The BCCI-ICC Stand-off: 10 Points

1. Supreme Court on February 1, 2017, cleared three members nominated by the court - CoA representative Vikram Limaye, Amitabh Choudhary (BCCI joint-secretary) and Anirudh Chaudhary (Honorary Treasurer) to attend the ICC Meeting in Dubai. BCCI subsequently voted against the move to revise the revenue format, which was likely to slash its share in the funds by nearly half.
2. BCCI puts up the name of former BCCI president N. Srinivasan for their SGM. The primary issue of the six-point agenda for the meeting is the appointment of board's "representative or representatives to the meeting of International Cricket Council and/or similar conferences." The CoA, on its part, reminds the members to abide by the Lodha Committee directives.
3. The top court bench, headed by Justice Dipak Misra, said on April 17 that since Srinivasan has been held guilty by the apex court for conflict of interest, he cannot be allowed to represent the BCCI in the ICC meeting. "It is directed that Amitabh Chaudhary shall represent the BCCI in the ICC meeting and Rahul Johri shall accompany him and he (Johri) will also attend the meetings of the CEOs'," the bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, said.
4. The BCCI misses the ICC's April 25 deadline to name the Indian team for the ICC Champions Trophy, to be played in the UK from June 1. "Tell me one thing, if we name the squad, say for example on May 5, will ICC bar us from participation. We have a settled squad and naming it is a mere formality," a top BCCI official told PTI. It was assumed that the squad would be named after the ICC meeting in Dubai, where the revenue sharing vote was to take place.
5. The revenue model feud continued with the BCCI rejecting outright the ICC's an additional USD 100 million in the proposed format. "Yes, ICC chairman Shashank Manohar gave us an offer of an additional USD 100 million in the new financial model. In fact, he gave us a deadline to get back to him. From our end, we won't get back to him as we don't even consider it an offer," a senior BCCI source present in Dubai, told PTI.
6. The BCCI was planning to seek deferment of the ICC's decision to reverse the Big Three format, which gave India, Australia and England the lion's share of revenues. initiated in 2014, and rejig the revenue distribution system. The CoA, it is understood, had asked BCCI to take a conciliatory stand in Dubai, while the board officials had indicated that they wouldn't be backing down.
7. 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 walloped by a 2-8 margin. The only country that voted with BCCI was Sri Lanka. "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.
8. The BCCI decides to keep 'all options open', which presumably included whether they would send a squad for the ICC Champions Trophy or give the tournament a miss. "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," a BCCI official told PTI in Dubai.
9. BCCI's share in the ICC revenue was reduced from USD 570 million for an eight-year period to a total of USD 293 million. The International Cricket Council (ICC) on April 27 declared the amounts that would go to the BCCI, as well as the other affiliated members. Based on current forecasted revenues and costs, BCCI will receive USD 293 million across the eight-year cycle, ECB (England) USD 143 million, Zimbabwe Cricket USD 94 million and the remaining seven Full Members USD 132 million each," the ICC said in a statement.
10. The BCCI has not named the team for the Champions Trophy as yet, and according to reports, they may defer it till even early May. The possibility of a boycott has not been summarily dismissed but that is a remote possibility, given that the CoA has veto rights on any decision BCCI makes. Furthermore, any possibility of not sending a team would not go down well with the cricket-loving public of India.

(With PTI inputs)