Vizag is likely to host the second one-day international game between India and West Indies, after the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association and the Indian board found themselves at loggerheads over distribution of complimentary passes. As per the new registered Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) constitution, the state association can only available of 10 % complimentary tickets whereas 90 percent of the total capacity of the stadium needs to be sold as tickets to the public. The Indian Express understands that the Indian board alongwith Supreme Court appointed Committee of Administrators (COA) has spoken to the Andhra Cricket Association and it is learnt that Andhra has agreed to the board's last minute request. “Mostly it will be Vizag; the official confirmation will be made soon. They (Andhra) have agreed to the board request and we are working at the final modalities. There are a lot of things to do if the game is shifted at the last minute. Logistics, travelling, security there are many things to be finalised,” sources in the Indian board informed. MPCA declined to host the second ODI after the new clause under the new BCCI constitution was enforced and the state association was expected to compromise on their complimentary tickets. “We have been waiting for a mail from the BCCI but we have not received it till now. From our (MPCA) side it’s clear that we can’t hold the match under these circumstances. COA has stated that the association should have raised this complimentary pass issue with Supreme Court. We did, we brought this to the notice of amicus curiae that this issue will come up in the future. I am sure other state associations must have also submitted a list of practical difficulties they are going to face,” MPCA joint secretary Milind Kanmadikar told The Indian Express. The BCCI after registering the new constitution has sent out a circular to all state associations where it stated, “As mandated by Rule 37(8), 90% of the tickets in each category must be available for purchase by the public through transparent booking procedure(s) which should be intimated to the Committee of Administrators at least 5 days prior to the match. There should be no provision for preferential blocking/ holding of tickets from out of this 90% and the same should be available on first-come-first-serve basis to the public.” MPCA boasts a capacity of 27,000 seats. Out of which MPCA has 7000 seats in its hospitality gallery. MPCA joint secretary Milind Kanmadikar had stated that with the ten percent rule, MPCA will only get 700 tickets. Out of which 350 tickets will be given to BCCI for its sponsors. MPCA felt that the 10 percent quota was too less especially looking at the demand everytime an international match takes place in smaller cities. Better clarity Kanmadikar said the COA should have raised this complimentary pass issue with the Supreme Court. “Did they talk about the complimentary ticket issue with Supreme Court stating clearly that there are sponsors who need to be given such and such passes. You all know how complimentary passes is a big issue for any association, especially since each association has to cater to stakeholders and government agencies. You all know how government agencies work,” Kanmadikar said. When asked if the BCCI top bosses had offered the option of buying tickets, Kanmadikar stated, the COA email clearly says “There should be no provision for preferential blocking/ holding of tickets from out of this 90% and the same should be available on first-come-first-serve basis to the public. So what shall we do now with such guidelines in place? ” Kanmadikar, in his email to the COA and BCCI bosses few weeks ago had written, “As an Association having hosted several International and IPL matches, we take this opportunity to suggest to you about the ground reality where the complimentary tickets is one of the most sensitive and sought-after aspect of hosting such matches.” However, COA in their reply to MPCA has called the mail ‘unfortunate’ as the association never raised this point in front of Supreme Court when there was an opportunity to do so before. “It is unfortunate that the points that now find mention in the trailing email were not raised by any State Association before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the form of practical difficulties at the time when there was an opportunity to do so,” COA had written.
