Doubts still linger about Sunny Gavaskar’s role in the Kochi franchise bid.
Was he just being helpful when he informed the Kochi consortium members about how the bidding process worked?
Should not the Kochi franchisee members have approached the BCCI for clarifications rather than a sitting member of the IPL Governing Council?
The question of propriety is yet to be answered comprehensively by the master batsman.
If the Kochi proposal is accepted by the BCCI and Sunny Gavaskar handles the newly formed team’s cricketing operations, would this not be a case of a ‘revolving door’ where Sunny has moved from a governing body to being part of a governed body?
Though the term usually applies to government and private firms, it has some relevance here as well.
Wouldn’t it have been advisable for all the participants in the drama to be more circumspect in their words and actions?
Although the Gaikwads have denied approaching Sunny during the bidding process, rumours abounded that a former cricketing legend was helping the Kochi consortium.
Gavaskar had quit the governing council specifying the change from a salaried post to a honorary one as the reason.
Sunil Manohar Gavaskar has a point there.
The IPL is a commercial enterprise with the aim of making profits. There is absolutely no reason why the council members should not be paid a remuneration for their services.
Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi , another former cricketer, opted out as well citing similar reasons.
Meanwhile, Bishan Singh Bedi has slammed Gavaskar saying that if Tharoor was forced to quit his cabinet post for similar reasons, Gavaskar can be held equally accountable for his role or non-role with the South Indian franchisee.
The IPL Governing Council convene today, the 27th of October , 2010 at 11:00 am to decide the fate of the embattled franchisee.
Gavaskar’s reported links to the Kochi bid will be just another point on the agenda.
It is very likely that the BCCI may decide to throw out the franchisee for two salient reasons:
1> The adverse press and apparent non-transparency has already invited the government’s interest and additional probes would be unwelcome to the cash-rich administrative body.
2> The franchisee has to stay together for a minimum of three years before any change in the shareholding structure can be made with the BCCI’s permission. The stand off between the two warring parties continues and this brings into question the sustainability of the franchise.
The ejection of the Kochi franchisee will have the BCCI seeking to re-hold an auction and fill up the vacant eighth slot. This has to be done after advisement from legal luminaries, a process that the BCCI has already expedited.
It seems that more and more of IPL4 will be fought in the Indian courts rather than on the cricketing field.
Quote of the day:
Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow. – Oscar Wilde