Share the minutes & notify members: CoA to BCCI
CoA continues to crack the whip on the old guard of Indian cricket
It may well have appeared in recent times that the office-bearers and the Committee of Administrators (CoA) of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) have buried the hatchet and decided to move on with their respective jobs.
In reality, that may not exactly be the case. Serious differences have cropped up in recent times and there have been a flurry of mail exchanges between them. A specially called meeting on August 9 in Delhi could be action-packed.
Last evening, the administrators asked each state association to notify their members/clubs. The state units have been given time up to August 8 to submit the list members, who are effectively the voters of the state units.
What’s more, the states have also been told to put the list up in their respective websites. Prior to that mail, there was already trouble over sharing of minutes and functional obligation of the office- bearers.
Over the last one week, the CoA dashed of a couple of mails to the office- bearers reminding them of their responsibility to inform the CoA of their decisions in 24 hours. The office- bearers have apparently not done so.
Informed BCCI sources say that as per the April 6 guidelines of the CoA, the office-bearers are ‘bound’ to share their decisions on same day of the meeting. In this case, it has been more than a week since the July 25 SGM, and the CoA has apparently not received the minutes of the general body meeting.
The members said they accepted all but five clauses of the Lodha report but the decisions have ostensibly not been conveyed to the Supreme Court-appointed committee. This matter now will be discussed at the meeting of the CoA and office-bearers in Delhi on August 9.
There was already a point of difference over Rahul Johri’s absence from the SGM — the CoA had sought an explanation from the office-bearers as to why the CEO was not allowed.
The office-bearers have sent an explanation stating that the meeting was meant only for the office-bearers as per the Supreme Court order. But one is not sure if the CoA is convinced with the reply.
It may well have appeared in recent times that the office-bearers and the Committee of Administrators (CoA) of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) have buried the hatchet and decided to move on with their respective jobs.
In reality, that may not exactly be the case. Serious differences have cropped up in recent times and there have been a flurry of mail exchanges between them. A specially called meeting on August 9 in Delhi could be action-packed.
Last evening, the administrators asked each state association to notify their members/clubs. The state units have been given time up to August 8 to submit the list members, who are effectively the voters of the state units.
What’s more, the states have also been told to put the list up in their respective websites. Prior to that mail, there was already trouble over sharing of minutes and functional obligation of the office- bearers.
Over the last one week, the CoA dashed of a couple of mails to the office- bearers reminding them of their responsibility to inform the CoA of their decisions in 24 hours. The office- bearers have apparently not done so.
Informed BCCI sources say that as per the April 6 guidelines of the CoA, the office-bearers are ‘bound’ to share their decisions on same day of the meeting. In this case, it has been more than a week since the July 25 SGM, and the CoA has apparently not received the minutes of the general body meeting.
The members said they accepted all but five clauses of the Lodha report but the decisions have ostensibly not been conveyed to the Supreme Court-appointed committee. This matter now will be discussed at the meeting of the CoA and office-bearers in Delhi on August 9.
There was already a point of difference over Rahul Johri’s absence from the SGM — the CoA had sought an explanation from the office-bearers as to why the CEO was not allowed.
The office-bearers have sent an explanation stating that the meeting was meant only for the office-bearers as per the Supreme Court order. But one is not sure if the CoA is convinced with the reply.
(Courtesy: Mumbai Mirror)
