MCA unhappy about BCCI giving Brabourne international cricket

Two of the BCCI's high-profile member associations have aired their grievances over certain decisions taken at the board's annual general meeting on Sunday. While the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) is unhappy about international cricket returning to Brabourne Stadium, the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) has expressed displeasure over its share of the posts handed out at the meeting.

The MCA said it should have been informed beforehand of the BCCI's decision to hand out international matches to the Brabourne Stadium, which belongs to the Cricket Club of India (CCI). MCA president Ravi Savant, who was appointed BCCI's vice-president from the west zone in place of Niranjan Shah, said he would write to the board about the matter. "I objected to this resolution at the AGM. I said I will file my detailed objection in a letter to the board," Savant told the Times of India. "The board cannot pass a resolution like that. The CCI comes under our [MCA's] jurisdiction. Our request is that the MCA should be taken into confidence before any match is awarded to the CCI."

While the Brabourne Stadium is the older of the two, the Wankhede Stadium has been the main venue for international cricket in Mumbai in recent years. The MCA, though, had entered into an agreement with the CCI in the lead-up to the 2011 World Cup to organise India matches there while the Wankhede was being renovated for the show-piece event. In that period, the ground hosted an India-Sri Lanka Test, an India-Australia T20 and several matches in the 2006 Champions Trophy. Before that, CCI last hosted a Test match in 1973 and an ODI in 1995.

Sevanthi Parekh, the president of CCI, dismissed the MCA's objections. "Let the MCA keep objecting. The resolution was passed unanimously in the AGM. Now, we will be treated as an eligible unit and will be awarded an international game whenever our turn comes as per rotation policy."

The CAB treasurer, meanwhile, said his association "deserved better" after the "support" it extended to BCCI president N Srinivasan.

CAB president Jagmohan Dalmiya, who carried out the day-to-day administration of the BCCI after Srinivasan had temporarily stepped aside following the arrest of son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan for betting during the IPL, was named chairman of the board's newly-constituted northeast development committee. He was relieved of his BCCI administrative duties, with Sanjay Patel, who was appointed full-time board secretary at the meeting, taking over until the courts rule on Srinivasan.

Other CAB members gaining appointments included joint secretary Subir Ganguly, who was named on the IPL governing council, treasurer Biswarup Dey who made it to the finance committee, and Chitrak Mitra, who was retained as the BCCI's vice-president from the east zone and named chairman of the committee overseeing the Vizzy Trophy, the annual inter-zonal university tournament.

"The committees where there are representatives from the CAB are either less important or non-active," Dey was quoted as saying, by the Telegraph India, on behalf of the CAB. "We certainly deserved better. This actually sends a wrong message about Bengal cricket.

"Now if you ask me whether we have been treated in the right manner, I would say that the future will answer this question. People are asking whether the CAB will change its stance [towards Srinivasan]. Well, we will act according to the situation. If someone is good with us, we will reciprocate in the same manner. If that is not the case, then obviously we will have to change our stance. We will have to rethink our approach. This is not the age of Gandhigiri. We gave our support, but it didn't get reflected while the various important committees were formed."

Dey said the CAB did not grudge other east zone members the posts there were given, though. "We have no problem with what Odisha and Jharkhand have got. We absolutely believe that Mr Ranjib Biswal [chairman, IPL governing council] and Mr Choudhary [chairman, anti-corruption and marketing committees] deserve such high-profile responsibilities. But where do we stand?"