09 October 2017 last updated at 04:16 GMT
 
Will reply to CoA e-mail: Sourav
Tuesday 28 February 2017

Will reply to CoA e-mail: Sourav
The Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) at its emergent working committee meeting on Monday apprised its members of the e-mail sent by the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA).
The CoA last week had sent an e-mail to the state associations seeking compliance reports regarding implementation of the Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha committee's recommendations at the state level. The CoA has set a deadline of March 1.
Asked if the association would conform to the deadline, CAB president Sourav Ganguly replied: "Yes, definitely... We will answer the letter before the deadline ends."
However, there was confusion over the eligibility/non-eligibility of the working committee members. Among other things, the CoA had asked the state associations to submit a list of their existing office-bearers along with their details. But while one section of the CAB was of the view that even the working committee members will have to conform to the eligibility criteria as specified by the Justice Lodha committee, some others insisted that working committee members wouldn't be deemed as office-bearers of the association.
When the CAB president was asked about it, he said: "The Justice Lodha committee had clarified in one of the points of the FAQs published on their website that working committee members are not office-bearers. So, I don't think there is any confusion over it."
Question No.5 of the FAQs published on January 12 read: "Will a member of the governing body, managing committee or working committee of a state/member association who has never been an office-bearer also have the 9 year disqualification period apply to him?"
The answer to it was: "Such an individual is eligible to contest an office-bearer's post, unless the constitution or bye-laws of the association defines office-bearers to include the governing body/managing committee/working committee members."
Some CAB insiders claimed that the association will seek a clarification on the matter from the CoA, though the president didn't say so.
Earlier on Monday evening, former treasurer Biswarup Dey had stirred the prevalent confusion even more as he said that the CAB was likely to approach the Supreme Court to seek clarification on various points regarding the CoA's e-mail.
Dey made a surprise appearance at Monday's meeting and asked why wasn't he notified about it. When countered that as per Justice Lodha committee's clarification he didn't qualify for the meeting, Dey asked why the CAB was being selective in adhering to the recommendations.
Speaking to mediapersons, Dey later said: "The CAB should have been more proactive and taken steps to ensure that the association doesn't disintegrate. I would like to clearly say that the CAB should have taken the path suggested by former BCCI president Narayanswami Srinivasan and sought clarification from the court. Not just CAB, but all the others will ultimately have to follow the path suggested by Srinivasan. That is the only way to survive."
However, it's no secret that had Srinivasan acted more responsibly in 2013 and taken action against the Chennai Super Kings (and the Rajasthan Royals), Indian cricket perhaps wouldn't have landed in the mess that it finds itself in. In fact, Dey himself wouldn't have lost his chair.
Such is the BCCI and it's weird ways.
The Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) at its emergent working committee meeting on Monday apprised its members of the e-mail sent by the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA).

The CoA last week had sent an e-mail to the state associations seeking compliance reports regarding implementation of the Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha committee's recommendations at the state level. The CoA has set a deadline of March 1.

Asked if the association would conform to the deadline, CAB president Sourav Ganguly replied: "Yes, definitely... We will answer the letter before the deadline ends."

However, there was confusion over the eligibility/non-eligibility of the working committee members. Among other things, the CoA had asked the state associations to submit a list of their existing office-bearers along with their details. But while one section of the CAB was of the view that even the working committee members will have to conform to the eligibility criteria as specified by the Justice Lodha committee, some others insisted that working committee members wouldn't be deemed as office-bearers of the association.

When the CAB president was asked about it, he said: "The Justice Lodha committee had clarified in one of the points of the FAQs published on their website that working committee members are not office-bearers. So, I don't think there is any confusion over it."

Question No.5 of the FAQs published on January 12 read: "Will a member of the governing body, managing committee or working committee of a state/member association who has never been an office-bearer also have the 9 year disqualification period apply to him?"

The answer to it was: "Such an individual is eligible to contest an office-bearer's post, unless the constitution or bye-laws of the association defines office-bearers to include the governing body/managing committee/working committee members."

Some CAB insiders claimed that the association will seek a clarification on the matter from the CoA, though the president didn't say so.

Earlier on Monday evening, former treasurer Biswarup Dey had stirred the prevalent confusion even more as he said that the CAB was likely to approach the Supreme Court to seek clarification on various points regarding the CoA's e-mail.

Dey made a surprise appearance at Monday's meeting and asked why wasn't he notified about it. When countered that as per Justice Lodha committee's clarification he didn't qualify for the meeting, Dey asked why the CAB was being selective in adhering to the recommendations.

Speaking to mediapersons, Dey later said: "The CAB should have been more proactive and taken steps to ensure that the association doesn't disintegrate. I would like to clearly say that the CAB should have taken the path suggested by former BCCI president Narayanswami Srinivasan and sought clarification from the court. Not just CAB, but all the others will ultimately have to follow the path suggested by Srinivasan. That is the only way to survive."

However, it's no secret that had Srinivasan acted more responsibly in 2013 and taken action against the Chennai Super Kings (and the Rajasthan Royals), Indian cricket perhaps wouldn't have landed in the mess that it finds itself in. In fact, Dey himself wouldn't have lost his chair.

Such is the BCCI and it's weird ways.

Courtesy: The Telegraph

BCCI plans to have Women's FTP: Shetty
Don't go by the quantity of matches but go by the fact that we will be playing better teams in the next two years, says BCCI official
Clerical error: BCCI replaces Deepak with brother Rahul
The BCCI had sent a release which had Deepakā€™s name in the BP XI squad, which raised a lot of eyebrows