With less than a week to go before the start of India’s first Test against England, the BCCI and ECB have not signed the Memorandum of Understanding
Nagraj Gollapudi03-Nov-2016With less than a week to go before the start of India’s first Test against England, the BCCI and ECB have not signed the Memorandum of Understanding, a standard agreement that details various aspects of bilateral series.The main reason for the delay in signing the MoU is that the BCCI is awaiting directions from the Lodha Committee. A big part of the MoU says the BCCI will bear all the costs pertaining to the England team during the tour. Normally the BCCI would directly approve such expenses, but because of the order passed by the Supreme Court on October 21, the board has to get approval from the Lodha Committee, which has been appointed to oversee all financial transactions of the BCCI.In its response to the BCCI, however, the Lodha Committee said forming cricket policy was not part of its remit, but that directions regarding payments could only be given after the BCCI provided more information about the transactions. The committee has given the BCCI five days to respond with details of various contracts the board said it needed to finalise in the next year to avoid disruption of daily business.But before proceeding with the matter of existing and future BCCI contracts, including the MoU with the ECB, the Lodha Committee reminded the board that an unequivocal undertaking was required from the president Anurag Thakur that the BCCI would implement the court order of October 21. The court had asked Thakur and board secretary Ajay Shirke to file affidavits in two weeks from October 21 and appear before the committee. As of November 3, Thakur had not given such an undertaking and he and Shirke had not met the committee either.BCCI and ECB officials were not available for comment about whether an unsigned MoU could jeopardise England’s tour of India, but an official from another board said an international tour could still proceed without it. An MoU is only used in case of a dispute between the two boards involved in a bilateral series.In an email on Thursday to BCCI secretary Ajay Shirke, the Lodha Committee asked the board to obey the three orders the Supreme Court passed on July 18, October 7 and 21. “To avoid any hindrance to the cricketing calendar and to ensure the continued enjoyment of the sport by its aficionados, the BCCI would be well advised to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its orders dated 18th July 2016, 7th October 2016 and 21st October 2016,” the committee e-mail said.On October 21, the Supreme Court had directed the BCCI not to distribute funds to state associations until they agreed to comply with the Lodha Committee’s recommendations, which the court had approved in an order on July 18. The court also asked Shirke and Thakur to meet the Lodha Committee by November 3 and placed several restrictions on the board’s ability to enter into contracts.The committee had already sent Thakur an email reminder earlier this week and it told Shirke on Thursday: “The requirement for such an undertaking is not a mere formality. In the absence of the undertaking, the Committee finds it difficult to implement the order of the Supreme Court by issuing necessary directions to BCCI.”On October 28, Shirke had sent an email to the committee, asking for intervention on a “priority basis” because failing to do so would “severely prejudice” cricket operations. Shirke told the committee that decisions concerning a lot of important contracts had been left pending.Among the contracts mentioned was the postponed IPL tender, finalising vendors for the IPL and international and domestic cricket, and title and shirt sponsorships for the India men’s team. Shirke also said the BCCI needed clarity regarding the “threshold value”, above which the contracts needed to go through the Lodha Committee as mandated by the Supreme Court order. The court also asked the committee to appoint an independent auditor to oversee the BCCI’s transactions.Shirke said that since the court had appointed the Committee as the “custodian of revenue and finances” of the BCCI, it should act immediately. The board, Shirke said, feared that the “uncertainty” might have already “devalued” the size of the bids expected for the IPL television and digital rights.In its response today, the committee told Shirke that finalising vendors was not its job. “Please note that neither identification nor appointment of vendors or contractors is the task or function of the Committee. The Committee is only required to fix a threshold value and approving awards of contracts above such threshold value.”In order to “fix” the threshold value and appoint an auditor, the committee asked Shirke to provide details of the contracts such as the value, term, expiry date of existing contract, the nature of the tender process and so on. “It is only on examining the above that the Committee would be able to fix a threshold value and also assess the nature of work involved for appointing the independent auditor and formulating his terms of engagement,” the committee said.In another email, Shirke told the committee the BCCI had to give a commitment to the ECB regarding incurring expenses for England’s tour of India. He asked the committee to set the terms and conditions and the “manner in which” the agreement should be executed. Shirke had also written to the five state associations hosting the England Tests, asking if they had enough funds to stage the matches.The Committee, however, said that framing the MoU was not part of the court’s order. “The proposed MoU between BCCI and ECB concerns bilateral cricketing policy, the formulation of which is not a part of the mandate of the Committee. As far as payments are concerned, if they are to be made directly by the BCCI, no directions can be given by this Committee until relevant details are furnished by the BCCI.”It is understood that Shirke sent the committee the unsigned MoU via email late on November 3 evening, but despite being asked for details the email did not contain what the Lodha Committee wanted.
