CHENNAI: The to-be elected office-bearers of the BCCI are set to approach the Supreme Court in November with a request to send N Srinivasan as their nominee for International Cricket Council (ICC) meetings. The former ICC and BCCI chief can’t hold any post in the Indian board because of age and tenure rules in the new constitution. But members think since the new role is of a representative, the apex court can be approached.
An agreement has been reached by members in this regard at meeting last Sunday, but they are aware of the legal complications of going ahead without the court’s permission. The BCCI believes they need a strong representative at the ICC. Once the new office-bearers take charge on October 23, the same day a 21-day notice will be issued for another annual general meeting in mid-November.
It is in this meeting, the BCCI will pick various committees including the representative to ICC meetings. Sources in the know told this newspaper that before Srinivasan’s name is formally recommended, the legal wing of the BCCI will approach the Supreme Court. If they don’t receive a clearance, new president Sourav Ganguly is likely to be the man for this job.
Currently, the BCCI is at loggerheads with ICC over revenue share and the Future Tours Programme, which was approved in Dubai last weekend. With the BCCI not having a strong leader in place, the ICC has kept them at bay when it comes to revenue sharing model and board members believe Srinivasan will be the ideal man to deal with the issues.
In the last couple of years with the CoA running BCCI, the ICC led by Shashank Manohar rolled back the Big Three revenue model, which was a concept devised by Srinivasan aimed at BCCI getting more money from the world body. The BCCI was then forced to accept the new revenue model.
“There is an age cap for administrators, but Srinivasan is only going to be a representative instead of holding any post. Moreover, the ICC doesn’t have age regulations. In the last three years, in the absence of a strong BCCI, some of the decisions have gone against India. The BCCI hasn’t received funds and has been forced to sacrifice a substantial portion of the revenue it should get. It is not small because instead of $570 million, the BCCI was only allotted $405 million. Since Srinivasan was the one who oversaw the earlier model, it is apt he is involved this time keeping in mind India’s interest,” a BCCI official told this newspaper.
Moreover, the BCCI is set to oppose the new Future Tours Programme (FTP) as it believes the proposed move to have one ICC event every year will affect bilateral series, through which a member like BCCI generates a substantial portion of
its revenue.
“The members participation agreement (MPA) is yet to be signed and it is a card the BCCI can use if the ICC goes ahead with its original plan. There are already two 50-over World Cups in that cycle (2023-31), so why does the ICC need another 50-over tournament where only six teams can participate? Instead, if there is a bilateral series, more revenue will come in. If the BCCI doesn’t get its way, then we stay away from the MPA,” the official added.