Supreme Court asked me to do a job and I'm doing that at the total behest of the SC, says Vinod Rai
CoA chairman Vinod Rai insisted that he has been doing the job because Supreme Court had asked him to do the job and would resign anytime SC wants him to resign. Rai stated that CoA has been wrongly accused of not doing their job properly and insisted that they just have been following orders of SC.
There's been a lot of drama surrounding Indian cricket ever since the
SC ordered CoA to implement the Lodha recommendations and look into day-to-day supervision. However, BCCI has maintained its stance from the start that CoA has been responsible for all the controversies. BCCI has insisted that CoA has done everything else except their job. COA chairman Vinod Rai, in an exclusive interview with TOI, has cleared everything and stated that all the allegations have been wrong and CoA has only done what it was asked to do.
“The January 2, 2017 order of the SC says: 'A Committee of Administrators (CoA) shall supervise the administration of BCCI through its CEO'. There is no scope for misinterpretation of that. Again, the same order says: 'In addition to the function assigned above, CoA shall ensure the directions contain the
According to the bylaws of BCCI, there is a rule that restricts members who have age 70 or above from contesting in the elections. Hence, there have been fingers pointed at the tenure of Vinod Rai, who would be turning 70 on July 5th. On being asked about the controversy, Rai said, “It's a valid question. The age-cap of 70 years applies to whom? It applies to anybody who is seeking an election (in the Board). I'm not seeking an election. Secondly, the Supreme Court asked me to do a job. I'm doing the job at the total behest of the SC. The day SC says 'please quit', I'll be happy to quit at any point in time. If the Supreme Court, on July 5, says 'OK, we didn't know that you have crossed 70. Please quit, I'll happily and obediently walk out.”
Earlier, BCCI had only three categories namely A, B and C of central contracts for players. However, CoA has included an extra category of A+ and has included 5 players in it. BCCI has not been quite happy with the decision and has asked CoA to reverse their decision. Rai explained that CoA had approved the contract after through research and revision.
“After the respective presentations by Deloitte and Anil Kumble on May 21, 2017, COA had referred the matter of player remuneration structure to the Finance Committee. However, the Finance Committee had asked that the proposal presented be re-worked and presented in the manner sought by the Finance Committee. A lot of back and forth happened. The CoA approved the revised structure. Player contracts were handed to the acting secretary for signature on March 22, 2018. However, till date, the acting secretary has not signed the player contracts,” Rai said.
The CoA was managing the day-to-day supervision of BCCI when the Kumble-Kohli controversy erupted. There was so much drama and till date, nobody has an idea of what really happened. Explaining CoA’s side of the story Rai stated that CoA
Rai also revealed that CAC had taken the decision to appoint someone else instead of Kumble for the post of coach. Insisting that CAC’s decision worked out pretty well for the team, Rai added, “The very fact that CAC had taken a decision (in 2016) to appoint a certain individual as
