The red herring and the salt-shaker

At first, Jagmohan Dalmiya's salvo at the Global Cricket Corporation (GCC), and its marketing arm in India, Nimbus, appears to be a classic red herring. Dalmiya is in troubled waters regarding the GCC's reparation claim to the International Cricket Council (ICC). The ICC had promised the GCC, which represents the sponsors of the event, something it did not own and could not deliver - the players' commercial rights. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had taken the onus for this on itself by signing the Participating Nations Agreement (PNA). Naturally, they could not deliver, and the GCC, quite rightly, wants reparation.

Now that Dalmiya's friend and former lieutenant, Ehsan Mani, has taken over at the ICC, he may not wish to take issue with them. Attacking the GCC - or, in this case, Nimbus - is the obvious thing to do if Dalmiya is trying to deflect blame for the contracts fiasco. So is his assault on Nimbus just a cheap attempt to muddy the waters?

Perhaps it is; but maybe it's not. The GCC had won the marketing rights to the ICC events in question, despite bidding over US$100 million less than the highest bidder, Zee, because they stressed on the quality of their marketing. They would not merely sell TV rights, they said, but market the game of cricket itself and expand its reach. If their promises of marketing the event well were the clincher in the deal, then the value given by the ICC to their marketing ability must be presumed to be worth a significant amount - if not the amount by which they fell short of Zee's bid.

Had the GCC then not marketed the event as well as they had promised, the ICC - and its constituents - would have a valid bone to pick, similar to the one the GCC is picking with the contracts issue. And if the BCCI were to choose to take action on this, where would they announce this intention? Obviously, at the ongoing BCCI working committee meeting. Thus there is nothing suspicious about the timing of Dalmiya's statements - if he has a valid case.

Dalmiya has spoken with pride in the past of how the BCCI's workings are transparent, and it is incumbent upon him now to back up his claims against the GCC and Nimbus with some details. What does he mean by the "poor marketing" that he refers to? What was the GCC supposed to do, in marketing terms, which they did not do? What commercial value does the BCCI ascribe to this failing of the GCC? Having fired a salvo, Dalmiya must back it up - or risk his red herring being taken with a pinch of salt.