Lalit Kumar Modi
Chairman & Commissioner
DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD
WORLI, MUMBAI-400 030
PHONE : 91-022-66637373
FAX : 91-022-24932260
31st May, 2010
Mr. N. Srinivasan,
Board for Control of Cricket in India,
1. I am in receipt of your Show Cause Notice dated 6th May, 2010. In response thereto, I wish to submit the following.
2. For the reasons more particularly stated below, the Show Cause Notice and the allegations made therein are ex-facie misconceived and these proceedings require to be closed and given a quietus at this stage itself.
3. The Show Cause Notice is statedly based on the email dated 02/02/2010 addressed by Mr. Giles Clarke, Chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board (E.C.B.) to the Honorary President.
4. The email of Mr. Giles Clarke :-
a. accuses me of being involved and/or participating in "a plan to destroy world cricket's structure and especially that in England and create a new rebel league" ;
b. asserts that "this plan seeks to remove all Board's powers and involve players in a fashion unheard of."
c. asserts that "Mr. Modi clearly represents that IPL and its Governing Council are offering financial inducements to English counties" .
d. describes me as a "miscreant"; describes my actions as a 'threat'; and accuses me of being engaged in what is 'forbidden'.
5. The email of Mr. Clarke and the extremely serious allegations made therein, is entirely based on the email dated 31/03/2010 addressed by Mr. Stewart Regan purporting to record what transpired in the course of a lunch meeting where I, Mr. Regan (Yorkshire CCC), Mr. Hodgekiss (Lancashire CCC), Mr. Povey (Warwickshire CCC), Mr. Andrew Wildblood (IMG) and a few friends of mine, and Mr. Peter Griffiths (IMG), were present. The email of Mr. Clarke, forwards the email dated 31/03/2010 and describes the same as "self-explanatory".
6. A bare reading of the email of 31/03/2010 and the email dated 02/05/2010 makes it plainly evident that there is a complete disconnect between the two. The allegations that Mr. Clarke had chosen to make (based entirely on the email dated 31/03/2010)or even the basis thereof, are absent in the email dated 31/03/2010. In particular, there is nothing in the email dated 31/03/2010, which can even remotely be described as (i) a plan to destroy world cricket's structure and especially that in England; (ii) a plan to create a new rebel league; (iii) a plan to remove all Board's powers; and (iv) a plan to involve players in a fashion unheard of. On the contrary, the email dated 31st March 2010 indicates the contrary. The allegations made by Mr. Clarke are, on his own showing, not worthy of any credence.
7. The Honorary President and the Honorary Secretary of the BCCI are well aware that Mr. Clarke and I have had a past history of disagreement and discord. We have, in the past, have had several 'run ins'. I have commented on this below. That Mr. Clarke therefore had an animus against me, was therefore no secret, particularly to them.
8. In this background, I am pained that instead of standing up for me and advising Mr. Clarke to desist from making patently irresponsible, unfounded and motivated allegations against me, you have chosen to issue a Show Cause Notice to me. Considering my contribution to the IPL over the past 3 years and my firm and un-yielding stand against rebel/unofficial cricket (viz. ICL floated by Zee, the proposed Arab League and the American League), the least that was expected, in the circumstances, was that the elementary courtesy of seeking my response or comment, be extended to me. Instead, you have, hastily, chosen to issue a Show Cause Notice to me. What is even more unfortunate is that (like Mr. Clarke) the Show Cause Notice makes allegations, which go beyond those made by Mr. Clarke. The Show Cause Notice makes various assumptions and presumptions which are totally misconceived and/or baseless. The Show Cause Notice makes improvements over the contents of the email on which it is based and makes allegations which are not borne out by the facts mentioned in the email. The power to issue a Show Cause Notice is to be responsibly exercised for sound and good reason after due consideration and deliberation. It is also not to be used to settle scores. It is not the practice of the BCCI to mechanically issue Show Cause Notices every time an allegation (particularly a motivated one by a person with a known animus) is made against an administrator. If this were to be so, several Show Cause Notices ought to have been issued against the Honorary Secretary Despite several serious complaints/allegations having been made against him.
9. Before I respond to the allegations in the Show Cause Notice, I may advert to facts which manifest the malice, ill will and animus that Mr. Clarke harbours against me and which prompted him to make allegations that I regard as completely lacking in reason.
Facts establishing malice on the part of Mr. Clarke
10. It is well known in informed cricketing circles that Mr. Clarke holds a personal grudge against me. This started as far back as 2008. Mr. Clarke came to India at the time of the IPL Season 1 and noticed that the IPL was a resounding success. He then decided that the IPL should be replicated in the UK in some form, where the T20 format originated. He publicly expressed his admiration on the achievements of BCCI - IPL at the ECBs A.G.M. at Lords. For reasons best known to him, however, he chose not to follow the IPL model, but evolved a different model of his own. This attracted criticism, which he countered by publicly announcing that his model was superior to and would do better than the IPL. In this exercise he involved a Texan businessman called Mr. Allen Stanford. He publicly feted him as being a legendary entrepreneur who would make the UK Super Series (T20) format a resounding success. As a grand gesture he flew into Lords in Mr. Stanford's helicopter. Unfortunately, for Mr. Clarke, the Giles-Stanford model failed to enthuse the TV market, which was essential for its survival. Mr. Stanford was arrested in the U.S.A. The media reported that there were allegations of "massive ongoing fraud" and the Stanford/Giles model collapsed and Super Series dream of Mr. Clarke therefore proved to be short lived. Mr. Clarke has his share of detractors and they were quick to pounce on what they regarded as a monumental blunder by Mr. Clarke in not taking the tried and tested route. Mr. Clarke was lampooned by the media (one article said that Mr. Clarke's credibility had disappeared faster than a Ponzi investment"). Many counties demanded that Giles Clarke take responsibility for this debacle and resign. In sharp contrast, the IPL went from strength to strength. Comparisons between the two were inevitable and this was played up as "Modi having got the better of Clarke". This did not endear me to him.
11. In the initial Champions League negotiations, the ECB (represented by Mr. Clark), Cricket South Africa and Cricket Australia were each offered 16.67% in the new entity, with India having 50%. This allocation was fair, sensible and realistic, since India was bringing 80% of the media value to the table. Mr. Clarke however insisted on a 25% share for ECB and made this condition non negotiable. This was not accepted, with the result that ECB ended up not getting a seat on the Governing Council of the Champions League (of the 6 representatives, 3 are from India, 2 from Australia and 1 from South Africa). Mr. Clarke faced a lot of criticism for this, within and outside the UK Cricket establishment. I am/was the Chairman of Champions League. Although I was only protecting the interest of the BCCI, Mr. Clarke held this against me.
12. Mr. Clarke has also held me responsible for the decision to prefer South Africa over England as the destination for IPL Season-2. When it became clear that the IPL Season 2 could not be held in India because of security concerns, two alternatives were contemplated, U.K. and South Africa. Understandably, Mr. Clarke wanted IPL Season 2 to be held in the U.K. because of the approximately 100 million Dollars which IPL would bring in. Though England was initially the preferred venue to host the tournament it was ultimately decided to opt for South Africa. The inability of Mr. Clarke to sort out logistical issues and give a timely response was one of the reasons for so deciding. Mr. Clarke, once again ended up facing criticism. I was the Chairman of the IPL and Mr. Clarke held me responsible for this.
13. That ECB under Mr. Clarke has also frequently clashed with me over the dates of the IPL. The IPL dates were fixed in March, April and May, since other national boards had a clear window in March, April and May, which allowed their top stars to participate in the IPL. These dates however clashed with the U.K. domestic fixtures. Mr. Clarke wanted me to re-schedule the IPL Season so that this clash was avoided. English Cricketers like Kevin Peterson and Andrew Flintoff had expressed their keenness to be part of the IPL and had in fact held off signing with the ECB to be a part of IPL. Mr. Clarke however issued a diktat warning counties that the players should comply with domestic fixtures. Unfortunately, I was unable to change the IPL Schedule to cater to the English domestic schedule requirements. As a result, English star players were unable to participate in Season-1. This was a loss to the IPL as much as it was to them. However, Mr. Clarke took this personally and regarded this as an affront and as my not wanting his players to participate in the IPL.
14. Mr. Clarke and I also had differences on the issue of the right to retain players. Many players had contracted themselves with, both the IPL and the English Counties. The Champions League competition was a contest involving the two top domestic teams. There was thus the possibility that one or more players would be common to both the IPL Franchisees and the County Teams who qualified. One of the two would have to cede its players in favour of the other. As Chairman of the IPL, I insisted that the English Counties cede its international player(s) in favour of IPL Franchisees. Mr. Clarke insisted on the reverse. This aggravated the friction between Mr. Clarke and me.
15. Differences between Mr. Clarke and me also arose in connection with the dates of the Champions League 2010. Mr. Clarke wanted the tournament to take place in the month of October. I however chose September 10 to September 26 as the tournament dates because India was due to play Australia in a One Day series in October. This led to a clash of the Champions League dates and the English domestic season dates. I, therefore, requested Mr. Clarke to make minor adjustments to the ECB schedule. He took offence and refused to make any adjustments requested. To compound matters an email was sent to counties instructing them that their players were not to be released. As a consensus eluded us, the counties faced the prospect of losing out on the game price of several million U.S. Dollars plus guaranteed appearance fees. The counties and the clubs in England wanted that the top players be sent to India and the second line of the club players play domestic matches which also Mr. Clarke disliked. Mr. Clarke ultimately circulated a Memo stating that England would rather pull out of the Champions' League. The Champions League represented an extremely lucrative opportunity for the domestic Twenty20 winners of different counties. Non participation of the two English counties meant that they, and the ECB, would suffer heavily financially. The ECB was guaranteed 3 million dollars, while the counties stood to make between 500,000 and 6 million dollars directly from the Champions League apart from sponsorship income. This created a lot of resentment within English cricket against Mr. Clarke Mr. Clarke in turn blamed me.
16. My relationship with Mr. Clarke was put under strain on account of the non co-operation shown by him in reining in players who were playing for the ICL, which was the rebel or un-official Indian league. Many players who had contracted with the ICL were also playing for the English counties. I had repeatedly requested Mr. Clarke to take steps to discourage this. Notwithstanding this and the clear stand of the BCCI having been duly supported by the ICC, he allowed various counties to include, in their teams, ICL players, ignoring the fact they were a rebel and unofficial league and were acting against the Governing Body of the game in India. Consequently I had to warn the counties that the teams with ICL players would be ousted from Champions League matches. In fact, out of the 18 counties, only Essex, Middlesex and Somerset did not have ICL players in their team. My insistence on protecting interest of BCCI-IPL further embittered relations between me and Mr Clarke. It is therefore indeed strange that Mr. Clarke, in his e mail dated 02/05/2010, should make an issue about me promoting a rebel league in the UK. That these allegations are false is separately dealt with below.
17. It can therefore be seen that there have been a series of differences of opinion between Mr. Clarke and me. Mr. Clarke regarded these as a personality clash. Unfortunately for Mr. Clarke, the events that unfolded, portrayed him in poor light. He was also facing dissent within the English cricket establishment. The 9 clubs representing the counties having grounds which staged / could stage international cricket were particularly affected. Mr. Clarke regarded me as being the cause for his problems and embarrassment and as his bête noire. The e mail dated 02/05/2010, needs to be seen in this light as his attempt to get back at me when an opportunity presented itself. Mr. Clarke also hoped that by (what he believed) handing my head on a platter to the BCCI, he would get some brownie points and endear himself to you and the BCCI. Admittedly, the meeting in question took place on 31/3/2010. Mr. Stewart Regan sent the email in question on 31/03/2010.
18. The above makes it absolutely clear that the allegations of Mr. Clarke are clearly a deliberate over-reaction, motivated by his personal animus against me. Not only is this clear from the facts and events set out above, but this is reinforced by the fact that the email dated 31/03/2010 from Mr. Regan, which is the stated basis of Mr. Clarke's allegations, does not even make them. Most, if not all, of the allegations in the email of Mr. Clarke dated 02/05/2010 are no more than imaginative and fictitious "improvements" authored by Mr. Clarke, entirely out of malice. These ought to be summarily rejected. I am separately dealing herein below with the contents of the e mail of Mr. Regan.
19. The Show Cause Notice issued by you alleges various things which otherwise are not even a part of the email sent by Mr. Clarke. The email sent by Mr. Clarke was clearly a deliberate overreaction to the email sent by Mr. Regan.
IMG has initiated a libel action against Mr. Clarke
20. The email dated 02/05/2010 of Mr. Clarke makes allegations, similar to those made against me, against the I.M.G. The email dated 02/05/2010 of Mr. Clarke accuses IMG of "promoting this along with Mr. Modi". In other words, Mr. Clarke has sought to tar IMG with the same brush. In my Reply to the 1st Show Cause Notice, I have adverted to the status and reputation of IMG and the fact that it is one of the world leaders in the management of sports, sporting event and sportspersons. IMG has justifiably taken umbrage against the false, reckless and libellous content in the e mail dated 02/05/2010 addressed by Mr. Clarke and has commenced a libel action against Mr. Clarke, in the English High Court.
21. I have also instructed my U.K. Solicitors who have addressed a legal notice dated 31st May 2010 to Mr. Clarke, taking strong exception to the false and libellous content in his email dated 02.05.2010 and calling upon him to provide, inter alia, unqualified apology and retraction. I am enclosing herewith a copy of this notice.
Myth about (i) 'whistleblower"; (ii) "Secret meeting"; (iii) conspiracy against ECB - Mr. Clarke was fully aware of the county actions. Hence no "legal action commenced"
22. The email dated 02/05/2010 addressed by Mr. Clarke to the Honorary President makes several statements that are factually incorrect to the knowledge of Mr. Clarke. The allegation that some kind of clandestine initiative to undermine the authority of the ECB was being undertaken by counties with the support behind the back of the ECB assistance from IMG and me as is totally false. Mr. Clarke, was kept in the loop by the 9 counties who in fact held discussions with him on 28th April 2010 in England. There was never an intention to create anything outside the purview of the ECB. This is also apparent, from the long list of recipients of Mr. Regan's original communication (which included ECB executives David Stewart, David Harker and Clive Leach) Colin Graves, who has very recently replaced David Stewart on the ECB board has been reported to have stated publicly that not only was the meeting on 31st March 2010 a "fact-finding" mission, but that it was not secret, and that it was Mr. Graves who arranged for Mr. Regan's communication to be sent on to Mr. Clarke. The statement used in the email of Mr. Clarke dated 2nd May 2010, there was a plan to destroy world cricket structure, and specially in England, by creating a rebel league is clearly false to his knowledge and was intended more to sensationalize the matter without any truth in it. Clearly Mr. Clarke had chosen to deliberately read into the email of Mr. Regan's mischievous content which did not exist. The use of the expression "whistle blower" which was also made with a view to sensationalise the matter and suggest that something clandestine or conspiratorial was going on was totally uncalled for. Accordingly it is wholly misleading for Mr. Clarke to have said in his email that the email dated 31st March 2010 was being passed to Mr. Clarke by a whistleblower or that it was a secret meeting. Lastly, the statement that "We have already commenced legal action with regard to the English officials and the counties involved", to the best of my knowledge is false and no legal action has been commenced by the ECB, either against the counties or against any of the officials involved. This statement appears to have been made with a view to prompt the BCCI to act against me: it suggested and was meant to suggest that if the English Board regarded the matter as serious enough to take legal action, the Indian Board should do likewise.
Casual lunch not a sinister meeting or a diabolical plot
23. The email dated 02/05/2010 and the Show Cause Notice, seek to make a mountain out of a mole hill, insofar as the lunch meeting held on 31/03/2010 is concerned. The e mail dated 02/05/2010 and the Show Cause Notice attribute to a casual and informal lunch, sinister overtones. This is totally incorrect. I was informed by IMG that some county representatives were in India and they were eager to meet me. I had then very little time since IPL Season 3 was already underway. However, as they continued to request IMG, I agreed to briefly meet them. Originally, it was decided that I would meet them on 30th March 2010 at the Four Seasons Hotel in Mumbai. I, however, had to unfortunately cancel the same. The county representitives via IMG requested somehow to please squeeze them for a brief meeting as they were leaving the same night. On 31st March, 2010 I had planned to meet some friends for lunch at Bukhara at the Hotel Maurya and this was the only time I had. So out of courtesey I asked them to join me for lunch with my friends and they agreed. This is how we met over lunch. Anyone who is familiar with the Bukhara restaurant at Hotel Maurya will know that it is hardly the place where a formal business meeting involving 'presentations' can be held. The lunch was a casual and informal affair, with friends in which the county representatives and IMG officials joined in. There was no agenda for this meeting nor did I have any preconceived ideas on the lines on which this meeting would proceed. The matters discussed at the lunch included a general conversation about the challenges currently facing English cricket and an equally general discussion about the possibility of successfully launching an English Twenty20 cricket tournament. To me, the county representatives seemed to be eager to know, from me firsthand, my vision of the IPL and the secret behind its success. They appeared to me to be keen to replicate it in U.K. I did not find this unusual. It is common knowledge that the IPL business model has been the subject of various case studies and research papers, inter alia, at Stanford University, Columbia University, Indian School of Business and London School of Economics. In such circumstances, if some counties wanted to meet me in person to understand the general business model of the IPL, there was nothing wrong or unauthorised in meeting them. When the IPL was launched, I had myself closely studied the functioning of other sporting leagues and extensively interacted with persons connected therewith, so as to benefit from their experiences; draw from their strengths; and learn from their mistakes. If others desired to do what I had done before and if I reciprocated (as others had done to me before), this could hardly be considered unusual, let alone objectionable. In the past, Mr. James Sutherland the Chief Executive of Cricket Australia, Mr. Nassim Ashraf, Chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, the Sri Lankan Board; the United States Cricket Board; Cricket South Africa Board; West Indies Board; and Bangladesh Cricket Board had also sent representatives to participate in the planning stages of the IPL or to meet me and learn from the process. As a part of these casual discussions I explained to them the IPL structure and its revenue model and the factors which, to my mind, had contributed to its success. We also generally discussed the possibility of whether, notwithstanding the earlier failed attempt, a twenty20 format cricket tournament could be successfully implemented in England. However, this was really a very general discussion on how things might develop in the future and benefit English cricket. They wanted my views on what factors were absolutely imperative if Twenty20 cricket had to succeed in the UK and I explained to them that these were (a) correct leveraging of media right contracts; (b) clear and free calendar window for the tournament; (c) full international player availability. Of these, (b) and (c) of necessity, required the concurrence of ECB and/or Governing Bodies. We also discussed my relationship with Mr. Clarke and my experiences with him on several matters or issues. I emphatically state that I did not make any presentations at the lunch as alleged. I did not put forth any proposal or proposition on the table, as alleged nor did I offer any deal structure, as alleged. I made no commitments nor offered any assurances or guarantees or financial inducements, on behalf of the IPL or any franchisee, as alleged. There was no secret proposal or secret agenda or anything underhand, as alleged/suggested. The lunch ended with my extending an invitation to the counties to experience the IPL final. There was no conclusive or concrete outcome of the meeting, as no outcome was contemplated or intended.
24. The allegations that we discussed plans to create a new rebel league in England or destroy world cricket structure and/or especially that in England or remove board powers or involve players in an unheard of fashion are all incorrect and false. Nothing at the said lunch meeting can even be remotely described as a threat to the authority of the ECB or the structure of world cricket. I did not moot the idea of a parallel IPL to be conducted with the existing IPL Franchisees, in the UK. The allegations that I offered inducements to gather the support of other counties to my idea of expanding the IPL in England and Wales, are equally incorrect and false.
25. I deny that I attempted to interfere with the internal affairs of the ECB. I deny that I offered inducements to obtain the support of the rest of the counties to my ideas or that I goaded them to overpower their own governing bodies. I deny that I planted any seed of thought of player revolt, as alleged. I emphatically deny having made any of the statements in the first two paragraphs of page 3 of the Show Cause Notice. I may have generally commented upon the fact that the success of the IPL might result in franchisees getting more involved and players becoming more conscience of their true worth. This can hardly be described as threatening the structure of international cricket or the authority of the governing bodies or suggesting that the franchisees or players would prevail over them. The manner in which, this is recorded in the email dated 31st March 2010, is not correct.
26. What is stated above, is in fact borne out by an informed and contextual reading of the email dated 31st March 2010, which I am separately dealing with herein below.
EMAIL DATED 31ST MARCH 2010
27. Large part of the email dated 31st March 2010 do not correctly reflect the discussions that took place over the casual lunch. The email dated 2nd May 2010 and the Show Cause Notice, have completely misread and misunderstood the contents of the email dated 31st March 2010. The email dated 31st March 2010 does not purport to be Minutes of any meeting, as alleged. The email dated 31st March 2010, was not even addressed to me and was neither seen nor approved by me. Had this been done, I would have recorded my version of what transpired. I cannot therefore be assumed to have accepted the correctness of what is stated therein. The email dated 31st March 2010 was clearly intended to be no more than a feedback by a representative of one county to others, of his assessment or understanding of the meeting and the possible effect of matters discussed during the lunch meeting on the structure of the English Twenty20 cricket. The county representatives clearly desired that a Twenty20 tournament be successfully launched in the UK and hence some element of exhortative over enthusiasm in the reporting back of what happened was but natural. It seems that the county represntatives who addressed the said email was trying to sell the 2020 idea to other counties and this may have led to his exaggerating and of over marketing what actually transpired. Perhaps this is why the email was not marked to me or IMG.
28. "The vision" referred to in the email was the vision of the English counties and not my vision, as alleged. This is evident from a bare reading of the same. A bare reading of "the vision" as set out in the email, clearly falsifies the allegations in the Show Cause Notice and email dated 2nd May 2010 of Mr. Clarke that I was propounding "the vision" of IPL expanding into England and Wales. The email dated 31st March 2010, itself, clearly records that the ten Indian Franchisees would be offered a 'first option' to bid for the ten new English and Wales Franchisees and if they did not show any interest, the English Franchisees would be offered to other bidders and/or the open market. The very premise of English Franchisees being acquired by persons in the open market, completely demolishes the argument that at the meeting, the vision of IPL expanding into England and Wales was discussed.
29. The email dated 31st March 2010 expressly records that "In order to get to this point then the ICC & member governing bodies must be convinced that they should allocate the two time windows above as a priority before any international fixtures are scheduled. Then everything else needs to be built around this". This makes it abundantly clear that the vision of the English counties, discussed in the email dated 31st March 2010 was within the framework of the ICC and the governing bodies and not a framework which threatened the supremacy of the governing bodies or contemplated the creation of any form of rogue or unauthorised cricket. The allegations in this behalf in the Show Cause Notice, and the email dated 2nd May 2010 are therefore falsified by the email dated 31st March 2010.
30. The "Deal Structure" referred to in the email dated 31st March 2010, was not a deal structure propounded or proposed or offered by me. I understand the email dated 31st March 2010, to mean that this was the "Deal Structure" which the English counties had in mind. That this "Deal Structure", was theirs and not mine/IPL's, is clear from the fine print in the deal structure set out in the email. This is very different and/or inconsistent with the IPL (example 50% of a franchisee being a UK based shareholder; an auction process for buying franchisees).
31. The allegations in the Show Cause Notice and the email dated 2nd May 2010, that I on behalf of the IPL offered any Guarantees or inducements to the English counties to obtain their support for my "vision" of expanding the IPL into England and Wales are also misconceived. If the email dated 31st March 2010 is seen in its entirety and its contents are seen in context, it will be clear that the words "IPL would GUARANTEE NOW" is not a reference to any guarantee or assurance either from me or IPL but merely a statement that if IPL model were to be replicated, this would ensure/guarantee that each county (English county) could expect to between US$ 3 million to US$ 5 million. Just to refresh everyone's mind our model delivers to ours state associations upwards of the said amount due to the IPL every year. The email was addressed by a representative of a county to other county representatives (and not to me) and therefore contained their assessment and perception of the financial benefits that would flow from replicating the IPL model in the English Twenty 20. This has to be seen in the background of the fact that a previous attempt to launch a Twenty20 tournament in England by following a different model, had failed.
32. The allegations in the Show Cause Notice and email dated 2nd May 2010 that I was involved and/or concerned in creating an unauthorised league or setting up a plan to destroy the structure of world cricket, have greatly pained me. My effort to curb ICL, which was a rebel league, is well known and well documented and needs no repetition. I have myself been a stickler for norms when it came to official cricket, and the Hon. President has been present with me at various meetings which we held with ICC regarding ICL in which Mr. Clarke was also present. In respect of ICL, I always held that Governing Bodies in cricket cannot grant permission to private parties to operate other than within the official fold. In fact, I have always stood for supremacy of ICC and domestic cricket boards and it was for this reason that I had always opposed any recognition for ICL and other unofficial cricket events. The same are well documented and minuted and notes from the participants who attended such meetings in the year 2008-09 with the Honorary President along with me were sent to various cricket administrators worldwide, including Mr. Clarke. This shows that I have been all for integrity and control of the Governing Bodies and have been instrumental in persuading ICC to formulate its policy towards this objective and provide regulatory regimes with need to have control of Governing Body in each country and protect the game of cricket at home and away. In fact, even the IPL has been structured in a manner that players can only be taken in by the Franchisees after obtaining their respective Board's approval. To even suggest that I would hold out a plan which seems to destroy the world cricket structure or impinge upon the control of various Governing Bodies in their respective countries is not only farfetched but is clearly false to the knowledge of all concerned including Mr. Giles Clarke and the Hon. President. I have consistently taken an unambiguous, unqualified and though stand, when it came to unauthorised cricket. In fact, all through-out, I am the one who has taken an unambiguous and unqualified stand in respect of unauthorized cricket. In fact, when one of the Rajasthan Royal shareholder held a meeting with Sheikh Nahyans in respect of a contemplated Arab League I severely reprimanded him. I told him that I am custodian for Indian cricket and I would not allow a franchisee to do something which is in breach of the agreement. I also sent a mail to promoters of Rajasthan Royals with copy marked to BCCI-IPL lawyers John Loffhagen and Andrew Wildblood of IMG, saying that if the said shareholder directly or indirectly associates with any form of unauthorized cricket we would have to take action against them.
33. The allegation in the Show Cause Notice that I sought to challenge the authority of the BCCI and the ECB is completely misconceived. It is alleged that I gave inducement to members of the ECB, in order to start a parallel world administrative body, overwhelming the existing governing bodies viz. BCCI, ECB as well as other national cricket board, apart from the ICC itself is also wholly misconceived. The mail of Mr. Regan does not even faintly suggest any such challenge to either the authority of the ECB or the BCCI. On the contrary the email clearly states "in order to get to this point then the ICC and member governing bodies must be convinced that they should allocate the two time windows above as a priority before any international fixtures are scheduled. Then everything else needs to be built around this."
34. The Show Cause Notice further alleges that the IPL would henceforth literally shift to the hands of the franchisees and the respective national governing bodies would be forced to watch helplessly, while the game and their powers of administration, are hijacked. There is nothing in the email of Mr. Regan to suggest such a thing. On the contrary the said email states: "Modi wants the balance between the club and the country to be negotiated sensibly rather than everyone falling out."
35. The allegations in the Show Cause Notice that a presentation was made to the constituents of the ECB and to add credibility to it, I involved two senior most executives of IMG to support my "diabolical design", are all completely incorrect and false. Nothing in the email of Mr. Regan can even remotely suggest that it was I who had invited the ECB counties or that any presentation / representation was made by me or that I had involved IMG officials. On the contrary, it was the ECB county representatives, who got in touch with IMG and requested them to arrange for a meeting with me. Thus, the Show Cause Notice is completely based on mere presumptions and surmises and conjectures which you have liberally invoked to justify the issuance of this Show Cause Notice. Consequently, all the facts stated therein are completely false. At the cost of repetition, I say that there was no presentation at all given by me, and only general and broad discussions as to how IPL model could be replicated in England was discussed. The IPL, which itself is a creation of the BCCI has always complied with the governing bodies and the ICC and has opposed any tournament, which was not official and/or officially recognised. To suggest that the IPL model if replicated in England would strike at the foundation of the way cricket is administrated and played across the world (as suggested in the Show Cause Notice is completely false and preposterous.
36. The allegation in the Show Cause Notice that I had called the meeting without any authority from the Governing Council or Working Committee of the BCCI is completely in the air and without any basis. I repeat and reiterate that it was not I who had called for any meeting. In fact there was no formal meeting. We had lunch together. The persons who attended it, did so without any specific agenda. It was nothing but an informative talk which I had with them. There was neither any embargo on me nor did I require any prior approval of the BCCI and or the governing council for an exchange of ideas, which I actually had, especially when I was not dealing with any confidential or sensitive information. Had something tangible emerged out of such a meeting, for the IPL-BCCI or its franchisees, I would have been the first to call the Honorary President and the Governing Council informing them about the same. Therefore, the entire allegation, in this regard, has no sequitur.
37. The allegation in the Show Cause Notice that I sought to divide governing bodies and the players and sought to undermine the BCCI's relationship with other governing bodies is completely without any basis whatsoever. Rather the email of Mr. Clarke has spun out of his personal animus qua me. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the relations between the ECB and the BCCI. In fact, to quote the email of Mr. Regan in this regard -"India see England as the PIVOTAL partner in a Northern hemisphere/Southern hemisphere deal"- obviously, referring to India and England's governing bodies, in the sport of cricket.
38. The allegation in the Show Cause Notice that I told the attendees of the meeting that the respective cricket boards would loose their will to prevent this trend, particularly if a parallel test match and ODI structure could be commenced under the aegis of the IPL is completely absurd since it is public knowledge that the IPL is a sub-committee of the BCCI and not separate from it and therefore the allegation in this regard, is inherently improbable.
39. The insinuation that I suggested to the county executives that due to lucrative media rights deals coming their ways, the Governing Bodies of the respective cricket boards would lose their will to prevent "these plans" is also completely baseless and/out of context. While I have not made any such statements, it has been an endeavour of all governing bodies of the sport world over to enhance revenue generations to create better sporting infrastructure and facilities and in player interest. Even the email of Mr. Regan states "the key will be to replace lost revenues with new revenues as we go toward."
40. The allegations that I challenged the loyalties of the players by implying that they would play for money rather than their county, is completely false and baseless. I deny having made any such comments/statements with regard to player loyalties at the meeting.
41. The allegation in the Show Cause Notice that I offered inducement to the county members of the ECB is also completely incorrect and false. In fact, the figures of US $ 3 million to US$ 5 million appearing in the email of Mr. Regan appears to be the internal assessment of the county representatives in respect of the benefits which could potentially accrue to them, by following the IPL model in England. I have not discussed anything, at the meeting, which was to create and/or could create any official burden either on the IPL and/or its franchisees. There could not have been any basis for the IPL to make any financial commitment without a quid-pro-quo. The email of Mr. Regan nowhere states, as to what the role of the IPL/BCCI would be in the alleged English Twenty20 or what they stood to gain in this enterprise or what was their involvement otherwise in the model set out by Mr. Regan. If the IPL was not involved as an agency in execution of English Twenty20, there was no occasion and need for the IPL to guarantee any payment. Even if there was any decision which was to be taken by me concerning the IPL, I would have got it pre-approved, at the very least from hon. President of the BCCI and thereafter would have taken any decision only after and/or the approval of the governing council. Since neither a decision was contemplated, nor the IPL was committed in any manner whatsoever, there was no requirement for these things.
42. The allegation that I intended to plant seeds of revolt is also completely false and baseless, since even the IPL model which the counties wanted to represent did not allow any players to participate in the competition, without prior approval/permission from their respective governing bodies/Boards, and therefore, this allegation also makes no sense whatsoever.
43. I reiterate that the facts set out in the Show Cause Notice and the email dated 2nd May 2010 of Mr. Clarke are a complete distortion. Consequently there was no presentation whatsoever to constituents of the ECB to strike at the very foundation at the way cricket is administered and played across the world and/or otherwise. I deny that the facts set out in the Show Cause Notice and the email dated 2nd May 2010, in any manner whatsoever shows that the same challenges not just the authority of the BCCI, but also the ECB and suggested that the IPL would henceforth literally shift to the hands of the Franchisees and the respective National Governing Bodies would be forced to watch helplessly while the game and their powers of administrations are hijacked.
44. I also deny that by my conduct I have undermined in a manner whatsoever the BCCI's relationship with the ECB and also the position of respect and power in world cricket, the BCCI.
45. I deny that I have endangered the interests of the Board and the game of cricket, sought to drive Governing Bodies and their players by means of false inducements and also disrupt the smooth relationship between the board and IPL franchisees.
46. In the aforesaid circumstances, I submit that there is no merit whatsoever in the allegations sought to be raised against me in the Second Show Cause Notice.
47. The manner in which, on completely flimsy and frivolous grounds, a Show Cause Notice has been issued shows the prejudged, premeditated and biased mind set with which the Hon. Secretary is working. The fact that Hon. Secretary had chosen to act on the basis of an email which was merely a perception of the sender with no confirmation or acknowledgement at any stage by me itself shows that the 2nd Show Cause Notice has been issued on flimsy and/or non-existent grounds. In my reply to the first Show Cause Notice I h
48. ad indicated that you and the President should recuse yourselves from proceedings pursuant to 1st Show Cause Notice. In the application that I have moved subsequently, I have submitted that even for determining whether the cause shown by me is sufficient or not in terms of Article 32(iv) of the BCCI Rules and Regulations an independent panel in terms of the application must be appointed. Your second Show Cause Notice, in fact reaffirms what I have said. I therefore pray that the President recuse himself and the Honorary Secretary be excluded and my reply be sent to an independent panel to be appointed by BCCI for consideration.
Lalit Kumar Modi
Chairman and Commissioner IPL (suspended)
Mr. Shashank Manohar,
Board for Control of Cricket in India,
To Members of IPL GC members