Corruption in the IPL May 29, 2013

MCA president supports Srinivasan's stand

ESPNcricinfo staff
  shares 22

Ravi Sawant, the president of the Mumbai Cricket Association, has said that N Srinivasan, the BCCI president, would be assumed guilty if he resigned now since he did not resign the day Gurunath Meiyappan, his son-of-law, was arrested. Sawant also said that although the issue of conflict of interest in Srinivasan's case was a valid one, raising it six years after the start of the IPL by some BCCI members was opportunistic.

"Today, if he [Srinivasan] resigns, people will straightaway accuse him of being guilty and that is the reason he is not resigning," Sawant told NDTV. "He is saying, 'I will prove there is nothing against me personally.'"

Sawant added that any person shouldn't be holding two conflicting positions, but the BCCI made an exception when they allowed Srinivasan to hold his position in the board while being the managing director of India Cements, the owners of the Chennai Super Kings franchise. To bring up the issue now, Sawant said, was not correct.

"The rules were already in place. First time when buying a franchise, all the rules were applicable," he said. "That time, he was not the BCCI president. He has gone from treasurer to secretary to president. So someone should have voiced their concerns, because these rules were made to prevent certain things to happen. You are now saying those rules were there and there is a conflict of interest and he should resign. To my mind, we should retrospectively think about it, why didn't we object to his buying a franchise."

"If you are supporting the decision of him buying a team, now to make an issue out of it is not correct. All these people speaking against him now are holding positions in the board, and they have worked with him. How can you raise an issue now?"

The president of the Hyderabad Cricket Association, G Vinod, said since Srinivasan was an elected president and did not intend to resign, the matter should be taken up at a working committee meeting so that all board members can discuss their positions. However, Chetan Chauhan, the vice president of the Delhi District Cricket Association, said Srinivasan should step down while Gurunath was under investigation and could return if Gurunath was absolved.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY ARad on | May 30, 2013, 2:19 GMT

    Finally someone makes a good point. I personally don't think that there is anything wrong with an executive of a company owning a franchise run by the company - why can't a Pizza Hut executive own a Pizza Hut franchise? - as long as the bidding process and licensing processes are independent and transparent but if people were offended by it, why wait until now? Also, why should anyone who has not been accused of a crime give up his position just because his son in law allegedly committed a crime which he may not be even aware of before the arrest?

  • POSTED BY sgma on | May 30, 2013, 14:20 GMT

    there are two issues here 1. should same man head BCCI and CSK. probably not, but it has been so for six years and thus might seem somewhat opportunistic to raise this point right now. 2. is an impartial enquiry possible with BCCI's president being the perpetrator's family member. answer- Definitely NOT please do not confuse the two issues and get sidetracked.

  • POSTED BY RR_Dravid_Fan on | May 30, 2013, 7:28 GMT

    ARad - I don't know how people like you compare Pizza Hut to BCCI. I will give you a small case. BCCI and IPL Governing Council(a sub committee of BCCI) are to look into some disciplinary issue pertaining to CSK. They will have to terminate CSK's contract. Now will they be able to do that if their boss is CSK's owner? Every decision taken by any committee of has to be approved by the president. All the approvals regarding fines, penalties, auctions, everything have to be made by BCCI and IPL Council. Now if Srini owns CSK, how can he act fairly towards other franchises? Its not possible. It is a clear case of Conflict of interest. And people have been shouting about it for years now.

  • POSTED BY Lasitha_SL on | May 30, 2013, 5:39 GMT

    I'm not an indian, I believe Mr Ravi Sawant comment is not a wise comment. The BCCI president should step down because there is an investigation going on against his son in law not on his previous engagements. Staying in this position is not professional and bad example for cricket.

  • POSTED BY satishchandar on | May 30, 2013, 5:35 GMT

    So, finally a guy comes up and talks with common sense.. Srini didn't buy team on his relatives names or create dummy owner for his team.. He bought the team in public.. If the concerned people had reservations on him becoming the BCCI president, they shouldn't have nominated him at all leave alone voting and electing him.. They did everything as correct and now blaming Srini on conflict of interest.. Where did this come suddenly after 6 seasons? I am not saying common fan but the board members..

  • POSTED BY on | May 30, 2013, 4:34 GMT

    Mr. Ravi Sawant's statement makes sense. If any conflict of interest then the same should have been raised in the first place and stopped it and not after six years. If his son-in-law is guilty then he will face the punishment and it is not fair to punish the father-in-law. If any of the Ministers in the Prime Minister's cabinet is corrupt then that particular Minister is facing the corruption charge and the Prime Minister need not resign for this. The same thing applies here too. It is really good to see that Mr. Srinivasan is staying and facing every one without fear which shows that he is neither corrupt nor guilty.

  • POSTED BY on | May 30, 2013, 4:28 GMT

    Right! Srinivasan is a victim of political intrigue, undoubtedly.

  • POSTED BY bharath74 on | May 30, 2013, 4:07 GMT

    Why should srinivasan be held guilty for his some else greediness?

  • POSTED BY RogerC on | May 30, 2013, 1:15 GMT

    Well said. Finally someone saw the clear difference between the two roles of Srinivasan. If Mukesh Ambani or Vijay Mallya becomes the next president of BCCI, does he need to sell away Mumbai Indians or RCB franchise? Utter nonsense. BCCI presidency is a honorary short term role while IPL franchise ownership is long term business option.

  • POSTED BY CricketFanInLosAngles on | May 29, 2013, 21:59 GMT

    It is not opportunitistic. People have complained for years on his conflict of interest issue. Just that he was too powerful. Now his downfall has come. Just a matter of days. Just like one should never mix business with pleasure. Same goes, never mix business with politics or political posts. Eventually things will catchup.

  • POSTED BY ARad on | May 30, 2013, 2:19 GMT

    Finally someone makes a good point. I personally don't think that there is anything wrong with an executive of a company owning a franchise run by the company - why can't a Pizza Hut executive own a Pizza Hut franchise? - as long as the bidding process and licensing processes are independent and transparent but if people were offended by it, why wait until now? Also, why should anyone who has not been accused of a crime give up his position just because his son in law allegedly committed a crime which he may not be even aware of before the arrest?

  • POSTED BY sgma on | May 30, 2013, 14:20 GMT

    there are two issues here 1. should same man head BCCI and CSK. probably not, but it has been so for six years and thus might seem somewhat opportunistic to raise this point right now. 2. is an impartial enquiry possible with BCCI's president being the perpetrator's family member. answer- Definitely NOT please do not confuse the two issues and get sidetracked.

  • POSTED BY RR_Dravid_Fan on | May 30, 2013, 7:28 GMT

    ARad - I don't know how people like you compare Pizza Hut to BCCI. I will give you a small case. BCCI and IPL Governing Council(a sub committee of BCCI) are to look into some disciplinary issue pertaining to CSK. They will have to terminate CSK's contract. Now will they be able to do that if their boss is CSK's owner? Every decision taken by any committee of has to be approved by the president. All the approvals regarding fines, penalties, auctions, everything have to be made by BCCI and IPL Council. Now if Srini owns CSK, how can he act fairly towards other franchises? Its not possible. It is a clear case of Conflict of interest. And people have been shouting about it for years now.

  • POSTED BY Lasitha_SL on | May 30, 2013, 5:39 GMT

    I'm not an indian, I believe Mr Ravi Sawant comment is not a wise comment. The BCCI president should step down because there is an investigation going on against his son in law not on his previous engagements. Staying in this position is not professional and bad example for cricket.

  • POSTED BY satishchandar on | May 30, 2013, 5:35 GMT

    So, finally a guy comes up and talks with common sense.. Srini didn't buy team on his relatives names or create dummy owner for his team.. He bought the team in public.. If the concerned people had reservations on him becoming the BCCI president, they shouldn't have nominated him at all leave alone voting and electing him.. They did everything as correct and now blaming Srini on conflict of interest.. Where did this come suddenly after 6 seasons? I am not saying common fan but the board members..

  • POSTED BY on | May 30, 2013, 4:34 GMT

    Mr. Ravi Sawant's statement makes sense. If any conflict of interest then the same should have been raised in the first place and stopped it and not after six years. If his son-in-law is guilty then he will face the punishment and it is not fair to punish the father-in-law. If any of the Ministers in the Prime Minister's cabinet is corrupt then that particular Minister is facing the corruption charge and the Prime Minister need not resign for this. The same thing applies here too. It is really good to see that Mr. Srinivasan is staying and facing every one without fear which shows that he is neither corrupt nor guilty.

  • POSTED BY on | May 30, 2013, 4:28 GMT

    Right! Srinivasan is a victim of political intrigue, undoubtedly.

  • POSTED BY bharath74 on | May 30, 2013, 4:07 GMT

    Why should srinivasan be held guilty for his some else greediness?

  • POSTED BY RogerC on | May 30, 2013, 1:15 GMT

    Well said. Finally someone saw the clear difference between the two roles of Srinivasan. If Mukesh Ambani or Vijay Mallya becomes the next president of BCCI, does he need to sell away Mumbai Indians or RCB franchise? Utter nonsense. BCCI presidency is a honorary short term role while IPL franchise ownership is long term business option.

  • POSTED BY CricketFanInLosAngles on | May 29, 2013, 21:59 GMT

    It is not opportunitistic. People have complained for years on his conflict of interest issue. Just that he was too powerful. Now his downfall has come. Just a matter of days. Just like one should never mix business with pleasure. Same goes, never mix business with politics or political posts. Eventually things will catchup.

  • POSTED BY GrindAR on | May 29, 2013, 21:23 GMT

    Valid point. Well needed valuable stuff from the same establishment. It is the BCCI setup that allowed. More importantly, the same issue were brought during the Franchaise purchase was allowed. But why media did not raise their voice as much as they are doing now? Media should punch themselves with their heavy fist. You can make a mistake, but you cannot coverup your blunders like this.

  • POSTED BY radicchio on | May 29, 2013, 20:44 GMT

    Finally!!!! Someone makes sense to me. Why Should Srinivasan resign because his son-in-law did some that Srinivasan wan't aware of? As Sunny says Gurunath is an adult and if he broke the law, that doesn't mean Srinivasan should be punished. What I find baffling is politicians saying that Srinivasan should resign...of all people out favourite politicians and the media including ESPN doesn't have the guts to question it.

  • POSTED BY on | May 29, 2013, 20:20 GMT

    Public doesn't care as long as there is fun and excitement, even if some part of it fake and fixed(like WWE), so no one cares. If a bureacrat, a police, a government clark or a politician could be corrupt and live freely in the society with no dogma or fear, why would we only point fingers to cricketers and officials? They are not superheroes.

  • POSTED BY Temuzin on | May 29, 2013, 19:19 GMT

    This smacks of rotten opportunism. How can these guys speak up now when they had supported and tolerated Srinivasan's position for 6 years when he was board functionary and IPL team franchise owner?

  • POSTED BY MaruthuDelft on | May 29, 2013, 18:24 GMT

    How come Mr Srinivasan didn't know Gurnat had links to bopkies? Autocratic businessman have surveillance on everyone around.

  • POSTED BY Provost on | May 29, 2013, 17:24 GMT

    Even Gavaskar also saying 'wait',so I think there is something larger going on...and now Mr. pawar is making statements and to me it looks like he started the whole controversey keeping his mind of the upcoming parliment elections and wants BCCI control back......where else you can have access to such a large cash....

  • POSTED BY myStraightTalk on | May 29, 2013, 17:22 GMT

    This can happen only in India. Srinivasan should have resigned to have a fare enquiry. Its not possible to have a fare enquiry when he is still president. In general Policing is not practical to check everyone that they are following rules..

  • POSTED BY venky91 on | May 29, 2013, 16:30 GMT

    well said sir. . . Those who are shouting unnecessarily in news channel should read this

  • POSTED BY krishjan on | May 29, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    Finally, somebody spells it clear. The media is outrageous, they will say anything for airtime to keep their advertisement revenue ticking.

  • POSTED BY torsha on | May 29, 2013, 14:09 GMT

    Agree with this. Exactly my thought if he resigns now, people will see him as an accuse.

  • POSTED BY on | May 29, 2013, 12:19 GMT

    I am from Canada, I agree with above statement more than 100%.

  • POSTED BY CricketMaan on | May 29, 2013, 12:17 GMT

    Isnt it easy to scarp all teams, form new rules and start all over again...MODI time..lol

  • POSTED BY CricketMaan on | May 29, 2013, 12:17 GMT

    Isnt it easy to scarp all teams, form new rules and start all over again...MODI time..lol

  • POSTED BY on | May 29, 2013, 12:19 GMT

    I am from Canada, I agree with above statement more than 100%.

  • POSTED BY torsha on | May 29, 2013, 14:09 GMT

    Agree with this. Exactly my thought if he resigns now, people will see him as an accuse.

  • POSTED BY krishjan on | May 29, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    Finally, somebody spells it clear. The media is outrageous, they will say anything for airtime to keep their advertisement revenue ticking.

  • POSTED BY venky91 on | May 29, 2013, 16:30 GMT

    well said sir. . . Those who are shouting unnecessarily in news channel should read this

  • POSTED BY myStraightTalk on | May 29, 2013, 17:22 GMT

    This can happen only in India. Srinivasan should have resigned to have a fare enquiry. Its not possible to have a fare enquiry when he is still president. In general Policing is not practical to check everyone that they are following rules..

  • POSTED BY Provost on | May 29, 2013, 17:24 GMT

    Even Gavaskar also saying 'wait',so I think there is something larger going on...and now Mr. pawar is making statements and to me it looks like he started the whole controversey keeping his mind of the upcoming parliment elections and wants BCCI control back......where else you can have access to such a large cash....

  • POSTED BY MaruthuDelft on | May 29, 2013, 18:24 GMT

    How come Mr Srinivasan didn't know Gurnat had links to bopkies? Autocratic businessman have surveillance on everyone around.

  • POSTED BY Temuzin on | May 29, 2013, 19:19 GMT

    This smacks of rotten opportunism. How can these guys speak up now when they had supported and tolerated Srinivasan's position for 6 years when he was board functionary and IPL team franchise owner?

  • POSTED BY on | May 29, 2013, 20:20 GMT

    Public doesn't care as long as there is fun and excitement, even if some part of it fake and fixed(like WWE), so no one cares. If a bureacrat, a police, a government clark or a politician could be corrupt and live freely in the society with no dogma or fear, why would we only point fingers to cricketers and officials? They are not superheroes.