India Ready To Boycott World Cup

Entertainment Cricket and Other Sports
61

http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/JAN/120083_IND_10JAN2003.html

Indian cricketers sign World Cup contracts
Staff Reporter - 10 January 2003

The face-off between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the International Cricket Council (ICC) was somewhat alleviated today with all 15 members of the World Cup squad signing the Player Terms contract for the tournament well ahead of the January 14 deadline.

But the players have still expressed disagreement with a few controversial clauses, dealing with image rights, that prohibit any rival advertising for one month before and after the tournament.

The cricketers are willing to persuade their sponsors not to air conflicting advertisements during the World Cup, and signed the contract only to that effect after making their position on the contentious issues clear.

“We are in contact with the BCCI. We have told the ICC what our problems are. We have given our terms and conditions. There are certain areas that need to be looked into,” Sourav Ganguly told the Press Trust of India (PTI).

“We all feel that, at the end of the day, it’s got to be an adjustment from both the sides. It can never be one-sided, whether it is the players or the ICC,” said Ganguly. “We have made our statement clear… this is what we can do and this is what we can’t. The rest is up to them.”

62

yawwwn

Big surprise :rolleyes:

There wasn’t a chance in hell of India boycotting the WC.

63

Well, what happened to your conspiracy theories - “India is scared of playing pakistan that’s why they are not signing the contracts” :hehe:

64

And guess who was boasting that ICC will be brought to its knees. :rotfl:

65

I guess you have not been watching news lately. Here are the list of concessions ICC made to BCCI and Indian players :-

http://www-usa2.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2002/DEC/109695_ICC_19DEC2002.html

66

yawan

so when are they going to boycott not playing any where else but in their back yard :hehe:

67

:hehe:

Kia howa 2nd string team nahee bhaije ee AQ and Asif Uncle ? Again air is out of balloon ? aap logoon nay zoor nahee deya “bycott” per ? As far as i remember ICC didnt make any more concession from the day this dispute grows up agian (around late december). :wink:

Now a serious note.
I m happy that they are in the tourney. Indians are to good to be left out liken bus hasee zara AQ, Asif_k and Some1 uncle k purney posts parh parh ker aatee hay. Wo money power ka keya howa ? wo bringing ICC on knees ka keya howa ? any answer ? :slight_smile:

Truth from day one is that contract terms are wrong but thats not the only truth another truth is that India has signed the contract in its original terms. So India should honor its commitment.

68

Nakhrey Wali Tai - Since you said this issue started around late December - aur aapko mere posts padh kar hasee aati hai - Agar aap 1 December se le kar kal tak (infact until this thread) ek bhi post is topic par dikha de then I will stop coming to Gupshup. Main bhi to jara dekhun aapko mere kaun se comments pe itni hansi a rahi hai…

ABOUT the Indians signing the contract - Did you check this latest story on BBC :hehe: :rotfl:

Let me quote the first line of that report :-

**Indian stars ‘delete clause’ **

“*India’s cricketers have signed their World Cup playing contracts but without agreeing to the controversial clause preventing them from keeping deals with personal sponsors, reports say. *” :hehe:

PS - Next time you laugh at my comments make sure you actually read them here and not in your dreams :hehe:

69

:hehe:

Thats like khisyani billi khamba nochey :slight_smile:
Ager aisey hee sign kerna tha tu there was nothing to make a issue out of this.

Ever heard of “face saving” ? :wink:

70

NW, Read this…and dont laugh too much. :wink:

http://www.wisden.com/news/news.asp?colid=44120679

The Indian players selected for the World Cup have signed the ICC player contracts, but only after deleting the controversial clauses. These included the terms relating to image rights. **The signing of the contracts is not indicative of any progress in the contracts crisis, as they still haven’t agreed to the disputed terms. **

Confirming this Rajiv Shukla, the BCCI Spokesman, said: ““I am told the players have deleted the clauses pertaining to sponsorships. The BCCI has already told the International Cricket Council (ICC) that it cannot force its players to forego existing deals with companies which are not the tournament’s official sponsors.”

Sourav Ganguly said that the players had already communicated their stand on the issue to ICC. “We have told ICC what our problems are. We have given our terms and conditions. There are certain areas that need to be looked into,”

He said that the players were wiiling to persuade their sponsors not to air conflicting advertisements only during the World Cup to be played in Africa from February 8 to March 23. They were also not willing to let their images be used by the official sponsors for three months after the event.

“We all feel, at the end of the day, it’s got to be an adjustment from both the sides,” Ganguly said. “It can never be one-sided, whether it is the players or ICC. We’ve made our statement clear that this is what we can do and this is what we can’t. The rest is up to them.”

ICC had earlier turned down the Indian board’s request for non-binding mediation on the matter, citing “paucity of time” as their reason for doing so. This went contrary to a mandatory clause (31.4.c) in the Participating Nations Agreement. They now reportedly want the matter to be resolved by the Court of Arbitration for Sports in Lausanne, Switzerland.

That ICC’s agreement with its sponsors has space for negotiation is evident in the fact that it set a January 14 deadline for the players to sign their contracts, in effect allowing a contravention of the clause that non-official endorsements have to cease 30 days before the tournament starts on February 8. But further negotiation may come at a cost.

The Global Cricket Corporation (GCC), which has sole marketing rights for the event, has reportedly agreed to revise the sponsors’ agreement with ICC on the condition that US$ 100 million be reduced from the total sponsorship amount of US$ 550 million. With ICC on dubious legal grounds, having sold something – the players’ commercial rights – which it did not own, a commercial compromise seems the likeliest way out of this impasse.

71

Well if they dont agree to the terms why are they doing drama of signing the contract ? :)

Even a kindergarten kid knows that this is not how you sign contracts. You cant just cut out some terms from a contract and sign the remaining ones without other party agreeing to it.

There was a simple solution just dont sing it because it still means that they didnt signed it. dont you think so ? I guess they are lining up for bollywood ;)

72

Bechari - Now doesn’t believe BBC and Wisden :slight_smile: Khambhe se neeche utar jao chachi jaan :hehe: .

AQ bhai - kya haalat ho gayee hai ab inki yaar…they are accusing BBC and wisden as well.

NW Chachi jaan read this and weep :-
(Now dont say that you dont believe that either :hehe: )
Indians sign ICC contracts, but reject controversial clauses

AUCKLAND, New Zealand: The World Cup contracts row intensified on Friday after India’s cricketers signed the contentious terms without accepting the controversial ambush marketing clauses, officials said.

Sourav Ganguly’s men, currently touring New Zealand, signed the players’ terms and mailed them back to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) ahead of the January 14 deadline.

BCCI spokesman Rajiv Shukla said the players had not accepted the clauses which prohibited them from endorsing non-official sponsors 30 days before and five days after the World Cup. “I am told the players have deleted the clauses pertaining to sponsorships,” Shukla said. “The BCCI have already informed the International Cricket Council (ICC) that we can’t force our players to forego existing deals with companies which are not the tournament’s official sponsors.”

Ganguly said the players’ stand had already been explained in detail to the ICC. “We are in contact with the BCCI,” Ganguly said. “We’ve informed the ICC what our problems are. We have given our terms and conditions. There are certain areas that need to be looked into,” the Indian captain said.

The players are apparently willing to persuade their sponsors not to air conflicting advertisements only during the World Cup to be played in Africa from February 8 to March 23. They are also not willing to let their images be used by the official sponsors for three months after the event.

“We all feel at the end of the day, it’s got to be an adjustment from both sides,” Ganguly said. “It can never be one-sided, whether it is the players or the ICC. We’ve made our statement clear that this is what we can do and this is what we can’t. The rest is up to them.”

The ICC, already burdened by growing fears of playing in Zimbabwe who co-host the World Cup with South Africa and Kenya, reportedly want the matter to be resolved by the Court of Arbitration for Sports in Lausanne, Switzerland.

By setting a January 14 deadline, the ICC have negated their own ruling that non-official endorsements have to cease 30 days before the tournament starts on February 8. But any further concessions by the ICC or the official tournament sponsors, as demanded by India, are unlikely.

A similar row erupted before the ICC Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka in September, but the ICC waived the sponsorship rule to allow India’s best players to take part. "We decided then to co-operate fully, thinking there will be time for the ICC after Champions Trophy to sort it out. But the situation has remained the same.

“There are certain restrictions on us. We’ve our existing contracts and it is illegal to break them.”

The Indian captain said he was confident the issue would be settled before the World Cup. “We’ve told them about our problems and know that at the end of the day something is going to happen because the game will go on and it has always gone ahead,” Ganguly said. “Something will happen for us to participate in the World Cup. I’ve never thought about that danger (of not participating), but obviously some adjustments have to be made.”

http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/jan2003-daily/11-01-2003/sports/s1.htm

73

Contract signing more of a tactical move

KOLKATA: The Indian players’ “acceptance” of the Player Terms can well be a tactical move rather than a final resolution of the ICC contract impasse. The dispute, according to indications available, may still be referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne though neither the ICC or BCCI have contacted the Swiss tribunal so far as per information available with The Times of India.

Only last week, the ICC has flouted a mandatory clause (31.4.c) contained in the Participating Nations Agreement when it refused to oblige a BCCI request for “non-binding mediation” in South Africa due to a “paucity of time.” With the January 14 deadline for lodging the Player Terms fast approaching, the Indian board has lobbed the ball back on ICC’s court - wanting them to actually ‘bar’ India from the World Cup. The BCCI, it may be recalled, had earlier met the December 31 deadline regarding naming the final squad. The CAS is an independent body that rules on sports disputes and is a realistic option to clean up the mess that is jeopardizing India’s participation in the World Cup. Should the ICC-BCCI row end up in Lausanne, it would be the first ever instance of a cricket case to be decided by the CAS.

Once a written request is received from both parties, a three-person committee is set up. From a list of 150 arbitrators that CAS has on its books, the tribunal and one each by the disputing parties select one. The BCCI is already exploring this list, it is learnt. Incidentally, much will depend on Global Cricket Corporation’s (it has the sole marketing rights as per the Cricket Events Agreement signed with the ICC) role in the imbroglio as ICC seems under pressure from member nations to rake in every bit of the $550 million that the sponsors have promised to shell out. Asked if the GCC has agreed to revise the deal with ICC by reportedly slashing over $ 100m from the guaranteed sum, Harish Thawani, co-chairman of GCC’s Indian arm World Sport Nimbus said: “It’s pure speculation to put any figure like that.

As far as we are concerned, the idea is to find a long term solution.” Asked if players’ acceptance of the Player Terms can pave the way for a solution, he said: “It’s really between the ICC and BCCI and the latter. We have an open mind though and are ready to enter any kind of negotiations, provided we are made a party.”

74

Here

ICC receive “altered” Indian World Cup contracts

LONDON (Reuters) - The International Cricket Council (ICC) say they received signed but “altered” World Cup contracts from India on Tuesday, continuing the confusion over whether the players have agreed to play in the tournament starting next month.

“The IDI (world cricket body’s marketing arm) confirmed today that it has received the signed but altered Player Terms contracts from the Board of Control for Cricket in India,” said ICC corporate affairs manager Brendan McClements.

“The ICC Cricket World Cup Contracts Committee will meet later this week to discuss whether the altered contracts will be accepted.”

The Indian board announced last week that all 15 squad members had signed up for the February 9 to March 23 event in South Africa but were still unhappy about some terms relating to sponsorships.

The long-running dispute and the receipt of “altered” contracts could yet see India’s players boycotting the World Cup.

The players, who make more money through endorsements than through match fees, are opposed to ICC demands that they freeze personal advertising before, during and after the tournament so as not to clash with official World Cup sponsors.

Jagmohan Dalmiya, head of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), said last week the players were “extremely keen to participate” but said he was not sure if their “qualified signatures” would end the impasse.

BCCI secretary Karunakaran Nair, however, told Reuters by phone from Trivandrum on Tuesday: “The players’ objections…have been recorded while signing.”

Should the ICC be unhappy with the contracts, the issue could end up in the Lausanne-based Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), an independent body set up to rule on sporting issues, for a binding ruling.

The ICC has made some concessions to India’s players over their image rights in an attempt to end the row which also threatened India’s participation in the Champions Trophy in September. India’s players eventually played in that event, sharing the title with Sri Lanka.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The war is not over yet :nook:

75

http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/JAN/125626_AAP_22JAN2003.html

Delhi High Court backs Indian cricketers in contract dispute

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday ordered the government not to release foreign exchange to sponsors if India is banned from taking part in next month’s cricket World Cup, reports said.

The court, ruling on a public interest litigation filed by former cricket great Kapil Dev and five others, said the tournament sponsors should also be restrained from telecasting advertisements on Indian channels.

The order is, however, unlikely to be enforced amid reports that the International Cricket Council (ICC) will allow India’s leading players to take part in the World Cup despite changing the terms of their contracts.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is expected to announce later today whether it will agree to the compromise proposed by the ICC.

Kapil, a former World Cup-winning captain, had moved the Delhi High Court last week to ensure India’s top cricketers took part in the tournament to be played in Africa from February 8 to March 23.

**In the event of the players being banned, the litigation wanted the finance ministry to withdraw all tax benefits to the tournament’s official sponsors hailing from India.

At least three of the four major World Cup sponsors - Pepsi, Hero Honda and LG Electronics - have major interests in the lucrative Indian market. **

Some of India’s best known lawyers, former law minister Arun Jaitley, Kapil Sibal and Harish Salve, argued the litigation on behalf of Kapil and the other plaintiffs.

**ICC sources in London told AFP yesterday that Indian players could take part in the World Cup, but the ICC will not release the Cup bonus of “eight to nine million dollars” due to India until the dispute was resolved after the tournament.

Sources also warned that if the BCCI failed to pay any compensation arising from its players’ altered contracts, it would be suspended from the ICC and so become a rebel cricket nation. **

India’s entire World Cup squad objected to the ICC ruling which prohibits players from endorsing non-official sponsors before, during and after the World Cup.

76

the Dec 25th issue regarding BCCI and ICC has been resolved btw...so india IS playing the Wcup...n getting a severe beating pakistan k haathoon :)