BCCI Tenures Not Much Different Than Sports Code, Feels Former BCCI CAO Prof. Ratnakar Shetty  

Professor Ratnakar Shetty, the former CAO (Chief Administrative Officer) of the BCCI, feels the Supreme Court ruling was akin to a few tweaks to existing rules, and not anything radical. (More Cricket News)

바카라�Earlier a state unit term, clubbed with a Board term, was counted as continuous, now it is not so. That바카라�s about the only advantage one [an officebearer] would have [in the new scheme of things]. Beyond that, I don바카라�t think the Supreme Court order makes that much of a difference or affects too many people,바카라� Shetty told Outlook. 

The Court order, he felt, was of a 바카라�clarifying nature바카라� more than anything else. 

바카라�It clarifies on the cooling off period,바카라� he said. 바카라�If you look at the BCCI바카라�s history, people have gone on to become office-bearers in the BCCI after they have completed their term in the state association. Even after this order, a person can be an office-bearer for only six years at a stretch, and then he has to take a cooling off period.바카라� 

When told that the order does give a potentially unbroken 12-year-run to office-bearers (six years in state, six in BCCI), Shetty said this was no different from other sports. 

바카라�If you look at the sports code, a president of a National sports federation can hold office for 12 consecutive years,바카라� he said. 

Asked what the Shah-Ganguly combine could do next, he said, 바카라�That바카라�s up to the general body to decide.바카라� 

Shetty also believes that while all attention is being given to the BCCI aspect of things, Indian cricket, in many ways, is run day-to-day by state associations, and that state association issues need looking into.  

바카라�As far as the BCCI is concerned, there seems to be more or less a finality to the case,바카라� he said. 바카라�But there are issues with the States (member units) that are still pending. A number of units have filed applications for relief. And the Amicus Curiae (Maninder Singh) has been asked to go through all of it. The previous Amicus who is now a Supreme Court judge (Justice P. S. Narasimha) understood the problems of the member units. He actually sorted out a lot of issues.바카라�    

One of the mistakes made in the running of the state associations, Shetty said, was expecting them to follow a BCCI type constitution, when they actually functioned in a completely different way.  

바카라�The COA바카라�s legal people wrote a Constitution (for the States) which was a mirror of the BCCI Constitution. This was altogether wrong, because the State unit바카라�s responsibilities and functioning are different in many ways,바카라� said Shetty. 바카라�The BCCI does not run day to day cricket; it바카라�s run by the State units. The composition of the Apex Council at the States cannot be the same (numerically) as that of the BCCI바카라�s. The number of Committees needed at the State level is much more than that of the BCCI바카라�s. Then there is the eligibility rule to become selectors. As per the existing Conflict of interest rules, it would be difficult to get cricketers on board as selectors or coaches.바카라�바카라�