Sri Lanka news February 11, 2014

'SLC happy with ICC resolutions' - Ranatunga

27

Sri Lanka Cricket's concerns about the ICC revamp were largely allayed by the second set of revisions to the position paper proposals in Singapore, SLC secretary Nishantha Ranatunga has said. The board has not yet endorsed Saturday's ICC decision to forge ahead with the revamp, but it is now expected to fall in line with the majority at the ICC, though the board was among the position paper's fiercest opponents before the vote.

Ranatunga told ESPNcricinfo the revised proposals did not amount to a major threat to SLC's power at the ICC table, one day after he had told Ceylon Today the board would need to launch "a damage-control exercise". SLC and PCB had been the two abstentions at Saturday's meeting.

"Our objective was to try not to lose what we have gained as a Test-playing nation," Ranatunga said. "If you look at the revised documents that they have tabled, most of the things have been cleared.

"If you look at the first paper, they only wanted the ICC chairmanship to be rotated amongst the three countries. They have taken that off. Then they were talking about three committees and for them to be chairing those. That has been taken out.

"Only for the first term they will chair those committees due to the time constraints and the TV matter. But after that the process is the board will select who will chair those committees. The things that we were supposed to lose as a country - certain benefits to the board, like serving in those committees and to be a chairman - all that will remain."

While some proposals on governance were softened in the revisions, the position paper's delineation of ICC revenue redistributions based on each nation's "contribution costs" has not changed. SLC is believed to have been accorded 0.1% of the ICC's revenue under the new system - a figure Ranatunga said is palatable, despite SLC's previous consternations.

"The other concern that we had was with regard to the funding table. That was quite clearly explained to the team that went from Sri Lanka, and we were quite ok with that."

The second set of revisions has not yet been publicly seen, but SLC's stance appears to have changed considerably since the Singapore meeting in which these changes were unveiled. In the week prior to that meeting, a meeting of SLC's members, past cricketers and administrators had unanimously opposed the proposals, before board president Jayantha Dharmadasa questioned the legality of the proposals in a letter to ICC's lawyers.

An executive committee meeting will determine SLC's final stance on the revamp. That meeting will be called when the board receives the finalised resolutions from the ICC, CEO Ashley de Silva said.

Andrew Fidel Fernando is ESPNcricinfo's Sri Lanka correspondent. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Malij on February 12, 2014, 16:40 GMT

    Nishantha Ranatunga does not have the straight forwardness & backbone his elder brother Arjuna has.

  • SNUBB on February 12, 2014, 7:10 GMT

    The big 3 thing in the long run will harm the cricket and is against the spirit of ICC. Even though SLC and PCB stood firm but they were in the end at the losing end as all the other ICC members agreed on the proposal. After few years when most of the ICC members will suffer other than the BIG 3 the revolt will start.

  • on February 12, 2014, 4:49 GMT

    sl sport minister said that they do really big part to vote against the draft and he say of them are cannot relesed to media also!!!

  • randikaayya on February 12, 2014, 4:42 GMT

    SLC have safeguarded the wider interest of the cricketing public atleast to a much greater extent than all the other countries except Pakistan. Softening of the stipulations wouldn't have happened if they didn't voice their concerns unlike the rest of band-wagoners. having achieved atleast a part of what it set out to achieve its perfectly reasonable for them to re-integrate and go about business as usual. Indian courts may save the Indian cricket interest from the BCCI but i wonder who can save the ICC now

  • stonk on February 12, 2014, 3:03 GMT

    Ranatuba's don't run Sri Lanka Cricket and this is not the captain of the 1996 world cup winning team. Shame if SLC backtracks from their original position like CSA did The PCB even under new management will hold their position. SLC is running scared of Srinivasan and the BCCI. It is too late to mend fences now. The wrath of Srinivasan will have to be met head on.

  • InsideHedge on February 11, 2014, 21:36 GMT

    @VajiraR: Don't let your jealousies get in the way of REALITY. Enjoy the upcoming cricket, esp the Asia Cup and the World T20 which will be held in India according to your logic. Just like the last World T20 was also held in India, right?

    Oh wait....

  • gahapanmachan on February 11, 2014, 20:20 GMT

    SL did the right thing by resisting against bullying in the game, something the power players couldn't do. Obviously SL is a small player and was not going to win but help make few changes.

    Cricket will move on and if SL keep developing the way it did since entering test arena, many others will be chasing them to play cricket in their turfs. Time will tell who the loser in this saga is.

  • on February 11, 2014, 20:14 GMT

    This is where I very seriously miss Mr. Tony Graig's voice... He is a beacon of Truth and Justice in the Cricketing World. SLC should not have dont it. I really appreciate PCB's stance!

  • SanjivAwesome on February 11, 2014, 19:48 GMT

    One by one, they have all come down from the high moral ground, to the extremely, extremely low, low ground of ... business and money.

  • Straight666 on February 11, 2014, 18:07 GMT

    I been reading a lot PCB and SLC standing on moral ground and ethic. It's pretty simple they were just looking for own interests from the get go just like every other board. Just because they were disagreeing with India, doesn't make moral or ethic stand.

  • Malij on February 12, 2014, 16:40 GMT

    Nishantha Ranatunga does not have the straight forwardness & backbone his elder brother Arjuna has.

  • SNUBB on February 12, 2014, 7:10 GMT

    The big 3 thing in the long run will harm the cricket and is against the spirit of ICC. Even though SLC and PCB stood firm but they were in the end at the losing end as all the other ICC members agreed on the proposal. After few years when most of the ICC members will suffer other than the BIG 3 the revolt will start.

  • on February 12, 2014, 4:49 GMT

    sl sport minister said that they do really big part to vote against the draft and he say of them are cannot relesed to media also!!!

  • randikaayya on February 12, 2014, 4:42 GMT

    SLC have safeguarded the wider interest of the cricketing public atleast to a much greater extent than all the other countries except Pakistan. Softening of the stipulations wouldn't have happened if they didn't voice their concerns unlike the rest of band-wagoners. having achieved atleast a part of what it set out to achieve its perfectly reasonable for them to re-integrate and go about business as usual. Indian courts may save the Indian cricket interest from the BCCI but i wonder who can save the ICC now

  • stonk on February 12, 2014, 3:03 GMT

    Ranatuba's don't run Sri Lanka Cricket and this is not the captain of the 1996 world cup winning team. Shame if SLC backtracks from their original position like CSA did The PCB even under new management will hold their position. SLC is running scared of Srinivasan and the BCCI. It is too late to mend fences now. The wrath of Srinivasan will have to be met head on.

  • InsideHedge on February 11, 2014, 21:36 GMT

    @VajiraR: Don't let your jealousies get in the way of REALITY. Enjoy the upcoming cricket, esp the Asia Cup and the World T20 which will be held in India according to your logic. Just like the last World T20 was also held in India, right?

    Oh wait....

  • gahapanmachan on February 11, 2014, 20:20 GMT

    SL did the right thing by resisting against bullying in the game, something the power players couldn't do. Obviously SL is a small player and was not going to win but help make few changes.

    Cricket will move on and if SL keep developing the way it did since entering test arena, many others will be chasing them to play cricket in their turfs. Time will tell who the loser in this saga is.

  • on February 11, 2014, 20:14 GMT

    This is where I very seriously miss Mr. Tony Graig's voice... He is a beacon of Truth and Justice in the Cricketing World. SLC should not have dont it. I really appreciate PCB's stance!

  • SanjivAwesome on February 11, 2014, 19:48 GMT

    One by one, they have all come down from the high moral ground, to the extremely, extremely low, low ground of ... business and money.

  • Straight666 on February 11, 2014, 18:07 GMT

    I been reading a lot PCB and SLC standing on moral ground and ethic. It's pretty simple they were just looking for own interests from the get go just like every other board. Just because they were disagreeing with India, doesn't make moral or ethic stand.

  • on February 11, 2014, 17:05 GMT

    @ODI_BestFormOfCricket Please try to win a test series (at-least draw) before that ... SL is a far better team than IND in outside subcont.

  • Fogu on February 11, 2014, 13:48 GMT

    At this point it has to be about damage control. If BCB, CSA had joined SLC and PCB in taking a tougher stance, this proposal would not have passed. Now that it has passed, SLC and PCB has to join and it is only a matter of how they will save face. SLC found their way and PCB will too. I am from BD and in this matter, I blame my board along with NZ, WI and ZM for not stepping up initially and forming a pact with SLC, PCB and CSA.

  • on February 11, 2014, 13:21 GMT

    Due credit should be given to PCB for having no more chances of opposing the position paper and being the last country to accept the dictatorship of the big three. May God save the gentleman's game.

  • stormy16 on February 11, 2014, 12:22 GMT

    Yep time to throw in the towel on this, I am afraid SLC had no choice and have made the right call. There's nothing to gain from fighting this fight and its time to get on with the bsiness of getting tours signed and moving ahead.

  • VajiraR on February 11, 2014, 12:19 GMT

    Finally, I must recall how true what Tony Grieg has predicted couple of years ago became an unpleasant reality.

  • VajiraR on February 11, 2014, 12:18 GMT

    Mr. Ranathunga, pls. answer the following questions. 1. Do you think it's reasonable to accept 0.1% of the ICC revenue when India pocket 21%? 2. Do you think it's reasonable to hold almost every ICC tournament in India (1 event every 2 years makes it that way)? 3. Do you agree to work under a Chairman, whose SIL has proved guilty by court on corruption? 4. Do you agree that only big 3 should hold chairmanships of ICC committees? 5. Don't you think the Test matches, ODIs and T20s should be shared equally and play on demand, but not due to someone else's force? 6. Don't you think we should have the liberty to select our own tournament, own opposition and to discuss our own share of revenue depending our demand in the world cricket arena? 7. The IPL has created lots of turmoil in the cricket world. Don't you think it will create more chaos in the future in the local club cricket, national selections, etc when India has more powers?

  • SL_rockz on February 11, 2014, 12:01 GMT

    I personally believe that anybody should not look at any problem wearing glasses with some opinion like "We dont like it"... If so irrespective of the fact that how good or bad the proposal is one will say i donot like it. Anybody should not face problems like that.I am not going to say that decision of SLC is wrong or right.But i am saying that the first proposals are bad and SLC disagreed.But then revised version (that is still not publicly revealed ) came up . Then SLC should look at them with open mind and consider the profits and losses to our cricket and then take a decision. So revised version may be better .I am not sure.But if so then there is no offense in showing consent for that. It is independent of our dislike over past version. And if we disagree again due to the fact that we did not agree before is clearly acting blind... Agreeing to what should be agreed is a good quality i guess. Thanks

  • on February 11, 2014, 11:32 GMT

    @ABKhanISB on (February 11, 2014, 10:58 GMT):

    mate you got it wrong. I have never said that i am supporting the proposal. I have been in favor of PCB stance from start and appreciated their stance. If you have doubt then spare some time and check all the posts. Check it from start and you will know what i am talking about and always appreciated PCB.

    What i am saying is different and realistic thing about what will happen next. I am not talking about what they did. I said it earlier that all boards will eventually get on board of this proposal. and it is proved right. BD then CSA and now SLC is almost there. and PCB will as well. and i am saying same thing here. Its already approved and there is no option left for both boards.

    And PCB didnt vote against it in the 1st place for your info.

  • vishwa1111 on February 11, 2014, 11:10 GMT

    @ODI_BestFormOfCricket---If it happens that will be a great delif for us....I wish ur india will meet us in a WC match.....We have more pace bowlers than ur ishant hero..LOL

  • anoopshameed on February 11, 2014, 11:07 GMT

    Definitely damage control :D . If you take a stand based on ethics, against a gross injustice being done to you, you don't abstain from voting, you vote against it!-regardless of the result,ie, if it is based purely on ethics. The fact that both Pakistani and Sri Lankan Cricket Boards abstained from voting proves that they, like others, were looking out for themselves. Frankly, it is no different to the show Bangladeshi Cricket Board put on for the gallery, about being the first board to oppose the initial draft-and then jumped to the other side!

  • ABKhanISB on February 11, 2014, 10:58 GMT

    @ Khurram S Chaudhry

    You kept on saying that PCB will vote in favor of big three from day one. No PCB didnt do that, so please stop making negative comments and for once appreciate the decision of PCB to stand on moral grounds

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on February 11, 2014, 10:15 GMT

    india should not play bilateral series against sl for next 10 years, they would realize how important india is for srilanka in cricke

  • on February 11, 2014, 10:04 GMT

    eventually PCB will support it.But PCB has most no. of demands series against India,FTP,International Cricket coming back to the country,alternative revenue generating options etc. PCB will make sure these demands are fulfilled or they get the most out of it.

  • chapathishot on February 11, 2014, 10:02 GMT

    @Udendra: what amendments? it is only a hoax to show that they have done something .I will tell you one thing SLC is doing nothing for cricket if cricket is doing well in SL it is because of the fans despite the efforts of SLC to kill it.

  • Dhushan on February 11, 2014, 9:46 GMT

    Just when I thought we, (SLC) had the backbone to stand up to our values and standards no matter what, now starts all the "it's' not so bad" & "they changed this & that" talk. I think SLC is more worried about being cornered, or not being given tours by the big 3. Utterly disappointing to see a sport being bought by money.

  • on February 11, 2014, 9:36 GMT

    It is already approved and both SLC and PCB did not voted against it. they just abstained from it. So not much option left now for both boards to just accept it and join in. they cant oppose it on their own. and will not get much now as they are the last.

    Both SLC and PCB mismanaged it in the end.

  • Udendra on February 11, 2014, 9:09 GMT

    I think SLC is being rational here. You don't have to keep opposing everything every time, especially if it causes no harm. If not for the opposition by PCB & SLC, even these so called amendments wouldn't have happened. Lets hope everything goes well for the sake of cricket.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Udendra on February 11, 2014, 9:09 GMT

    I think SLC is being rational here. You don't have to keep opposing everything every time, especially if it causes no harm. If not for the opposition by PCB & SLC, even these so called amendments wouldn't have happened. Lets hope everything goes well for the sake of cricket.

  • on February 11, 2014, 9:36 GMT

    It is already approved and both SLC and PCB did not voted against it. they just abstained from it. So not much option left now for both boards to just accept it and join in. they cant oppose it on their own. and will not get much now as they are the last.

    Both SLC and PCB mismanaged it in the end.

  • Dhushan on February 11, 2014, 9:46 GMT

    Just when I thought we, (SLC) had the backbone to stand up to our values and standards no matter what, now starts all the "it's' not so bad" & "they changed this & that" talk. I think SLC is more worried about being cornered, or not being given tours by the big 3. Utterly disappointing to see a sport being bought by money.

  • chapathishot on February 11, 2014, 10:02 GMT

    @Udendra: what amendments? it is only a hoax to show that they have done something .I will tell you one thing SLC is doing nothing for cricket if cricket is doing well in SL it is because of the fans despite the efforts of SLC to kill it.

  • on February 11, 2014, 10:04 GMT

    eventually PCB will support it.But PCB has most no. of demands series against India,FTP,International Cricket coming back to the country,alternative revenue generating options etc. PCB will make sure these demands are fulfilled or they get the most out of it.

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on February 11, 2014, 10:15 GMT

    india should not play bilateral series against sl for next 10 years, they would realize how important india is for srilanka in cricke

  • ABKhanISB on February 11, 2014, 10:58 GMT

    @ Khurram S Chaudhry

    You kept on saying that PCB will vote in favor of big three from day one. No PCB didnt do that, so please stop making negative comments and for once appreciate the decision of PCB to stand on moral grounds

  • anoopshameed on February 11, 2014, 11:07 GMT

    Definitely damage control :D . If you take a stand based on ethics, against a gross injustice being done to you, you don't abstain from voting, you vote against it!-regardless of the result,ie, if it is based purely on ethics. The fact that both Pakistani and Sri Lankan Cricket Boards abstained from voting proves that they, like others, were looking out for themselves. Frankly, it is no different to the show Bangladeshi Cricket Board put on for the gallery, about being the first board to oppose the initial draft-and then jumped to the other side!

  • vishwa1111 on February 11, 2014, 11:10 GMT

    @ODI_BestFormOfCricket---If it happens that will be a great delif for us....I wish ur india will meet us in a WC match.....We have more pace bowlers than ur ishant hero..LOL

  • on February 11, 2014, 11:32 GMT

    @ABKhanISB on (February 11, 2014, 10:58 GMT):

    mate you got it wrong. I have never said that i am supporting the proposal. I have been in favor of PCB stance from start and appreciated their stance. If you have doubt then spare some time and check all the posts. Check it from start and you will know what i am talking about and always appreciated PCB.

    What i am saying is different and realistic thing about what will happen next. I am not talking about what they did. I said it earlier that all boards will eventually get on board of this proposal. and it is proved right. BD then CSA and now SLC is almost there. and PCB will as well. and i am saying same thing here. Its already approved and there is no option left for both boards.

    And PCB didnt vote against it in the 1st place for your info.