Sahara, BCCI sing different pullout tunes
Triggering off a verbal volley, Sahara on Wednesday came up with a point-wise response to the release issued by the BCCI earlier in the day. Here are some excerpts. HT reports.india Updated: May 23, 2013 02:32 IST
Triggering off a verbal volley, Sahara on Wednesday came up with a point-wise response to the release issued by the BCCI earlier in the day.
Following are some excerpts
The league governing council met with representatives of the franchise (Pune Warriors) on 21 February, 2013, and received assurances that the franchise would settle all obligations. After the deadline was over, the council sent two letters to Sahara Adventure Sports Limited requesting settlement of the overdue amount. No payment was made and no response was received to the second letter and so, in order to protect its interests, the BCCI was forced to encash the guarantee.
When we paid the first installment of the franchise fee in 2013, we urged the BCCI to resolve the issue of franchise fee before the second and final installment was due. Despite our repeated requests and BCCI's joint statement in February 2012, there was no inclination from the BCCI to resolve the issue.
While arbitration has not progressed, the BCCI cannot be held responsible since the retired judges suggested by the BCCI were not acceptable by the franchise. In order to break the impasse, a letter was sent to Sahara Adventure Sports Limited, proposing that as the claimant to the arbitration, it should approach the court to appoint an arbitrator. No response was received.
After the said letter of BCCI, Rajiv Shukla, chairman, T20 league, had a discussion with Subrata Roy, in which our chairman had suggested that we were ready to make the final installment payment and exit amicably if the league did not reduce the franchise fee. But Shukla assured our chairman to hold on and said he would resolve the issue and till then the bank guarantee would not be touched.
The BCCI has acted in accordance with its agreement with Sahara Adventure Sports Limited, and is not able to enter into a private negotiation on the quantum of the franchise fee which was offered by Sahara in its response to the invitation floated by the BCCI in March 2010.
Sahara has always acted in accordance with the franchise agreement. On the question of 'private negotiations', last year in February, when we decided to pull out of the league and India team sponsorship, senior functionaries of BCCI met us and a joint statement was worked out. Was that not a private negotiation?