breaking news Supreme Court Asks BCCI To Implement Lodha Report In Full,BCCI To Reply In 4 Week

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Oh come on Merlyn. If those ads while the over is going on are stopped, BCCI won't come on roads. No body is saying to show an ad free test or ODI or T20I. Just the request to show full six balls without any intrusions. All the boards show that. They HAVE to show that. Just read the arguments going on. If the revenues without those L shaped, D shaped ads fall, no one can help that. They are illegal anyway.

 

Why should the money paying fans bear the brunt?

 

Just give me any reason, why should I (a fan, who is watching, paying full subscription) bear those L shaped, D shaped ads while watching an international?

Madame you are mistaken.SC is saying NO ADs between the over break.AD CAN ONLY BE SHOWN DURING LUNCH TEA OR DINNER BREAKS.There are no Ads between 2 balls but between overs.

You pay subscription to your cablewallah or your DTH wala.Like UK AUS whose example you gave Indian sports channels dont charge PPV or huge per channel subscription.The revenue model is different.

I say let go off the L shaped ads.But not allowing Ad between overs and only show ads in dinner or lunch or tea break means the revenue generation is down and BCCI will lose millions.

And you know what the irony is when some channel will telecast ICC events or Indian matches from foreign tours they will be able to show mid over ads.So while BCCI will lose millions other boards will keep on profiting from Indian team and India public.

How Fair is that?

And btw the estimate by a very reputable source is that BCCI may lose 60 to 80 per cent of Tv revenues if ADs are banned.

[Chandan]

37 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

Madame you are mistaken.SC is saying NO ADs between the over break.AD CAN ONLY BE SHOWN DURING LUNCH TEA OR DINNER BREAKS.There are no Ads between 2 balls but between overs.

Like UK AUS whose example you gave Indian sports channels dont charge PPV or huge per channel subscription.The revenue model is different.

I say let go off the L shaped ads.But not allowing Ad between overs and only show ads in dinner or lunch or tea break means the revenue generation is down and BCCI will lose millions.

And you know what the irony is when some channel will telecast ICC events or Indian matches from foreign tours they will be able to show mid over ads.So while BCCI will lose millions other boards will keep on profiting from Indian team and India public.

How Fair is that?

And btw the estimate by a very reputable source is that BCCI may lose 60 to 80 per cent of Tv revenues if ADs are banned.

And Amicus curie argued that ads can continue between the overs. Only those WITHIN the overs should be stopped. You should have read what the bench's response was then.

 

Verdict hasn't come out as yet.

 

Quote

You pay subscription to your cablewallah or your DTH wala.

No I buy that channel from them. And those channels have subscription fee because of the money they pay to show the matches. You know all that. Don't you?

 

And things won't go according to what you think or I think because many people can have many thoughts.

 

#LodhaCommittee did extensive research and survey for 6-7 months on everything before coming up with those reforms and they can be changed only if BCCI counsel convinces court that they will harm the board. No talking in air.

 

Till now no such solid reason has come from BCCI or any other State counsel.

 

If you and me have any doubt, we just need to ask ourselves, why was the Lodha Committee formed of three retired reputed judges with one being retired CJI? There have been several cases going on against BCCI since last 3 decades. So why all these actions now??

 

And you'll get the answer. You know the answer.

 

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

19 hours ago, Chandan said:

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

And Amicus curie argued that ads can continue between the overs. Only those WITHIN the overs should be stopped. You should have read what the bench's response was then.

 

Verdict hasn't come out as yet.

So even the Amicus Curiae thinks that those recommendations are well nit bright.Btw please link me to this article about the Amicus Curaie.

Quote

No I buy that channel from them. And those channels have subscription fee because of the money they pay to show the matches. You know all that. Don't you?

Yes and nowhere do they state that they wont show ADs in between the overs.

 

Quote

And things won't go according to what you think or I think because many people can have many thoughts.

The SC must not interfere in pvt mtters and try to run sports.

 

Quote

#LodhaCommittee did extensive research and survey for 6-7 months on everything before coming up with those reforms and they can be changed only if BCCI counsel convinces court that they will harm the board. No talking in air.

 

Till now no such solid reason has come from BCCI or any other State counsel.

 

If you and me have any doubt, we just need to ask ourselves, why was the Lodha Committee formed of three retired reputed judges with one being retired CJI? There have been several cases going on against BCCI since last 3 decades. So why all these actions now??

 

And you'll get the answer. You know the answer.

Almost all the cases againist BCCI in last 3 decades have been won by BCCI,wonder why?

 

Are retired judges competent to talk about matters of Marketing,administration,business,finance etc?Did they hire a finance/Business/consulting agency to help them?They didnt even talk to BCCI rights holders.I have little faith on the credibiity of these surveys etc,not on credibility of the people who did it,but their ability to give reommendations of matters they are not experts.

 

No matter how solid the reasoning from BCCI or State Counsel is,if the bench has made up its mind and it oft repeats the line that "This recommedation is made by ex CJI and 2 judges"means they are more concerned about who gave the report and mot what is in the report.

 

The dispute before SC was Srinivasan's COI case,not  to form a committee to run BCCI.

While some recommendations like :

 

 Appointement of a CEO

 one person one post. Also no proxy voting of individuals

No BCCI office-bearer can have more than two consecutive terms

No BCCI office-bearer can be Minister or government servant, recommends Lodha panel

In no case President will hold post for more than 2 years.

 

Make sense.The ones like one state one association,giving money to NE states,NO ADs,Age limit etc make no sense.

 

Why is the CAG be involved?Is this Tax Payers' money?Why?Why the hell does the CAG gets a say?On basis of what?

[Malcolm Merlyn]

@Chandan

 

http://www.firstpost.com/sports/reading-the-fine-print-heres-why-lodha-committee-report-is-not-a-panacea-from-bccis-ills-2582714.html

 

Read this.It lists how some of the recommendations doesnt make any sense.

[Mariyam]

Chandan:

 

What public service does the BCCI discharge, according to you? How do you quantify this service?

 

Public services are generally basic necessity based or those which assist in capital/job/product creation for citizens of the country. ( for eg road construction is counted as public service).

[Chandan]

On 5/13/2016 at 0:23 AM, Mariyam said:

Chandan:

 

What public service does the BCCI discharge, according to you? How do you quantify this service?

 

Public services are generally basic necessity based or those which assist in capital/job/product creation for citizens of the country. ( for eg road construction is counted as public service).

Choosing a cricket team for the nation is a public job, not private.

 

Apart from that how the game of cricket develops in the entire country, looking after the interest of the current players; domestic players, budding players, etc from U-13 to national level is looked after by the national and state boards. That is a public job, not some private business done. In this they get full help from every state govt, and central govt too. How will be your 1st Q.

 

Police, security in arranging matches, visa, passport ;and foreign players' security etc is very small example. They need help at every step.

 

Quote

Why is the CAG be involved?Is this Tax Payers' money?Why?Why the hell does the CAG gets a say?On basis of what?

The reform for an Audit-man has been suggested because big discrepancies in the finances of BCCI and especially state assoaciations' expenditure have been found. Hence the need to have a proper structure there to look after these things and to stop corruption there, this reform has been suggested.

 

Had BCCI's own audit been doing a competent job, this would not have been suggested.

 

I posted many articles on the previous page showing why these reforms have been suggested.

 

If you don't have faith in their credibility and you have faith in the corrupt BCCI instead, its your problem.

 

Most of the well informed fans are quite happy with most of the reforms, if not all.

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Quote

The reform for an Audit-man has been suggested because big discrepancies in the finances of BCCI and especially state assoaciations' expenditure have been found. Hence the need to have a proper structure there to look after these things and to stop corruption there, this reform has been suggested.

 

Had BCCI's own audit been doing a competent job, this would not have been suggested.

 

I posted many articles on the previous page showing why these reforms have been suggested.

 

If you don't have faith in their credibility and you have faith in the corrupt BCCI instead, its your problem.

 

Most of the well informed fans are quite happy with most of the reforms, if not all.

 

How difficult it is to understand that this is not public money.The CAG cannot audit them.Can you ask CAG to audit a private company?NO.This is BCCI's and its member's money.If State associations misuse the funds its the BCCI which can stop them.If BCCI and its members have no issues then no one else has a locus standi here.

 

The fan well informed or otherwise has no locus standi here.

 

The question isnt why?The question is if these reforms can be forced upon a private body which uses no govt funds(They get no tax exemptions)?There are various SC judgements on who can be under RTI or who can CAG audit etc etc.

 

And i believe neither of us here has a poll that tells us how many fans whether well informedor ignorant like or dislike these reforms,so its better not to make such kind of statements.

 

@Chandan

[Chandan]

13 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

How difficult it is to understand that this is not public money.The CAG cannot audit them.Can you ask CAG to audit a private company?NO.This is BCCI's and its member's money.If State associations misuse the funds its the BCCI which can stop them.If BCCI and its members have no issues then no one else has a locus standi here.

 

The fan well informed or otherwise has no locus standi here.

 

The question isnt why?The question is if these reforms can be forced upon a private body which uses no govt funds(They get no tax exemptions)?There are various SC judgements on who can be under RTI or who can CAG audit etc etc.

 

And i believe neither of us here has a poll that tells us how many fans whether well informedor ignorant like or dislike these reforms,so its better not to make such kind of statements.

 

@Chandan

OMG Merlyn.

 

Read the report.

 

CAG doesn't have time to audit BCCI. SC has asked a nominee from CAG office to be there to look after BCCI's audit and account. That nominee doesn't have to report to CAG office.

 

CAG nominee means he just has experience of that department.

 

Quoted directly from the report:

 

https://goo.gl/I7j9DD

 

As the Supreme Court has reiterated that the BCCI is carrying out public functions – functions that govern the interests of the public – the necessary corollary is that BCCI is subject to the rigours of public law. This would mandate that it acts in line with the general principles of reasonableness and fairness, and also that it adheres to the basic principles of accountability and transparency.  

 

a.        The nominee of the C&AG also brings financial and audit experience which would bring in much required oversight into monitoring the finances of the BCCI.

[Mariyam]

@ chandan

 

Public job and a public service are two different things. 

 

Lets just get to the bottom of this. In a country like India, where we have 10000s of real problems with respect to wealth distribution, sanitation, health, infrastructure etc those are where Public Services should be geared.

 

Choosing a measely cricket team is hardly a priority for such a nation. To call it Public Service is highly disrespectful to the downtrodden of this country. Its just a glorified enertainment company. Not very different than Dharma productions, for eg.

 

BCCI should be under the all kinds of scrutiny. There I agree with you.

To call the BCCI an entity that serves the people of India and have RTI applied for you is something I can't agree with. On moral grounds.

 

Lets just agree to disagree here.

 

 

[Chandan]

12 hours ago, Mariyam said:

@ chandan

 

Public job and a public service are two different things. 

 

Lets just get to the bottom of this. In a country like India, where we have 10000s of real problems with respect to wealth distribution, sanitation, health, infrastructure etc those are where Public Services should be geared.

 

Choosing a measely cricket team is hardly a priority for such a nation. To call it Public Service is highly disrespectful to the downtrodden of this country. Its just a glorified enertainment company. Not very different than Dharma productions, for eg.

 

BCCI should be under the all kinds of scrutiny. There I agree with you.

To call the BCCI an entity that serves the people of India and have RTI applied for you is something I can't agree with. On moral grounds.

 

Lets just agree to disagree here.

 

 

Let us not get into words: public jobs, services... I've quoted the report. You can read it, SC calls it public function.

 

Why is RTI applied, full reason is given.

 

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

3 hours ago, Chandan said:

Let us not get into words: public jobs, services... I've quoted the report. You can read it, SC calls it public function.

 

Why is RTI applied, full reason is given.

 

 

 

The SC in a earlier judgement said RTI is not applied.

 

All pvt power companies like Reliance,CESC etc which distribute electricity to big cities like Kolkata or Mumbai are also doing public function,can the SC appoint a CAG person on its board?Can they put a limit of 70 years on the Chairman?Can they decide who will be the board members?

 

This is nothing but judicial overreach as no one can question them.

[Chandan]

3 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

The SC in a earlier judgement said RTI is not applied.

 

All pvt power companies like Reliance,CESC etc which distribute electricity to big cities like Kolkata or Mumbai are also doing public function,can the SC appoint a CAG person on its board?Can they put a limit of 70 years on the Chairman?Can they decide who will be the board members?

 

This is nothing but judicial overreach as no one can question them.

Reliance distributed electricity in 2014 and CAG audited it, is still doing for it in 2016. 

 

Have all these orgs been involved in huge scams like BCCI was since 2013 because of which SC was involved?

 

Or you think SC has a love relation with BCCI?

 

I can't discuss much with you on this as you simply forget why SC got involved with BCCI affairs and why was Lodha commottee formed! 

[rkt.india]

14 hours ago, Chandan said:

Reliance distributed electricity in 2014 and CAG audited it, is still doing for it in 2016. 

 

Have all these orgs been involved in huge scams like BCCI was since 2013 because of which SC was involved?

 

Or you think SC has a love relation with BCCI?

 

I can't discuss much with you on this as you simply forget why SC got involved with BCCI affairs and why was Lodha commottee formed! 

what scam has BCCI been involved in?

[Chandan]

3 hours ago, rkt.india said:

what scam has BCCI been involved in?

Fixing, from 2013, because of which two of IPL's franchise were suspended for 2 years. People really say correctly, public really have short memory.

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, Chandan said:

Fixing, from 2013, because of which two of IPL's franchise were suspended for 2 years. People really say correctly, public really have short memory.

BCCI was not involved in any fixing. You need to get it right. A team principal of a an IPL franchise was involved in betting and some players from one IPL franchise were suspected to be involved in spot fixing. Where does it imply BCCI was involved in fixing?

[navinm058]

What authority does supreme Court has on a private organisation like BCCI

[Chandan]

5 hours ago, rkt.india said:

BCCI was not involved in any fixing. You need to get it right. A team principal of a an IPL franchise was involved in betting and some players from one IPL franchise were suspected to be involved in spot fixing. Where does it imply BCCI was involved in fixing?

I'm not going to explain all that to you. You need to read all that how Mudgal committee was formed then its results, then how and why Lodha panel was formed. You can get the entire sequence on CI.

 

And you'll see how BCCI was involved.

[rkt.india]

12 hours ago, Chandan said:

I'm not going to explain all that to you. You need to read all that how Mudgal committee was formed then its results, then how and why Lodha panel was formed. You can get the entire sequence on CI.

 

And you'll see how BCCI was involved.

you think i dont know about all this. BCCI was nowhere involved neither they were implicated by any committee. Only issue related to BCCI was COI because of Srinivasan owning CSK and being BCCI president simultaneously. Even IPL CEO Sundar Raman has been cleared of any wrong doing. Mudgal committee was formed after Cricket association of Bihar filed a plea to investigate BCCI and only thing that came out of it was COI.

[Chandan]

So Why is BCCI fighting the case, if its not involved? Come on rkt.

 

IPL is not a part of BCCI? If fixing happens there, BCCI is responsible? Should have said so in the court, when called, no?

[rkt.india]

On 5/19/2016 at 0:13 PM, Chandan said:

So Why is BCCI fighting the case, if its not involved? Come on rkt.

 

IPL is not a part of BCCI? If fixing happens there, BCCI is responsible? Should have said so in the court, when called, no?

BCCI is fighting the case against these reforms not against fixing or betting. Betting and fixing thing has already been dealt with. CSK and RR ousted. Srinivasan and Meiyypan also out. Charges against Sreesanth, Chavan, Chandila have already been dropped by Court. So, fixing couldn't be proved in the court.

Edited May 21, 2016 by rkt.india