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

[IKnowU]

In any corporate world peolpe would laugh and think its a joke to be part of the committee of a organization as well as a key member of the clients entourage. :headshake: And its gets worse by the person expected to lead the organizations as the president. :hysterical:

[yoda]

In any corporate world peolpe would laugh and think its a joke to be part of the committee of a organization as well as a key member of the clients entourage. :headshake: And its gets worse by the person expected to lead the organizations as the president. :hysterical:

We have discussed this issue before. Yes it is odd, but there is precedence. In US MLB (baseball league), one of the owners was also the commissioner of the league (meaning head of the league) at the same time. There are probably other instances also. While it is conflict of interest, it is stupid to keep bringing it up in matters where it doesn't even make sense.

[Tapioca]

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.

Nice argument. He is honest because he could have done worse ? And Raja is honest in 2G scam because he could have skimmed more money in 3G auction.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Nice argument. He is honest because he could have done worse ? And Raja is honest in 2G scam because he could have skimmed more money in 3G auction.

I never said he is honest. Can you tell me when i said it. What i said is his dishonesty is not shown in this case.

[someone]

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.

You missed the point. It is not about if retaining players is a good idea or not but rather who makes the decision for the franchises. First point is very simple, when these players were brought, they all were told that there would be a new auction after 3 years. Every franchises knew that and obeyed it without any problem. So why there was a sudden change? There was only 2 teams who wanted it vs 6 others. In any business, it would have been a easy decision with the majority. Your argument is more of an emotional which even is not correct as IPL is rightfully about entertainment and quality cricket. So the audience would not have much problems in supporting new players after 3 years as long as their team wins. Clear case of favoritism or bias.

[spectre]

You are the one not getting it. When IPL started, no one would have envisioned it to be a such a highly successful venture. Now its a big thing and fans have lapped it. All IPL matches are fully packed in stadiums and the TRPs are soaring. Certainly fans would want to connect with their beloved franchise and its units. No one would like to see players changing every few years. That will dilute the interest and ultimately kill it. Do you see the soccer clubs how they operate, do they put all their players into auction every 3rd year and randomize the teams. There should not be any more auction. They should rather have a transfer window where they get new players and offload some Changing the entire team every few years is plain stupid imo You also need to understand that retaining players were taken at the mutual consent of the player as well. So if a player wishes to remain with that franchise, whats your big problem.

You missed the point. It is not about if retaining players is a good idea or not but rather who makes the decision for the franchises. First point is very simple, when these players were brought, they all were told that there would be a new auction after 3 years. Every franchises knew that and obeyed it without any problem. So why there was a sudden change? There was only 2 teams who wanted it vs 6 others. In any business, it would have been a easy decision with the majority. Your argument is more of an emotional which even is not correct as IPL is rightfully about entertainment and quality cricket. So the audience would not have much problems in supporting new players after 3 years as long as their team wins. Clear case of favoritism or bias.

[yoda]

BTW, it is the governing council that voted to go with the 4 player retention rule. Remember N. Srinivasan is not the sole member of the governing council. If the council majority wanted to throw the idea out, they could have. It was job of the other 6 owners to convince the council that this new idea doesn't make sense. BTW, did they always plan on expanding to 10 teams after the first 3 years? Did they plan on playing overseas one of the seasons? Did they plan on going with the current format of home and (partial) away games 3 years ago? Things change, new proposals come in, get voted in or get voted out. Same is the case with player retention. Also, anyone who says changing the complete make up of teams every 3 years is great for the game hasn't seen much pro sports. Just because some teams sucked so badly and hated all their players, doesn't mean everyone has to revamp their entire roster. And all teams had equal chance of retention, it wasn't a rule meant for just a few teams. Yes it was changed mid way. But the governing council has the right to change rules, so it is time for people to stop biatching about it and live with it. :finger:

[achilles]

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:

Your entire post revolves around selective picking, which is a flawed approach to a debate. You read the entire post and comment on that, not pick up one sentence which suits you best. So you may carry on your journey in la-la land. I opt out.

[Guest Hiten.]

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.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Your posts are getting ridiculously cumbersome and you need to stop here. We all get your point of view (i.e. Modi is saint etc.), so you needn't repeat it anymore :wall:

[achilles]

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Your posts are getting ridiculously cumbersome and you need to stop here. We all get your point of view (i.e. Modi is saint etc.), so you needn't repeat it anymore :wall:

We can't use different whips for different people. Unfortunately, the eagerness to take digs throws logic out of the window for you, at times. Its alright. Everyone makes mistakes. Have a blessed day.

[someone]

You are the one not getting it. When IPL started, no one would have envisioned it to be a such a highly successful venture. Now its a big thing and fans have lapped it. All IPL matches are fully packed in stadiums and the TRPs are soaring. Certainly fans would want to connect with their beloved franchise and its units. No one would like to see players changing every few years. That will dilute the interest and ultimately kill it. Do you see the soccer clubs how they operate, do they put all their players into auction every 3rd year and randomize the teams. There should not be any more auction. They should rather have a transfer window where they get new players and offload some Changing the entire team every few years is plain stupid imo You also need to understand that retaining players were taken at the mutual consent of the player as well. So if a player wishes to remain with that franchise, whats your big problem.

You are on the wrong direction.You are trying to tell/prove that the retention was a correct decision. Well, that is not what I am asking or my point. My point is who makes the decision and where do the ALL franchises stand in the decision process? First, you talk about soccer clubs. But there situation is different, they have divisions. So if a new team comes, it will come from the 2nd division to the 1st division. The new team will already have players,name and mainly will be operational. Compare that with the likes of Pune,Kochi: they have nothing and will start from pure zero. And if you have started talking about football. Do you know how the 25 man squad rule was established in EPL. There was a vote among all 20 clubs and the majority agreed and therefore it went ahead. This is how they operate and so clubs are involved. And certainly your justification itself is wrong, will Delhi people stop supporting Daredevils after Gambhir left? Will Punjab stop supporting King XI as no Yuvraj? No, they only want their team to do well with whatever players they have. So this justification is wrong, but the point is forget if it was wrong or right decision but rather who made this or basically my point which I wrote above! This is a dangerous tread, if these franchises are ignored as it will only lead to bias towards their favorite teams...

[achilles]

You are on the wrong direction.You are trying to tell/prove that the retention was a correct decision. Well, that is not what I am asking or my point. My point is who makes the decision and where do the ALL franchises stand in the decision process? First, you talk about soccer clubs. But there situation is different, they have divisions. So if a new team comes, it will come from the 2nd division to the 1st division. The new team will already have players,name and mainly will be operational. Compare that with the likes of Pune,Kochi: they have nothing and will start from pure zero. And if you have started talking about football. Do you know how the 25 man squad rule was established in EPL. There was a vote among all 20 clubs and the majority agreed and therefore it went ahead. This is how they operate and so clubs are involved. And certainly your justification itself is wrong, will Delhi people stop supporting Daredevils after Gambhir left? Will Punjab stop supporting King XI as no Yuvraj? No, they only want their team to do well with whatever players they have. So this justification is wrong, but the point is forget if it was wrong or right decision but rather who made this or basically my point which I wrote above! This is a dangerous tread, if these franchises are ignored as it will only lead to bias towards their favorite teams...

Brilliant reply. To add to this, I think being protectionist and having a "the player who played at (say) Chennai should only play at Chennai" attitude beats the logic. Spectre... if you are the owner of SPW (Pune) and bought the team after spending a fortune, would you feel it is fair to be denied top-level India players? Would you buy your own logic that- "it is not our fault that you didn't join 2 years back and there are still good Ranji players around to buy"? The answer is NO. No one spends crores of rupees to see 2 teams have their way and retain players when no one else is interested. Yet, that was allowed. But then to go ahead and act in this manner is unbecoming for someone who has a blatantly visible conflict of interest. To blame someone for calling a spade a spade is at best, humourous. What is shocking is that despite this development, the incumbent refuses to clear the air on the subject and/or resign, so that there is no question of transparency being in question. We must remember that this is not the RRPL or CSKPL or MIPL.... this is IPL. Thanks

[yoda]

Spectre... if you are the owner of SPW (Pune) and bought the team after spending a fortune, would you feel it is fair to be denied top-level India players? Would you buy your own logic that- "it is not our fault that you didn't join 2 years back and there are still good Ranji players around to buy"?

When new teams join a league they aren't going to be offered the top players. It will take time for them to catch up. That's the way it happens in all pro sports. Yes they will get some form of preference so that they can get a better chance to catch up, but not for all teams to open up their resources and say now come take it.

[someone]

When new teams join a league they aren't going to be offered the top players. It will take time for them to catch up. That's the way it happens in all pro sports. Yes they will get some form of preference so that they can get a better chance to catch up' date=' but not for all teams to open up their resources and say now come take it.[/quote'] Read my post and you will understand IPL is different from EPL in many ways so do not use their business model as ours.

[yoda]

Read my post and you will understand IPL is different from EPL in many ways so do not use their business model as ours.

EPL is not the only pro league. I was referring to the US pro leagues like the NBA. When they had new teams join a while ago, they just got extra draft picks and it took them a few years to come on par. That's the way it works, you get your way up. Ofc they will have access to all the available players who aren't under contract just like any other team. It doesn't mean everyone has to dismantle their team cause new entrants come in. The only valid argument against retention is that it was agreed during the first auction that all these players will go again for auction. That is valid. Then again, this is the IPL. Things do change and letting teams keep players to allow for continuity isn't as preposterous as some of you make it out to be. And why do you guys keep singling out CSK and N. Srinivasan when Mukesh Ambani and MI also were party to that request? And MI recently got another rule change regarding uncapped players.

[IKnowU]

Having a auction with the retainment rule was a farce. They should have just made everyone free agents and the teams were open to sign whom ever they wanted like a free market with the 9mill salary cap. Auction bs is all tamasha and masala to get tv ratings going .

[someone]

EPL is not the only pro league. I was referring to the US pro leagues like the NBA. When they had new teams join a while ago, they just got extra draft picks and it took them a few years to come on par. That's the way it works, you get your way up. Ofc they will have access to all the available players who aren't under contract just like any other team. It doesn't mean everyone has to dismantle their team cause new entrants come in. The only valid argument against retention is that it was agreed during the first auction that all these players will go again for auction. That is valid. Then again, this is the IPL. Things do change and letting teams keep players to allow for continuity isn't as preposterous as some of you make it out to be. And why do you guys keep singling out CSK and N. Srinivasan when Mukesh Ambani and MI also were party to that request? And MI recently got another rule change regarding uncapped players.

Again back to this? You can again clearly trying to convince me that the decision was correct. But I wrote my point is not if it is correct or not but rather who makes the decision and where do the ALL franchises stand in the decision process? But as you have started talking about if the retention was a correct decision. I will be disagree. When there is a auction of the team, then retention of team players is wrong. So again NBA is different from IPL. There are many valid arguments against retention but only one single reason for retention which was the dominant and influential CSK Boss who is also BCCI chairman.

[yoda]

Again back to this? You can again clearly trying to convince me that the decision was correct. But I wrote my point is not if it is correct or not but rather who makes the decision and where do the ALL franchises stand in the decision process?

You keep talking about the IPL model, so let's talk about it. Per the IPL model, the governing council makes all the decisions, so that's where they stand.

[someone]

You keep talking about the IPL model' date=' so let's talk about it. Per the IPL model, the governing council makes all the decisions, so that's where they stand.[/quote'] So at the end, you do agree that franchaises are not involved in the decision . But wait, how is one selected franchaise owner allowed in the decision panel. Back to question 1.

[yoda]

So at the end, you do agree that franchaises are not involved in the decision . But wait, how is one selected franchaise owner allowed in the decision panel. Back to question 1.

Good question, but since he is not unilaterally taking decisions and that too decisions which benefit more than just his team, I think it is overblown.