BCCI punishes Sanjay Manjrekar, boots him from commentary

[Robelinda]

Anyone know the story here? Sanjay tweeted that he had been fired, then removed the tweet. Seems like he was giving the idea he had been involved with previous indiscretions.

[StriKe]

[Jersey #10]

Where does BCCI come into this? I feel like Indian cricket is run by some gangsters

[Yoda-esque]

Feel helpless watching cricket being held to ransom by a bunch of nincompoops

[cowboysfan]

why are you assuming its BCCI's bidding,entire India should be rejoicing the expulsion of this idiot from hopefully ever setting foot in a commentary booth.

[fineleg]

Manju boring

[diga]

A Freudian Tweet? by Gideon Haigh We all know the feeling – the feeling that comes, for instance, just after nicking a wide one or locking the car with the keys inside, when one wishes it were possible to turn the clock back just a little and undo what has just been done. Sanjay Manjrekar will be experiencing those sensations just now. Annoyed to be dumped from the Star commentary panel for the forthcoming India-Australia ODI series, he meant to direct message the BCCI’s designer despot Sundar Raman, and tweeted him instead: ‘Sundar, I have now been kicked off from studio for Ind/Aus by star. Don’t you think this is a bit harsh? I have a contract with them.’ On realizing he had shared his indignation with 315,664 friends and acquaintances, he moved to erase the offending tweet, but screenshots ensured it was too late, and Lalit Modi, no stranger himself to Twitter indiscretion, took delight in circulating it among his own tweetbase of 669,679. Perhaps the most interesting word in Sanjay’s tweet is ‘now’ – it suggests that he has experienced other recent setbacks in his commentary career. It is an uncomfortable time to be calling the game in India, where the requirements to shill for the regime suit some temperaments and not others. So what is the nature of Sanjay’s thoughtcrime? Might be something to do with this podcast two months ago on Cricinfo, where Sanjay joined Sambit Bal to critique the obstinacy of Raman’s boss, BCCI president Narayamaswami Srinivasan. Sanjay, an honest man in dishonest times, called it as he saw it, observing how their vast and loyal audience had made Indian administrators complacent and cynical. When the match-fixing chapter was written in Indian cricket in 1999-2000, when some of the Indian stalwarts were banned, people thought Indian cricket had this severe jolt of credibility and it would all be downhill from then on. I remember there was an India-Zimbabwe series at home immediately after that particular event and every seat in the stadium was taken. So somewhere I think the administrators know that despite all this, the people will still follow this game passionately. There will still be those kind of numbers that make India such a powerhouse in world cricket, so that is where I think all of us are slightly fortunate: that despite making all kinds of mistakes which take their toll on the credibility of Indian cricket, the fans don’t seem to respond as much….Somewhere the administrators feel that they can get away with this, and I think that doesn’t quite help in building enough pressure in the management of Indian cricket. However, I think it is important to remember that the fan is evolving. New fans coming into the sport will be a lot more demanding on how Indian cricket functions, [especially with] social media coming into full force. I think the Indian fans have loved cricket unconditionally but that is something the administrators or the BCCI cannot take for granted for too long. Of the ludicrous BCCI ‘inquiry’ into the Meiyappan affair, which seemed to start from the verdict and work backwards, Sanjay observed. It was an internal inquiry, with all its limitations. It would never have the information or the evidence that you want to make a judgement and decide whether one is clean or guilty. That would have come only if they had police reports, which they weren’t going to have. The Mumbai police, from what we hear, didn’t cooperate with the panel, so it had its limitations, and the verdict they’ve pronounced hasn’t taken anyone by surprise. I think what is going to be critical is getting the real verdict, and the correct action will be seen only once one gets the police reports from Delhi and Mumbai. Most particularly, Sanjay observed that administrative corruption was a greater danger than player corruption – that the betting of Meiyappan and the Rajasthan Royals’ Raj Kundra gave off an unseemly reek. This is why I made a comment on a public platform, that an owner or somebody senior who was supposedly in charge of a cricket team, if he’s arrested by the police on suspicion of either betting or other things - that I think is a more serious threat to the IPL, because it’s a bit like staff in the office found guilty of malpractice, and the CEO of the company, which is a bigger threat to the company, and the problem I have with owners getting involved in betting is the logical thought of suspicion that the fans and everybody would have then of: how can you be sure that it’s only going to be betting, because it’s such a fine line from betting and being able to win your bets by controlling some aspects of the team you are an owner of. So that’s why when you have owners betting on matches where their team is participating, it is a very, very dangerous trend, and that’s why I think it should be viewed with gravity and as a serious threat. I’ve been a huge fan of the IPL. Last season, when you saw owners being accused of betting in the IPL and one owner actually confessing that he was betting - that, for me, is a huge dent to the image of the IPL. Of Srininvasan himself, Sanjay gave an even-handed assessment: he felt the BCCI’s president to be a good man gone bad, who was now doing more harm than good by fighting so hard to retain his position. It took him a long time to climb the ladder, and I’m told he was reluctant to get into the state administration of cricket, but that happened in due course. So he’s a guy who has grown through the system, which is excellent. But I think what has happened in the last few months has become more of a personal thing with the president of the BCCI, and the question he needs to ask himself is: the position that he’s taken in the last few months, is it helping the image of Indian cricket? Is it good for Indian cricket? And we know what the answer to that is. Sanjay concluded by urging the BCCI to play nicer with the media – that reporting of the scandal was paying the organization back in its own coin. There is an image of arrogance that the BCCI has at the moment, which is unfortunate, and I think the BCCI should realise that they may not like the media, but media is the one channel that gets through to the millions and millions of cricket fans that they have. If they keep the media in good spirits, they’ll have a much healthier relationship with their fans. I’m not saying that suddenly the media will support the BCCI. As an administrative organisation, they should know that they’ll get more criticism than praise, but in times like this I think they would have just got a better deal from the media. My guess is that the Sundar Raman doesn’t agree, especially with this last bit – that for him, ‘a better deal from the media’ is as simple as buying it. I dare say that this suits a fair few members of the Indian media elite too, who have profiles to burnish and lavish lifestyles to maintain. But maybe the foregoing signifies that Sanjay has reached his limit. I notice that on 23 September, he retweeted a line of poetry by the Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko: ‘When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie.’ I imagine Sanjay would like to take back his tweet of yesterday, but I hope he doesn’t wish to resile from his podcast of two months ago.

[diga]

Only 1 paper (fin exp) in India reported on the Manjrekar episode.. rest all are held hostage by the BCCI Mafiya & its Don-Srini

[rkt.india]

but he did commentated in CL T20.

[asterix]

Sundar Raman is another MOFO Madraasi, Srini trying to bring in as his successor and to take over his legacy... :facepalm:

[Zanjeer]

Who is this sundar Raman ? Sounds like a madarasi to me..

[G_B_]

so who are the commentators for India-Australia? maybe its a case of axing sanjay to make room for dravid?

[G_B_]

and this Gideon Haigh, is he waiting for someone in the Indian cricket hierarchy to slip up? in the space of a few hours he has produced an article. So what next, when Strauss pushed out Nick Knight on sky's ashes coverage, thats the ECB/Sky bullying Nick??

[rkt.india]

and this Gideon Haigh, is he waiting for someone in the Indian cricket hierarchy to slip up? in the space of a few hours he has produced an article. So what next, when Strauss pushed out Nick Knight on sky's ashes coverage, thats the ECB/Sky bullying Nick??

Manjeraker commentated in CLT20 run by BCCI which tells you BCCI does not have anything to do with his axing.

[G_B_]

Manjeraker commentated in CLT20 run by BCCI which tells you BCCI does not have anything to do with his axing.

I know. Which is why i asked. who are the people commentating on India-Aus from the Indian side?

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Srini and co. will have hell to pay for.The southies will also bear tge brunt. Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk 2

[zaqw222222]

I know. Which is why i asked. who are the people commentating on India-Aus from the Indian side?

I think it would be Shastri, Gavaskar, Ganguly, Sivaramakrishnan, Laxman and Dravid

[Scarves]

I think it would be Shastri' date=' Gavaskar, Ganguly, Sivaramakrishnan, Laxman and Dravid[/quote'] Yeah I never hear Ganguly anymore though...l

[diga]

Manjeraker commentated in CLT20 run by BCCI which tells you BCCI does not have anything to do with his axing.

Elections werent done when CLT20 was being held.. Srini may not have wanted any controversy and that too with Manjrekar being from Mumbai

[diga]

Who is this sundar Raman ? Sounds like a madarasi to me..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Raman