Sahara pulls out

No official word from Sahara yet - BCCI

ESPNcricinfo staff

May 22, 2013

Comments: 12 | Text size: A | A

Bhuvneshwar Kumar's offstump was sent cartwheeling by L Balaji, Pune Warriors v Kolkata Knight Riders, IPL 2013, Pune, May 9, 2013
The BCCI has encashed Pune Warriors' bank guarantee © BCCI
Enlarge

A day after Pune Warriors announced its pullout from the IPL, the BCCI has said it hasn't received any "direct communication" from the franchise owner Sahara India regarding the issue. The board also confirmed that it had cashed part of the franchise's bank guarantee.

On Tuesday, Sahara had issued a press release saying it was withdrawing from the IPL over financial differences with the BCCI stemming from the valuation of the annual franchise fee it has to pay. It appears it has not formally communicated that decision to the board.

Sahara has repeatedly tried to get the board to revise its franchise fees - $370m over 10 years, the highest in the IPL - and had to pay Rs 120 crore (around $21.6m) this year before the start of the season.

"Once the 3 April 2013 due date had passed, the Governing Council had two letters sent to Sahara Adventure Sports Limited - one on 12 April 2013 and the second on 24 April 2013 - requesting settlement of the overdue amount," the BCCI's release said. "No payment was made and no response was received to the second letter and so, in order to protect its interests, the BCCI was forced to encash the guarantee."

Sahara had also complained that the process of arbitration, which began soon after the franchise initially pulled out in February 2012, wasn't progressing as the BCCI hadn't agreed on any arbitrator. The BCCI, in turn, said it was Sahara which was stalling the negotiations.

"The BCCI cannot be held responsible since every one of the eminent retired judges suggested by the BCCI was not found acceptable by the franchisee," the board said. "In order to break this impasse, a letter was sent to Sahara Adventure Sports Limited, proposing that as the claimant to the arbitration, it should approach the court to appoint an arbitrator so that the process could move forward. Again, no response was received to this suggestion."

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by android_user on (June 26, 2013, 13:59 GMT)

whats the future?

Posted by tiger_tiger on (May 23, 2013, 10:43 GMT)

How unloyal and how non-sportsmanship from BCCI. Sahara is serving since 13 years. BCCI should show atleast some respect towards the most loyal sponsor. BCCI is trying to dominate everyone with its power. Too bad stuff from BCCI

Posted by Newlandsfaithful on (May 23, 2013, 6:51 GMT)

Criminal that relations between the BCCI and such a major sponsor can be allowed to deteriorate so badly. Common sense dictates that this is poor business practice. Official communicarions? Arbitration? It is all mindblowingly childish. Can't they do better than this? I hope ALL sponsors and franchisees are taking particular note how the BCCI deals with it's business partners.... their turn will come.

Posted by   on (May 23, 2013, 0:47 GMT)

@ Raju P Chandran. If a business accepts a bid from a bidder for supplying a certain quantity of its product, and later delivers less units, wouldn't it amount to "criminal breach of trust".(By the way, 'criminal breach of trust' is a non-bailable offence!)

Yes. Reduction of bid amount (if less than what others had bid) , can legitimately provoke the losing bidders to sue you. In all organizations I had been involved in the past, in such conditions, we had called for re-bidding. BCCI has to " learn a lot" about business. Or, more correctly, in applying it. They have the men with skills.With experience. Sheer arrogance seems to be holding them back. Such arrogance need some hammering.

Posted by   on (May 22, 2013, 17:52 GMT)

Jose Puliampatta

Usually if some one winning something in an auction or tender bidding, and getting benefits by reduced price, then other bidders can sue the host in the court, as they are not given the bid even though they bid higher (more than the reduced price).

its pure business.

Posted by ansram on (May 22, 2013, 15:55 GMT)

So the supposed reduction of franchisee fees demanded by Sahara was due to the reduction of matches from 94 to 64. Is there a proof that the BCCI had committed to 94 matches before the teams were bought out? If yes, I am afraid there is no justice here.

Posted by   on (May 22, 2013, 13:51 GMT)

The real fact is SHAHARA group enough happy to sponsoring Bangladesh team that's why they are ignoring Indian cricket team.

Posted by narendra60 on (May 22, 2013, 13:45 GMT)

hahahaaa.............what is happening out there.........

Posted by   on (May 22, 2013, 13:24 GMT)

If I am Sahara and I am paying $350 million for a franchisee and another $400 million odd amount for Team India, the least I'd expect was to get BCCI's ear to listen to the problem, if not be lenient. Well Done Sahara...you deserve better...

Posted by challagalla on (May 22, 2013, 13:23 GMT)

another case of high handed behaviour by BCCI. It appears Sahara have a genuine case for revision of the agreement and the BCCI could have sorted it out by negotiating with Sahara. Why arbitration? Its only if deep differences persist that you opt for arbitration. Sad to see Sahara go. Anyway a shorter tournament maybe in everyones interest except maybe BCCI and Sony set max. I just hope BCCI wakes up from their hubris and settles this amicably with Sahara.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days