Normally that's what I'd expect. But the manner and context in which the committee has been created, and the 'special' rules in place, make me suspect that a backroom deal is in place. A 3 man committee, with 1 representative each from India & Pakistan, and consensus not required, basically boils it down to a one man committee.
In what world do administrative organizations set up dispute resolution mechanisms where the decisions of effectively one man are final, with no recourse to appeal? Why resort to such an abnormal setup? To give the facade of 'process' to a decision that is already been made. Its a clear "cover your ***" and PR tactic. So if you review about the decision makers, i.e. the Giles Clarke faction, who created the committee in the first place, then you will know what outcome that particular faction within the ICC would prefer to come out of the "dispute resolution". After all, why is there no committee to examine the failure of England to tour Zimbabwe for the last 14 years?
Question is, what are the options for the BCCI if the 'verdict' is, as expected, not in its favor. Will they resort to the nuclear option? If they do, they would strengthen the argument of Giles Clarke and co. that the BCCI is the 'bad guy' with too much power, and the rest of the boards need to ally together against it.
The BCCI needs to really get its act together in its interaction with the ICC, to counter these power games. But they are a headless organization right now, busy fighting with the Lodha Committee over its future structure.
Like I said earlier, interesting times ahead.
Problem for PCB is that, even if it does get a favorable ruling here, maximum benefit it will get is a fixed amount of $$, but it will guarantee hostile relations with the golden goose of cricket for an extended period of time. If you think about it objectively, that's not really in the best interests of Pakistan cricket.
