CHENNAI: Apart from trying to chart a way ahead in dealing with the Supreme Court’s stern stand on implementing recommendations of the Justice Lodha panel, the BCCI’s special general meeting on February 19 will also discuss president Shashank Manohar’s (in pic) proposal to slash the board’s share of ICC profits by six per cent. Board sources reveal it amounts to around Rs 1000 crore for eight years (2015-23).
After taking over as ICC chairman in November, Manohar has started a process to do away with several structural overhauls initiated by predecessor N Srinivasan. Important among them are curbing additional authority given to the boards of India, England and Australia by including other members in powerful committees and a more even distribution of revenue by reducing the share of these three boards.
Before Srinivasan became ICC chairman in June 2014, BCCI, like nine other full members, used to get 3.39% of the world body’s profits. It became 22.37% when ICC headed by Srinivasan increased the share of the ‘Big Three’ on the ground that they generate a major chunk of revenues. This entitled BCCI to $570.5 million or Rs 3822 crore for the 2015-23 cycle. The first part of it is due this year. Manohar’s proposal that this be reduced to 16% is expected to be opposed by several members at the meeting in Mumbai.
Members estimate the proposed cut will effectively cost BCCI about Rs 125 crore per year. “From 22.37% to 16% is a drop of over 25%, which means out of Rs 3822 crore (for eight years), we’ll lose close to Rs 1000 crore. That’s around Rs 125 crore per year,” a well placed BCCI source told Express. Before ICC headed by Srinivasan introduced the new system, $52.5 million or Rs 359 crore was the BCCI’s share in the previous eight-year cycle.
While there are members supporting Manohar on this, they seem to be in the minority. “If I am given a good hike, how will it feel to take a cut immediately? The board’s situation is similar. We’ve to see if we are ready to part with Rs 1000 crore. As far as I know, many are against this,” said an association head on condition of anonymity.
Several others have expressed similar thoughts and even questioned the prudence of holding this discussion at this moment. “As it is, things don’t look good following observations made by the Supreme Court on implementing the recommendations. That itself is a major headache. Why invite more?” said a member.