Supreme Court accepts Lodha panel recommendations [Update Post 52: BCCI to meet Lodha Committee]

[G_B_]

Hmm it seems the politicians will be replaced by tycoons

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk

[rkt.india]

24 minutes ago, G_B_ said:

Hmm it seems the politicians will be replaced by tycoons

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk

Dalmiya, Srini, Manohar were not politicians too.

[G_B_]

Dalmiya, Srini, Manohar were not politicians too.

Dalmiya n Srini were or are tycoons

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk

[rkt.india]

1 minute ago, G_B_ said:

Dalmiya n Srini were or are tycoons

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk

yes

[G_B_]

The assumption is tycoons are good of the game in cricket...

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk

[Lannister]

All hail Srini Mama, as without him and his betting scandal this wouldn't have happened. "One state one vote" policy is such a reassuring step, hope this brings out some quality players especially fast bowlers. And good riddance to Anurag Thakur and any politicians within BCCI. 

[G_B_]

2 hours ago, beautifulgame said:

One state one vote one of the best things to happen in Indian cricket.Should ensure farer distribution of funds .

Rather have Manipur and Maharashtra have equal rights than Maharashtra and Gujarat having six votes whereas UP and Bihar (25% Indian Population) having a single vote .

Infact BCCI should be asked to publish the details of how much funding each state has received in last 20 years and how that funds were utilised .

I think the solution was to give Bihar n UP more voting rights rather than take right away from Maha.

 

Maha has a population of 110 million. 110/3 state associations is equivalent to the populations of states such as Kerala Assam and Jharkhand per association which I think is fair. 

 

With 1 vote per state, you are not solving the problems of UP and Bihar and creating problems for Maharashtra based state orgs. Maharashtra which had even representation based on its population now is under represented in this. Keep in mind that GDSP per capita of Maharashtra means revenues from TV etc are never going to be in its favour with the new system.  

[beautifulgame]

Hmm it seems the politicians will be replaced by tycoons

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk

Even then they can't retain power for more than 3 years as there needs to be a cooling off period .

So one person (Like Srini) trying to dominate for years will be thing of the past .

[G_B_]

2 minutes ago, beautifulgame said:

Even then they can't retain power for more than 3 years as there needs to be a cooling off period .

So one person (Like Srini) trying to dominate for years will be thing of the past .

cant they just put forward wives sons and daughters and control by proxy?

[sscomp32]

2 hours ago, beautifulgame said:

One state one vote one of the best things to happen in Indian cricket.Should ensure farer distribution of funds .

Rather have Manipur and Maharashtra have equal rights than Maharashtra and Gujarat having six votes whereas UP and Bihar (25% Indian Population) having a single vote .

Infact BCCI should be asked to publish the details of how much funding each state has received in last 20 years and how that funds were utilised .

Bihar does not have a vote AFAIK. Only jharkhand has. 

[beautifulgame]

I think the solution was to give Bihar n UP more voting rights rather than take right away from Maha.

 

Maha has a population of 110 million. 110/3 state associations is equivalent to the populations of states such as Kerala Assam and Jharkhand per association which I think is fair. 

 

With 1 vote per state, you are not solving the problems of UP and Bihar and creating problems for Maharashtra based state orgs. Maharashtra which had even representation based on its population now is under represented in this. Keep in mind that GDSP per capita of Maharashtra means revenues from TV etc are never going to be in its favour with the new system.  

For starters Ranji trophy generates zilch income for Maharashtra to claim more revenue on GDP basis .

As for population based voting I agree .Unless we also divide teams based on population which is impractical not sure how much possible that is .

But the BCCI had 60 years and never bothered with something like that .That's the crux of the issue.

Ultimately every state in the country have representation on the board on equal terms .Funds can be dispersed based on the population basis (which BCCI has never done) but voting right should be equal for every state.

The fallacy in you argument for me is you are taking Maharashtra as the model representation for the no of votes when no other state (apart from Gujarat) had similar representative vote.Not Karnataka ,Tamil Nadu , UP, MP , Bihar , Rajasthan or MP .Which means they had under influence of the cricketing structure of the country rather than fairer representation all these years .

That's why it's imperative BCCI should be forced to disclose (atleast last 15-20 years) to the public how much fund they dispersed to every state association.

[beautifulgame]

Bihar does not have a vote AFAIK. Only jharkhand has. 

Yeah .That's what I was trying to imply .

UP and Bihar combined have single vote whereas Maharashtra and Gujarat combined has 6 votes .

How can anyone justify Bihar not having a Ranji team is beyond me .

[beautifulgame]

cant they just put forward wives sons and daughters and control by proxy?

Don't u have to be some member of AGM and attended certain number of GC meetings to be eligible to contest ?

Also now if u want to be in a BCCI position , then have to resign from State association.

Another positive .Which means the likes of Thakur and Manohar keep allocating every match to their home association to gain favour is hopefully a thing of past

[Malcolm Merlyn]

This is humbug!!!!

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, Lannister said:

All hail Srini Mama, as without him and his betting scandal this wouldn't have happened. "One state one vote" policy is such a reassuring step, hope this brings out some quality players especially fast bowlers. And good riddance to Anurag Thakur and any politicians within BCCI. 

How good riddance to Anurag Thakur. Thakur is not a minister neither a civil servant, so, he will still be there. These recommendations do not pull the gates for politicians at all, only for politicians who are ministers.

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, beautifulgame said:

 

 

Yeah .That's what I was trying to imply .

 

UP and Bihar combined have single vote whereas Maharashtra and Gujarat combined has 6 votes .

 

How can anyone justify Bihar not having a Ranji team is beyond me .

Bihar not having a Ranji team has nothing to do with BCCI but the internal politics between different Bihar associations

[rkt.india]

2 hours ago, G_B_ said:

The assumption is tycoons are good of the game in cricket...

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk

recommendations no where say that politicians cant be BCCI chairman.

[beautifulgame]

Bihar not having a Ranji team has nothing to do with BCCI but the internal politics between different Bihar associations

Nope.Its because BCCI(Dalmiya ) decided to recognise Jarkhand and de recognize Bihar as the representative body when the state of Jarkhand was formed .

Yet in case of UP and MP they recognised the original state associations

All this because Jarkhand board was closer to BCCI and Bihar wasn't .

[Lannister]

14 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

How good riddance to Anurag Thakur. Thakur is not a minister neither a civil servant, so, he will still be there. These recommendations do not pull the gates for politicians at all, only for politicians who are ministers.

oh I thought he was related to BJP. He is one more crook who thinks about nothing but money. 

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, Lannister said:

oh I thought he was related to BJP. He is one more crook who thinks about nothing but money. 

Yes, he is related to BJP, but he is not a minister. Regarding money, BCCI money does not go into their pockets.