Live Score
Cricket Teams
Cricket PlayersEdulji reminds Rai how timelines were changed to appoint Shastri; Calls women coach Raman’s selection illegal
But CoA chief Rai has made it clear that with the team leaving for the tour of New Zealand on January 15, it is important to approve Raman’s professional fee at the earliest.
With the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) naming WV Raman as the next women’s coach, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Santosh Rangnekar had sent a mail to Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) asking for their approval with regards to approval of the professional fee to be given to the newly appointed coach. But this has led to further discord in the CoA.
CoA member Diana Edulji has in a strongly-worded letter warned the board against making any move that could see them being accused of causing a notional loss to the BCCI and asked Raman to be sent to New Zealand as interim coach and let the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) select a new coach.
“The CEO & yourself in the past had changed/extended timelines for an individual who eventually became the head coach of men’s team, then how is it that you have suddenly found it difficult to give time to CAC which comprises of great legends the country has known (Sourav Ganguly, Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman) or extend the contract of the coach Ramesh Powar. Please recall the time when the men’s team went without a coach to West Indies and late Doc Sridhar was asked to be with the team, as timelines were extended and CAC was allowed to complete its process of selecting a coach,” she wrote in her letter to chief Vinod Rai, accessed by Hindustan Times.
But CoA chief Rai has made it clear that with the team leaving for the tour of New Zealand on January 15, it is important to approve Raman’s professional fee at the earliest.
In his reply to Edulji, accessed by Hindustan Times, Rai wrote: “I have deliberated on all aspects of the issue. In the absence of the availability of the regular CAC it was necessary to constitute an ad hoc committee comprising of equally distinguished cricketers such as Kapil Dev, Anshuman Gaekwad and Shantha Rangaswamy (whose name was proposed by Diana in preference to that of Shubhangi Kulkarni).
“The said ad hoc committee has selected three names for appointment as the new coach. The first among these, Gary Kirsten, could not agree to join due to conflict of interest. Hence, it was necessary to appoint WV Raman who was the ad hoc committee’s second choice as the coach. He happens to be associated with the NCA, which is a tremendous plus point. His selection has been universally acclaimed as an excellent choice. The team need to prepare for the women’s world cup. It would be unfair to subject the team to further uncertainty with ad hoc coaches.”
Rai went on to add that it was important to finish the appointment of Raman as the team can then get used to the working style of the new coach. He went on to add that if the coach is given new responsibility, Raman also needed to be remunerated accordingly.
“We need to take a decision on concluding the contract with Raman as we did with the Indian senior team last year, so that the team and coach can settle down with each other. That decision is paying dividends as the team is doing well. Likewise also it was considered appropriate to do coach selection sufficiently early.
“If we have to give additional and long term responsibilities to the new coach, he will have to be appropriately compensated. Even the amount proposed by the CFO is in the range of what BCCI pays to the assistant coaches of the senior team. It is thus very fair.
Since the team is due to leave for Australia/New Zealand on 15th January, we cannot delay finalisation and execution of the contract any longer,” he said.
This after Edulji said that the CAC wanted more time and it was factually inaccurate to say that they weren’t available to pick the new coach. She went on to add how their requests with regards to the coaching staff for the men’s team had been ignored by Rai and the CEO and that justified their request for more time. She said that not allowing the CAC to do their job was illegal.
“It is factually incorrect for you to mention that the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) members were not available as they were quite clear in their response that they needed time and their roles defined. Their response is very much justified as they had burnt their fingers with the selection of the men’s coach last year, however, the CEO, GM - Operations and yourself decided to overlook their request.
“The reason for not allowing the authorised CAC to do their job in selecting a competent coach for women’s team and instead taking an illegal step from your end and later justifying your actions as the need of the hour and using women’s cricket as an excuse is completely uncalled for,” she wrote to Rai.
“Having represented the country and led the national team for so many years, I am sure you understand that, I have the best interest for women’s cricket in particular and BCCI in general and hence had suggested to either extend Powar’s term until CAC’s role is defined and giving them adequate time to carry out the process. We could have also appointed WV Raman as the interim coach as he is already a coach of NCA.
“Also note, that taking unilateral decisions are more detrimental to the image of BCCI and also to the appointment of COA who was appointed to ensure the implementation of the reforms.”
Earlier, in another letter, accessed by Hindustan Times, Diana had put out the numerous reasons why she was not willing to approve the process of appointing Raman the new women’s team coach as it is an illegal process and the ad hoc committee that was formed to pick the coach wasn’t as per the newly registered constitution of the BCCI.
“At the outset I wish to state that you have my disapproval and not my approval. I did not give consent for the procedure followed for the selection of the coach or the constitution of this or any other ad-hoc committee. There is a deadlock in the present matter within the CoA. With no casting vote to any of the members, there is no decision of the CoA in the matter. Your instant proposal are illegal.
“You will recall that while this process was on, the CAM legal team had expressly opined that the order of the SC had conferred no superior status or casting vote on the chairman CoA and following which you/CEO still sought a legal opinion where none was required nor any approval taken for seeking such legal opinion. Obviously, such legal opinion was sought only to overturn the CAM legal view as well as my objections on the constitutionality of the ad hoc committee’s formation,” she wrote.
She further went on to ask GM Cricket Operations Saba Karim about the need to rush with the appointment when there is a court hearing on January 17. She said that with there being a possibility of the SC clearing some of the issues within the CoA, playing the waiting game would have made more sense.
“When it is a well-known fact that the SC has fixed the next date of hearing on the 17th of January and that there is a great possibility that a resolution of the present situation of a deadlock in decision making within the CoA on some issues would possibly be resolved, I fail to see the reason for the haste in attempting to go through with the decision of appointing a coach, especially when the process being followed for this decision is in violation of the SC affirmed constitution of the BCCI,” she wrote.
The former India player also went on to add that with alternatives available, the move to appoint Raman hastily made little sense. “It pains me to state that since there were alternate options available even in a case where the two members of the CoA were in disagreement, it flows naturally that there was and is, absolutely no case for the invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity on behalf of the BCCI. This entire charade as it has played out, has made one wonder whether it was a ‘necessity’ only for some persons to go through with this process despite the irregularities and lack of legal sanctity,” she wrote.
The CoA co-member made it clear that she was against cancelling Raman’s present contract of Rs1 crore and handing him a new contract of Rs1.75 crore for the first year and a sum of Rs2 crore for the second year (based on performance evaluation).
“If I remember correctly, Raman is being paid about 1cr per year presently and his present contract runs till June 2019. So what you are essentially seeking my approval is for premature termination of the present contract, entering into a new contract at about more than 50 per cent the present contract value, giving my consent after the act and the process have been completed irregularly and lending validity to the entire process that I have been vociferously objecting to since the inception.
“If I was to take a decision on the basis of financial prudence alone, I would not give my approval for the same. We have to keep in mind that we are taking decisions for and on behalf of an organisation, we cannot be taking decisions which have significant financial ramifications and do not seem to be prudent or austere. Doing so could mean someone very easily accusing us of causing a notional loss to the BCCI,” she clarified.
