20 September 2018 last updated at 11:26 GMT
 
Back to square one for BCCI?
Wednesday 26 July 2017

Back to square one for BCCI?
Close to 24 hours after the Supreme Court categorically stated that "only state association office-bearers can attend the Special General Meeting (SGM) of the BCCI", a fresh controversy seemed to erupt on Tuesday evening when the state units received a letter from the Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA) saying court-appointed administrator Justice Vikramjit Sen would represent them at the general body meeting.
"Now, the SC itself has clarified that only office-bearers can attend. With due respect, Justice Sen is not an office-bearer. He's a court-appointed administrator. Then how can he attend?" a state association office-bearer told TOI.
This came after state units received an email on Tuesday morning saying, "Justice Sen shall be appearing on behalf of DDCA for the meeting scheduled for 26th July 2017". 
The growing objection to Justice Sen being in attendance comes at a time when the BCCI is calling for this SGM with the following agenda: Discuss the reports of the meetings of the BCCI special committee held on July 2 & 8 for implementation of the July 18, 2016 SC order. 
Please include the following: A) Formal adoption of the new memorandum of associations and rule and regulations for BCCI; B) Formal adoption of the new BCCI conflict of interest rules; C) Appointment of ombudsman; D) Formal adoption of new funds disbursement policy.
However, state associations have a gripe over this too. "Please note what the court has said: All concerned (BCCI & state associations) shall implement the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee Report as far as practicable, barring the issues which have been raised pertaining to membership, number of members of the selection committee, concept of associate membership, etc. In doing so, the court expressed willingness to modify Lodha panel recommendations going forward. Read the order," office bearers of state units said.
In line with the order, BCCI members now say that "whatever could be accepted, we already did that in the October 1 general body meeting last year. So, in effect, the recommendations of this special committee have no meaning post SC's observations."
In the October 1, 2016 SGM - which took place when Anurag Thakur was the BCCI president and Ajay Shirke secretary - the general body had accepted the following recommendations: A) New draft memorandum as amended by SC vide its order dated July 18, 2016; B) Induction of CAG representative as member of Apex Council as well as IPL GC; C) Formation of Apex Council with certain 'modifications'; D) Various committees as recommended, including special committee for differently-abled and Women's committee; E) Formation of Players Association; F) Voting rights to Associate members as per ICC guidelines; G) Code of Conduct for Players, Team Officials; Anti-Doping, Anti-Racism, Anti-Corruption Codes and Operational Rules; H) Agent Registration Norms.
In doing so, BCCI members had also categorically stated what they could not implement, those being: A) One-state, one-vote; B) Age limit of 70 years; C) Cooling-off period; D) Appointing apex council but with "modifications"; E) Three national selectors.

Close to 24 hours after the Supreme Court categorically stated that "only state association office-bearers can attend the Special General Meeting (SGM) of the BCCI", a fresh controversy seemed to erupt on Tuesday evening when the state units received a letter from the Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA) saying court-appointed administrator Justice Vikramjit Sen would represent them at the general body meeting.

"Now, the SC itself has clarified that only office-bearers can attend. With due respect, Justice Sen is not an office-bearer. He's a court-appointed administrator. Then how can he attend?" a state association office-bearer told TOI.

This came after state units received an email on Tuesday morning saying, "Justice Sen shall be appearing on behalf of DDCA for the meeting scheduled for 26th July 2017". 

The growing objection to Justice Sen being in attendance comes at a time when the BCCI is calling for this SGM with the following agenda: Discuss the reports of the meetings of the BCCI special committee held on July 2 & 8 for implementation of the July 18, 2016 SC order. 
Please include the following: A) Formal adoption of the new memorandum of associations and rule and regulations for BCCI; B) Formal adoption of the new BCCI conflict of interest rules; C) Appointment of ombudsman; D) Formal adoption of new funds disbursement policy.

However, state associations have a gripe over this too. "Please note what the court has said: All concerned (BCCI & state associations) shall implement the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee Report as far as practicable, barring the issues which have been raised pertaining to membership, number of members of the selection committee, concept of associate membership, etc. In doing so, the court expressed willingness to modify Lodha panel recommendations going forward. Read the order," office bearers of state units said.

In line with the order, BCCI members now say that "whatever could be accepted, we already did that in the October 1 general body meeting last year. So, in effect, the recommendations of this special committee have no meaning post SC's observations."

In the October 1, 2016 SGM - which took place when Anurag Thakur was the BCCI president and Ajay Shirke secretary - the general body had accepted the following recommendations: A) New draft memorandum as amended by SC vide its order dated July 18, 2016; B) Induction of CAG representative as member of Apex Council as well as IPL GC; C) Formation of Apex Council with certain 'modifications'; D) Various committees as recommended, including special committee for differently-abled and Women's committee; E) Formation of Players Association; F) Voting rights to Associate members as per ICC guidelines; G) Code of Conduct for Players, Team Officials; Anti-Doping, Anti-Racism, Anti-Corruption Codes and Operational Rules; H) Agent Registration Norms.

In doing so, BCCI members had also categorically stated what they could not implement, those being: A) One-state, one-vote; B) Age limit of 70 years; C) Cooling-off period; D) Appointing apex council but with "modifications"; E) Three national selectors.

(Courtesy: The Times of India) 

Nadeem breaks all-time List-A record
The Jharkhand left-arm spinner returned figures of 10-4-10-8 in the Vijay Hazare Trophy, the best ever figures in List-A cricket.
BCCI, PCB gear up for battle off the field
BCCI hires Dubai-based law firm, British lawyer for ICC hearing.