This is how Modi got a five-day reprieve
The Board of Control for Cricket in India did agree to Lalit Modi’s request on Monday for an extension to respond to the first show-cause notice. However, it wasn’t as smooth as you might think, reports Amol Karhadkar.cricket Updated: May 12, 2010 01:26 IST
The Board of Control for Cricket in India did agree to Lalit Modi’s request on Monday for an extension to respond to the first show-cause notice. However, it wasn’t as smooth as you might think.
The Hindustan Times has access to the demands made by Modi in his email to BCCI secretary N. Srinivasan and also the latter’s reply on Monday evening.
Modi: I have been charged with tarnishing BCCI’s image through my statements in the media and alleged misdeeds, but it’s not substantiated with proof.
Srinivasan: These communications received by the BCCI president from senior officers, committee members and others expressing their concern about tarnishing the image of the BCCI and the game of cricket were all oral communications. I am sure that even you would have been concerned at the adverse image suffered by the BCCI and the game of cricket on account of the media reports which had appeared at the time of issuance of the show-cause notice.
Modi: If any written record of consultation exists, please provide me with the same.
Srinivasan: The consultation referred to in the paragraph with the BCCI president was oral. There is no written record of the consultation.
Modi: The show-cause states I have proxy stake in 3 IPL franchisees, but there are no copies of such reports.
Srinivasan: The reports which suggest that you have proxy stakes in the three franchisees of the IPL had all appeared in the media, particularly in the electronic media. I am sure you have also seen such reports. The BCCI does not maintain a record of these media reports.
Modi: Your notice refers to the ‘register of members of Jaipur IPL cricket Pvt Ltd’. Please supply me with (a) copy of (the) same.
Srinivasan: The register of members of the Jaipur IPL Pvt. Limited will be supplied.
Modi: You stated that details have been gathered from documents apparently submitted by the Franchisee subsequent to the agreement. Kindly provide me with copies of such document.
Srinivasan: Details which have been gathered from documents submitted by the franchise subsequent to the agreement will be supplied.
Modi: Show-cause states that subtle messages were sent to corporate entities that they were unwelcome to bid. But no names or copies of messages have been provided.
Srinivasan: It was brought to the notice of the BCCI by a reliable source that such messages were given to him. Since this communication was privileged and confidential, the name of the person is being held up (sic). This information was provided orally.
Modi: It has been stated the Kochi contract had to be signed under a directive of the BCCI president. But no copies of the written directive exist.
Srinivasan: President BCCI on hearing that there was a delay in executing the contract with the Kochi franchise, orally informed you, Ms. Akhila Kaushik and Shri Sundar Raman that this was completely unfair and he wanted the contract to be signed and executed forthwith. This communication was given to you orally on telephone.
Modi: You have stated that MoU with LCM dealt with rights already committed to Nimbus with whom BCCI has an ongoing contract. Provide me agreement between BCCI-Nimbus.
Srinivasan: The copy of the agreement between Nimbus and BCCI will be supplied.
Note: The documents the BCCI promised to supply were collected by Modi’s lawyer, Mehmood Abdi, from BCCI CAO Ratnakar Shetty.