Modi though, has made his point-by-point rebuttal to the BCCI's chargesheet. For instance, in response to the Board saying it was unaware of the team's share- holding pattern and the fact that Modi's family members were shareholders, he has affixed a newspaper report from May 11, 2008 quoting IPL vice-chair- man Niranjan Shah where he defends Modi's brother-in-law partly owning Rajasthan Royals. Shah is quoted as saying there is no conflict of interest. He also countered the BCCI's claim that the IPL governing council meeting was legal. He attached a December 2009 newspaper report in which Manohar is saying: “Lalit is appointed by the general body till 2012. There is no reason, power or authority upon us to remove Lalit. There could be differences in issues between the board members, but that does not make them enemies.“ There's lots more. Meanwhile, in a game of brinkmanship unlike any other, Modi's high-powered team of lawyers, including Harish Salve, Ram Jethmalani, Tony Jethmalani, Amit Desai, Swadeep Hora, Venkatesh Dhond, Harish Salve, Shailesh Mendon and Mehmood Abdi, are collecting and collating ammunition to fortify his second reply. But if the BCCI's frazzled, no one's showing it. So what exactly is Modi's reply? SELF DEFENCE - No holds barred: Modi attacks BCCI In a sensational twist to the whole Indian Premier League saga, Lalit Modi, the suspended IPL chairman, has accused BCCI president Shashank Manohar of fabricating evidence, lying, favouring certain teams under pressure from “a Cabinet Minister“, putting pressure on corporates to go with what he wanted --- almost eerily similar to some of the allegations against Modi himself --- and asked Manohar to remove himself from the panel that will judge whether Modi's suspension from all BCCI and IPL posts stands or not. In what is an all-out frontal attack on the Indian cricket board's two most powerful men, he has made even stronger accusations against BCCI secretary N. Srinivasan, and accused him of a “brazen“ misuse of his power as secretary to “confer benefit“ on the Chennai Super Kings (owned by India Cements, the company where Srinivasan is managing director). He has asked that Srinivasan be issued an immediate showcause notice and “be suspended“ pending investigation. In an 14-page letter to Manohar on Tuesday (May 25), a copy of which is with Hindustan Times, Modi has stated: “The allegation that I tried to rig the bidding in favour of two bidders, namely Adani's and Videocon has caused me much anguish... I had kept my peace in the larger interest of the Board but now that such an allegation has been made I am constrained to put the following facts on record...“ His reference is to the first auction for two new IPL teams on March 7 this year. It was cancelled by Manohar and the IPL's Governing Council because of alleged 'irregularities' by Modi in the bid process. A fresh tender was issued. The bid was ultimately won by the Sahara Group (for Pune) and a consortium of promoters led by Rendezvous Sports World (for Kochi). Modi's letter continues: “After the deadline for submitting bids, late in the evening and into the night of 5th March 2010 and in the morning of 6th March 2010, I received several calls from (then junior External Affairs minister) Mr. Shashi Tharoor and his Secretary Mr. Jacob, informing me that a third bid (“Kochi Bid“) was coming from Delhi and requesting that I accept the same. I informed him that the deadline for submission of bids had expired at 5 pm on 5th March 2010.... Mr. Tharoor told me that he would take up this matter with the (BCCI) President...“ What Modi says next puts a whole new spin on last month's Kochigate controversy, because he basically states that Manohar, under pressure from Tharoor, tried to force him to accept the Kochi bid and when that failed, got the entire bid process cancelled. He writes: “While you and I were sitting together at the Four Seasons Hotel, at about 7 pm on 6th March 2010, a representative of the Kochi Franchise came with the Kochi bid and sought to hand it over to me. I declined to accept the same, saying it was beyond time. You however asked me to accept the bid. You advised me to anti time the bid to 12 noon for 6th March 2010.“ And then, here's the explosive part. Modi spares no punches: “You seemed to be under extreme pressure to ensure that the late bid be included in the bidding process. Since you failed to ensure that the bid could not be included you then decided to ensure that the bid process itself is cancelled.“ “...I appreciate that due to involvement of a Cabinet Minister you had to do things which knowing you I believe you would not do in the normal course.“ Modi states that after the incident, Manohar told him that he would “persuade the governing council“ that the bids had to be cancelled and told him to inform the lawyers of both the BCCI and the International Management Group, the event organisers, to prepare fresh bid documents. “Then you started calling various people from my phone asking them to get letters of objection from different corporate entities objecting on the differ- ent clauses relating to criteri- on of $1 billion and bank guarantee,“ writes Modi. Manohar, unusually in this time and age, doesn't generally carry a cell phone nor does he have an email account (he uses his wife's email address to receive mail). Modi then says that these letters (addressed to Manohar) were sent to his own email account and were used by Manohar the next day in the Governing Council to cancel the bidding process. “...you relied on these letters to persuade the Governing Council to cancel the bid --- inter alia pointing out that there had been complaints about the excessive unreason- able and disproportionate bid conditions.“ Modi has also said that Manohar was keeping daily tracking the TV rights deal with Sony-Multi Screen Media and was well aware of the deal with the World Sport Group, Mauritius -- the company alleged to have accepted an $80m (Rs 360cr) facilitation fee to transfer broadcasting rights from themselves to MSM. Modi calls Manohar's professed ignorance of the deal “astonishing“. “Hence,“ he adds, “to ensure that correct position of facts, your cross-examination in the matter is necessary.“... While part a of Modi's letter is a no- holds-barred attack on Manohar, the second part deals with Srinivasan, the BCCI sec- retary. Modi has asked that Srinivasan be “barred and totally excluded“ from being part of the proceedings relating to his showcause notice. “The Honorary Secretary has been instrumental in sponsor- ing complaints against me - I would like to cross-examine him in the present enquiry. His participation would tantamount to him being a judge in his own cause.“ He has accused Srinivasan of “misusing his position“ as BCCI Secretary to “confer wrongful benefit to his team (Chennai Super Kings) at the cost and expense of other teams and the BCCI“. One of the accusations Modi makes is saying Srinivasan attempted what amounts to “umpire/match-fixing“ by trying to get umpires from Chennai/Tamil Nadu to offici- ate in matches that featured the Super Kings and there's email evidence of the same. In what he dubs “a clear and brazen use of power“ he has accused Srinivasan of trying to push a proposal that will allow existing teams to retain seven players (three foreign and four Indian), in order to benefit his team. And then there's this, from a previous time, when Srinivasan was BCCI treasurer: “The Honorary Secretary allowed a Bank Guarantee given by Zee, in the sum of US$.60m (Rs 276cr) to lapse despite ZEE being in breach of its obligations. This was done to cause wrongful loss to the Board and wrong- ful gain to ZEE... When I raised this, the response given was that he forgot about this...“ Modi, who has copied all members of the IPL's Governing Council on the letter, has asked that an independent panel (preferably including eminent judges) be appointed to judge him in “fair- ness“. Whether or not they agree, we'll know very soon. Letter written by Modi to BCCI WHAT HE SAID ON THE REASON FOR THE APPLICATION I do not seek any voice of sup- port for me but only intend to put in place safeguards to ensure that during the course of all the proceedings my voice should not be suppressed and my endeavor to bring out true and correct facts before the members of the Board should not be suffocated. ON MANOHAR'S KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE IPL'S DEALS That your good self has been the part of the Governing Council of IPL and hence, been a party and privy to all the decisions and actions taken by the Governing Council, which have been ratified by the General Body of the Board of which you are the current head. Hence, all the decisions have not only been taken with your concurrence but also have been approved twice over by you as has been by others on the GC. ON WHY MANOHAR SHOULD NOT BE HIS JUDGE You may consider recusing your- self from participating any fur- ther in the proceedings relating to complaint and show cause dated nil as your participation in the proceedings would tanta- mount to being a judge, witness and a potential co-notice in these very proceedings. ON NO SURPRISES IN THE STRUCTURE OF RR The Governing Council of IPL after due consultation amongst itself and only after its satisfac- tion approved the bid of suc- cessful tenderers including that of M/s Emerging Media. The documents filed by M/s Emerging Media along-with bid included a proposed corporate structure, which was accepted by all members of the Governing Council including you. The said bidder had disclosed (i) that the franchisee would be an entity other than the bidder; (ii) the franchisee would be an Indian company; (iii) the franchisee (Indian company) would be a 100% subsidiary of a Mauritius Holding Company; and (iv) the ultimate ownership of the fran- chisee would be held; in identi- fied proportions by three groups. ON OFFICIALS SAYING THEY WERE UNAWARE OF MODI'S FAMILY STAKES IN RR There is an allegation in the show cause notice that I failed to disclose that my co- brother i.e. Mr. Suresh Chellaram was bid- ding in the consortium for Rajasthan. I wish to place on record that I have no direct or indirect interest in Rajasthan Royals. Mr. Suresh Chellaram is an independent businessman and man of extensive financial resources. It is further submitted that he is my co-brother is known to all including you from many years... He was also present for the workshop in Goa on 8th February 2008 where most of the members of the governing council members were present. Mr. Suresh Chellaram was present at the award winning cere- mony at the first IPL in 2008 as the Championship was won by Rajasthan Royals, where you were also present. Hence I would require you to appear as a wit- ness in case the matter is pro- ceeded with further.

[thevortex]

I dont understand how the proposed retention of 7 players clause will benefit only the CSK team. It would benefit every team in the IPL. Modi is clutching at straws. He is trying to bury the entire case under a mountain of officiousness in the form of documents/allegations and vague threats. If Modi can claim that Suresh Chellaram is an independent businessman (despite being his brother in law) why in the world did he raise in public the matter about Tharoor's girl friend (alleged) owning a stake in the Kochi team???? Smacks of the worst case of double standards anybody?

[Zap_Brannigan]

If Modi can claim that Suresh Chellaram is an independent businessman (despite being his brother in law) why in the world did he raise in public the matter about Tharoor's girl friend (alleged) owning a stake in the Kochi team???? Smacks of the worst case of double standards anybody?

How is that even comparable? Chellaram joined a group of people who then bid for a franchise legally, like all the other owners. The bidding was done by a reputed third party company, all independent of Modi or his opinion. If anyone else had bid more than Chellaram's group, then they would have won it. The relationship had nothing to do with the process. In the other case, a random beautician got paid 20~50 million $ for no reason. How was she related to the team? Why would anyone pay someone, who for all purposes has not shown any previous experience for what she is supposedly hired for, such exorbitant fees? The obvious answer here is that she provides some other service. Seeing as Tharoor, played a huge hand in first removing a clause and canceling the 1st bid because Rendezvous couldn't bid and that his gf got paid 20~50 million $, its pretty obvious what happened here.

[yoda]

CSK vs MI IPL 3 finals, TV umpire S. Ravi, Match referee Venkat. Match fixed :hehe:

[Chandan]

Vortex, I once again read a brilliant analysis of Lalit Modi's reply on Prem Panicker's blog. In my opinion Modi is adopting the method most of the batsmen adopt when they are on a sticky wicket, that is , 'attack is your best defence'. He is going all out after Srinivasan but is somewhat restrained or indirect while going after Manohar. Read Prem's analysis through: M for minefield I’ve never seen a real live minefield. Until now. Lalit Modi’s central demand, that the BCCI president and secretary recuse themselves from the disciplinary hearing, is easily handled by the BCCI — its constitution provides for the composition of the hearing committee, and the president and secretary are on it [the secretary is in fact the convenor of said committee]. There is no provision constitutionally for such recusal, and that is the push back you can expect from the board. The real problem for the board is the multiple land mines Modi has strewn throughout his 14-page email. As under:

Manohar, Modi alleges, was responsible for the controversial decision to scrap the initial opening of tenders for the franchises and went out of his way to entertain former minister of state for external affairs Shashi Tharoor and accept the Kochi bid much after the lapse of deadline. He denies the allegation that he tried rigging the bids in favour of two business houses for the two new teams added for the fourth edition of the IPL; instead he claims the bids were processed and vetted by the board’s corporate lawyers and counsel Akhila Kaushik, appointed on Manohar’s recommendation.

That Manohar was responsible for scrapping the initial bidding is no secret. He had said so himself, alleging that the process was flawed. The problem for him is Modi’s push back that the clauses were vetted by no less than a lawyer who was once Manohar’s father’s junior, and a good family friend who the board president recommended for the BCCI job. Again, no surprise — the board routinely treats various well-paying positions within its structure as Christmas goodies to be handed out to favored friends. But if Kaushik was involved in the initial bid process, it’s going to be damnably difficult for Manohar. What is really interesting is Modi’s diabolical mud-slinging ability. Note that Modi has conflated two events into one. The first was the aborted bidding process for the auction, replete with highly restrictive clauses — a process he personally stage-managed. The second is the final auction, which saw Kochi and Pune walking away with the winning bids — a process that had BCCI oversight, with Kaushik as part of the team. What Modi has done is cleverly created the impression that Kaushik, and through her Manohar, had somehow been part of the original flawed process, and that it was the board president, not Modi, who was responsible for the restrictive clauses in the first instance.

He claims Manohar was party to the decision fixing the net worth of the bidder at $1 billion and that he discussed the issue of deposit also with him at the Governing Council meeting on March 7 and got his approval.

Nice exercise in twisting facts around, this. The impression conveyed is that Manohar had discussed all details of the bid process with Modi. What is camouflaged is the actual sequence of events: March 7 was a Sunday. It was the date originally scheduled for the auction. That morning, Manohar insisted that he be shown all the relevant paperwork — which Modi had kept to himself till then. At that point, the board president discovered some of the more prohibitive clauses inserted into the tender document. [For instance, the requirement that bidders had to establish their net worth at $1 billion -- a clause that did not apply during the first IPL auction; also the clause that bidders had to give an advance guarantee of $100 million and a rolling bank guarantee for the total sum of the winning bid. Note that if both clauses had been operational during the first IPL bidding, neither KXIP nor Rajasthan Royals would have gone to consortiums that included Modi's relatives, as both those franchises were in no position to comply with those terms]. So, painting by numbers: Manohar saw the clauses on March 7 morning and blew the whistle on the auction at the last moment. Modi today twists that around and says the auction details were “discussed” on March 7 — to convey the impression that all of this had the board’s official imprimatur.

Modi has brought up the issue of the controversial IPL TV contract with Sony and MSM, claiming that Manohar was aware of the termination last year of the contract with Sony and the subsequent litigation and eventual settlement. The litigation process was, he claims, supervised by Akhila Kaushik, “who reports directly to you”.

Another classic instance of facts being used to convey a contrary impression. The sequence: Modi finagled the abrupt cancellation of the Sony contract. When Sony threatened court action, the board got into it. At that point Shashank Manohar, then the president in waiting serving under Pawar, was given the onus of sorting the issue out. He did just that — with Kaushik being one of the fronting lawyers in the process. The impression conveyed in the Modi email, however, is that Manohar is somehow complicit in the shady dealing that saw Sony abruptly deprived of the rights it had won in a lawful bidding process. Nice. Also, typical. It is where the role of Srinivasan is concerned that Modi is on a firmer wicket.

Among the charges levied, Modi said he had “sufficient cause to apprehend bias” on Srinivasan’s part and that he had “consistently frustrated and exposed his attempts at misusing his position as Honorary Secretary of the Board, so as to confer a wrongful benefit to his team at the cost and expense of other teams and the BCCI.” Modi alleged that Srinivasan had tried to “alter or propose panel of umpires” officiating in the IPL matches and had circulated an email “directing a panel of umpires handpicked by him”. He claimed Srinivasan had attempted to ensure umpires from Chennai or Tamil Nadu stood in his team’s matches. Another charge Modi made against Srinivasan was that he had “consistently pushed tailor-made policies” intended to benefit the Chennai franchise. In support of this charge, Modi cited the proposal of franchises retaining seven players (four Indian, three foreign) for the 2011 season and beyond. Modi’s reply to the show cause says Srinivasan tried to get franchises to agree to the proposal and that the “only reason for doing so was to ensure that Chennai Super King retained its players.” Modi also alleged that Srinivasan had tried to ensure Kieron Pollard, who was bought by Mumbai Indians during a silent tiebreaker in the 2010 auction, could not play “by raising some frivolous issues with the West Indian Cricket Board.” Modi termed Srinivasan’s action a “brazen act of abuse of power”. He claimed Srinivasan had used his power to “alter the auction rules” so that Chennai’s purse would be $2 million as opposed to the $1.85 million that was mentioned prior to the auction. “Despite my opposition he used his clout as secretary to pressure the management to accept back-dated player contracts and cancel the contracts of one of his players so that he could have his full purse and thereby have an advantage in the bidding process vis-a-vis other teams.”

The first charge, about getting TN based umpires to officiate in matches involving the side, could potentially raise the whiff of match-fixing, if there is in fact an email trail detailing that charge. The second, about the retention of players, is clever use of facts to convey an entirely different impression. When the proposal for adding two teams to IPL season 4 came up, Modi initially proposed that at the end of season 3, all players would go back into the common pool — a nice trick to have a massive auction all over again, and mop up incremental revenues. The franchises, without exception, pushed back. Their argument was that the only real value they had, besides the ownership of the team name, was the brand building they had done around various players. To lose that, the franchises argued, would defeat the purpose behind the whole franchise model. At that point, the board fronted by Srinivasan, with Modi a party to the negotiations, attempted to arrive at a via media, and after much deliberation hit on the 7-player retention idea. What Modi does here is create the impression that somehow, Srinivasan pushed through a model that was intended to benefit CSK in particular. How? Is it anyone’s argument that Mumbai, for instance, would have been totally happy tossing its players, including Tendulkar, back into the pool? On the last two — the Keiron Pollard issue and the bit about altering auction rules — I personally have no clue what exactly happened; how this develops, once Srinivasan responds, will be interesting to watch. Overall, the email accomplishes one purpose: it signals that Modi is officially done playing defense, and that going forward the play is to sling lots of mud in lots of directions, in particular targeting the vulnerabilities of his chief opponents within the BCCI. The message clearly is: either you let me off the hook, or I wrap my arms tight around the pair of you and take you down with me. If you can, read the comments section in this blog too. Fairly interesting discussion is going on there.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Even after reading all that, I still dont see the full charges against Modi or proper replies against the allegations. So far, i've learned that Srinivasan has some sort of grudge against Modi, which was common knowledge even before this whole circus started and Modi is trying to get rid of him from the judging committee, which is fair since Srinivasan cannot be fair here. He states his issue how Srinivasan mis-used his powers, which is not connected to his hearing but still states a case against Srinivasan being in the hearing committee. Similarly, Manohar worked with Tharoor to get the 1st bidding canceled so that Rendezvous could enter the bidding. So another member cannot be fair in the hearing. Both points are valid and BCCI should comply, whether such rules exist or not. This part only proves or states that his relative getting a part of RR was legal. I thought the biggest charges against Modi was misuse of funds or something like that. That is neither stated here nor Modi has given any replies regarding that.