In the SGM, BCCI dead-bats some, leaves alone some

IT ENDED up being a marathon meeting like none other for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as they remained hauled up at their headquarters for more than seven hours on Saturday. At the end of it, they released a press statement which said that they had unanimously adopted nine ‘important recommendations’ prescribed by the Lodha committee.

But the most significant outcome from the board’s much-awaited special general body meeting and the real story of the day was the number of key recommendations that the board chose not to adopt and hence didn’t mention in their statement. For, among those excluded were, the highly-debated ‘one state one vote’ policy, the threeyear cooling period for all board officials, the fixed duration for their tenures and the 70year age-limit that the committee had recommended.

However, BCCI president Anurag Thakur confirmed that the final decision on these vital reforms was left to the members and that there was a consensus on these being unfair on them. “The members didn't agree to the one state one vote recommendation. By agreeing to it, we could have been in a position where one of the founding members like Mumbai, which has won more than 40 Ranji titles, could have been asked to leave today to make space for a new member association from the North East,” Thakur told The Indian Express.

“As far as the nine-year cap is concerned, not to forget the three-year cooling period after each term, we realized that more than 90 per cent of those in the board and state associations would have to go. Then who and how will you run the BCCI?” he added referring to the other major recommendation that wasn’t accepted. He also did not agree that the board had missed any deadline by postponing their meeting by a day as they had been given time till October 8 by the Supreme Court to respond to the committee’s last order.

By deciding to not accept these reforms, the BCCI might seem to have defied the orders of the Supreme Court that had passed a verdict on July 18 directing the board to implement all of the Lodha committee’s recommendations without getting to pick or choose. On the issue of the 70-year age-limit to be part of the BCCI, Thakur insisted that everyone was on the same page to not be for it. “We have consulted each of the members and it was a collective decision again. Nowhere will you find a age-limited, not in any international body nor even in the Parliament. So why 70-years age cap for the BCCI? A government officer can't enter the board according to the new MOU but 60 years is the age for any government servant to retire. What if that retired government servant wants to then serve any sports institution. He can’t because with the three-year cooling periods he will be past 70 by the time he gets to complete his nine-year cumulative tenure,” he said.

“There practical difficulties were raised by all the members. It’s not like we forced any member to take a decision. They felt certain things could not be accepted so we were fine with it,” said Thakur.

As it turned out, the meeting commenced with the board’s lawyers, Kareena Kriplani and Abhinav Mukherjee, explaining the pros and cons of accepting or defying the Supreme Court order and the various Lodha recommendations. Then it was the turn of Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke to take over and initially a ballot box was put on the table to see if there was a need to vote on any of the decisions. But it’s learnt that the nine reforms that were accepted and implemented were decided upon unanimously.

While those who attend the meeting did admit that there was harmony overall with regards to the final decisions taken on the day, many members were miffed over the Tripura Cricket Association’s decision to accept all the Lodha recommendations before the BCCI had got around to taking a call on them. Vidarbha Cricket Association was the first association to accept all the reforms in total. Earlier in the day, the BCCI also met representatives of the five North East state associations, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Manipur who requested the board to accept the one state one vote clause so that cricket could grow in their region as well. However, these affiliate units weren’t allowed to be a part of the SGM as they still don’t officially hold any voting rights.

Secretary Shirke felt that whatever the BCCI had ended up deciding was in the best interests of everyone involved and that they were prepared to face any eventuality. “Whatever we can do we have tried our best. I and our president don't even have voting power for the SGM. What more can we be expected to do? We have called the meeting and we have done everything. If they think that we have deliberately not accepted some of their recommendations, they can go ahead and appoint their own administrators. We have no issue with that. We will walk out of the board happily with our heads held high. That is an honourable exit we are happy to endure,” he told this paper.

The BCCI will now submit a detailed report to the Supreme Court by October 6 according to Thakur who said that it will also be forwarded to the Lodha committee. It will include exact reasons why the members felt it was difficult to implement some of the recommendations.