The Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) towering influence in world cricket came to a screeching halt as the majority voted for a change in Governance and Revenue structures.
BCCI lost the vote on ‘governance and constitutional changes’ by a 1-9 margin while the revenue model, which was the bigger bone of contention, saw India getting only two votes in their support against eight against. The only country that voted alongside BCCI was Sri Lanka, reported Press Trust of India.
The BCCI has been adamant on getting the lion’s share out of ICC’s revenue on grounds that it contributes the most to the coffers, and is bargaining for the same figure ($570 million) that it received under the Big Three revenue model, which has now been discarded.
“Yes, the votings are over. It was 8-2 in favour of revamped revenue model and 9-1 in favour of constitutional changes,” a senior BCCI functionary present in Dubai told PTI on Wednesday.
“The BCCI has voted against both as we had, in principle, maintained that all these changes are completely unacceptable for us. At this point, we can only say that all options are open for us. We would have to go back to our SGM and apprise the members of the situation,” he added.
It was learnt that since BCCI rejected the additional $100 million pay-out in revenue, it was once again given the original option of $290 million which is a $280 million cut from the $570 million India had been getting till last year.
It was thought that the representatives of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh were in India’s favour, but apart from Sri Lanka’s vote in support of India for rejecting the revamped revenue model, nothing else went their way.
“Zimbabwe have been promised USD 19 million by the ICC. On what grounds has Manohar made this promise? But strangely Bangladesh also went the other way. Today at the meeting, Manohar, in fact, said that the USD 290 million is a ‘take it or leave it’ offer,” the official was quoted as saying.
“Now at the SGM, there were only two resolutions passed. Our representative had two mandates. Propose for deferment of the decision which was rejected. And the next option was voting against during a floor Test. Our aim was to protect India’s interest. Our tone was extremely conciliatory at the meeting for the best interest of the game. But what was shocking was Mr Manohar’s stance,” the official claimed.