CoA rejects further raise in fees of domestic cricketers
Rejecting BCCI's proposal, the Committee of Administrators (CoA) has rejected the suggestion of further increasing the fees of domestic cricketers. BCCI had proposed an additional increase in the fees hike proposal of the CoA stating that CoA didn't take the gross revenue sharing into consideration.
In rejecting the resolutions of the BCCI's June 22 SGM, CoA has turned down the idea of any further raise in the fees of domestic and women cricketers. The CoA had announced a nearly 100 percent hike in the players' match fees in March. However, the BCCI office-bearers felt that the raise was notional as it did not consider the gross revenue share (GRS) of the board. In one of the resolutions on June 22, the general body proposed a further increase in the fees of domestic and women cricketers.
"It was only a stunt by office bearers to take credit. The pay structure finalized by the CoA will be followed. The structure was meant to be ratified by the office-bearers but they didn't do it, so it has been approved by CEO Rahul Johri," a source close to the CoA told TOI, adding, "It's not like that the CoA is adamant. If any change is required in their policies that can be deliberated. But that depends on their discretion."
The source also added that the domestic structure, which would include newly-affiliated states this year, has been worked upon. The CoA's move hasn't gone down well with BCCI office bearers.
"The board was of the opinion that once the media rights are finalized, the GRS could be included in the domestic players' fees. However, the CoA announced the structure before the mega media rights deal was struck. With the current structure, players will get the benefits only after four years," a BCCI official said.
"The finance committee had asked the CEO to prepare a plan, studying the pay structures in other nations. That never arrived. The CoA cannot call the resolutions invalid."
The CoA released a statement stating that the SGM was carried out in violation of protocol.
Comments
Leave a comment0 Comments