BCCI offers no sweeteners to Sahara

MUMBAI: India?s cricket board Monday stuck to its earlier position that it cannot make exceptions for Sahara India owned IPL team Pune Warriors India, thereby adding to the tension in the already acrimonious relationship which is heading towards a virtual split.

BCCI president N Srinivasan?s comment after emerging out of the board?s all-powerful Working Committee meeting in Chennai wherein he ruled out any possibility of allowing Pune to field six foreign players instead of the norm of four, a key demand of the franchise, made it apparent that the divorce between the two parties is all but final.

"Issues that had to be decided were placed before the committee and we have conveyed the response from the working committee to Sahara and we hope the response would be favourable," BCCI president N Srinivasan told reporters after the meeting.

While refusing to divulge the details of the issues that were discussed during the meeting, Srinivasan though added that the franchise can find a replacement for its injured player Yuvraj Singh, who is recovering from malignant lung tumour.

"It is a matter which should be discussed between Sahara and BCCI behind closed doors. These are not issues which can be discussed in public," he said.

"One of it was with regards to the number of matches played last year, issues surrounding the quantum of the bank guarantee that Sahara gave and, of course, what they have mentioned in public about the composition of their team in the context of non-availability of some players," Srinivasan added.

The BCCI has responded positively within the framework of its rules and the BCCI has also said that it is not possible to create an exception because observance of the regulations strictly is important to the integrity of the league, he explained.

Srinivasan also said the BCCI had no reservations in Sahara bringing Yuvraj?s replacement and also the company?s plan to offload stakes by roping in a strategic partner.

"I am told that as per the rules Sahara can have replacement for Yuvraj so that is not an issue,? he said, adding that "the BCCI will not have objection to Sahara having a strategic partnership.?

Making it clear that the BCCI was maintaining its stance, Srinivasan put the ball in Sahara?s court by saying, "The position is what it was. We have responded to what Sahara has raised. We will wait to see what the reaction is."

Srinivasan did not reveal BCCI?s stance on franchise reduction, also one of Sahara?s other key demand considering the fact that the number of IPL matches had been reduced from 94 to 74.

However, going by past precedence the BCCI is unlikely to go in for a fee reduction.

Sahara?s demand of doing away with the bank guarantee clause, which is applicable to only new franchises Pune and Kochi whose contract got terminated last year, would have found few takers coming as it is in the wake of BCCI suffering loss due to termination of agreement with Nimbus.

Meanwhile, Sahara has reacted sharply to BCCI?s tough posturing.

In a statement the company said, ?N Srinivasan tried to explain the limitations from the perspective of framework of rules with respect to the issues raised by Sahara. He asked Shri Sundar Raman (IPL CEO) to explain the issues with a perspective of the rules,? Sahara Group said in a statement.

?Shri Subrata Roy Sahara requested the BCCI officials not to elaborate on the rules by saying that any disagreement in sports should be taken in perfect sporting spirit and should be resolved accordingly. He further requested the BCCI president & his team that there is no point in quoting the rule book and debating it word by word. After all, they were BCCI?s own rules and not some constitutional rules of the Govt of India?.

The statement adds that the issue of players was discussed so as to ensure a level playing field. To ensure that, the need for an open Auction to be held in 2013 was also put forward.

?Since there is no same level Indian player left who can match up to the level of Shri Yuvraj Singh, we should be allowed one extra overseas player in the playing XI. We should realise that even this is also not enough to compensate for the loss of somebody of Shri Yuvraj?s caliber.

?Shri Subrata Roy also put across very firmly that if all teams are balanced, the tournament and all the matches will be very competitive and that viewers will enjoy the competition else the tournament will lose its charm. This is the precise reason why Sahara had insisted on an open auction last year after the induction of two new teams?.

The company also termed the bank guarantee clause as ?discriminatory? to the new teams (Pune and terminated Kochi team) since none of the eight original teams had to furnish bank guarantees.

?The fact that none of the earlier 8 teams who entered IPL in 2008, deposit any bank guarantee against franchise fee. Out of the remaining 9 teams in the League, only Sahara is required to deposit the bank guarantee against the franchise fee. Considering that Sahara has never defaulted in last 12 years in any payment that was due to BCCI, this is out and out discriminatory in nature.?

Sahara also reiterated that it will not discuss Team India sponsorship till outstanding issues relating to IPL are not resolved while asserting that it was committed to divert a part of its cricket sponsorship towards social activities.

?Accordingly, if issues related to IPL are solved, then we could also discuss the sponsorship of the Indian cricket Team though it was also put forward that we have to balance our announced Sports and Social Development programs by partly diverting finances committed from cricket into social activities.?

The final word on the most high profile commercial dispute in Indian cricket is yet to come out. Till then, expect both sides to continue their posturing in the coming days.