Light reading

For the kind attention of Mr Shashank Manohar, this document released by the BCCI, of which Sharad Pawar was then president and you were vice president, in December 2005.

Offered to you here, since this might be one of the documents that the BCCI is missing. There’s a lot of interesting stuff in there about transparency, about television rights, about… never mind, just read the damn thing.

Without comment.

7 thoughts on “Light reading

  1. Pingback: Dad-Approved Products: Reading with Pictures a worthy cause

  2. Pingback: Nokia Ovi Maps / Pepsi Partnership: In Time For 2010 World Cup – Only Kent (blog) | Nokia Phone Blog

  3. Pingback: Free Comic Book Day encourages reading

    • The IOA currently is funded by the government and hence liable to government/court oversight, I would imagine. To say that it will not “in future” take any money from the government does not obviate the fact that it has already done so — over 1000 crore in the current budget alone, if I remember right, besides 5000 plus crore for the CWG. If you take money from me, how do you then argue that I have no right to ask you how you are using that money and conducting your business?

      That is the simplistic argument.

      I tried reading up the rules for affiliation and found nothing that suggests the IOA will lose its franchise if it comes under government oversight, per se.

      The relevant bit:

      “The IOC Executive Board may take any appropriate decisions for the protection of the Olympic Movement in the country of an NOC, including suspension of or withdrawal of recognition from such NOC if the constitution, law or other regulations in force in the country concerned, or any act by any governmental or other body causes the activity of the NOC or the making or expression of its will to be hampered.”
      The IOC noted that “The Olympic Charter states that NOCs must preserve their autonomy and resist pressure of any kind — including, but not limited to, political, legal, religious or economic pressures — which may prevent them from complying with the Olympic Charter.”

      Seems ambiguous. If I were Rahul Mehra, I would argue, both to the court and to the IOC, that the PIL relates to the IOA not abiding by its own constitution, in terms of the tenure of office holders, etc.

      Seems hard to infer that forcing the IOA and other NSFs to comply with their own constitutions is an interference that prevents the IOA and other bodies from complying with the Olympic charter.

Comments are closed.