Indian Premier League 2010

IPL auction may employ 'silent tiebreaker bid'

Nagraj Gollapudi

January 17, 2010

Comments: 24 | Text size: A | A

Shah Rukh Khan, Preity Zinta and Lalit Modi after an emergency IPL meeting, Mumbai, March 22, 2009
The new concept is unlikely to find favour with many of the franchises © Associated Press
Enlarge

An important question ahead of Tuesday's IPL auction is: If there are equal bids for a player, how do you break the deadlock? After weeks of uncertainty, the league has finally devised a 'silent tiebreaker bid' that, according to the organisers, would end the impasse. The proposal, though, has met with objections from various franchises.

The method may be used in a scenario where a player has attracted the maximum bid - each franchise has a cap of US$750,000 in total to spend at the auction - from more than one franchise. The franchises would then have to put in a separate, additional bid - to which there will be no cap - to break the tie. Whoever submits the higher additional bid will get the player. However, the controversial part is that the additional amount would go to the IPL and not the player.

To simplify the new rule: take an example where two teams are bidding for a player at $750,000. Both would then be asked to submit a fresh bid. In case one of the two submits a new bid of $800,000, the player still receives $750,000 and the additional $50,000 goes to the IPL.

Understandably, the franchises are reluctant to shell out more money, especially when they know the investment would last only till the end of the year. The proposal was suggested to the franchises on Saturday but most of them objected because they strictly do not want to spend more than the $750,000 purse available to them for the auction on January 19.

"Most of the franchises are not at all happy with it and objected to the proposal on the basic principle that the sanctity of the purse must be protected," a franchise official told Cricinfo.

His suggestion, echoed by few other franchises, to resolve the issue was there should be a lucky draw. "If there are equal competing bids, then you draw lots".

However, Lalit Modi, on his Twitter page made it clear that the tie-breaker rule "will be enforced". "It's part of the 2010 IPL auction rules, so anyone not agreeing is a non-issue."

Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at Cricinfo

RSS Feeds: Nagraj Gollapudi

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by HJoshi on (January 19, 2010, 17:13 GMT)

Murtaza83 you are becoming unnecessarily emotional about pak players. They would have become a liability considering the political ties and possibility of government involvment, schedules etc.- franchises do business and they dont want liabilities.

Yes, Parnell didnt make sense - that should have gone to Shakib Al Hasan. But Brad Haddin with his 2020 average didnt make sense either, but then its likely people wanted allrounders to account for beaten up frontline bowlers in first few overs.

Its good for Pak cricket anyways - they dont need more 2020s. They need to learn to play Tests.

Posted by On-Drive on (January 19, 2010, 16:37 GMT)

No use of taking these things personal or emotional. This issue is not about India vs. Pakistan. It is purely a business decision and people just don't want to risk their money.

Posted by AB235 on (January 19, 2010, 15:05 GMT)

It is sad that the Indian government is leaving Cricket in unsafe hands. CAG must take this issue, stop financial dominance of the Board and IPL on the game and take it over and pass it to a safer association to run the game.

Else, the Board should be stopped from representing "India" as no one private board can own the National team.

BCCI and IPL are putting the game into disrepute - highest level of punishment is due under any Code of Conduct.

Posted by ABP235 on (January 19, 2010, 14:31 GMT)

All of the IPL is ridiculous anyway, so what more one needs to say about just one part of it - the tiebreaker in an auction? As IT dept has stated, the cricket board (& IPL for that matter) are there for money, not cricket. Otherwise, what is so great about one player to be bid by 4 franchisees at the highest rate and then cry foul on a rule? Havent we seen in the last two IPLs, the guys with big billings were the losers, or non performers. Kallis in the first year, Steyn in both years, KP, Flintoff, Lee.. Our Manish Pandey has performed greater than so many big hitters! Its strange that many talented young lads available at low prices were not picked at all. Bresnan & Swann to name just two. Then there was a strange story of Adrian Barath being picked outside the auction for $75,000!! If this is possible, then why the auction? by the way, beauty Preity has made this great purchase for Punjab. Its a thriller going to be for KXIP with Barath & Yuvraj.

Posted by Quazar on (January 19, 2010, 11:31 GMT)

I'm an Indian fan...and I'm terribly disappointed to see that none of the franchises bid for Pakistani players. I understand the risk of their unavailability (in case relations between the countries deteriorate again), but what happened today unfortunately sends out the wrong message...that extremism and violence trumps cricket and the hope for peace. People to people contact should not stop...I mean we currently have Pakistani musicians performing in Mumbai...why should Pakistani players who want to play for Indian teams be treated differently? Very unfortunate.

Posted by Munsta101 on (January 19, 2010, 10:18 GMT)

It is quite amazing that no Pakistani players were picked. I would have liked to see some sort of table indicating the amount of IPL games each individual player would be available for - taking into consideration their international commitments.

The IPL runs from 12 March - 25 April. As far as I can see the only two teams playing during that time are NZ and Australia, and even they are finished by April. That will explain why Pontings contract was bought out and why Bond was such an attractive buy now that he has retired from Test cricket again. But why wouldn't franchises want Pakistani players? Would their fans turn their back on them - surely not. It must be something political - of which I am no expert.

Afridi not bought - that I do not understand.

Posted by Murtaza83 on (January 19, 2010, 8:46 GMT)

Quite ridiculous here, Modi is on a crazy power trip. Everyone can see whats happening here and modi knows theres nothing we can do about it. Really, someone needs to take a stand here. I've been following the auction too, no Pakistani players picked. I cant take that to be a coincidence. You cant tell me that no one wants to pick either of the two best bowlers (gul and afridi) in the short history of this format but are ready to shell out $610,000 for wayne parnell.

Posted by Edassery on (January 19, 2010, 8:42 GMT)

That additional bid money must be going to Modi himself... As per the latest advanced tax paid list, he is the highest individual tax payer in India - thanks to IPL.

Posted by dibbu on (January 19, 2010, 6:44 GMT)

players need to unionize, asap.

Posted by sahil_cricrazy on (January 18, 2010, 19:06 GMT)

BCCI is a shameless body which can to ny extent for the sake of money and uses it's power and clout in an unaccountable manner.I remember once over a broadcasting dispute BCCI put across the argument that it's the BCCI for whom the players are playing not for INDIA....utterly shameless and greedy vultures.The treatment it meted out to the great Kapil who while receiving ' Indian Cricketer of the Century' award said that he's played for INDIA not for the BCCI gives a slap on BCCI's face.But ofcourse they are taking as much advantage they can take us of our passion for cricket as they can and filling their coffers.Instead of cricketers politicians are running the game because they are attracted by immnense money in the game and making a hey while the sun is shining....

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Nagraj GollapudiClose
Tournament Results
Super Kings v Mum Indians at Mumbai - Apr 25, 2010
Super Kings won by 22 runs
RCB v Chargers at Mumbai - Apr 24, 2010
RCB won by 9 wickets (with 37 balls remaining)
Super Kings v Chargers at Mumbai - Apr 22, 2010
Super Kings won by 38 runs
RCB v Mum Indians at Mumbai - Apr 21, 2010
Mum Indians won by 35 runs
KKR v Mum Indians at Kolkata - Apr 19, 2010
KKR won by 9 wickets (with 15 balls remaining)
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days