The crisis over the sponsorship issue deepened further today with the International Cricket Council demanding damages — reportedly between $10-26 million — from the Indian cricket board irrespective of whether it sends its best squad or a second string side for the champions trophy in Sri Lanka. In its effort to find a ‘‘workable solution’’, the ICC said they could offer contractual concessions the players had sought if the BCCI was to own up ‘‘all the financial liability’’ which may arise out of it. Interestingly, the ICC dismissed the figures put out by Dalmiya. Its corporate manager Brendan McClements, speaking to this paper, confirmed that it had asked the BCCI for financial cover and, though he refused to disclose the exact figure, said ‘‘it’s far less than the rumours floating around’’. The stand-off appeared to harden when BCCI secretary Niranjan Shah told The Indian Express: ‘‘No way is the BCCI going to give anything to anybody. If the ICC wants to relax some clauses for our players, it’s at their own level. It’s the responsibility of the ICC to look at its financial obligations, not the BCCI’s.’’ In a late-night statement released in Kolkata, BCCI chief Jagmohan Dalmiya — who has called a meeting here on Saturday to discuss the issue — said the Board had been called upon to pay damages ‘‘irrespective of whether it sends its main team or an alternative squad.’’ It said the ICC wanted the Board to pay $10 million (Rs. 50 crores) to compensate sponsors of leading Indian cricketers in case they sign up to play in next week’s mini world cup in Sri Lanka despite their contractual obligations to conflicting advertisers. And if India sends a second-string team to Colombo, the board should pay $26 million (Rs. 130 crores), the statement said, quoting Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive. Speed had met the Indian players last night in a bid to resolve the issue. The BCCI said it had sought time from the ICC to respond to its demand and that the board’s decision would be conveyed to the world cricket governing body immediately after Saturday’s meeting. According to Dalmiya’s statement, Speed argued that since ‘‘relaxations’’ would have to be granted to the main players in terms of conflicting advertising — the 6-month images clause would be dropped — the BCCI would be liable to pay damages. ‘‘He (Speed) also stated that the BCCI would be liable to more damages if an alternate squad was sent and some of the ICC sponsors backed out’’, Dalmiya added. Why should the BCCI pay, Dalmiya asked, when the ICC had been latterly involved in negotiations. The BCCI, he added, could not be held responsible for any loss incurred by the ICC from the alteration or modification of rights offered to the players with respect to commercial rights beyond the minimum stipulations agreed to in Dubai last weekend. At their meeting with the players last night, the ICC top brass are learnt to have mulled over the grievances put out by the senior Indian players and their representative, former skipper-turned-broadcaster Ravi Shastri and asked its sponsors and partners about the feasibility of amending clauses for them.
