BCCI could go back to 80’s, when there was no money: ICC chairman Shashank Manohar

Shashank Manohar, who stepped down as BCCI president, spoke about the Lodha Committee recommendations and its effects.

Written by Devendra Pandey | Mumbai | Updated: May 22, 2016 10:10:17 am
Shashank Manohar, Manohar India, Manohar BCCI, BCCI, Shashank Manohar India, ANurag Thakur, sports news, sports, cricket news, Cricket Shashank Manohar stepped down as BCCI president earlier this month. (Source: Express File)

Shashank Manohar, who stepped down as BCCI president and has taken over as ICC chairman, spoke about why 75 per cent of the Lodha Committee recommendations are ‘very good’ but also elaborated on why he has reservations about the rest, including banning of advertisements between overs, which would drastically reduce the revenue of the Board. Following are excerpts from a media interaction on Saturday.

Points of conflict

No advertisements between overs

Shashank Manohar: That would destroy the financial structure of this board. The board generates revenue through advertisements. Today the broadcaster pays the board about Rs 43 crore per game – ODI or a T20I or a Test match. The board revenue would come down drastically to about 15% of what it is getting today. When the Justice Lodha Committee came out, Star, which is the official broadcaster for BCCI, had written a letter to me saying that they would like to renegotiate the contract because they said that it is impossible to play Rs 43 crore. If the financial structure collapses, according to me the board would be relegated to the 80s when there was no money with the board.

One state, one association

SM: It is easy to say the North-Eastern states also exist and therefore they should be full members of the board. Even in our political system when the members of parliament are elected, the number is not the same from all states. If you have to give equal representation to everybody then you should have the same number of MPs from every state so you have even representation from every state.

Even in the Supreme Court, if you check the records, there are judges from Mumbai, Kolkata who are more in number while there might not be any judge from the North-Eastern states.

Then there is another aspect. There are many members like Maharasthra, Vidarbha, Baroda, Saurashtra, Railways, Services, Universities, NCC and CCI, which have been told to be removed from BCCI by the Lodha Committee. Now, many of these are founder members of this board. The board was founded in 1932. The states re-organisation act came into force in 1956.

Franchisee representation on IPL GC

SM: This entire matter went to the Supreme Court with an issue of conflict of interest because Mr (N) Srinivasan, who is the owner of Chennai Super Kings, was sitting on the IPL Governing Council. Now this (recommendation on franchises sitting on governing council) is a situation that creates a clear conflict because there are decisions taken relating to the franchises at the IPL governing council. Now suppose I have an interest in a particular matter I should not judge for my own cause.

Apex Council

SM: It can be called working committee, managing committee or you may call it as an Apex Council. But the issue is that nowhere in the world players sit on board of directors. This is also wrong to tell the board that you find another association which would be created by players. Even with FICA (player’s association) that is an association formed by the players themselves, they share their revenue, they shared their prize money to FICA, they pay their subscriptions to FICA and that is how it runs. FICA is consulted by the five boards where it exists. They don’t sit on the management board. They are consulted on cricketing matters.

Three-member selection committee

SM: This is an operational matter. Tomorrow a scenario can happen that all the three selectors can be from one place. Now, there are so many matches which are simultaneously held all over the country. It is physically impossible for the selectors to travel to all these places and watch the games.

Tenure of office bearers, cooling off period

SM: With regards to the (tenure of) office bearers I have no issues with the nine-year term, but the issue is with the cooling off period. You can’t have a cooling off period because there would not be continuity in the system. Because you will have five different people each time. Suppose there is a person who is doing very well and the board wants him to continue, he can’t because there is a prohibition. It is for the board to decide. So for a nine-year term the candidate has to come for 15 years because of the cooling off.

For all the latest Sports News, download Indian Express App