Cricket board scraps tenders, Zee pads up against Dalmiya

The sniper fire was now an open gunfight.

Zee is the big loser after Dalmiya’s decision. It had bid $ 308 million to win, after messy post-tender negotiations, the right to telecast cricket played in India between 2004-08. ESS, the other shortlisted network, had taken its defeat to court.

The past fortnight saw a cloak and dagger game. While Zee sources spoke of ‘‘Dalmiya’s links with ESS’’, the BCCI chief felt Subhash Chandra’s network was out to get him. Two episodes got him worked up.

First, Dalmiya’s elevation to BCCI patron-in-chief was challenged in a PIL in a Bhopal court. The aggrieved litigant’s lawyer was Vivek Tankha, advocate general of Madhya Pradesh during Digvijay Singh’s Congress government. ‘‘On September 10,’’ confirmed a source in the legal fraternity, ‘‘Tankha was flown from Delhi to Bhopal in a Zee plane to argue the case.’’

Second, when the Congress nudged Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar to contest the BCCI presidency, injuring the hopes of Arun Jaitley, BJP general secretary and Dalmiya’s preferred successor, Zee’s invisible hand was suspected again.

‘‘Zee executives have been calling state cricket association chiefs, asking them to vote for Pawar,’’ said a senior BCCI official, ‘‘this amounts to commercial interests hijacking the BCCI.’’ At least one former chief minister of a north Indian state — and current head of its cricket association — is believed to have been contacted by a Zee board member.

The TV company itself is unfazed. Ashish Kaul, Zee’s vice-president, corporate communications, brushed aside the charges, ‘‘This is speculative. I refuse to confirm or deny it.’’

As things stand, two parallel streams — Zee’s feud with Dalmiya and the Congress’ resolve to deny Jaitley the BCCI’s top job — have converged. It is not that non-ruling party politicians have not become BCCI chiefs earlier. ‘‘Madhavrao Scindia became Board president when V P Singh was prime minister,’’ a veteran administrator pointed out. Even so, Jaitley now faces an uphill task.

What are the financial implications of Dalmiya’s contract abrogation? The four-year period for which bids were invited was frontloaded. The first season, 2004-05, when India hosts Australia and Pakistan, was its most lucrative. ‘‘Upto 40 per cent of its worth,’’ goes one estimate.

The only comparable series, in terms of commercial value, is another tour by Pakistan, tentatively planned for 2008. Now the BCCI plans to hire a TV production unit for the coming Indo-Australian series and then offer the pictures and audio to a television channel, probably on a revenue-sharing basis.

‘‘Dalmiya will go to Prasar Bharti,’’ guesses a cricket industry insider, ‘‘saying he has chosen the public broadcaster in the interests of the average cricket fan. This will also win him points with the government, should Pawar become BCCI president.’’

If successful, the experiment may be repeated for the entire 2004-05 season — South Africa and Pakistan play here after Australia. After that, the BCCI has told the court, it will invite fresh bids for the following four-years, season 2005-06 onwards.

While his move will certainly hurt Zee, Dalmiya is attempting an audacious gamble. Yet again, he could rewrite the rules of the cricket business.

What he will do is hire a world class production unit — TWI is the likely choice — and then go to a television channel, offer to telecast live cricket on it and promise to sell the ads as well. The television channel will probably get a share of the ad revenue. The BCCI will get the cream.

‘‘The Board’s only problem,’’ said a BCCI official, ‘‘is it doesn’t have ad collectors.’’ Dalmiya may need to outsource that aspect of his venture.

If this becomes the template for future cricket rights deals, it will mean the BCCI can dangle the carrot before channels on a series by series basis. No single network will then be in a position to interfere with Board politics.

For the moment, though, to quote a Dalmiya associate, ‘‘It’s war.’’