BCCI-PCB MoU issue : ICC appoint 3-member panel; 3-day hearing to be conducted in Dubai [Post#328]

[sshakir411]

No, PCB abstained in the first meeting but when Sethi joined they ended up voting after BCCI's promise.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1330630

These guys will make up anything. Literally. The fact that BCCI has decided to round up all employees who were involved in these talks with PCB shows theres more to this drama than the Indians claim.

 

[rhony]

No, it is not wrong because Pakistan's middle class is growing as well. Also, please quote correct facts instead of posting rubbish based on wrong facts.

"Additionally, attempts to quantify the country’s middle class, largely based on income and the purchase of consumption goods, exhibit that 42% of the population belong to the upper and middle classes, with 38% counted as the middle class."

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1398602/pakistans-middle-class-continues-grow-rapid-pace/


38 per cent (and not 25%) of the population is middle class in Pakistan and is rapidly growing.

Pakistan's situation when they signed up for the rubbish TV deal based on the fake promises of the lying, backstabbing, baghal mein churri munh mein raam raam BCCI was much different than its now.

I am sure that when the new deal will be signed, it will be worth a lot more millions than it is now. Should be around 300mn.



Please quote a source.





Yes, like i said above, probably the 400-500mn appreciation is too big. However, if we manage to hit it then we are solid. Otherwise, 300 mn should be a realistic number provided the PCB has competent leadership in 2020.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dawn.com/news/amp/1371675

Here. This is the article from dawn about 25 PC of Pak is middle class. Anyway, I agree that 300 mil is not too far fetched for Pak. Some poeple mentioned 500 mil or a bil and I think that's not feasible.

 

[squarecut]

TV channels that buy media rights know more about the market size than the keyboard warriors here. And we already know what they feel about the market size of Pakistan as well as India. That Pakistan market size for cricket is just 3 % of Indian market size for cricket.

 

[Slim]

These guys will make up anything. Literally. The fact that BCCI has decided to round up all employees who were involved in these talks with PCB shows theres more to this drama than the Indians claim.

I learnt a new word today, Psy Ops. Indian posters are engaged in that.

 

[giri26]

Nothing was inked with PCB: Sanjay Patel

Sanjay Patel, who was the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) secretary in 2014, has confirmed that he did not put his signature to seal a long-term agreement with the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB).

The Vadodara-based Patel is back in the news as the much-talked-about March 9, 2014 communication from Najam Sethi, now the PCB's chairman, had been addressed to him. It listed five bilateral tours between December 2015 and December 2022 and has become a bone of contention between the two Boards.

Claiming that an agreement had indeed been put in place, the PCB has taken the freezing of bilateral cricket to the International Cricket Council (ICC)'s Dispute Resolution Committee. It has sought heavy damages from the BCCI.

The BCCI, on the other hand, has been consistent in its stand that neither an agreement nor an MoU had been inked. Patel confirmed just that in a chat with The Telegraph on Wednesday evening.

"Amitabh (Choudhary), the BCCI's acting secretary, is absolutely correct in asserting that we had only made a statement of intent. Mr Sethi's communication was the result of preliminary discussions between the two Boards. No more...

"All along, the BCCI's stand has been that bilateral cricket with Pakistan is totally dependent on clearance by the Government of India. That was the position in 2014, that's the position today as well," Patel said.

Asked how the bilateral series featured on the ICC's FTP, Patel answered: "The FTP calendar is largely a tentative one and much depends on the agreements reached between the Boards. Such agreements have the monetary element too."

Sethi, who is in the city for Thursday's board meeting of the ICC, told this Reporter via WhatsApp: "All will be revealed in due course, before the proper forum. I am not interested in a public exchange."

The ICC Committee dealing with the issue has already constituted a three-member disputes panel, which has scheduled its hearing in Dubai from October 1 to 3.

Both the BCCI and the PCB have the right to field witnesses. As reported in these columns, Patel will be one of them on behalf of the BCCI.

https://www.telegraphindia.com/sports/nothing-was-inked-with-pcb-patel-226167

 

[cricketjoshila]

In all this ICC may end up being hammered.

 

[UN talkz]

https://www.firstpost.com/firstcrick...n-4562341.html

New Delhi: India's top cricketers are yet to receive their revised salaries despite having signed their central contracts back on 5 March, an issue that is likely to dominate the Special General Meeting of the BCCI, scheduled in defiance of the Committee of Administrators (COA).

The players leave for the nearly three-month long tour of UK (Ireland and England) on 23 June and the officials will be gathered trying to thrash out a way forward at the SGM, which has set out a 10-point agenda for the meet.

"Yes, the contracts are with me. If the House approves the revised pay structure tomorrow, I will sign it. In case they don't, my hands are tied. Any policy decision needs approval of General Body and I can't break the law," BCCI's acting secretary Chaudhary told PTI.

The Supreme Court-appointed COA has already made it clear that it does not approve of the meeting and has barred paid office-bearers from attending it. But the delayed payment to players is an issue that the panel's head Vinod Rai is concerned about.

"I personally feel guilty that the players are not getting their remuneration on time. I have no clue what will be the decision of the General Body. But the proposals were there with the finance committee for a long time. The copy of contract has been sent to the secretary after the players have signed," he said.

While players' remuneration is a primary concern, there are a host of other issues that will be discussed at the meeting which will not be attended by CEO Rahul Johri as the COA has not approved it. Ditto for GM (Cricket Operations) Saba Karim.

While the COA has no jurisdiction to stop the meeting, it has instructed the employees not to entertain any invoices raised by the members with regards to air fare, TA/DA.

Since the BCCI-COA relationship has been a fractured one and the members claim that they weren't kept in the loop about the revised remuneration of players, it will be interesting to see what stance the general body takes.

As per revised contract system, the players in the A+ category will get Rs 7 crore, while ones in the A group are to get Rs 5 crore followed by Rs 3 crore and Rs 1 crore respectively in the B and C categories.

It is learnt that the players had signed the new contracts after detailed discussion with the COA. Accordingly, the COA released the new payment structure on 7 March with the names of the 27 players.

However, owing to the BCCI's prevailing constitution, the secretary is still authorised to sign all players' contracts.

Accordingly, Chaudhary's signature was needed to execute the contracts. The monthly remuneration is exclusive of the match fees and daily allowances that the players are entitled to.

The BCCI will also discuss matters pertaining to the ICC, including the contentious Members Participation Agreement (MPA) under which the 2021 Champions Trophy in India has been changed to an ICC World T20 in pursuit of greater revenues.

The Pakistan Cricket Board's compensation claim of USD 70 million for not honouring the agreement for bilateral series will be discussed. BCCI is unlikely to pay any compensation to the PCB.

BCCI's legal representation, various appointments, policy decisions of National Cricket Academy (NCA) will also come up for discussion.

 

[MoJoJoJo]

BCCI appoints UK-based lawyer to fight PCB case

Mumbai: Even as Indian and Pakistan gear up to face each other in the Asia Cup on Wednesday - in what has been one of the most anticipated cricket clashes this year already - their respective cricket boards are busy in Dubai preparing for the long awaited legal battle between the two cricketing nations to get underway on October 1.

In the absence of any bilateral cricket between the two countries, a case of dispute arose when the Pakistan Cricket Board PCB blamed the Board of Control for Cricket in India BCCI last year over non-participation and filed an official complaint with the International Cricket Council ICC the game's global governing body - about massive losses incurred.

In doing so, the Pak board sought damages from its Indian counterpart to the tune of US$70m and approached the ICC's disputes resolution committee for the same.

The very case comes up for hearing between October 1-3 in Dubai and the ICC's disputes panel will be chaired by Hon Michael Beloff QC, an English barrister and a member of Blackstone Chambers.

The Indian Board, TOI learns, has sought the services of renowned UK-based sports lawyer Ian Mills to argue its case alongside bringing on board Dubai-based law firm Herbert Smith Freehills. Cyril Amarchand, the Indian law firm that works with the BCCI back home, will provide the Board with backend assistance.

The case will be argued in the UAE - where the ICC is based out of - but under the English law, as required under the governing body's constitution and nominations have to be filed accordingly. Therefore, it becomes imperative for the cricket boards to rope in legal experts from the United Kingdom.

TOI has further learned that BCCI secretary Amitabh Choudhary, CEO Rahul Johri, lawyers from Herbert Smith and Cyril Amarchand, along with Mills had a detailed meeting in Dubai on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the details of the case.

Ian Mills QC is rated highly for his understanding of matters related to sports disputes, having represented multiple individuals, teams, organisers, managers, governing bodies and sports broadcasters in the past. Among his other responsibilities in the past, Mills has also served as chairman of an ICC tribunal, represented the England Cricket Board (ECB) in the prosecution of Danish Kaneria in 2012, was appointed by the ITF to chair the disciplinary proceedings against the US tennis player Richard Kendrick following the doping offence committed by the latter, has been involved in multiple matters related to the FA, Premier League and Formula One.

The Pakistan board has nominated Jan Paulson, a scholar and practitioner in international arbitration to represent them, though this could not be independently confirmed.

India last played a Test with Pakistan eleven years ago, in 2007 and a one-day bilateral five years ago, in 2013. For lack of any other bilateral cricket between the two countries, the Pakistan board blamed BCCI for not honouring the ICC's Future Tour Program (FTP) calendar, even though PCB's former chairman and much-respected administrator Shaharyar Khan had categorically held that his board had a very weak case against India in this regard.

The BCCI has maintained that it has been in constant touch with the central government on matters related to playing cricket in Pakistan and it is not a decision which rests in their hands. The Indian board says decision on any cricket to be played between India and Pakistan is one of diplomatic concern that needs to be resolved by the governments of the respective countries. "Only if the centre gives a go-ahead, we can think of any cricket with Pakistan. So, things have clearly not been in our hands. We have several communications with the centre in this regard," says the BCCI.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...er-to-fight-pcb-case/articleshow/65858251.cms

 

[MenInG]

PCB MEDIA RELEASE

Lahore September 24, 2018: The PCB’s case against the BCCI will be heard at the ICC Headquarters in Dubai from 1st to 3rd October, 2018. The PCB is being represented by:

Khwaja Ahmad Hosain, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan

Alexandros Panayides of Clifford Chance, London

Lawyers from Clifford Chance, London
Lawyers from LMA Ebrahim Hosain, Pakistan

Salman Naseer, PCB GM Legal Affairs


The Dispute Panel hearing the matter is:

Michael Beloff QC, Chairperson
Jan Paulsson
Annabelle Bennett

The hearing is private. The Award and the reasons thereof will be made public.

 

[USofA]

Still a few questions on the "Award" part.

How will the Award be enforced?
Is the panel's decision final?
If so, how will that be enforced?
Have the BCCI and PCB agreed that the panel decision final?
If not, will the BCCI and PCB appeal the decision?
If they do appeal, where will they do that?

A lot of things are clear as mud. I think there needs to be some ground rules set before this whole thing starts. Perhaps it already has been done.

 

[Savak]

I fear Ehsan Mani will fall for BCCI soft overtures to go soft on the case and even withdraw it only for the BCCI to give him a cold shoulder afterwards

 

[AMSS]

Still a few questions on the "Award" part.

How will the Award be enforced?
Is the panel's decision final?
If so, how will that be enforced?
Have the BCCI and PCB agreed that the panel decision final?
If not, will the BCCI and PCB appeal the decision?
If they do appeal, where will they do that?

A lot of things are clear as mud. I think there needs to be some ground rules set before this whole thing starts. Perhaps it already has been done.

The BCCI have accepted the panel's jurisdiction. They even nominated one of the judges. It's very likely the panels's judgement has been agreed to be final. In the unlikely event of this not being the case, they'd also have agreed on the forum for appeal.

Enforcement would not be an issue when the parties themselves have mutually agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of this panel. In fact, PCB itself or through ICC can have the order of the panel enforced via India courts if BCCI later refuses to comply with the judgment of the panel.

 

[AMSS]

I fear Ehsan Mani will fall for BCCI soft overtures to go soft on the case and even withdraw it only for the BCCI to give him a cold shoulder afterwards

Wasn't he the guy who was making one hawkish comment after another when Najam was in charge? What's changed?

 

[AMSS]

Reading the name of the counsels, it's a given BCCI would be going in loaded with legal ammo. The international law firms are only for presenting the oral arguments and their experience with such international arbitration tribunals.

But make no mistake, these foreign counsels from CC and HS Freehills would depend on the local lawyers to do the heavy lifting. In this regard, BCCI has done well to choose Cyril Amarchand. The legal research and arguments would be top drawer, no questions asked.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Clifford Chance HS Freehills this is some heavy duty ammo.

I wonder if Bcci will have Harish Salve 9f Blackstone chambers walk in.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The BCCI have accepted the panel's jurisdiction. They even nominated one of the judges. It's very likely the panels's judgement has been agreed to be final. In the unlikely event of this not being the case, they'd also have agreed on the forum for appeal.

Enforcement would not be an issue when the parties themselves have mutually agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of this panel. In fact, PCB itself or through ICC can have the order of the panel enforced via India courts if BCCI later refuses to comply with the judgment of the panel.

If they move India courts then one of the parties will be the Union of India represented by GOI and they will claim complete sovereignity to decide how they maintain foreign relations with a country.

 

[AMSS]

If they move India courts then one of the parties will be the Union of India represented by GOI and they will claim complete sovereignity to decide how they maintain foreign relations with a country.

No, UoI won't be the party in such proceeding at all. The law is cut and dried.

Two private parties, BCCI and PCB, have entered into a foundational agreement to refer their dispute to an arbitration tribunal. India is a signatory of the Geneva convention on enforcement of foreign arbitration award. India has also notified both UAE and UK as reciprocating countries under that convention.

This means that PCB can simply institute an execution suit in an Indian court to have that award enforced. The Indian court would examine certain preliminary questions (whether arbitration proceeding stuck to its scope etc etc) and pass an order against BCCI. Simple.

 

[cricketjoshila]

No, UoI won't be the party in such proceeding at all. The law is cut and dried.

Two private parties, BCCI and PCB, have entered into a foundational agreement to refer their dispute to an arbitration tribunal. India is a signatory of the Geneva convention on enforcement of foreign arbitration award. India has also notified both UAE and UK as reciprocating countries under that convention.

This means that PCB can simply institute an execution suit in an Indian court to have that award enforced. The Indian court would examine certain preliminary questions (whether arbitration proceeding stuck to its scope etc etc) and pass an order against BCCI. Simple.

This is not a arbitration tribunal. This is a ICC panel for dispute resolution of its members.

Even if it is there are various points under which it will be contested in India.

Article 1 E of Geneva convention

(e) That the recognition or enforcement of the award is not contrary to the public policy or to the principles of the law of the country in which it is sought to be relied upon.

New york convention has a similar clause.

This is where UOI will be dragged as a respondent.

Also the PCB has to get this award enforced. Not UAE or UK. They are a pakistani organisation. Dont know if GOI has notified them under the convention

 

[cricketjoshila]

UAE is also not a notified country under sec 44 of Indian arbitration act.

 

[MenInG]

International Cricket Council (ICC) President David Richardson has said that the cricket boards of India and Pakistan should resolve their issues on a bilateral basis.

The comment came in the backdrop of a case filed by Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) against Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for not playing any bilateral cricket with them despite signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which guarantees six bilateral series between 2015 and 2023.

The Indian board, however, have claimed that the MoU is not binding on them as PCB did not adhere to some of the clauses mentioned in the document. The hearing in the matter is scheduled to be held at the ICC Headquarters in Dubai from October 1 to October 3.


Speaking during Media Day event at the ICC headquarters, Richardson said, "We obviously don't enjoy the fact that two country boards are in dispute between each other. It is a matter between India and Pakistan. We would like the resumption of ties between the two nations on a bilateral basis."

Richardson further stated that they are always up for facilitating any settlement if required. "We will facilitate any settlement decision if we can. Other than that, it is up to the two nations," he added.

Reflecting on cricket's Olympics prospects, ICC president said that they would love to have the game in the prestigious tournament but for that to happen all the country boards should be on the same track. "I would also like to be in 2028 Olympics but we have no chance of that unless we are united as a sport," Richardson said.

Expressing his views on how to tackle the decreasing popularity of Test cricket, Richardson said that the first step in that direction would be to improve the marketing of the format. "We need to improve the marketing of the Test matches. Creating the context and meaning for test cricket is the first step," he said. "Clever scheduling, early scheduling- there is myriad of different things that we can do," he concluded.

https://www.dnaindia.com/cricket/re...-to-resolve-issues-on-bilateral-basis-2667322

 

[MenInG]

UAE is also not a notified country under sec 44 of Indian arbitration act.

Obviously the arbitration is happening in UAE because both parties agreed to it!

 

[AMSS]

This is not a arbitration tribunal. This is a ICC panel for dispute resolution of its members.

Even if it is there are various points under which it will be contested in India.

Article 1 E of Geneva convention

(e) That the recognition or enforcement of the award is not contrary to the public policy or to the principles of the law of the country in which it is sought to be relied upon.

New york convention has a similar clause.

This is where UOI will be dragged as a respondent.

Also the PCB has to get this award enforced. Not UAE or UK. They are a pakistani organisation. Dont know if GOI has notified them under the convention

Happy to have helped you have familiarize yourself with India's international obligations wrt international commercial arbitration.

Sadly, googling cannot help you with legal understanding. The ICC appointed panel fits the definition of an international commercial arbitration panel to a "T" under the India law which itself is modeled on UNCITRAL model legislation.

The public policy exception is not some general clause that can be randomly contested. It has a VERY specific meaning, and there's an entire jurisprudence built around it that would take you an year to read through. And no, it won't be applicable in this case.

Nor will Indian courts deny enforcement of a valid arbitral award just because the other party happens to be Pakistani. That's absurd. The seat of the arbitration matters. The UK is a notified country under Arbitration Act of India and India has an EVEN WIDER agreement with UAE for judicial cooperation. In other words, an arbitral award originating from these countries would be perfectly enforceable in India provided every other criteria is met.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Obviously the arbitration is happening in UAE because both parties agreed to it!

But it cant be enforced in India should BCCI refuse to oblidge the award.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Happy to have helped you have familiarize yourself with India's international obligations wrt international commercial arbitration.

Sadly, googling cannot help you with legal understanding. The ICC appointed panel fits the definition of an international commercial arbitration panel to a "T" under the India law which itself is modeled on UNCITRAL model legislation.

The public policy exception is not some general clause that can be randomly contested. It has a VERY specific meaning, and there's an entire jurisprudence built around it that would take you an year to read through. And no, it won't be applicable in this case.

Nor will Indian courts deny enforcement of a valid arbitral award just because the other party happens to be Pakistani. That's absurd. The seat of the arbitration matters. The UK is a notified country under Arbitration Act of India and India has an EVEN WIDER agreement with UAE for judicial cooperation. In other words, an arbitral award originating from these countries would be perfectly enforceable in India provided every other criteria is met.

I am a bit familiar with the international arbitration procedures as my family is into exporting and international arbitration is something the industry faces frequently.

Whether Icc panel fits arbitration law will be decided by the particular court.

And let me tell you a number of things in india are not applicable to Pakistanis.So the normal jurisprudence around public policy doesnot apply here. Whats the policy on pakistan is decided from time to time.

This arbitration is in UAE and not UK.

The 1996 Indian arbitration act sec 44 doesnot include UAE. The legal assistance treaty deals with civil courts in UAE and this isnt a civil court. Also in such a case the UAE govt will be required to ask for enforcement of a uae civil court ruling.

PCB will have a very tough time getting this ruling enforced in India. They should have gone to UK for arbitration.

 

[MenInG]

But it cant be enforced in India should BCCI refuse to oblidge the award.

Most contracts have a jurisdiction clause in it - I am sure that's the first thing that was signed.

Guess India can do anything they like.

 

[AMSS]

I am a bit familiar with the international arbitration procedures as my family is into exporting and international arbitration is something the industry faces frequently.

Whether Icc panel fits arbitration law will be decided by the particular court.

And let me tell you a number of things in india are not applicable to Pakistanis.So the normal jurisprudence around public policy doesnot apply here. Whats the policy on pakistan is decided from time to time.

This arbitration is in UAE and not UK.

The 1996 Indian arbitration act sec 44 doesnot include UAE. The legal assistance treaty deals with civil courts in UAE and this isnt a civil court. Also in such a case the UAE govt will be required to ask for enforcement of a uae civil court ruling.

PCB will have a very tough time getting this ruling enforced in India. They should have gone to UK for arbitration.

It's nice to see how I have brought you 2 pegs down within a couple of posts. From your earlier PCB cannot approach Indian courts and GoI wouldn't allow it to this.

Allow me to clear a few more of your misconception. First the court doesn't arbitrarily decide whether a panel fits the definition of arbitration tribunal. There are guidelines for it. For example, the parties enter into a bipartite or multi-party agreement to refer their dispute to an arbitration, they nominate the judges, they choose the substantive law that would be applicable etc etc. All of which is present in this case.

Pakistanis can ABSOLUTELY seek a relief in Indian courts. Don't make hawabaazi statements like "let me tell you.." (LOL) but quote me one piece of legislation which prevents Pakistanis from getting a valid arbitral award enforced.

Third, yes the arbitration is in UAE. As I schooled you in the previous post, the judicial cooperation agreement between India and UAE is much wider than simple notification under the Arbitration Act. It covers issuance of summons, judicial documents and very many things including enforcement of judicial and arbitral awards.

So no, PCB would face the same procedure to get the award enforced, provided it gets a judgment in its favor, regardless of whether the tribunal was set up in UAE or UK.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Most contracts have a jurisdiction clause in it - I am sure that's the first thing that was signed.

Guess India can do anything they like.

If the country where arbitration is awarded is not notified under the Indian law then such an arbitration is almost impossible to be enforced in India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

It's nice to see how I have brought you 2 pegs down within a couple of posts. From your earlier PCB cannot approach Indian courts and GoI wouldn't allow it to this.

Allow me to clear a few more of your misconception. First the court doesn't arbitrarily decide whether a panel fits the definition of arbitration tribunal. There are guidelines for it. For example, the parties enter into a bipartite or multi-party agreement to refer their dispute to an arbitration, they nominate the judges, they choose the substantive law that would be applicable etc etc. All of which is present in this case.

Pakistanis can ABSOLUTELY seek a relief in Indian courts. Don't make hawabaazi statements like "let me tell you.." (LOL) but quote me one piece of legislation which prevents Pakistanis from getting a valid arbitral award enforced.

Third, yes the arbitration is in UAE. As I schooled you in the previous post, the judicial cooperation agreement between India and UAE is much wider than simple notification under the Arbitration Act. It covers issuance of summons, judicial documents and very many things including enforcement of judicial and arbitral awards.

So no, PCB would face the same procedure to get the award enforced, provided it gets a judgment in its favor, regardless of whether the tribunal was set up in UAE or UK.

PCB can approach Indian courts no one denied that. But how much their plea will be entertained no one knows. There are separate policies for Pakistan and they include foreign policy clauses. Yes the GoI will not allow this

The local court can very well decide whether the arbitration panel fits within the law that defines it in India.

No bilateral agreement supercedes the laws passed by the parliament. Thats a settled opinion in Indian law. UAE isnt notified under the arbitration act. ICC committee is not a uae civil court. The UAE govt is unlikely to get involved and invoke a treaty to get anything implemented for pcb.

You have very high hopes if you think pcb will easily get anything enforced in India in its favour just because some icc committee favoured him.

 

[AMSS]

If the country where arbitration is awarded is not notified under the Indian law then such an arbitration is almost impossible to be enforced in India.

Lol, you continue to peddle bullmanure.

http://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/mlat.PDF

You see, your knowledge of law is limited to googling, and that to after hinted by me, and not legal understanding. Luckily for you, I am happy to help as long as it takes to make you understand.

Notification under Arbitration Act is just ONE way to have reciprocal enforcement of arbitral awards.

It's not the only way.

Or did you think that before Arbitration Act came into being in 1996, India never enforced foreign arbitral award? LOL

The judicial cooperation agreement between two countries is another such channel through which foreign awards can be enforced in India. The lawyers at ICC aren't fools to have instituted the arbitration proceedings in Dubai.

 

[dhurandharj]

I wish India playing more with Pak, overall record would have improved a lot then

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lol, you continue to peddle bullmanure.

http://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/mlat.PDF

You see, your knowledge of law is limited to googling, and that to after hinted by me, and not legal understanding. Luckily for you, I am happy to help as long as it takes to make you understand.

Requests for legal assistance shall be made through the Central Authorities of the
Contracting Parties.
2.
In the Republic of India the Central Authority is the Ministry of Law, Justice &
Company Affairs. In the United Arab Emirates the Central Authority is the Ministry of Justice.
3.
Unless otherwise stated all the documents in connectio
n with the legal assistance shall
be officially signed by the Court under its seal which shall be authenticated by the Central
Authority of the Requesting Party

Does the ICC committee come under UAE govt and will the UAE govt intervene and ask for implementation of the award.

I live in India and has faced arbitation and court proceedings here. I dont know where you are from but in India getting any arbitration award from a non notified country is near impossible.Thats why most arbitration between Indian exporters and HongKong based chinese companies were conducted in Singapore,till 2012.

Notification under Arbitration Act is just ONE way to have reciprocal enforcement of arbitral awards.

It's not the only way.

Or did you think that before Arbitration Act came into being in 1996, India never enforced foreign arbitral award? LOL

Foreign arbitral awards are decided as per the 1996 act.

The judicial cooperation agreement between two countries is another such channel through which foreign awards can be enforced in India. The lawyers at ICC aren't fools to have instituted the arbitration proceedings in Dubai.

The lawyers at ICC instituted the dispute resolution committee instituted the proceedings where ICC is based.ICC headquarters are in Dubai. If it was somewhere else proceedings will take place there.

And lastly various supreme court judgements in India have laid it down that all enforcements of foreign awards have to be as the section 13 and 14 of Indian CPC.

 

[AMSS]

PCB can approach Indian courts no one denied that. But how much their plea will be entertained no one knows. There are separate policies for Pakistan and they include foreign policy clauses. Yes the GoI will not allow this

The local court can very well decide whether the arbitration panel fits within the law that defines it in India.

No bilateral agreement supercedes the laws passed by the parliament. Thats a settled opinion in Indian law. UAE isnt notified under the arbitration act. ICC committee is not a uae civil court. The UAE govt is unlikely to get involved and invoke a treaty to get anything implemented for pcb.

You have very high hopes if you think pcb will easily get anything enforced in India in its favour just because some icc committee favoured him.

I have twice asked you to produce me a single piece of law or judgment that bars pakistani entities or citizens from seeking enforcement of a valid arbitral award in India courts.

STOP your hawabaazi that laws and policy are different for Pakistan or some public policy exception can be used in such cases. Produce evidence in the form of law that clearly lays down pakistanis cannot have an arbitral award enforced via courts.

Your nonsense about bilateral agreements not superseding Indian parliament has already been explained above. Indian law prevails in case there is a clash between a bilateral agreement and a law passed by the Parliament. There's no clash here.

 

[AMSS]

Does the ICC committee come under UAE govt and will the UAE govt intervene and ask for implementation of the award.

I live in India and has faced arbitation and court proceedings here. I dont know where you are from but in India getting any arbitration award from a non notified country is near impossible.Thats why most arbitration between Indian exporters and HongKong based chinese companies were conducted in Singapore,till 2012.



Foreign arbitral awards are decided as per the 1996 act.


The lawyers at ICC instituted the dispute resolution committee instituted the proceedings where ICC is based.ICC headquarters are in Dubai. If it was somewhere else proceedings will take place there.

And lastly various supreme court judgements in India have laid it down that all enforcements of foreign awards have to be as the section 13 and 14 of Indian CPC.

Lol, you are such an illiterate in legal matters. The cooperation agreement covers enforcement of commercial arbitration instituted in UAE. It has nothing to do with UAE government. Arbitration awards that are passed in UAE or India are enforceable in both countries without any involvement of governments.

Repeat after me: The government has nothing to do with it. The government has made sure that private parties can get an award enforced in either country AS LONG AS the proceedings were held in either country.

So tell me Joshila, what happened to foreign arbitration awards passed before the Act of 1996? Did they never get enforced in India? LMAO.

Rest of your nonsense isnt worth responding to. Plain gibberish.

 

[mak36]

[MENTION=143730]AMSS[/MENTION] good posts.

Worth adding:

Enforcement

1.4 All parties to disputes falling within paragraph 1.2 agree to submit to the jurisdiction of, and cooperate with, the Committee in the discharge of its functions and do all such things as are reasonably within their power to facilitate the discharge of the Committee’s functions, and further agree to abide by or implement, as the case may be, the decisions of any Dispute Panel appointed hereunder.

The other thing to add is normally a party isn't limited to enforcing the award in the country the award has been given against (in this hypothetical scenario, India). Pakistan could go to any signatory State where India has assets and ask for the award to be enforced. The other thing Pakistan could do is sell the award and leave it to a third party to collect the debt.

As for the applicable law/seat, UAE is something of a red herring:

2.1 These Terms of Reference, and (subject to paragraph 9.10, below) proceedings before any Dispute Panel hereunder, are governed by English law.

2.2 A Dispute Panel formed under these Terms of Reference is intended to operate as an arbitral tribunal within the meaning of the Arbitration Act 1996, and proceedings before a Dispute Panel shall constitute arbitration proceedings with a seat or legal place in London, England, to which the Arbitration Act 1996 applies.

9.9 […] Although the seat of the proceedings shall be London, England, for purpose of application of the Arbitration Act 1996 (further to paragraph 2.2, above), hearings shall take place either in London, England or in Dubai, UAE, as the Chairperson of the Dispute Panel decides, unless the Dispute Panel orders otherwise for good cause shown by either party.

 

[mak36]

So it's actually easier than first thought.

 

[AMSS]

The other thing to add is normally a party isn't limited to enforcing the award in the country the award has been given against (in this hypothetical scenario, India). Pakistan could go to any signatory State where India has assets and ask for the award to be enforced. The other thing Pakistan could do is sell the award and leave it to a third party to collect the debt.

Thanks. Hadn't bothered to look into the specific clauses here so those are illuminating. Although I pretty much knew that the substantive law would be from England. But news to me that the seat itself is deemed to be in England. Not that it makes a whiff of difference when it comes to enforcement of the award.

Take it from me. If the BCCI get an adverse ruling, they'd quietly pay the damages and bury the matter. On the other hand, I do believe that pakistan has a weak case in hand. Very unlikely that they'd get a judgment to their liking.

 

[cricketjoshila]

[MENTION=143730]AMSS[/MENTION] good posts.

Worth adding:

Enforcement

1.4 All parties to disputes falling within paragraph 1.2 agree to submit to the jurisdiction of, and cooperate with, the Committee in the discharge of its functions and do all such things as are reasonably within their power to facilitate the discharge of the Committee’s functions, and further agree to abide by or implement, as the case may be, the decisions of any Dispute Panel appointed hereunder.

The other thing to add is normally a party isn't limited to enforcing the award in the country the award has been given against (in this hypothetical scenario, India). Pakistan could go to any signatory State where India has assets and ask for the award to be enforced. The other thing Pakistan could do is sell the award and leave it to a third party to collect the debt.

As for the applicable law/seat, UAE is something of a red herring:

2.1 These Terms of Reference, and (subject to paragraph 9.10, below) proceedings before any Dispute Panel hereunder, are governed by English law.

2.2 A Dispute Panel formed under these Terms of Reference is intended to operate as an arbitral tribunal within the meaning of the Arbitration Act 1996, and proceedings before a Dispute Panel shall constitute arbitration proceedings with a seat or legal place in London, England, to which the Arbitration Act 1996 applies.

9.9 […] Although the seat of the proceedings shall be London, England, for purpose of application of the Arbitration Act 1996 (further to paragraph 2.2, above), hearings shall take place either in London, England or in Dubai, UAE, as the Chairperson of the Dispute Panel decides, unless the Dispute Panel orders otherwise for good cause shown by either party.

If bcci has agreed that the legal place will be considered as london then its enforceable as per the Arbitration act of 1996.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lol, you are such an illiterate in legal matters. The cooperation agreement covers enforcement of commercial arbitration instituted in UAE. It has nothing to do with UAE government. Arbitration awards that are passed in UAE or India are enforceable in both countries without any involvement of governments.

Repeat after me: The government has nothing to do with it. The government has made sure that private parties can get an award enforced in either country AS LONG AS the proceedings were held in either country.

So tell me Joshila, what happened to foreign arbitration awards passed before the Act of 1996? Did they never get enforced in India? LMAO.

Rest of your nonsense isnt worth responding to. Plain gibberish.

Foreign arbitration awards before 1996 are treated as the same as non notified countries today. It was hard to get them enforced.

The govt has everything to do here as it has not notified UAE as a reciprocating state.

 

[AMSS]

Foreign arbitration awards before 1996 are treated as the same as non notified countries today. It was hard to get them enforced.

The govt has everything to do here as it has not notified UAE as a reciprocating state.

No offence, but you seem like a child who shuts his eyes and screams out loud when reality doesn't match his expectations.

You think the government entered into that agreement for fun?

That's moot anyway. See [MENTION=142670]mak36[/MENTION] 's post above.

 

[jadaja]

PCB has no case and ICC has no business in asking India or Pakistan govt to do something.Richardson is giving these statements just to satify some elements from PCB.

 

[cricketjoshila]

No offence, but you seem like a child who shuts his eyes and screams out loud when reality doesn't match his expectations.

You think the government entered into that agreement for fun?

That's moot anyway. See [MENTION=142670]mak36[/MENTION] 's post above.

The govt has not notified UAE. Until that happens what will happen in case of a arbitral award in UAE is up for guess work.

As i said if UK is the place of arbitration then its enforceable.

 

[AMSS]

The govt has not notified UAE. Until that happens what will happen in case of a arbitral award in UAE is up for guess work.

As i said if UK is the place of arbitration then its enforceable.

Yes, let's not waste time on the UAE issue because you are clearly out of your depth. I mean, you didn't even know about notification under Arbitration Act till I schooled you in a post above. LMAO.

The seat is deemed to be in London. BCCI better not act like misers when the judgment comes )

 

[MenInG]

Law of England and Wales may apply but arbitration happens in UAE, surely this is in the contract

 

[latecut]

PCB has no case and ICC has no business in asking India or Pakistan govt to do something.Richardson is giving these statements just to satify some elements from PCB.

BCCI is the biggest source of cricket revenue in the world and so other professionally run boards as well as ICC try to earn off BCCI by being friendly with it. PCB is the only board which is trying to earn money off BCCI by unprofessional tactics such as litigation.

BCCI is run by entrepreneurs while PCB is run by rent seekers. I can visualise PCB getting embarrassed and much more in the days ahead.

 

[MenInG]

Former Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) presidents N Srinivasan and Anurag Thakur have refused to attend the International Cricket Committee’s hearing on Pakistan Cricket Board’s $70 million (roughly R500 crore) claim for India twice refusing to play a bilateral series against their arch-rivals. The three-day hearing starts in Dubai on October 1.

Both Srinivasan and Thakur were banished from Indian cricket administration during the two-year-long Supreme Court hearing on the RM Lodha committee’s proposals that finally culminated in the apex court signing off on a new BCCI constitution on August 9, 2018.

BCCI has called up several witnesses to face the three-member ICC Disputes Resolution Committee that will be headed by English barrister Michael Beloff, who is also the chairman of the ICC Code of Conduct Commission. To be adjudicated under English laws, BCCI has hired UK-based international law firm Herbert Smith Freehills and sports disputes specialist Ian Mill to front the legal exchanges.

Among the witnesses are Srinivasan, Thakur and former BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel, who in 2014 had signed on a MoU that scheduled six India versus Pakistan (bilateral) series between 2015 and 2023 with PCB hosting the first series in 2015/16.

“India have done nothing wrong to appear in a judicial hearing and that too summoned by the ICC. India and Pakistan is a bilateral matter; what business has ICC to do with it? ICC cannot compel us to play and any pressure (on BCCI) can lead to an international crisis,” said Thakur.

Saying “India should not pay a penny to Pakistan,” Thakur, a BJP MP, said: “Let Pakistan stop terror and then we can think about playing cricket.”

A former high-profile BCCI official, who didn’t want to be quoted, said India were on a sticky wicket and “it was a poor decision to attend this hearing.” He attacked the Committee of Administrators for agreeing to ‘fight’ Pakistan, who will be represented by British law firm Clifford Chance.

“If the BCCI was run by a set of office-bearers who had the experience of handling board room issues at the ICC, India would not have faced this situation. It’s a white versus brown battle and it will be a massive loss of face if BCCI lost, and the signs are not good,” he said.

Thakur said the ICC never constituted a disputes resolution panel when Australia refused to tour Bangladesh in October, 2015 citing security reasons. The Bangladesh tour was scrapped after Cricket Australia was warned by the Australian government about a potential security threat to Australians there. “How is India’s position any different?” asked Thakur.

While Srinivasan will not attend the hearing, one of his closest allies, former IPL Chief Operating Officer Sundar Raman, will turn up as a witness. Former External Affairs Minister and senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid is also a witness.

Sundar, who is currently CEO – Sports of Reliance Industries Limited, was the brain behind ex-ICC president Srinivasan’s 2014 financial model that gave the ‘Big Three’ -- India, Australia and England -- the lion’s share of ICC’s revenues and sweeping powers to pick a nation of choice for a bilateral series. This case is coming up in the ICC when an Indian, Shashank Manohar, is its chairman.

https://m.hindustantimes.com/cricke...urag-thakur/story-vRs1QL9jsqQhClCXlSjduN.html

 

[AMSS]

The unnamed BCCI official who's been quoted as questioning the wisdom behind agreeing to this arbitration is SPOT ON.

BCCI has been nailed and there's a good chance of a judgment coming against them. Watch these weasels squirm.

 

[Savak]

The unnamed BCCI official who's been quoted as questioning the wisdom behind agreeing to this arbitration is SPOT ON.

BCCI has been nailed and there's a good chance of a judgment coming against them. Watch these weasels squirm.

What happens in the event of a judgement against the BCCI? The BCCI can simply refuse to recognize and respect any ICC judgement in favor of Pakistan.

 

[jadaja]

So Australia can quit on any tour or just cancel home series against Bangladesh becuase it is not revenue generating and ICC can't do anything or won't do anything.

But it will appoint this nonsensical arbitration against India.

 

[Rana]

Soon ICC will have to show who is the boss. If the decision goes against BCCI and they do not pay the penelty then I think Pakistan are well within their rights to boycott any ICC fixture in the future against India and the points should be awarded to Pakistan. That also means that Pakistan automatically.

How can you be penalised and not have to pay the penelty just because you generate the most revenue for ICC

 

[princeuk]

Why is the ICC even the governing body, what purpose do they serve other than to look pretty? They are toothless against BCCI and p****foot round them.

PCB have nothing to lose by trying to take legal action and as far as BCCI saying it will ruin relations between them if PCB do pursue the case then how are relations not at its worst at the minute? BCCI are never gonna do anything unless their hand is forced, otherwise there quite happy not doing anything for the PCB.

 

[Hawkeye]

Very informative posts these. Good discussion but please folks keep it civil.

The unnamed BCCI official who's been quoted as questioning the wisdom behind agreeing to this arbitration is SPOT ON.

BCCI has been nailed and there's a good chance of a judgment coming against them. Watch these weasels squirm.

Is Joshila right that a decision in favor of us cannot be enforced in IND? And like the above posted said can't BCCI refuse to pay the $$?

 

[AMSS]

So Australia can quit on any tour or just cancel home series against Bangladesh becuase it is not revenue generating and ICC can't do anything or won't do anything.

But it will appoint this nonsensical arbitration against India.

ICC didn't appoint the arbitration panel on its own. They acted after a request came from BCCI and PCB together.

 

[AMSS]

Very informative posts these. Good discussion but please folks keep it civil.




Is Joshila right that a decision in favor of us cannot be enforced in IND? And like the above posted said can't BCCI refuse to pay the $$?

It can be enforced. PCB can approach the Indian court for an execution order. The Indian court would examine the scope of arbitration and whether the panel acted within their remit and, if proved to its satisfaction, it would issue appropriate order. If BCCI fails to fulfill its obligation, they can have their bank accounts and other properties seized.

Thankfully, the probability of things coming to such a pass is VERY low. BCCI knows the wider repercussions of not honoring an arbitration order would ruin its credibility as a responsible body. BCCI would soon be an organization with multi-billion $$ in revenue, and it needs that credibility to enter into profitable contracts with its partners.

PCB's claim is 70 million USD, which is considerable but hardly something beyond the ability of BCCI. My guess is that if PCB wouldn't get a order for the full amount it has claimed, if it gets a favorable order AT ALL. So suppose the panel orders BCCI to compensate PCB with 40-50 million USD, they would quietly do it.

 

[Rana]

Lol where are all those smug posters who claimed that PCB can cry and do whatever they want because BCCI doesn’t have to respond to any legal notice citing MOU as just a mere signature that has no significant meaning

 

[AMSS]

Lol where are all those smug posters who claimed that PCB can cry and do whatever they want because BCCI doesn’t have to respond to any legal notice citing MOU as just a mere signature that has no significant meaning

The funny thing is BCCI didn't have to agree to this arbitration. It was a surprise to me when they decided to agree to refer this dispute to a ICC appointed panel. If they hadn't, PCB would have likely been left without any relief.

So expect a lot of blame game within BCCI if an adverse judgment comes against them.

 

[prisha]

So if BCCI looses the case will PCB asks them either cough up the money or play them in Pakistan

 

[zoeyfactor]

Did Bangladesh provide an alternative plan to Australia that they can play them anywhere else like Pakistan does in UAE? I don't think so. India refuses to play in UAE as well while everyone else does play. India just doesn't have the maturity to separate politics and sports. Period.

 

[KevinFern]

It can be enforced. PCB can approach the Indian court for an execution order. The Indian court would examine the scope of arbitration and whether the panel acted within their remit and, if proved to its satisfaction, it would issue appropriate order. If BCCI fails to fulfill its obligation, they can have their bank accounts and other properties seized.

Thankfully, the probability of things coming to such a pass is VERY low. BCCI knows the wider repercussions of not honoring an arbitration order would ruin its credibility as a responsible body. BCCI would soon be an organization with multi-billion $$ in revenue, and it needs that credibility to enter into profitable contracts with its partners.

PCB's claim is 70 million USD, which is considerable but hardly something beyond the ability of BCCI. My guess is that if PCB wouldn't get a order for the full amount it has claimed, if it gets a favorable order AT ALL. So suppose the panel orders BCCI to compensate PCB with 40-50 million USD, they would quietly do it.

Yes just that it might take just 6-8 yrs for the court to decide one way or the other. And then who knows what happens

 

[Bewal Express]

Very informative posts these. Good discussion but please folks keep it civil.




Is Joshila right that a decision in favor of us cannot be enforced in IND? And like the above posted said can't BCCI refuse to pay the $$?

But if compensation is awarded, Ind's share can be taken directly from the ICC revenue due to Ind.

 

[Napa]

It can be enforced. PCB can approach the Indian court for an execution order. The Indian court would examine the scope of arbitration and whether the panel acted within their remit and, if proved to its satisfaction, it would issue appropriate order. If BCCI fails to fulfill its obligation, they can have their bank accounts and other properties seized.

An Indian court is quite unlikely to rule against BCCI in favor of PCB. Also, not one Indian court, but multiple Indian courts would have to rule on this matter, and any negative verdict will be appealed by BCCI.

Thankfully, the probability of things coming to such a pass is VERY low. BCCI knows the wider repercussions of not honoring an arbitration order would ruin its credibility as a responsible body. BCCI would soon be an organization with multi-billion $$ in revenue, and it needs that credibility to enter into profitable contracts with its partners.

PCB's claim is 70 million USD, which is considerable but hardly something beyond the ability of BCCI. My guess is that if PCB wouldn't get a order for the full amount it has claimed, if it gets a favorable order AT ALL. So suppose the panel orders BCCI to compensate PCB with 40-50 million USD, they would quietly do it.

I am not sure you understand how Indians feel about Pakistan with Indian soldiers dying in Kashmir. India would cut off all ties to ICC rather than pay PCB $40 million. The best Australian, English and SA players would then migrate to the IPL, and the remaining cricket would be inferior in quality.

 

[Rana]

An Indian court is quite unlikely to rule against BCCI in favor of PCB. Also, not one Indian court, but multiple Indian courts would have to rule on this matter, and any negative verdict will be appealed by BCCI.



I am not sure you understand how Indians feel about Pakistan with Indian soldiers dying in Kashmir. India would cut off all ties to ICC rather than pay PCB $40 million. The best Australian, English and SA players would then migrate to the IPL, and the remaining cricket would be inferior in quality.

Lol you guys come up with this Indian utopian vision of cricket without ICC.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. BCCI will fall in line like they do for the ICC events

 

[KingKhanWC]

An Indian court is quite unlikely to rule against BCCI in favor of PCB. Also, not one Indian court, but multiple Indian courts would have to rule on this matter, and any negative verdict will be appealed by BCCI.



I am not sure you understand how Indians feel about Pakistan with Indian soldiers dying in Kashmir. India would cut off all ties to ICC rather than pay PCB $40 million. The best Australian, English and SA players would then migrate to the IPL, and the remaining cricket would be inferior in quality.

Indians dont care about their soldiers as much as you think otherwise they wouldn't play against Pak in small tournaments such as the Asia Cup.

Indias only defence will be the government doesnt allow us to play but they knew this before signing the MOU.

 

[Napa]

Lol you guys come up with this Indian utopian vision of cricket without ICC.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. BCCI will fall in line like they do for the ICC events

Indians dont care about their soldiers as much as you think otherwise they wouldn't play against Pak in small tournaments such as the Asia Cup.

Indias only defence will be the government doesnt allow us to play but they knew this before signing the MOU.

Wait and watch. Come back to this thread a few years from now.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Wait and watch. Come back to this thread a few years from now.

Wait for what? We have just seen India play Pakistan twice in the UAE. The soldiers werent an issue.

 

[AMSS]

The decision would hinge on how the MoU is worded and how the panel interprets it.

Past precedence would be looked at. For example, how the two boards agreed to play a bilateral in the past, whether ICC had a process that members had to adhere to, whether there was any precedence of a board not honoring MoUs etc etc.

The Indian board has its internal processes (board members voting and approving etc) that it must go through when it comes to deciding a series with another country. If such procedural steps were missing in the case of this MoU with pakistan then it would make a good case for itself.

BCCI would also argue on the government overruling its decision to play pakistan. If the MoU itself contains a provision to this effect then BCCI would find itself on surer ground. Again, no shortage of case laws on this point.

Would love to go through the judgment when it's out.

 

[AMSS]

Wait for what? We have just seen India play Pakistan twice in the UAE. The soldiers werent an issue.

Yes the soldiers are not an issue for both countries.

The GoI/BCCI stance is Pakistan should not directly benefit from a series with India so long they keep the hostilities going. Which is in fact the case. PCB has suffered from lack of quality balls, poor pay, abysmal facilities and what not. So, in their own way, BCCI have made sure Indian soldiers dying has a direct impact on Pakistan.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes the soldiers are not an issue for both countries.

The GoI/BCCI stance is Pakistan should not directly benefit from a series with India so long they keep the hostilities going. Which is in fact the case. PCB has suffered from lack of quality balls, poor pay, abysmal facilities and what not. So, in their own way, BCCI have made sure Indian soldiers dying has a direct impact on Pakistan.

PCB was run poorly but it's not broke. You are giving too much importance to Indian rupees. Pakistan cricket doesnt need them to survive. Not sure where you get your info from but it's embarrasing to read such nonsense.

 

[Balthazar]

Nothing will happen even if the ruling is against BCCI. I don't know what the PCB is trying to achieve here.

 

[AMSS]

PCB was run poorly but it's not broke. You are giving too much importance to Indian rupees. Pakistan cricket doesnt need them to survive. Not sure where you get your info from but it's embarrasing to read such nonsense.

Fact isn't nonsense. PCB struggling to afford A tours. Players complaining about quality of balls and pitches in FC cricket. Pakistani players being among the most poorly paid. None of the above is nonsense.

PCB is surviving, not thriving.

On the other hand, I'd direct you to the nearest sandpit to bury your head in.

 

[USofA]

Yes the soldiers are not an issue for both countries.

The GoI/BCCI stance is Pakistan should not directly benefit from a series with India so long they keep the hostilities going. Which is in fact the case. PCB has suffered from lack of quality balls, poor pay, abysmal facilities and what not. So, in their own way, BCCI have made sure Indian soldiers dying has a direct impact on Pakistan.

I just don't understand this. Why is the PCB reliant on the BCCI this much to generate revenues? Shouldn't the PCB rely on the Pakistan fans instead?

 

[USofA]

Hopefully this whole drama comes to an end next week. But I doubt it.

The party on the receiving end of this is most certainly going to appeal to some sort of court somewhere. Especially if its the BCCI. If it comes to an Indian court getting involved, then it is going to take a long, long time. Though I do not have any good knowledge on subcontinental judicial process, from what I have read these things can drag along for years on end.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Fact isn't nonsense. PCB struggling to afford A tours. Players complaining about quality of balls and pitches in FC cricket. Pakistani players being among the most poorly paid. None of the above is nonsense.

PCB is surviving, not thriving.

On the other hand, I'd direct you to the nearest sandpit to bury your head in.

Are you an Indian fan? Because any Pakistani fan who has followed Pakistani cricket will know this was the same in 2000's when India and Pak were playing. PCB makes enough money to fix those issues, without BCCI help. It's hardly millions of $ are required.

 

[MenInG]

Nothing will happen even if the ruling is against BCCI. I don't know what the PCB is trying to achieve here.

Why would BCCI go through this charade if they dont believe in the process?

 

[Rana]

Wait and watch. Come back to this thread a few years from now.

This isn’t a Bollywood movie.

 

[AMSS]

Are you an Indian fan? Because any Pakistani fan who has followed Pakistani cricket will know this was the same in 2000's when India and Pak were playing. PCB makes enough money to fix those issues, without BCCI help. It's hardly millions of $ are required.

The crux of your argument is that only Pakistani fans following pakistani cricket can understand its issues?

 

[KingKhanWC]

The crux of your argument is that only Pakistani fans following pakistani cricket can understand its issues?

No I was just wondering which team you support. My point is PCB have run Pakistan cricket poorly which is the reason for some issues. They dont need BCCI to keep Pakistan cricket in a good state. Unless you have some financial details to suggest otherwise?

 

[Balthazar]

Why would BCCI go through this charade if they dont believe in the process?

Maybe to put a stop to this nonsense once and for all. With this, there will be a clarity as to what to expect of the bilateral series.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Nothing will happen even if the ruling is against BCCI. I don't know what the PCB is trying to achieve here.

Yes something will happen.

BCCI , if the decision goes against them, and they refused to pay will be exposed as a hypocrite and shameless organization.

Those tooting the horns of BCCI will also be exposed as deeply anti Pakistani.

So just curious to see how many Indians will be separated as trolls and borderline enemies of Pakistan.

 

[AMSS]

Maybe to put a stop to this nonsense once and for all. With this, there will be a clarity as to what to expect of the bilateral series.

They'd be reluctant to use MoUs as inducement for other boards

 

[Napa]

This isn’t a Bollywood movie.

Bollywood movies are over in a few hours. This thing will likely drag on for years.