THE MUMBAI Cricket Association (MCA) has called for a special general body meeting on Monday to discuss the Lodha Committee reforms with the contentious ‘one state one vote’ recommendation in particular set to take centre-stage. And it’s only understandable for that to be the case, considering the repercussions that would arise from its implementation.
‘One state, one vote’ could after all result in a severe watering down of the MCA’s pull in the BCCI. Not to forget the impact it’ll have on their reputation as being among the heavyweight and most influential associations in the country. And most members believe that if the MCA were to lose out on their voting rights—even if only temporarily which will be the case if the Lodha reforms are accepted in totality—in the BCCI, it will bury the heritage of an association that boasts of having won the most prestigious domestic title a record 41 times.
The MCA had called for a managing committee meeting on Friday evening and it is learnt that president Sharad Pawar briefed the members about the key points that will be discussed on a priority basis during the SGM. “Members will be asked for their view points on the ‘one state, one vote’ issue and chances are very high that most of them will not be in favour of accepting it. MCA has produced so many cricketers for the country, and is renowned for efficiently running a number of tournaments across age-groups and has the most stable school cricket system. If we accept that particular reform, we will have no say in the BCCI. There will be other points to discuss on Monday but it’s obvious which one will take centre-stage,” a MCA member, who attended the managing committee meeting on Friday, said.
However, a few members did raise the question of why the MCA had gone public earlier about having decided to accept the Lodha committee reforms in toto before changing their stand during the BCCI AGM. Some others, meanwhile, also wanted to know what stand Pawar had taken on behalf of the MCA during that particular BCCI meeting, whether he had opposed the reforms and if so why he hadn’t consulted the other members beforehand. “MCA haven’t called for a SGM since these recommendations came in. And now they call for one and say we want to discuss this matter after the Supreme Court has already passsed its order. We would like to know why they have waited till this late for the SGM,” a veteran member said.
“There is also the confusion over why they went public about having agreed to accept the recommendations in its entirety before reversing their decision during the BCCI meeting. And also what was the president’s exact stand when he represented us in the BCCI,” he added.