Team owners upset at BCCI secretary's 'multiple role'

[someone]

There is a controversy brewing inside the Indian Premier League with fingers being pointed at BCCI secretary N Srinivasan. Throughout the player auction that went on for two days in succession, Srinivasan — also a governing council member, president-elect, Tamil Nadu Cricket Association president and, of course, an owner of Chennai Super Kings — sat inside the auction room, keeping track of the developments. Further to that, when the auction list was planned and it was decided which set of players would be placed where in that list, Srinivasan was part of the governing council's decision-making team as much as he was part of his own franchise. On the face of it, both his franchise and the governing council deny any 'advantage' to Chennai Super Kings. "There is not going to be any unfair advantage to anyone," said Chirayu Amin, the governing council chairman. A CSK official brushed the issue aside, saying: "What all things the media keeps imagining!" However, six of the 10 IPL franchises expressed their concern to TOI in private. "What can be done? We don't understand how can he just occupy all those positions and have both feet in two boats at the same time?" said one owner. When Amin was asked on Sunday if BCCI thought it was fair to allow Srinivasan to continue in a similar manner, the IPL chairman gave a lengthy reply but did not touch upon Srinivasan's role. "We want to maintain complete transparency as far as our communication with the franchise is concerned. They are all partners and there is not going to be an unfair advantage to anyone. Corporate governance is an issue where we are sitting and that is our basic premise. We want to deliver that. The best thing would be to ask the franchises if they are being unfairly treated or not. If they tell us we are open about it because we keep having a dialogue all the time," he said. However, the franchises are simply not convinced. "Chennai Super Kings have managed to retain as many players as possible who were with them last season. It's another thing to tell the media that 'we wanted to keep the camaraderie going' but the point everybody is overlooking is the manner in which these players were brought up for auction (Bollinger, Badrinath for example). They were all in the second list when the franchises had already finished spending a bit of money in round one," complained a franchise member who sat in the auction. Another franchise official added: "First of all, only Chennai and Mumbai wanted player retentions, nobody else. They got it but has BCCI/IPL heard out the other franchises similarly? What is he (Amin) talking? Why doesn't the media take this up with the BCCI president? It may be outrageous to just conclude that Srinivasan is taking undue advantage but what should make me believe sincerely that he isn't?" ---------------------------------------------------------- Double standard and hopefully his team does ****

[IKnowU]

Double standards :headshake: Modi was kicked off for doing something less of a offence. CSK and Srinivasan :finger:

[yoda]

So teams ended up paying 2 mil + for some bozos and are then complaining that they had no money left when CSK players came in the auction? :giggle: Yes it is a conflict of interest, but seems like a non-issue here. CSK smartly held their money back and used it wisely instead of going crazy on a few players and that is why they had the money for Badri and Bollinger and Ashwin.

[Zap_Brannigan]

I agree that it is unfair that Srinivasan is in both committees but the franchise argument is plain wrong this time. If Srinivasan was really trying to cheat then he would have changed rules to retain more players. The number of retain-able players was as high as 6 one time. He could have done that and got players like Ashwin and Badri for cheap instead of spending 850,000$ on these 2. Besides, all the CSK players they got where in the 2nd pool because they already retained the players that would make the 1st pool.

CSK smartly held their money back and used it wisely instead of going crazy on a few players and that is why they had the money for Badri and Bollinger and Ashwin.

Another reason they give is that the franchises had already spent more in the 1st round and had no money to bid for CSK players, hence it was unfair, which is just incorrect. Since CSK already spent 4.5 million on retaining players, its leftover was less than almost all the franchises ('cept KKR and MI IIRC).

[fineleg]

So teams ended up paying 2 mil + for some bozos and are then complaining that they had no money left when CSK players came in the auction? :giggle: Yes it is a conflict of interest, but seems like a non-issue here. CSK smartly held their money back and used it wisely instead of going crazy on a few players and that is why they had the money for Badri and Bollinger and Ashwin.

Agreed. It is a conflict of interest, and from that standpoint needs to be addressed. However, teams know the list of players, and if they just bid 2 million on players and say they have no money left, then the blame is on them.

[spectre]

Cant agree more If N Srinivasan had indeed pulled the strings for CSK, then the retaining count would have been 6 or 7 They need not have paid huge money to Ashwin, Bollinger or Badri, and would not have lost Murali. CSK played it smart and were well focussed on retaining their own players. They didnt really go all out for anyone else except these.

I agree that it is unfair that Srinivasan is in both committees but the franchise argument is plain wrong this time. If Srinivasan was really trying to cheat then he would have changed rules to retain more players. The number of retain-able players was as high as 6 one time. He could have done that and got players like Ashwin and Badri for cheap instead of spending 850,000$ on these 2. Besides, all the CSK players they got where in the 2nd pool because they already retained the players that would make the 1st pool. Another reason they give is that the franchises had already spent more in the 1st round and had no money to bid for CSK players, hence it was unfair, which is just incorrect. Since CSK already spent 4.5 million on retaining players, its leftover was less than almost all the franchises ('cept KKR and MI IIRC).

[someone]

I agree that it is unfair that Srinivasan is in both committees but the franchise argument is plain wrong this time. If Srinivasan was really trying to cheat then he would have changed rules to retain more players. The number of retain-able players was as high as 6 one time.

Regarding the retaining, surely if it was transparent, it would have been 6 vs 2 votes for not retaining any players. So surely big players like MM, CSK had their influence.:nervous: Wonder, if these influence will continue in future...

[Zap_Brannigan]

Regarding the retaining, surely if it was transparent, it would have been 6 vs 2 votes for not retaining any players. So surely big players like MM, CSK had their influence.:nervous: Wonder, if these influence will continue in future...

Why would they vote for something like this? Obviously the 2 most successful sides wouldnt want to shuffle their sides while the rest would. So it would be unfair to the franchises that actually formed a consistent team. How can CSK fans support its team that had dhoni, raina, morkel, vijay, badri, ashwin, muralidharan for 3 years and then support the same team that looks completely different the next time? We will see this year, how a punjab team without Yuvi or a Kokatta team without Ganguly fares but till then i want my CSK players in CSK.

[achilles]

My Fuheur.

[someone]

Why would they vote for something like this? Obviously the 2 most successful sides wouldnt want to shuffle their sides while the rest would. So it would be unfair to the franchises that actually formed a consistent team. How can CSK fans support its team that had dhoni, raina, morkel, vijay, badri, ashwin, muralidharan for 3 years and then support the same team that looks completely different the next time? We will see this year, how a punjab team without Yuvi or a Kokatta team without Ganguly fares but till then i want my CSK players in CSK.

Haha. You have only made you case worse and my case stronger. First 2 most successful sides. Chennai maybe, but MI no chance. RR,DC,DD have been more successful. So you have only reinforced my earlier statement, that it was some powerful personal who made that rule as 80% of teams were against it. And even if these "icon" players did not play for their states, it does not mean supporters will lose focus. They go their to see their team first, it can come from any bowler or batsman not depending on any regions or nationality.

[spectre]

Why shouldnt franchises not be allowed to retain players. Just becuase some of the other teams sucked. Its their problem that they cant use their brains to pick the right players, nor bring the best out of them. It took 3 years for CSK to build a cohesive unit, train them and turn it into a winning unit, why should they forego it so easily. Same with MI, after 2 years of failure, they got a very strong sqaud built up due to some smart moves. If I had a successful franchise, I would retain most of my players. Why should I put them back into the selection pool, just becuase the other teams want to throw away their players out. imo, the 4 player retaining limit was very less. It must have been 7 or 8.

Haha. You have only made you case worse and my case stronger. First 2 most successful sides. Chennai maybe, but MI no chance. RR,DC,DD have been more successful. So you have only reinforced my earlier statement, that it was some powerful personal who made that rule as 80% of teams were against it. And even if these "icon" players did not play for their states, it does not mean supporters will lose focus. They go their to see their team first, it can come from any bowler or batsman not depending on any regions or nationality.

[Holysmoke]

Whatever you guys say, but you cannot be a team owner and a rule maker at the same time. There is a blatant conflict of interest there.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Whatever you guys say' date=' but you cannot be a team owner and a rule maker at the same time. There is a blatant conflict of interest there.[/quote'] Yes.Srinivasan should have stood down from one of his posts when IPL began. But this discussion is about whether CSK took unfair advantage or not.

[coffee_rules]

He must be b-nosing Sharad Pawar so much to hang on to both jobs.

[achilles]

Whatever you guys say' date=' but you cannot be a team owner and a rule maker at the same time. There is a blatant conflict of interest there.[/quote']

Yes.Srinivasan should have stood down from one of his posts when IPL began. But this discussion is about whether CSK took unfair advantage or not.

Don't be ridiculous, fella's. Lalit Modi is responsible for this. I'm sure his spirit entered Mallya's body and the statements made to the media are all paid news. CSK and the incumbent are the cleanest entities since the plate washed with Vim Bar by my maid.

[achilles]

Also, he is gonna be BCCI Prez next year. God bless the IPL.

[IKnowU]

Also' date=' he is gonna be BCCI Prez next year. God bless the IPL.[/quote'] no, hes gonna take over this year :headshake: When the media or the other franchises raised concern over this a while ago, no body in bcci or the ipl governing body spoke a word.

[yoda]

Also' date=' he is gonna be BCCI Prez next year. God bless the IPL.[/quote'] why, what will happen? is he going to take away all the players from every team? :giggle:

[achilles]

no, hes gonna take over this year :headshake: When the media or the other franchises raised concern over this a while ago, no body in bcci or the ipl governing body spoke a word.

No one in cricket administration history was treated as badly as LM was. They picked on one mistake he did. But when you highlight the multiple mistakes others do, they wage online wars portraying how clean their team is and so on. WHen you are wrong, atleast grow the guts to admit it. And now to blame Mallya for calling a spade a spade, you are going to character assassinate him and say how stupid he was to not save money, as were the other franchises? Look, the world is not dumb. Just like we know how RR got Warnie, we know how CSK retained its players. End.

why' date=' what will happen? is he going to take away all the players from every team? :giggle:[/quote'] Everything he does is right. But when someone else does the same thing, he's wrong. I hate this hypocrisy.

[yoda]

Look, the world is not dumb. Just like we know how RR got Warnie, we know how CSK retained its players. End.

Don't be a cry baby. Leaving the protected players issue out, cause that was from both MI and CSK, let's focus on the auction. And one of the teams did have enough money to raise the stakes for Badri, which is why he went so high. It is not like CSK alone had the money and everyone was bankrupt when Badri and Bollinger were out there. In fact KXIP still has 2 mill left. Chennai lost 2 of it's players - Murali and Balaji, fair and square in the auction. They were outbid and lost them. They bid higher than anyone for Bollinger and Badri and retained them. No one was going to pay more than 850k for Badri, that is very high even for CSK. It is good to sometimes look at realities also instead of always thinking CSK owner screwed my beloved Modi, so let me see how I can find fault with him. :winky: