close
Friday March 29, 2024

PCB hides behind Aman Ki Asha to cover up its wrong decision

By Usman Manzoor
December 11, 2017

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) issued a second press release in 48 hours as a reply to The News story on lack of transparency and bidding related to sanctioning of Pakistani contracted players to a private and controversial league.

The T10 league competes with PCB’s own cricket league, Pakistan Super League (PSL), and will be played in the same venues within months of each other. “It is surprising that a media group that promotes Aman Ki Asha with India, shows Indian films and promotes the Indian Premier League (IPL) should object to the involvement of one Indian investor only in the T10 league and tar a national Pakistani brand like PSL,” a PCB press release read.

The PCB indicated the reporting was tarring a national Pakistani brand like the PSL, and had in a previous press release also called The News reporting “against national interest”.

Meanwhile, the spokesperson of the Jang Group in a statement said, “The leadership of the PCB through a press release tried to hide behind Aman Ki Asha and media conflicts narrative instead of replying to the question regarding lack of transparency and due process that Usman Manzoor’s reports bring up. The group fully support PSL by sponsoring multiple teams and promotion and also provides space for it in its sports channel as done by PTV and Ten Sports, but charges lower fees than both. If anything the reporting of Usman Manzoor is in protection of PSL. We do not have anything against any competitor starting a league or even an Indian but Aman Ki Asha does not mean that we should sell state affiliated assets for free and do it without due diligence and due process. It is for the information of PCB that Aman Ki Asha, showing of Indian films and promotion of IPL are legal under the Pakistani laws but sending PCB’s assets i.e. rights of players to play a league, without bidding is not.”

It was only after The News report that the PCB was forced to public inform that in exchange for giving Pakistani players’ rights of playing in a private

league, $400,000 was offered, indicating that the rights are an asset. The questions that some analysts, retired players and legal experts had raised were in order to get proper asset value of the Pakistani players, market evaluation and bidding should as per law.

Syed Nayyaruddin, a prominent analyst who has written to the patron of PCB, the PM, asked: “If the statement of 80 percent Pakistani shares are accepted then why ARY’s Karachi Kings’ representative wrote email to PCB opposing the league? Why Najam Sethi refused permission in the first instance? Does it mean all documents were changed later on?”

All PSL franchise holders including Karachi Kings and PCB Chairman Najam Sehti are on record saying the T10 league will hurt Pakistan’s interest and will be bad for PSL and Pakistan players should not be sent to the league. In the minutes of the 45th BoG meeting of PCB, it was agreed not to support any such venture which does not favour PSL or PCB. The PCB was aware that this event has blessings of the cricket body of host country but still decided not to support it until it benefits PSL or PCB then why in next four months, especially after a PSL franchise obtained stakes in the league, the PCB decided to lend support to this league?

In 47th BoG meeting minutes, it is stated that the PCB had hectic deliberations with the stakeholders to issue NOC to players. It is believed that the stakeholders must have serious observations against this league and therefore PCB had to adopt serious and hectic arguments to obtain their consent. However, in both press releases of the PCB, it failed to share details of specific observations raised by the stakeholders nor they released any of the minutes of those meetings.

The PCB in its press release also says: “The PCB compelled them to contract only with those who were not tied to PSL so that our revenue base would not be depleted”. A franchise owner of a PSL refused to come on record due to potential wrath of the PCB against it and said: “How can the PCB stop the PSL sponsors from supporting T10 league? In fact, one of the sponsors of the PSL teams actually now has been offered to own a team in the competing league and there are reports that the sponsor has reduced his budget if not cancelling his contract with PSL team.”

Another PSL team’s representative added: “It is not possible that a conflict of interest will not be there. It’s too close to when the PSL is happening and we can see injuries to our players and since the format is more risky for reputation and vulnerable to bookies, we should not be taking this risk. All this was discussed and the PCB chairman had agreed to it all but he overnight changed his mind for some reason,”

The PCB also stated: “We consulted with all PSL franchises. Two had reservations. These were dropped after we explained the situation and satisfied everyone that there was no conflict of interest with PCB.” However, The News has access to correspondence that proves this is not true and that all franchise members were against this move and most still are though the PCB is using its strong leverage against them. Third franchise owner told this reporter: “The PCB in its contract with all PSL teams has written that we can’t even object against their decision publicly and the only forum for dissent is the PSL secretarial and its meetings. In the contract with the PCB, though we think it’s illegal and against our rights, they have stated that we can’t even sue them if we disagree with the PCB.”

One franchise owner said: “We don’t know why the PCB U-turn happened. Though unrelated, but it was discussed amongst the PCB fraternity that recently a famous and well respected female journalist, analyst and socialite was also hired by a local TV channel for a special broadcasting project.

The PCB in its recent press release also failed to disclose through what process the $400,000 arrived? What competitive market value evaluation process, SOP or policy the PCB adopted to arrive at this number? What number was initially proposed and how this number was finally negotiated and approved? What parameters the PCB used in its discretion to arrive at this value? How the PCB decided that this is the right value of our players and Pakistan cricket? Did the private league owners or host country's cricket body propose this number? The PCB should share complete details of communication to support its decision.

The PCB also mentioned incorrectly that original dates for T10 league were in February. The initial date was late December and was postponed by 10 days to accommodate Pakistan players. However, the PCB in its rebuttal has mentioned that the cricket body of the host country agreed to reduce the cost of their venues for PSL by 10 percent, thereby reducing cost by over $250,000.

Moreover, name of one Saadullah Khan has surfaced as owner of the T10 league along with Karachi Kings’ owner. Karachi Kings’ affiliated channel, however, aired a letter head of T10 sports management that claims that the 80 percent of its owners are Pakistani nationals. However, the same channel is airing a licence of Sharjah Authority for T10 sports management which only has the name of Shajiul Mulk and Saadullah Khan, whereas the licence does not contain name of Karachi Kings’ owner.

Sources within the PCB say that Saadullah is actually relative and an employee of Sahjiul Mulk, the Indian owner of the T10 league. It is alleged that to cover up Indian ownership in the T10 league, shares were transferred to Saadullah by Shajiul Mulk. If due diligence was done by the PCB such details can be shared by it through the press release but these were missing.