Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
This isn’t an epic either. There is no such thing as BCCI without ICC
-
Contact the PP Team
BCCI-PCB MoU issue : ICC appoint 3-member panel; 3-day hearing to be conducted in Dubai [Post#328]
- Thread starter MenInG
- Start date
I'm sorry, but looks like you're out of out from how things are when it comes to cricket admin. Domestic cricket in particular is in shambles. No money, departments not interested anymore, players surviving on peanuts, third class facilities, pitches, grounds and balls.
[MENTION=143730]AMSS[/MENTION] is right.
Savak
Test Captain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 49,859
- Post of the Week
- 3
These cricketers who keep promoting departmental cricket have no idea that departments are curtailing back their investment in sportsmen, cricketers are now being let go of cricketers after there playing days are over and they are only offering short term contracts to players with meager pay. Its no longer the same guaranteed permanent job of the 50's to 90's anymore. Some departments like UBL have even abolished their sports teams.
Imran Khan now that he is the PM is honestly speaking the last hope of getting cricket back on track.
KingKhanWC
Test Captain
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 49,882
Provide some financial details then? Show me in figures what the PCB generates with and without India playing? How much cash flow they have? How much expenditure is needed in domestic cricket? What are the wages of all players both in first class and first team? Etc.
Lets see how much in touch you are. thanks
Savak
Test Captain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 49,859
- Post of the Week
- 3
There is no need to go into these details. There is a reason why the PCB has been desperately chasing a series with India and demanding India recoup their losses. A series with India is worth $10 million of dollars, a series with the rest of the world is worth not even 10% of that.
The WI when in abandoned its tour to India, the BCCI demanded that the WICB compensate the BCCI for its losses to a tune of $42 million. BCCI generates $42 million from playing against an average side like the West Indies.
KingKhanWC
Test Captain
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 49,882
Everyone knows many $ will be generated for the PCB playing India. This does not confirm the posters views Pakistan is in dire straights and cannot afford even cricket balls because India will not play. To prove this you have to show financial details, which you cannot.
Abdullah719
T20I Captain
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2013
- Runs
- 44,825
PCB, BCCI should resolve their issues among themselves: Rajeev Shukla
New Delhi, Sep 30 (ANI): Ahead of International Cricket Committee’s (ICC) hearing on Pakistan’s Cricket Board’s (PCB) claim of roughly Rs 447 crore against India for twice refusing to play a bilateral series, Indian Premier League (IPL) Chairman Rajeev Shukla said that both the cricketing boards should solve the issues among themselves rather than involving ICC in it. “As far as BCCI vs Pakistan Cricket Board dispute is concerned, my own view is that both the Boards should resolve it amicably instead of lingering it in ICC. BCCI always wanted to play with Pakistan but there are certain issues and we need government nod to go to Pakistan to play matches,” said Shukla. “Wherever international matches are organised by ICC or Asian Cricket Council, we always play with Pakistan, this time we played at a neutral venue. There is no question of paying money to Pakistan Cricket Board,” added Shukla.
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/vid...ir-issues-among-themselves-rajeev-shukla.html
New Delhi, Sep 30 (ANI): Ahead of International Cricket Committee’s (ICC) hearing on Pakistan’s Cricket Board’s (PCB) claim of roughly Rs 447 crore against India for twice refusing to play a bilateral series, Indian Premier League (IPL) Chairman Rajeev Shukla said that both the cricketing boards should solve the issues among themselves rather than involving ICC in it. “As far as BCCI vs Pakistan Cricket Board dispute is concerned, my own view is that both the Boards should resolve it amicably instead of lingering it in ICC. BCCI always wanted to play with Pakistan but there are certain issues and we need government nod to go to Pakistan to play matches,” said Shukla. “Wherever international matches are organised by ICC or Asian Cricket Council, we always play with Pakistan, this time we played at a neutral venue. There is no question of paying money to Pakistan Cricket Board,” added Shukla.
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/vid...ir-issues-among-themselves-rajeev-shukla.html
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
Rajeev Shukla should go home. Pakistan and India cannot resolve any issues on their own and never can they when India will always want to patronise every matter. BCCI deserves all the mud they are put through for their initial stance and ignoring PCB’s constant requests to resolve the issue
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
Resolve it amicably?!?!?
What has PCB been trying to do and BCCIs arrogant stance is there for everyone to see
What has PCB been trying to do and BCCIs arrogant stance is there for everyone to see
Savak
Test Captain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 49,859
- Post of the Week
- 3
To run cricket in Pakistan is a very expensive proposition. The PCB cannot afford so many things like International Kookaburra balls in domestic cricket, to upkeep all the stadiums in Pakistan, it had to abandon its plans to establish NCA type academies in other major cities, proliferation of bowling machines which will allow batsmen to practice on their weaknesses for 4-5 hours at a stretch.
Just to upgrade the National Stadium and Qadhaffi Stadium for PSL purposes has cost the PCB close to Rs billion.
KingKhanWC
Test Captain
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 49,882
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
How many members will choose PCB over BCCI?
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
All of them. All of them would side against BCCI, not with PCB. It’s not about who to choose between BCCI or PCB because of money, it’s about upholding the importance of a neutral governing body. ICC is now involved to sort the matter out and they are now the official court and arbitration. Any decision now will come from them be it in favour or against PCB. No way is any member board going to become a slave to another nation that is the overall in charge.
Will ECB, ACB and CSA develop younger players to grow and become governed by Indian administration?
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
Let’s say they choose to snake PCB because they are the weaker body, look at it from this way...
PCB is a “Big” draw for some of these countries and their home/away tours plus ICC matches. The second most followed team across the world. The other issue is, what goes around comes around. BCCI would become a clear screwjob specialists and it would become visible to everyone that they can backtrack and change their stance with anyone at anytime. Who would want to take the risk of trusting them?
Bhaijaan
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Runs
- 66,357
- Post of the Week
- 1
BCCI cheated PCB and must pay what they owe to Pakistan. As simple as that.
Anyone who denies that is shameless.
Anyone who denies that is shameless.
I am still unclear about the enforcement of the ruling. It has been made public that the ruling is final. But little else. No specifics have been revealed. Or perhaps I have missed it.
If the ruling is in favor of BCCI, what prevents the PCB from pursuing this in a court of law either in UK, UAE, India, Pakistan or wherever? Perhaps the only part of non-appealable ruling is that it cannot be appealed to the ICC panel.
If the ruling is in favor of PCB, how will they collect from BCCI? Have any specifics on this process been made public? I have only heard guesses. Also, what prevents BCCI to pursue this in a court of law?
If the ruling is in favor of BCCI, what prevents the PCB from pursuing this in a court of law either in UK, UAE, India, Pakistan or wherever? Perhaps the only part of non-appealable ruling is that it cannot be appealed to the ICC panel.
If the ruling is in favor of PCB, how will they collect from BCCI? Have any specifics on this process been made public? I have only heard guesses. Also, what prevents BCCI to pursue this in a court of law?
All of this has been discussed on the previous page. There are clear laws to deal with all the issues you have listed.
Those are forum world discussions, right or wrong as they may be. What has the ICC or the panel said or laid out besides saying that their ruling is final?
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,905
The Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) is all set to clash with Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) in front of the ICC's Dispute Resolutions Committee over the next three days. PCB has accused the BCCI of not honouring their agreement, signed in 2014, to play bilateral series between the two nations. The PCB claims that this has caused large commercial losses to them. The decision taken by the committee will be non-appealable.
According to the agreement signed in 2014, which PCB claimed is binding on BCCI, India and Pakistan were scheduled to play six bilateral series between 2015 and 2023 with four of those to be hosted by the PCB. However, BCCI has claimed that they have no authority on the same and have to follow the diktat of the Indian government, that has prohibited any bilateral cricket between the neighbours.
However, PCB have countered the claim by saying that if the two nations can play in multi-nation team tournaments then there should be no reason why the two teams can't play at neutral venues.
PCB has also claimed losses of up to USD 70 million, stemming from the failure to play two series in November 2014 and December 2015. After several good faith meeting, which resulted in no concrete progress, PCB sent a dispute notice to the BCCI in May and to the ICC in November.
The BCCI has hired Dubai-based law firm Herbert Smith Freehills along with British Lawyer QC Ian Mills. PCB will be represented by Khwaja Ahmad Hosain, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, Alexandros Panayides of Clifford Chance, London and Salman Nasser, PCB GM Legal Affairs.
The ICC Disputes Panel is made up of three members - Michael Beloff QC, Jan Paulsson and Dr Annabelle Bennett.
https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/...-set-to-hear-bcci-pcb-case-today-1894395.html
According to the agreement signed in 2014, which PCB claimed is binding on BCCI, India and Pakistan were scheduled to play six bilateral series between 2015 and 2023 with four of those to be hosted by the PCB. However, BCCI has claimed that they have no authority on the same and have to follow the diktat of the Indian government, that has prohibited any bilateral cricket between the neighbours.
However, PCB have countered the claim by saying that if the two nations can play in multi-nation team tournaments then there should be no reason why the two teams can't play at neutral venues.
PCB has also claimed losses of up to USD 70 million, stemming from the failure to play two series in November 2014 and December 2015. After several good faith meeting, which resulted in no concrete progress, PCB sent a dispute notice to the BCCI in May and to the ICC in November.
The BCCI has hired Dubai-based law firm Herbert Smith Freehills along with British Lawyer QC Ian Mills. PCB will be represented by Khwaja Ahmad Hosain, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, Alexandros Panayides of Clifford Chance, London and Salman Nasser, PCB GM Legal Affairs.
The ICC Disputes Panel is made up of three members - Michael Beloff QC, Jan Paulsson and Dr Annabelle Bennett.
https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/...-set-to-hear-bcci-pcb-case-today-1894395.html
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
Pcb and pakistan are not a big money spinner. Not one board official of these countries have said that Pakistan team brimgs in a lot of money.
And pakistan is no replacement for bcci.
Heck Virat Kohli skipped the Asia cup and broadcaster way crying.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
And how will world cricket run withou the money from India? Pcb will give that money?
Boards require money to run cricket.Not emotions.
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
It will run just fine. Just like it did in the 70s, 80s, 90s and much of the first decade of the 21st century. BCCI will fall in line, there is no compromise on justice and doing the right thing.
Your stance and thoughts reek of the patronising approach that is taken by your board.
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
Your solution to injustice is that one can overpower someone that has been cheated and decieved is simply through buying everyone else that can stand up for them. Read all of your posts about this topic and how BCCI can do whatever they want.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
In 70 80s 90s cricketer were not well off. Now they are millionaires. Good luck telling them that they will not get their wages because PCB is not happy.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
What injustice? Countries boycott other countries on the sporting field all the time.
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
So ECB hands out central contracts worth £500k- £1M through BCCI money?
County cricketers earning between £50k-200k a season through BCCI money? I suggest you propose your hollow ideas to people who don’t know how the business is run. You say it as if cricketers will get a million if BCCI is in or nothing if BCCI is out. Cricket goes on, the business continues.Pakistani players don’t have BCCI money, their cricket has survived and thrived even though they don’t have the luxury of playing at home. They continue to produce players capabale of performing well at the highest level.
BCCI money isn’t bigger than the game. Get that in your head and stop trying to make things up
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
Lol all the time, give me examples in recent history
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,905
So as per media reports, Najam Sethi was presented as witness for the PCB during the proceedings today, while Ratnakar Shetty represented BCCI in the hearing.
GrandMaster
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Runs
- 1,570
The decision to be taken by this 3 member committee would be final. If Pakistan wins, India would still bargain and payout a few million. Whatever the outcome is I don't see any bilateral taking place between India and Pakistan anytime soon, at least for the next couple of decades.
Short term gain would be Pakistans long time loss. It's like killing the Goose that laid the golden eggs.
Short term gain would be Pakistans long time loss. It's like killing the Goose that laid the golden eggs.
The problem is there wasn't any golden egg nor a goose that laid the golden egg to begin with for PCB. In 2014, when PCB agreed to the bi-literal series, BCCI very well knew they weren't touring or playing.
Well, kind of. Their two biggest revenue generators are India tours and the Ashes. Not sure what percentage of ECB revenues (via Sky) is generated from these two. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. But I am going guess that a big majority north of 50%. Of course there is also the World Cup revenues. So where does that leave the tours from other countries? How much do they generate combined?
If my memory serves me right, isn't the ECB boycotting Zim?
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
Yes.According to ECB their two biggest money spinning tours are Ashes abd India tour. The counties receive money from ECB. ECB also receives a lot of money from ICC.
All this money will disappear if Bcci goes away. To make matters worse bcci will then offer players multi million contracts to play Ipl.
Double Trouble.
Pcb gets 100mn plus from icc. That will not be there either.
Bcci money makes cricket a thriving sport and not a barely surviving one.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
ECB CA boycotting Zim.
Countries have even boycotted Olympics.
Pakistan boycotting Asia cup 1990 in India.
GrandMaster
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Runs
- 1,570
India would have toured under different government (just the way Pakistan toured India for a short series under). PCB didn't have patience and Najam Sethi during his tenure as PCB chief wanted to prove to Pakistan aawaam that he has the guts to go against India without thinking of future.
Najam Sethi didn't do any good in maintaining the relationship with India, instead, have spoiled which would take decades to heal. I dont think even the Indian Congress government (if elected in future) would now agree for a bilateral series.
PCB was after ICC t get that money so to get rid of their nuisance ICC relented. BCCI has nothing to do with it.PCB is only board which comes across as a demanding freeloader, thats why no one has any sympathy towards them.
BCCI if it chose it could have taken WICB to court and won when WI abandoned their tour midway thru the series but it did not, instead it gave WICB a lift by touring WI.
PCB can go to any court but it won't get a dime.I would be shocked if it did win anything.
If they run fine without BCCI why is PCB running after BCCI and its money. No one is stopping them from earning money on their own.These Jingoistic replies are fine but reality is only ECB and ACB will survive without Indian money.
Tests were being watched by full houses in 70s and 80s. Now boards like NZ are abandoning home tests becuase they are too expensive to host. So stop living in 70s.
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
PCB has survived around a decade without Indian money and has also formed its own Franchise cricket league.
Last edited by a moderator:
GrandMaster
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Runs
- 1,570
Exactly! While other boards are thriving, PCB is somehow surviving.
Last edited by a moderator:
PCBs broadcasting contracts were done based on the Indian series. They are very much dependent on Indian money.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,905
India’s former External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid is seen as a key witness as the cricket Board bids to thwart a USD 70 million compensation claim by Pakistan at the International Cricket Council (ICC) Disputes Resolution Committee hearing in Dubai on grounds that BCCI had reneged on a 2014 agreement to play five bilateral series between 2015 and 2023.
The hearing began on Monday. Khurshid, who will appear on Tuesday, is expected to explain to the three-member ICC panel the role the Union government plays in clearing a cricket series between the arch-rivals, which is at the centre of India not playing Pakistan in bilateral matches. A top BCCI official in the know of things said Khurshid will be “India’s trump card” given his legal background and political understanding.
The ICC is adjudicating on the Pakistan Cricket Board’s demand for India having already refused to play two bilateral series as per the agreement. Sanjay Patel, who was BCCI secretary in 2014, will also be cross-examined on Tuesday. Also turning up in the witness box will be Ratnakar Shetty, who handled government relations on behalf of BCCI.
“There’s no way we could have avoided this ICC hearing. If BCCI didn’t attend, ICC would have given an ex-parte order that is non-appealable,” said the BCCI official. On Wednesday, ICC chairman Shashank Manohar, a former Indian Board chief, and Sundar Raman, a former IPL COO and close associate of N Srinivasan, will turn up as India’s witnesses.
Srinivasan, former BCCI chief who was ICC president in 2014, and former secretary and president Anurag Thakur declined to face cross-examination by PCB’s English lawyers.
PCB is demanding that India be held accountable as per their agreement. BCCI acting secretary Amitabh Choudhary has said in the past that Patel’s 2014 communication was a ‘letter of intent’ and not a final contract. However, BCCI could be at a disadvantage as the letter does not say any bilateral cricket against Pakistan is subject to government clearance. According to English contract law, on the basis of which the hearing is taking place, any document signed by two parties is binding and enforceable.
The ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ between BCCI and PCB was signed when the proposed ‘Big Three’ model, a brainchild of Srinivasan, gave India, Australia and England the lion’s share of ICC revenues and massive control over governance was facing opposition.
The BCCI and PCB agreed to enter into a long-form Future Tours Programme agreement but Pakistan had to first agree on the ‘Big Three’ model. After initial grouse, Pakistan helped India pass the model, assuming it would rake in dollars both ways – a share of ICC’s revenue and the lucrative TV rights from at least three bilateral series PCB would host.
The controversial ‘Big Three’ model was objected to by several full members including South Africa, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and was eventually scrapped after Srinivasan, in November 2015, was sacked as ICC chief in the wake of the 2013 IPL fixing and betting scandal. After Manohar became ICC’s first independent chairman in May 2016, it was replaced by an April 2017 model based on ‘equity, common sense and simplicity’ and passed in the ICC 13 votes to one.
Patel wrote to then PCB chairman Najam Sethi that India and Pakistan will play five series comprising at least two Tests, five ODIs and two T20s, between December 2015 and December 2021, either in the UAE or a neutral venue agreed by both Boards. In addition, India and Pakistan agreed to play five ODIs in November-December 2022.
https://m.hindustantimes.com/cricke...th-pakistan/story-blTz03FXB9GfVS78diT3EI.html
The hearing began on Monday. Khurshid, who will appear on Tuesday, is expected to explain to the three-member ICC panel the role the Union government plays in clearing a cricket series between the arch-rivals, which is at the centre of India not playing Pakistan in bilateral matches. A top BCCI official in the know of things said Khurshid will be “India’s trump card” given his legal background and political understanding.
The ICC is adjudicating on the Pakistan Cricket Board’s demand for India having already refused to play two bilateral series as per the agreement. Sanjay Patel, who was BCCI secretary in 2014, will also be cross-examined on Tuesday. Also turning up in the witness box will be Ratnakar Shetty, who handled government relations on behalf of BCCI.
“There’s no way we could have avoided this ICC hearing. If BCCI didn’t attend, ICC would have given an ex-parte order that is non-appealable,” said the BCCI official. On Wednesday, ICC chairman Shashank Manohar, a former Indian Board chief, and Sundar Raman, a former IPL COO and close associate of N Srinivasan, will turn up as India’s witnesses.
Srinivasan, former BCCI chief who was ICC president in 2014, and former secretary and president Anurag Thakur declined to face cross-examination by PCB’s English lawyers.
PCB is demanding that India be held accountable as per their agreement. BCCI acting secretary Amitabh Choudhary has said in the past that Patel’s 2014 communication was a ‘letter of intent’ and not a final contract. However, BCCI could be at a disadvantage as the letter does not say any bilateral cricket against Pakistan is subject to government clearance. According to English contract law, on the basis of which the hearing is taking place, any document signed by two parties is binding and enforceable.
The ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ between BCCI and PCB was signed when the proposed ‘Big Three’ model, a brainchild of Srinivasan, gave India, Australia and England the lion’s share of ICC revenues and massive control over governance was facing opposition.
The BCCI and PCB agreed to enter into a long-form Future Tours Programme agreement but Pakistan had to first agree on the ‘Big Three’ model. After initial grouse, Pakistan helped India pass the model, assuming it would rake in dollars both ways – a share of ICC’s revenue and the lucrative TV rights from at least three bilateral series PCB would host.
The controversial ‘Big Three’ model was objected to by several full members including South Africa, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and was eventually scrapped after Srinivasan, in November 2015, was sacked as ICC chief in the wake of the 2013 IPL fixing and betting scandal. After Manohar became ICC’s first independent chairman in May 2016, it was replaced by an April 2017 model based on ‘equity, common sense and simplicity’ and passed in the ICC 13 votes to one.
Patel wrote to then PCB chairman Najam Sethi that India and Pakistan will play five series comprising at least two Tests, five ODIs and two T20s, between December 2015 and December 2021, either in the UAE or a neutral venue agreed by both Boards. In addition, India and Pakistan agreed to play five ODIs in November-December 2022.
https://m.hindustantimes.com/cricke...th-pakistan/story-blTz03FXB9GfVS78diT3EI.html
Last edited:
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
How are we not thriving? we have one of the world's most sought after coaches as our head coach. PCB has the financial muscle to hire a top class coaching staff as long as they can convince them to work in Pakistan and we are still producing world class players
If you thriving then why is PCB crying?? let them thrive nobody is stopping them.
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
Crying for what? Why did BCCI dare to have someone on without any intention to honour their commitment? They should pay
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
Lol at Indian officials refusing to be cross examined by PCB hired lawyers. Clearly the MOU has got them into trouble
You can have 1000 intents not everything can fullfilled, dream on like PCB it wont't get a dime. This has gone this far becuase of one guy Shanshank Manohar who is EX bcci president.
They are bloody scared bro
Running helter-skelter
Day 2 goes to Pakistan/PCB
Tomorrow BCCI will get the biggest phainty at the hands of PCB
70 million USD almost there in PCB pocket
I think this result of this case going to change the Financial equation of World cricket...
Savak
Test Captain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 49,859
- Post of the Week
- 3
In case on an unfair unjust verdict in favor of the BCCI. What options does the PCB have outside the ICC? Can the PCB sue the ICC?
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
Who?
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
Srinivasan and Anurag Thakur.
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
InshaAllah justice will prevail. Why do you think BCCI made statements such as a 3rd party should not have been involved and this should have been resolved amicably?
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 82,383
If the panel finds that the MoU was just an expression of intent and not any concrete commitment then the verdict wouldn't be unjust or unfair by any means.
Remember, the ICC cannot force member boards to play against each other.
IMMY69
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2005
- Runs
- 19,187
I keep saying this but the MOU cannot be considered just an expression of intent if there is consideration.
It depends on two factors.
One is the exact wording of the MoU itself. No shortage of case laws to make a case either way. Common law precedence is that MoU is *typically* an expression of intent and not an enforceable contract. However, some MoUs can be deemed enforceable if they have all the characteristics of an actual agreement. So the wording of the actual text of the MoU becomes material. None of us here have seen the MoU copy.
Second, the panel would look into how the boards, PCB and BCCI in particular, entered into such bilateral agreement in the past. Was there an MoU followed by a detailed agreement? Did ICC have a set procedure for the member boards to follow? If yes, did BCCI and PCB follow the ICC mandated procedure?
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
The MoU.In this case a letter is in public domain.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
They are Ex BCCI officials and unpaid ones. One of them is a MP another runs a company worth 100s of millions of dollars so they are not jobless to go to ICC whenever called.ICC doesnt have any power to summon them either.They didnot go to Dubai so the question of cross examination by PCB doesnot arise.
IMMY69
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2005
- Runs
- 19,187
What you say is correct and from what I remember, from various sources, the MOU in this instance is more then a letter of intent.
I’ll be surprised if the decision was otherwise and will eagerly waiting to read the verdict in full.
iniqbal223
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2016
- Runs
- 1,416
To make things clearer here :
My brother-in-law works with Dutch cricket board, and for matter of any series between any cricket nations. ICC uses emails/ letter of intent for future series. ICC DO NOT REQUIRE ANY BOARD TO HAVE LEGAL DOCUMENT, BECAUSE THERE IS A JURISDICTION ISSUE BETWEEN 2 COUNTRIES, ITS ONLY LETTER OF INTENT BETWEEN BOARDS.
WHEN THE TOURS BECOME FINALIZED THEN ONLY OFFICIAL CONTRACTS ARE ISSUED THAT ALSO INVOLVES SPONSORS AND BROADCASTERS, BUT THAT AGAIN WITH THE HOSTING BOARD.
So the question is, if this document is enough for any 2 boards to play series. YES, FROM ICC PERSPECTIVE /RULES, THIS DOCUMENT IS ENOUGH FOR ANY BOARDS. THERE IS NO DOCUMENT SUCH AS CONTRACT OR LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT THAT IS REQUIRED, BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST UNTIL THE FINANCES OF SERIES COME INTO THE PICTURE.
My brother-in-law works with Dutch cricket board, and for matter of any series between any cricket nations. ICC uses emails/ letter of intent for future series. ICC DO NOT REQUIRE ANY BOARD TO HAVE LEGAL DOCUMENT, BECAUSE THERE IS A JURISDICTION ISSUE BETWEEN 2 COUNTRIES, ITS ONLY LETTER OF INTENT BETWEEN BOARDS.
WHEN THE TOURS BECOME FINALIZED THEN ONLY OFFICIAL CONTRACTS ARE ISSUED THAT ALSO INVOLVES SPONSORS AND BROADCASTERS, BUT THAT AGAIN WITH THE HOSTING BOARD.
So the question is, if this document is enough for any 2 boards to play series. YES, FROM ICC PERSPECTIVE /RULES, THIS DOCUMENT IS ENOUGH FOR ANY BOARDS. THERE IS NO DOCUMENT SUCH AS CONTRACT OR LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT THAT IS REQUIRED, BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST UNTIL THE FINANCES OF SERIES COME INTO THE PICTURE.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
So what is a FTP agreement?
iniqbal223
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2016
- Runs
- 1,416
Looks like PCB case is much stronger, but then you never know how well articulated BCCI lawyers are and what kind of rules BCCI/ICC might come up with..
iniqbal223
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2016
- Runs
- 1,416
Afaik FTP was scrapped during Big 3 regime, and boards started signing these letters were among them, so that Big 3 can play among themselves with more. Otherwise ICC would have wanted every team to play again each other.
KevinFern
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2014
- Runs
- 804
Heard Salman Khurshid is in Dubai helping the BCCI legal team
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
He is a witness.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
His deposition is over.
Gotham Cronie
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Runs
- 14,599
Had no idea the letter was floating about. Thanks.
One of the things that make a MoU valid as contract is existence of consideration. Where is the consideration in this letter? Is reciprocity of tours sufficient as condition? This will be looked into.
The sentence about the letter not having any effect should the desired resolutions aren't passed is important. Is it legal for members to have such a clause for their bilateral contracts? Is pakistan's support for the said resolution a consideration or a condition? I am expecting the panel to discuss this at length.
Finally, the letter itself hints that there would be a proper master agreement with all the details fleshed out. Does it make this letter merely an intent to enter into a proper binding contract later? if yes, then this letter itself is not worth much.
One of the things that make a MoU valid as contract is existence of consideration. Where is the consideration in this letter? Is reciprocity of tours sufficient as condition? This will be looked into.
The sentence about the letter not having any effect should the desired resolutions aren't passed is important. Is it legal for members to have such a clause for their bilateral contracts? Is pakistan's support for the said resolution a consideration or a condition? I am expecting the panel to discuss this at length.
Finally, the letter itself hints that there would be a proper master agreement with all the details fleshed out. Does it make this letter merely an intent to enter into a proper binding contract later? if yes, then this letter itself is not worth much.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,963
- Post of the Week
- 1
Whats your verdict?
The consideration will comeout through broadcast rights. For that an agreement was to be signed.
Last edited:
No, the broadcast right isn't a consideration for the purpose of this agreement between the boards. The consideration would always be quid pro quo tours, which is there in this letter of intent.
Purely looking at this letter, I wouldn't call it a contract that grants rights to either parties. Not enforceable.
Savak
Test Captain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 49,859
- Post of the Week
- 3
This letter itself is proof the BCCI was offering these series in exchange for votes, there is no mention of Govt Approval, signature of BCCI officials is present. There was an intent to enter into an arrangement. Any fair and just court will hold the BCCI accountable for failing to honor its word and commitment.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,905
MoUs are just that.
IMMY69
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2005
- Runs
- 19,187
Sorry but it doesn’t have to give rights to a party to be enforceable.
Savak
Test Captain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 49,859
- Post of the Week
- 3
Its all about which lawyers will put forward convincing arguments. But the BCCI in this episode has only reinforced that any agreements signed with it cannot be trusted and any verbal assurances received from it cannot be relied upon either. Bottomline they lack integrity big time.
Savak
Test Captain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 49,859
- Post of the Week
- 3
Btw, that letter could just be a photocopy. Who knows which actual format it was written and signed in.
shaaik
First Class Star
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2010
- Runs
- 3,984
ICC hearing: Salman Khurshid cross-examined, BCCI says testimony lends weight to its case
The hearing will decide whether BCCI is to pay the Rs 447 crore damages sought by the PCB for not honouring a so-called MoU to play six bilateral series between 2015 and 2023.
Former external affairs minister Salman Khurshid Tuesday justified India’s refusal to play bilateral cricket with Pakistan during the ICC’s Disputes Resolution Committee hearing into a compensation claim against the BCCI, a Board official said. The hearing, which began Monday, will decide whether BCCI is to pay the Rs 447 crore damages sought by the PCB for not honouring a so-called Memorandum of Understanding to play six bilateral series between 2015 and 2023. The BCCI has maintained that the MOU is not legally binding.
“Khurshid’s presence definitely took the PCB by surprise. They were not expecting a former MEA to come in for cross-examination. Also a legal expert. He gave UPA II’s stand on why India didn’t tour Pakistan post the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008,” the BCCI official told PTI, quoting from Khurshid’s statement in the court, on condition of anonymity.
Khurshid, who was the external affairs minister during the UPA-II government which finished its term in 2014, was presented by the BCCI as one of its prime defence witnesses on Tuesday. He, however, could not be reached for a comment on his statement at the hearing.
“During the cross-examination Khurshid told the ICC’s Dispute Resolution Forum that the erstwhile UPA government acted on various world intelligence agencies’ reports on threat perception of playing cricket in Pakistan. He explained why it was impossible to send Indian cricket team to Pakistan after terror attacks,” he said.
The official also claimed that Khurshid stuck to the oft-stated government stand that bilateral engagements with Pakistan cannot resume without an end to cross-border terrorism. “Khurshid also clearly said that time and again the Indian government had made it clear that unless cross-border terrorism stopped, it would be difficult to resume bilateral cricketing ties.”
The BCCI official also said Khurshid’s cross-examination happened first as he had other commitments. The others, who will be cross-examined during the hearing, are former IPL CEO Sundar Raman, former BCCI GM (Game development) Prof Ratnakar Shetty, current ICC chairman Shashank Manohar and former BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel.
“We are confident that we will win the case. PCB’s bone of contention is a one-page email which doesn’t count as MoU. It was an email sent by Patel as a part of quid pro quo deal with PCB. They didn’t support our revenue model and the deal to play six bilaterals fell through.”
https://indianexpress.com/article/s...s-testimony-lends-weight-to-its-case-5383455/
The hearing will decide whether BCCI is to pay the Rs 447 crore damages sought by the PCB for not honouring a so-called MoU to play six bilateral series between 2015 and 2023.
Former external affairs minister Salman Khurshid Tuesday justified India’s refusal to play bilateral cricket with Pakistan during the ICC’s Disputes Resolution Committee hearing into a compensation claim against the BCCI, a Board official said. The hearing, which began Monday, will decide whether BCCI is to pay the Rs 447 crore damages sought by the PCB for not honouring a so-called Memorandum of Understanding to play six bilateral series between 2015 and 2023. The BCCI has maintained that the MOU is not legally binding.
“Khurshid’s presence definitely took the PCB by surprise. They were not expecting a former MEA to come in for cross-examination. Also a legal expert. He gave UPA II’s stand on why India didn’t tour Pakistan post the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008,” the BCCI official told PTI, quoting from Khurshid’s statement in the court, on condition of anonymity.
Khurshid, who was the external affairs minister during the UPA-II government which finished its term in 2014, was presented by the BCCI as one of its prime defence witnesses on Tuesday. He, however, could not be reached for a comment on his statement at the hearing.
“During the cross-examination Khurshid told the ICC’s Dispute Resolution Forum that the erstwhile UPA government acted on various world intelligence agencies’ reports on threat perception of playing cricket in Pakistan. He explained why it was impossible to send Indian cricket team to Pakistan after terror attacks,” he said.
The official also claimed that Khurshid stuck to the oft-stated government stand that bilateral engagements with Pakistan cannot resume without an end to cross-border terrorism. “Khurshid also clearly said that time and again the Indian government had made it clear that unless cross-border terrorism stopped, it would be difficult to resume bilateral cricketing ties.”
The BCCI official also said Khurshid’s cross-examination happened first as he had other commitments. The others, who will be cross-examined during the hearing, are former IPL CEO Sundar Raman, former BCCI GM (Game development) Prof Ratnakar Shetty, current ICC chairman Shashank Manohar and former BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel.
“We are confident that we will win the case. PCB’s bone of contention is a one-page email which doesn’t count as MoU. It was an email sent by Patel as a part of quid pro quo deal with PCB. They didn’t support our revenue model and the deal to play six bilaterals fell through.”
https://indianexpress.com/article/s...s-testimony-lends-weight-to-its-case-5383455/
IMMY69
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2005
- Runs
- 19,187
^^^^
Well that only strengthens PCB’s position.
Well that only strengthens PCB’s position.
Similar threads
