ICC news April 26, 2017

BCCI outvoted in crucial vote on ICC constitution

495

ICC chairman Shashank Manohar was the force behind the new constitution © AFP

The ICC's new constitution moved a step closer to reality on a dramatic afternoon in Dubai, as cricket's Full Members exercised their collective will to outvote the BCCI.

The Indian board was the only Full Member to object to the new financial model, and was one of only two Full Members to vote against the new governance changes. The financial model, with which the BCCI has been unhappy, received overwhelming support from Full Members, who voted to pass it 9-1 in favour, while the proposed governance changes to in the new constitution were passed by an 8-2 margin.

The next step as far as implementing the constitution now will come at the annual conference in June, where it will be approved formally after being ratified. That day will mark the formal end of the Big Three era, two years after it came into effect.

The day's biggest reverberations will come from the failure of the BCCI to push through a financial model they could be happy with. Indeed, not only did they fail to get the $570 million cut from ICC revenues that they demanded when they arrived in Dubai, they failed to secure the compromise offer that the ICC chairman Shashank Manohar had put forward.

In that, he was willing to up their share by approximately $100 million. Instead, in the model that has been voted through the Indian board's share from ICC revenues in the next rights cycle will be $293 million, a little more than half the amount the Indian board wanted.

The behind-the-scenes developments in how BCCI was muscled out offer an intriguing contrast to past ICC meetings where the BCCI has held sway. Manohar arrived in Dubai last weekend and is understood to have had lengthy meetings with BCCI office bearers as well its chief executive Rahul Johri. The ICC's compromise offer, which would fetch the BCCI nearly $400 million, was made to Choudhury by Manohar, the most prominent figure behind the new changes. That deal, incidentally, was one the BCCI's Committee of Administrators (CoA) - which is overseeing the board's operations -was happy with when Manohar ran it by them in March.

The BCCI was asked to respond on Monday, as the ICC working group was meeting to finalise the resolutions based on the feedback given by all Member boards including the Associates. The BCCI then approached most of the major Full Members with their counter offer: they get $570 million but none of the other Full Members get anything less than what they were assured in Manohar's model. But the other Full Members stood firm and rejected the BCCI's offer, leaving the Indian board in a tight position hours before the ICC Board meeting began on Wednesday morning.

"The alternative left for them was to adopt the middle ground," one official familiar with the situation said. The BCCI was told it would do well to consider Manohar's offer. "It is INR 700 crore ($100 million), and they were told to consider hard before making a move."

Another source said: "Shashank was trying to get them (BCCI) across the line, but they declined."

Though BCCI office bearers have previously blamed Manohar for harming their interests, Choudhury did not take an aggressive stance during the ICC Board meeting. Officials present said he was "friendly and very charming," and that he said though he wanted to find a solution he had to disagree with the finance model and the governance structure.

"He was restating the BCCI's reservations expressed last month," one source said. Neither Choudhury nor any of the BCCI administrators in India made a statement in response to the developments in Dubai. According to PTI, the BCCI will call a special general meeting to decide on the next step. 

Ultimately, only marginally less significant than the financial model going through was the fact that a major portion of the governance changes did so as well, and with such majority: only Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) joined the BCCI in not supporting it. Some will be tweaked and the ICC did agree to remove one significant proposal - the potential reclassification of Full Member status to Associate membership if a set of criteria was not met when a board was evaluated. Many Full Members including the Bangladesh Cricket Board, Zimbabwe Cricket and SLC were against it.

But also approved was a resolution to expand the composition of the ICC Board which sees an increase in the number of votes from 10 (Full Members only) to 15 - 10 Full Members, three Associates, one independent female director, and the chairman. Potentially, that could change the nature of decision-making at the highest levels of the game, making it more difficult for just one or two boards to dominate. On the day at least, that message resonated loudest.

Nagraj Gollapudi is a senior assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • cricfan1781597995 on April 29, 2017, 13:22 GMT

    current method of allocating funds is very arbitrary. this needs to be changed. Out of the total funds generated allocate some fixed percentage(or based on actuals) for ICC for admin purposes and another fixed percentages for associates. Rest of the money should be shared between the countries in the same proportion in which they have brought in the revenue.

  • prash_007 on April 29, 2017, 8:29 GMT

    @LOOPA ON APRIL 28, 2017, 20:53 GMT You have just picked up a point and going around and around because you have nothing to say else. First of all there is no one nation leading in competitive cricket nations like Eng, Aus, SA, India, NZ are all competitive and adding other will be good but if you really want money for all of them open a charity and start asking people for money to help them because this is BCCI's money not of others, ICC has no right to give our money to other nations especially likes of PCB. Its BCCI's choice. And there local government don't help them. So stop shouting about one point and also it is not that they not getting money at all they are being given there share.

  •   Dileep Thumati on April 29, 2017, 5:43 GMT

    NIAZBHI If BCCI wants to cut all the money for associates why they are giving stadiums, security, residence and coverage for teams like Afghanistan, UAE, Nepal, etc to play their matches in India? Can you tell me which other country has done that for Associates? India has been supporting Bangladesh for a long time and one must understand that it cannot spoon feed forever. If not for BCCI Bangladesh could have lost test status as Zimbabwe. Just because you had a couple of good years lately you cannot ignore the 15 years of failure of BCB. If you are thinking that the new model would benefit Bangladesh why did it not benefit them for the past 15 years when the financial model was similar. And for your information it is after the re-newel of financial model two years back the Bangladesh Cricket Team has done well. You can check the stats before and after 2015 for BCB.

  • niazbhi on April 29, 2017, 1:25 GMT

    " If bcci decides to do help a inferior but cricket crazy nation it would be more competitive in less than half time what BD has.". What nation is that? BCCI has no problem giving BD their 132million. BCCI wants to cut all the money for associates.So no new nation can come in. ICC wants to open cricket to more nations. BCCI wants no voting for associates. No money for associates. BD may not be as competitive but they have more dedicated fans. And its BD'simprovment and fan base that opened the eyes of ICC. We need 5 more nations like that.

  • loopa on April 28, 2017, 20:53 GMT

    @prash_007 it seems we can go on and on and on.......... what I am talking about is completely different. I talked about taxes. it was just an example to understand. Nevertheless I can elaborate my previous post and even give more examples but let me give you few examples and end my thoughts for this particular topic. Here is the thing if there is a race going on and you are the only runner every year, you might run fast and quick in the first year but next year your timing will b slow and next year even slower and then you might say forget about it altogether....why? because you are the only one runner nobody else so you will lose interest, once again all the INTERESTS are INTERMIXED in this world. My next example is quite different I hope you get the meaning out of it.....here you go... No matter how rich you are you can not build a road all alone from Rajasthan to Pondicherry or to Mizoram. you just can't go alone and aloof

  • RSQV on April 28, 2017, 18:30 GMT

    Its hard to think these changes will stay longer, possible only if BCCI gives up. Everyone knows ICC tournaments get profit just because Indian team is participating. Since most of cricket money is generated by India, BCCI deserves the right to get its portion. To put it simply....ICC is not a charity, so BCCI.

  • prash_007 on April 28, 2017, 17:42 GMT

    @LOOPA and don't think bcci will let go for voting against them for money instead of better relations with most powerful cricket body. If BCCI can help other nations develop cricket in other nations it can do the opposite also. ICC has no right to give BCCI money to others with involving them it is right of bcci and bcci only to help those boards they like to help. If bcci decides to do help a inferior but cricket crazy nation it would be more competitive in less than half time what BD has.

  • prash_007 on April 28, 2017, 16:37 GMT

    @LOOPA More over its local government of a country to make that sports better in that country along with its local board they should give them resources. Taking other share .. hnnn. Its not all the responsibility of ICC to make cricket better in that country, its more of a responsibility of local government also. You say taxing and all why then local government help cricket in its country. And don't say now that there budget is low and so... If you say this the point I want to make clear as they have look after others sports also in a same way bcci needs more funds to build and mainted and take cricket to every part of the country also bcci is helping other sports in a country too.

  • prash_007 on April 28, 2017, 16:25 GMT

    2/2 And I never said other countries should get there fair share of money. But looking at the setup in India obviously India needs lion share of revenue as we have manage, maintain and develop more than others combined.

  • prash_007 on April 28, 2017, 16:22 GMT

    @LOOPA ON APRIL 28, 2017, 15:23 GMT 1/2: Its not always about competive cricket. Look other examples around the world in F1 when ferrari was dominant F1 racing was at its peek, more fan following than ever. In golf when tiger woods was at its peek, fan following was at its peek. In cricket also when australia was at its peek fan following was at its peek in australia. And always there will be few teams which are always going to be competitive in every sports. That doesn't mean that you taxes BCCI to give others and as Indian I'll always think of India as first always then others so ICC has no right to tax India to benefit others. And for other boards more than money they need to sort there house in order. And more money always doesn't get you to top its better management and administration does. India 2-3 decades a go was not that rich but better management and administration brought them here. India has more International grounds to manage then all combined.

  • No featured comments at the moment.