At his first press conference today, Ijaz Butt, the PCB’s new chairman, made a series of startling revelations about the ICC’s discussions over the unauthorised ICL at a board meeting last week. The ICC, he said, has been warned by its lawyers of the problems ahead if it is sued by the ICL. He also spoke of plans of a possible “merger” with the IPL and of the PCB’s own possible openness to its younger ICL players returning to the national fold.
I am not sure if the talks of merger are actually talking place or its just Mr. Butt’s imagination, but I liked his views about lifting the ban on Pakistani players and taking them back in the fold for national selection. Here’s what he said:
“Our interest, which is my view also, is that we have to consider the youngsters who are playing in the ICL. While you are saying one can play and the other cannot for us they are just two leagues”. Either ban both but why is it that you are banning the ICL and not the other?”
Butt clearly expressed his own views and minced no words but was skeptical of other boards and ICC, his statement is certainly going to stir the hornets nest and might cause a friction in BCCI- PCB relations in months to come, lifting the ban on ICL players might have little consequences as BCCI hasn’t taken any action against Sri Lanka, but supporting a merger of ICL or IPL might irritate Modi & Co, IMO the merger is BCCI’s internal matter and should be handle by them only, Mr Butt should only focus on lifting the ban on Pakistani players without destroying relations with BCCI, he will have to keep the alliance in tact but will also have to fully restore the independence of PCB which was lost to an extent in his predecessors tenure.
Wasim… to start with, this is an excellent discussion… we ought to involve more of our blogger friends on this issue.
1. If the other boards and the ICL decide that it is ok to have dual employment, then the case is lost. It is wrong on the part of the BCCI to arm twist other boards on this and at the same time, deny pension, arm-twist companies in not offering employment etc. They need to be canned, stripped and beaten badly for doing such low-life measures.
2. Much of the legal complications in other countries is directly got to do with the contracts they possess. For example, there was the sole English player in the IPL and he did not need to seek permission from the ECB BUT his club! Because he was not contracted to the board.
3. Both the standford, super 6s tournaments were discussed with the ICC before starting. The ICL did not bother but went about starting it. And now it is they who are arm-twisting other boards.
4. All these boards are non-profits… the money they earn goes back to cricket… distributed to state associations etc. In this case, the ICL money goes to a businessman for his profit. To say this is for the good of cricket is a strange case… it is only good for players and the businessman. If this aspect can be explicitly resolved, then the ICL has a strong case and I would also personally welcome it.
5. If the ICC and its member boards approve the ICL then there is nothing that can be done by the BCCI. The grounds in India are not owned by the BCCI… the member associations are only the caretakers while the ownership remains with the state. It is unfair to block these grounds but the ICL can win a case to use these grounds and it is in the decision of the various state governments/courts to do so.
6. The ICL may very well be recognized by the ICC. But before they do so, they should think twice on what the consequences are in terms of future tour programs, legal complications of contracted players of the ICL clashing with mainstream cricket tours and the opening up of the opportunity of every rich businessman to make money using cricket. How will then the ICC handle this, when a multitude of individual businessman start their own tournaments for solely their gain and also the players.
7. ICC can stick together and not recognize this on the sole grounds that it is not non-profit and cricket doesn’t benefit here. By principle, they have the moral right to accept anything which helps the game, which in this case does not. If it is not recognized, respective boards can have contractual obligations that state not working at the same time for an unrecognized competitor but is free to choose any.
8. For me, if the ICL dedicates a significant portion of that money earned back to the ICC/boards (development of cricket), then there is absolutely no problem in recognizing it and supporting it.
Scorpy first of all only a few players who worked for BCCI are playing for ICL the rest are foreign players or youngsters from different clubs in India so the argument of working for two employers do not hold, BCCI is also a PVT entity which is taking all these punitive measures just to preserve its profitibility so their is really no difference between BCCI and ICl in this respect.
No newbie league can develop its own nursery of players the purpose of the leagues is to provide a professional level playing platform to the players along with commercial benefits and thats what exactly ICL is doing.
This is a misconception that a Pvt company can enforce whatever law it wants over its employees the employment laws of a country are general and apply to both public and Private companies and in the event of a conflict the law of the state prevails over the policy or law of a company whether PVT or public.
Dehli High court has already stopped two Indian companies not to fire its employees because of their association with ICL.
“The Public Sector Corporation governed by various ministries will not terminate services or take any punitive action by the reason of its employees (registered with BCCI) seeking to affiliate themselves to Indian Cricket League,” Justice Kaul said while passing an interim order.
Icl has already won against ECB, in past ECB and ICC lost a case against players who joined the rebel Packer league, same way in Australia also their has been an instance where players went to play for SA in apartheid days and were banned but latter on the players won the case.
BCCI is a privately held company and legally has no right to arm twist other companies and boards to ban players who associate with ICL, its a monopolistic practice and a practice in restraint of trade against which almost every country has a law. Probably it is also against BCCI’s own constitution, I am sure BCCI’s memorandum of Association must have the clause its main objective is to promote cricket in the country by helping and patronizing different leagues, clubs and Associations, The courts also look at general trade practices, do professional players only work for one employer or do they play in different leagues and counties in off season. Then their is a case of discriminatory practice both against ICC and BCCI, BCCI is lending and renting its stadiums to Private clubs, associations, political parties, for marriage ceremonies but is not providing it to ICL, remember the case of Microsoft against netscape and SUNMicro
it was on the same lines.
ICC on the other hand will have to defend why it granted approval to stanfords and a few other un official leagues while ICL is being discriminated their case is extremely weak.
BCCI is acting tough right now because they have time in hand the case will not be heard until almost one year, and then its a long legal battle but ICL is taking a shorter route filing a case against ICC and calling BCCI as a witness,ICC has been warned by its lawyers about the weakness of the case and ICC has requested ICL for 21 days.
In my opinion the bans will be lifted in next few months and BCCI and ICL are in for a long messy legal battle over other issues i.e discrimination.
I think it is Eisha Deol. These are not just photos they are links to youtube videos, you can click and see it.
BTW who is the chick on the left photo column
Am afraid Wasim… because if the ICL wins on those grounds then it is hypocritical.
You and I cannot work for a competitor, getting a salary here and in another company… no law explicitly allows it even though, one can say it is for the benefit of the industry on the whole. It is no different with the case of the ICL. What happens to the money generated from the ICL… does it go to cricket… no.. it goes to a single businessman.
I will appreciate ICL’s claims of promoting cricket if they “really promote” it as an alternative system.
Bottom line… if I and you have to play for the ICL, we have to be robbed from the local systems. If the ICL had a domestic system for the common man to prove his worth and participate, then all is ok. But it isn’t the case.
The most important thing is the ICC and also the member boards are private bodies not government entities… they are technically not accountable to the government on their decisions. Their laws are governed by that of a privately held company and any privately held company can easily enforce by law, the right to not work for a competitor at the same time.
They can make a case strongly if they press for the ICC then not use the explicit word of ‘representing’ country name as the team name. Maybe.
Scorpi
ICL do have a case, ICL is not selling drugs it is promoting the game of cricket, agreements in restraint of trade will not upheld in any court of law and in any country.
I think only Razzak from the ICL has a realitic chance of playing for Pakistan. But as Wasim pointed out, the rest are required for the domestic scene.
This is politics at its best wasim… the ICL has no case… period… if you and I want to play for the ICL, where do we start… ah! the alternative system… so this is nothing short of piracy for the gain of a single businessman.
Javed Miandad has become the member of PCB’s governing body. This position was previously held by Ejaz Butt.
There are very few players who will ever play International cricket may be Imran Nazir, Shahid Yousuf, Shahid Nazir or Azhar mahmood but without the rest the domestic cricket in Pakistan is almost dead.
Who are the specific players you would like to see back in the fold from ICL.
I think Imran Nazir, Farhat and Razzaq are probably the front-runners.