N Srinivasan's strategy- Turning legends into shields

It was soon after the BCCI annual general meeting in 2010 that former India captain and legendary opener Sunil Gavaskar decided to quit as the member of the Governing Council of Indian Premier League. His reasoning was simple — He will quit unless he is paid in compliance with the original offer (Rs 4 crore per year) made by IPL’s founding commissioner Lalit Modi.

The issue came into prominence only after BCCI, in its AGM, decided to retain two cricketers in the GC as honorary members — thus not paying a single penny. Gavaskar was against the idea and went public at that time, saying: He “hadn’t been paid for all three years for the services rendered to the IPL”.

What Gavaskar was trying to tell BCCI was that his commercial interests should always be taken into account and in simple terms he is not available for free services.

On Monday, the suspended board president N Srinivasan's counsel cited Gavaskar’s name along with many others — Anil Kumble, Ravi Shastri, Brijesh Patel, Sourav Ganguly and Krishnamachari Srikkanth — while trying to defend his client in the ‘conflict of interest’ matter.

Srinivasan's counsel, former Union minister Kapil Sibal, was trying to compare the issues of his client holding two posts — of BCCI president and as owner of Chennai Super Kings — has no conflict of interest, since these big cricket names were also earning money from IPL, despite holding posts in the BCCI.

This argument gives raise to a question that can the position of an elected member of BCCI be compared with that of a nominated member?

It was BCCI which wanted credible names in the IPL Governing Council to give it some legitimacy. That’s why IPL’s dire critic Nawab Pataudi was requested to take up this assignment of ‘great profit’. Srinivasan was controlling the board’s finances as treasurer at the time of IPL inception.

When contacted, a former cricketer who was once part of the Governing Council, on condition of anonymity posed three questions to all BCCI office bearers:
1. When did I or for that matter any other cricketer of repute apply to the BCCI to appoint us in the Governing Council?
2. Is earning our livelihood through rendering our expertise for all cricket-related matters the same as that of Mr Srinivasan, who is owner of a franchise or a managing director of a public limited company?
3. Is hiring a cricket expert for a specific Board work, whether it’s for commentary or IPL Governing Council, and rendering a service after getting elected to BCCI the one and the same?

Srinivasan's defence implied that if he is penalised in the ‘conflict of interest’ matter, there will be doubts raised over the future of these players in their professional endveours in the board.

The former player said: “There is no doubt that whether it is Srinivasan or any other BCCI president, they always have a say in awarding commentary assignments to their loyalists. And that will continue to happen in the times to come. But comparing our work with that of his, is completely wrong and, purely an attempt to take the court for a ride.”

IPL GC currently has two former cricketers, Ravi Shastri and GR Vishwanath, on its board. Shastri has been on BCCI pay roll as commentator while Vishwanath was a former ICC match referee and has always made himself available for cricketing cause ever since his retirement from Team India.

Shastri and Gavaskar have been reportedly paid hefty amounts for their services as commentators.

When Supreme Court appointed him as interim president of BCCI to conduct IPL in 2014, they instructed BCCI to compensate him for the loss of revenue he would have earned as TV commentator.

Given that Srinivasan has tried to drag these big names into the controversy, it is worrisome that no player of repute will be prepared to take up any BCCI assignment especially, if BCCI officials try and use them as shields.