Sri Lanka news June 20, 2011

'Private' SL tournament is fine for Champions League

24

The BCCI's refusal to release Indian players for the Sri Lanka Premier League on grounds that the tournament is organised by a "private party" has been put into sharp focus with the winner of the SLPL being included in the 2011 Champions League Twenty20 tournament - an event that is jointly owned by the boards of India, Australia and South Africa.

A press release issued by the CLT20 on Monday said a six-team qualifying tournament this year would feature a team from Sri Lanka and teams from India, West Indies, New Zealand and England. Sri Lanka Cricket's secretary Nishantha Ranatunga confirmed to ESPNcricinfo that as far as SLC is concerned, it is the winner of the SLPL that will play in the CLT20. Sundar Raman, a member of the techincal committee of the CLT20, did not respond to an email from ESPNcricinfo seeking comment.

The SLPL is also the only T20 domestic tournament in Sri Lanka, having replaced the previous tournament, so if a Sri Lanka team is to participate in the CLT20 at all, it must come from the SLPL.

The BCCI had initially stated it had no problems with the proposed league and that Indian players were free to take part, as long as there was no conflict with India's international or domestic schedule. However, on Saturday came the board's announcement denying permission to the 12 Indian cricketers who'd sought No-Objection Certificates to participate in the SLPL on the grounds that it is Somerset who would be handling the contracts for international players, and that could lead to complications for the players should disputes arise.

SLC responded by rejecting the BCCI's claim that the SLPL is a private-party organised tournament, saying that the SLPL is owned and approved by SLC - and so, automatically, by the ICC - and that Singapore-based Somerset Ventures only owns the commercial rights to the tournament.

Tariq Engineer is a senior sub-editor at Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Advanced_Donkeys on June 23, 2011, 12:53 GMT

    SLPL is nothing copared to the IPL.it's like ELEPHANT vs ANT battle.

  • sachin_vvsfan on June 21, 2011, 18:16 GMT

    'Private' SL tournament is fine for Champions League because there wont be any possibility of legal complications that will involve indian players as SL teams contain local and other foreign players. Why can't the author see this. That said i don't understand why BCCI didn't get this in the beginning. There is certainly more 'private issues ' invovled.'

  • gracegift on June 21, 2011, 8:07 GMT

    Suppose Eight test playing nations decide to have their own T20 leagues which run upto a month or so one after another. It's going to be like football then, with more club matches than internationals. Maybe a world cup once in 4 years will have countries playing. I think ICC needs to step in and tell the boards to give importance to Tests, if they are to be saved. Else scrap Test cricket and play only club level T20s where the money is.

  • hawkeye30 on June 21, 2011, 5:45 GMT

    This seems to be a very selfish move as SLankan board allowed players to stay back for the IPL even when SLankans were needed for national duty in England. Hence The high profile players missed in participating for crucial practice matches. I wonder what would have BCCI done in a situation such as this. And I wonder what the Indian fans would feel about their players in such a situation. If such is the BCCI's attitude I strongly believe SLC should not hand out no objection letters to players involved in the IPL. Very disappointing from India. This would be the downfall for India of all diplomatic relationships with most of the boards around the world.

  • Wismay on June 21, 2011, 3:16 GMT

    SLC should offer contracts by itself. Why are people blaming BCCI? Imagine IPL contracts offered by franchises and not through BCCI. Which is better?

  • Jim1207 on June 20, 2011, 22:29 GMT

    I wonder how many people criticize without even understanding any thing. SLPL is a T20 tournament, BCCI need not send its players there. As simple as that. First of all, it is not county cricket to improve the technique, it is just another T20 tournament, for the reason which the same people were ridiculing BCCI for last 2 months for conducting IPL. If Indian players are not allowed in SLPL, I do not see any logic, I repeat any logic, in criticizing BCCI for that. We should be happy that Indians are not going to all the places and play T20 cricket and instead they could play first class games and improve their game. The comments really show how many guys have no other hobby than criticizing BCCI and Indians for everything happening in the world.

  • on June 20, 2011, 20:41 GMT

    As others have said, if the Sri Lankan board is conducting the tournament, why are Indians being contracted to Singaporeans? If the contracts are with the SL board or with a spin-off (like the IPL) sub-company, then the BCCI won't have a problem. Furthermore, all the haters should keep in mind that the SLC went back on their word during the IPL as well. So I'm not surprised that the BCCI are flexing their muscle a little bit here.

  • Jim1207 on June 20, 2011, 20:34 GMT

    BCCI or anyone never told that private ownership is a problem for CLT20 participation. I do not understand the reason of this article. BCCI only told its players not to participate in SLPL, otherwise no one objected at anytime that its CLT20 participation would be in danger if it is privately owned or otherwise. People who bash BCCI instantly at anything have to sit for few seconds and think the reason behind the happening.

  • on June 20, 2011, 19:56 GMT

    You guys don't understand. BCCI stopped its players from participating in SLPL because, the contracts were given out by Somerset. And SLC did not deny it. It only denied that SLPL is not privately owned.

    Regarding CLT20, SLC is also part of the management committee and it is upto that board to decide who from their country participates in the Tournament. It could be privately owned or owned by the board.

  • abherath on June 20, 2011, 19:51 GMT

    Just look at these facts, mates:

    1) BCCI is "suspecting" that SLPL is a privately owned-league. 2) BCCI is not trying to clear this doubt officially with SLC. 3) TV Channels now seem to let the cat out of the bag: that BCCI thinks Lalit Modi is behind the SLPL. Is BCCI then seeing too many animals behind the bush ? 4) The BCCI, based on such "suspicions" have decided at an "informal" meeting not to let Indian players participate in the SLPL.

    How amateurish is this ? Can't the BCCI act formally, on formally verified information ? What is BCCI ? Is it a formal, serious organisation or a play house - a make-believe office put together by some kids playing together ?

    This boorish, arrogant and selfish attitude of the BCCI is ruining World cricket.

    As Arjuna Ranatunga and Tony Greig said, the BCCI is ruining World Cricket by twisting the arm of the ICC. I will not be surprised if the ICC now disallows the SLPL.

    Shame on BCCI - Boorish, Childish, Conspiring Idiots.

  • Advanced_Donkeys on June 23, 2011, 12:53 GMT

    SLPL is nothing copared to the IPL.it's like ELEPHANT vs ANT battle.

  • sachin_vvsfan on June 21, 2011, 18:16 GMT

    'Private' SL tournament is fine for Champions League because there wont be any possibility of legal complications that will involve indian players as SL teams contain local and other foreign players. Why can't the author see this. That said i don't understand why BCCI didn't get this in the beginning. There is certainly more 'private issues ' invovled.'

  • gracegift on June 21, 2011, 8:07 GMT

    Suppose Eight test playing nations decide to have their own T20 leagues which run upto a month or so one after another. It's going to be like football then, with more club matches than internationals. Maybe a world cup once in 4 years will have countries playing. I think ICC needs to step in and tell the boards to give importance to Tests, if they are to be saved. Else scrap Test cricket and play only club level T20s where the money is.

  • hawkeye30 on June 21, 2011, 5:45 GMT

    This seems to be a very selfish move as SLankan board allowed players to stay back for the IPL even when SLankans were needed for national duty in England. Hence The high profile players missed in participating for crucial practice matches. I wonder what would have BCCI done in a situation such as this. And I wonder what the Indian fans would feel about their players in such a situation. If such is the BCCI's attitude I strongly believe SLC should not hand out no objection letters to players involved in the IPL. Very disappointing from India. This would be the downfall for India of all diplomatic relationships with most of the boards around the world.

  • Wismay on June 21, 2011, 3:16 GMT

    SLC should offer contracts by itself. Why are people blaming BCCI? Imagine IPL contracts offered by franchises and not through BCCI. Which is better?

  • Jim1207 on June 20, 2011, 22:29 GMT

    I wonder how many people criticize without even understanding any thing. SLPL is a T20 tournament, BCCI need not send its players there. As simple as that. First of all, it is not county cricket to improve the technique, it is just another T20 tournament, for the reason which the same people were ridiculing BCCI for last 2 months for conducting IPL. If Indian players are not allowed in SLPL, I do not see any logic, I repeat any logic, in criticizing BCCI for that. We should be happy that Indians are not going to all the places and play T20 cricket and instead they could play first class games and improve their game. The comments really show how many guys have no other hobby than criticizing BCCI and Indians for everything happening in the world.

  • on June 20, 2011, 20:41 GMT

    As others have said, if the Sri Lankan board is conducting the tournament, why are Indians being contracted to Singaporeans? If the contracts are with the SL board or with a spin-off (like the IPL) sub-company, then the BCCI won't have a problem. Furthermore, all the haters should keep in mind that the SLC went back on their word during the IPL as well. So I'm not surprised that the BCCI are flexing their muscle a little bit here.

  • Jim1207 on June 20, 2011, 20:34 GMT

    BCCI or anyone never told that private ownership is a problem for CLT20 participation. I do not understand the reason of this article. BCCI only told its players not to participate in SLPL, otherwise no one objected at anytime that its CLT20 participation would be in danger if it is privately owned or otherwise. People who bash BCCI instantly at anything have to sit for few seconds and think the reason behind the happening.

  • on June 20, 2011, 19:56 GMT

    You guys don't understand. BCCI stopped its players from participating in SLPL because, the contracts were given out by Somerset. And SLC did not deny it. It only denied that SLPL is not privately owned.

    Regarding CLT20, SLC is also part of the management committee and it is upto that board to decide who from their country participates in the Tournament. It could be privately owned or owned by the board.

  • abherath on June 20, 2011, 19:51 GMT

    Just look at these facts, mates:

    1) BCCI is "suspecting" that SLPL is a privately owned-league. 2) BCCI is not trying to clear this doubt officially with SLC. 3) TV Channels now seem to let the cat out of the bag: that BCCI thinks Lalit Modi is behind the SLPL. Is BCCI then seeing too many animals behind the bush ? 4) The BCCI, based on such "suspicions" have decided at an "informal" meeting not to let Indian players participate in the SLPL.

    How amateurish is this ? Can't the BCCI act formally, on formally verified information ? What is BCCI ? Is it a formal, serious organisation or a play house - a make-believe office put together by some kids playing together ?

    This boorish, arrogant and selfish attitude of the BCCI is ruining World cricket.

    As Arjuna Ranatunga and Tony Greig said, the BCCI is ruining World Cricket by twisting the arm of the ICC. I will not be surprised if the ICC now disallows the SLPL.

    Shame on BCCI - Boorish, Childish, Conspiring Idiots.

  • on June 20, 2011, 19:00 GMT

    this clearly shows the how biased the BCCI really is...

  • vivekjagan on June 20, 2011, 17:50 GMT

    having said clearly by slc dat somerset owns only commercial rights dey should reverse d decision and give chance fr indians to play ..its not heavily scheduled as ipl and they should agree fr it..as slc agreed to keep d srilankans in ipl till may mid eventhough der tour of england got affected and dat led to poor form of mjayawardene.. eventually dey lost it .. bcci should learn to b more friendly with srilankan board

  • sharidas on June 20, 2011, 17:46 GMT

    Yes! It shows "Money is the root of all evil". I see no other reason for BCCI to snub the SL tournament. Why do we polarise ourselves like this ?

  • on June 20, 2011, 17:42 GMT

    I am an Indian ... Still I Can't understand this nonsense from BCCI ... They need Srilankans in the IPL .. But dont allow the Indians in Srilankan league .. This is clearly a selfish attitude .. If there is any doubts over SLPL ownership,BCCI can clarify it from Srilankan board .. Those who are doing national duties should never be allowed in these types of Club matches if it is coincide with Team India matches .. But fringe players should be allowed because it will give them more international exposure which will benefit India in the future

  • Reggaecricket on June 20, 2011, 17:28 GMT

    Why are we fellow sub continental countries now crying foul? We thought it was to our advantage to strengthen the BCCI's clout in the Cricketing world. It has now started to bite the hand that fed it. To the poster "World-Champs-TEAM-INDIA" who claims that BCCI can do whatever it wants, that is exactly my point, mate! We once felt as proud as you do today, that the BCCI bullied everyone else, but it isn't funny anymore! I guess the English and the OZs are having the last laugh...at our expense!

  • on June 20, 2011, 17:24 GMT

    BCCI should stop behaving like a dictator .....

  • srinu494 on June 20, 2011, 17:09 GMT

    why are u always anti BCCI? bcci only denied permission bcoz contacts are give by private party thus srilankan board cannot be held responcible if any dispute arise. so clearly bcci protecting its players. as far as champions league consered bcci sent the invitation to SLC, not SLPL, to send a team.

  • VisBal on June 20, 2011, 16:24 GMT

    So what is it? Is the SLPL official or not? Guess the BCCI can't figure that one out...

  • Hasso29 on June 20, 2011, 15:59 GMT

    bcci is destroying cricket!

  • on June 20, 2011, 15:25 GMT

    BCCI is the selfish money making Hippocratic institution. They only care about their pocket. They don't like the rise of any other cricket playing small countries. This is a big mistake they will feel very sorry later. I think Sri Lanka cricket board should stop our Sri Lankan players participating the IPL.

  • randika_ayya on June 20, 2011, 15:19 GMT

    BCCI was a fox in a lions skin, and now has contracted rabies!

  • World-Champs-TEAM-INDIA on June 20, 2011, 14:29 GMT

    Simply BCCI rules here . Can do what they want to .

  • mits6 on June 20, 2011, 14:15 GMT

    Slap on the face of BCCI . Morons governing it will definitely sour cricketing relations b/w the two nations.

  • on June 20, 2011, 14:12 GMT

    Funny thing is... alot of the players that have been revealed to belong to the 12 aren't India' first crop but team A, B level players... who's inclusion or exclusion should mean much for the tourney... still, just another instance of the BCCI acting like an overgrown baby...

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on June 20, 2011, 14:12 GMT

    Funny thing is... alot of the players that have been revealed to belong to the 12 aren't India' first crop but team A, B level players... who's inclusion or exclusion should mean much for the tourney... still, just another instance of the BCCI acting like an overgrown baby...

  • mits6 on June 20, 2011, 14:15 GMT

    Slap on the face of BCCI . Morons governing it will definitely sour cricketing relations b/w the two nations.

  • World-Champs-TEAM-INDIA on June 20, 2011, 14:29 GMT

    Simply BCCI rules here . Can do what they want to .

  • randika_ayya on June 20, 2011, 15:19 GMT

    BCCI was a fox in a lions skin, and now has contracted rabies!

  • on June 20, 2011, 15:25 GMT

    BCCI is the selfish money making Hippocratic institution. They only care about their pocket. They don't like the rise of any other cricket playing small countries. This is a big mistake they will feel very sorry later. I think Sri Lanka cricket board should stop our Sri Lankan players participating the IPL.

  • Hasso29 on June 20, 2011, 15:59 GMT

    bcci is destroying cricket!

  • VisBal on June 20, 2011, 16:24 GMT

    So what is it? Is the SLPL official or not? Guess the BCCI can't figure that one out...

  • srinu494 on June 20, 2011, 17:09 GMT

    why are u always anti BCCI? bcci only denied permission bcoz contacts are give by private party thus srilankan board cannot be held responcible if any dispute arise. so clearly bcci protecting its players. as far as champions league consered bcci sent the invitation to SLC, not SLPL, to send a team.

  • on June 20, 2011, 17:24 GMT

    BCCI should stop behaving like a dictator .....

  • Reggaecricket on June 20, 2011, 17:28 GMT

    Why are we fellow sub continental countries now crying foul? We thought it was to our advantage to strengthen the BCCI's clout in the Cricketing world. It has now started to bite the hand that fed it. To the poster "World-Champs-TEAM-INDIA" who claims that BCCI can do whatever it wants, that is exactly my point, mate! We once felt as proud as you do today, that the BCCI bullied everyone else, but it isn't funny anymore! I guess the English and the OZs are having the last laugh...at our expense!