#PCB…#Pathetic #Cricket #Board?

#PCB…#Pathetic #Cricket #Board?

 

Questions for the members of the BOG of the PCB to be asked during the meeting of Wednesday, 22 November, 2017.

1. Why no separate PSL-1 and PSL-2 Audit was allowed when:
– Scores of time it was announced in Media by the PSL chairman that PSL Audit was being conducted.
– If PSL Audit was not conducted separately from the PCB on the grounds that PSL was not a different company, then why PCB employees were paid huge extra salaries, amounting to crores of Rupees for doing PSL related assignments?
– When PCB gave huge seed money of Rs.50 crores for PSL Project, why PSL was not separately Audited, as a Project?
– If PSL was not a separate project why Mr. Najam Sethi was specifically appointed as its chairman, when the departments of PCB are headed by directors not chairmans?
2. Was the audit of PSL was not allowed because crores repeat crores of Rupees, were paid to the franchises, out of the written terms of the franchise agreements?
3. Was the audit of the PSL not allowed because about Rs. 40 crores was paid to the franchises on account of Pool Money of PSL-1; under a strange terms of the franchise agreement, which stipulated minimum 80% payment, instead of fixing a maximum ceiling/limit of payment?
Everywhere in the world always for payments upper limit is mentioned, but here PCB allowed minimum limit of payment, leaving scope for limitless payments.
4. Was Audit of the PSL not allowed to keep under wraps unjustifiable PSL-1 launching dinner expense of Rs.70,000/- per head?
5. Why constitution of PCB was blatantly violated in removing Mr. Shahryar Khan on 9 August, 2017 whereas, his legal three years tenure was to expire on 17 August, 2017, because he took over on 18 August, 2013 at 4PM?
Questions on MOU.
The Mystery of USD 1 million MOU..!

It was reported in the media that PCB’s Board of Governors (BoG) has approved USD 1 million or Rupees 10 crore to cover the legal expenses involved in filing and contesting the case against the BCCI, for causing huge financial losses to the PCB, by reneging on its commitments made under a MOU, to play six cricket match series in eight years, with Pakistani cricket team.

In this regard, the honourable members of the BoG are requested to kindly call an extraordinary meeting to decide and verify, on the following important points, because about Rs.10 crores of the PCB are at stake:

1. Confirm, by personally verifying and examining the original of the document, claimed by Mr. Najam Sethi as a MOU, between the BCCI and the PCB, was really and legally a MOU or not.

2. Is the document called as MOU was signed by the then heads of the PCB (Mr. Najam Sethi) and the BCCI (Mr. N. Srinivasan)?

3. To confirm whether the purported MOU was written on a legal paper or on the letter head of the BCCI or on a plain paper?

4. Does the document purported as MOU mentions specifically that it was an MOU document?

5. Whether the purported MOU was signed by just a honorary official of the BCCI when the authorised signatory and president of the BCCI was present at the venue?

6. Is this purported MOU just a letter from the BCCI to the PCB?
6 (a). And if it was a letter then is it on the letterhead of the BCCI?
6 (b). And why it was not signed by the BCCI president N. Srinivasan, who was physically present in that ICC meeting?

7. If this document called MOU was counter signed (at that time) by Mr. Najam Sethi as chairman PCB why he allowed a lower rank unauthorised and honorary BCCI person to sign it?
7 (a). And if it was not also signed by Mr. Najam Sethi then can we call such a document an MOU?

8. This purported MOU was signed during an ICC board members meeting. Why did not Mr. Najam Sethi obtain signatures of any ICC board members on this document as witnesses?

9. Why Mr. Najam Sethi accepted this purported conditional MOU from the BCCI, when he himself voted without conditions/reservations, in favour of the Big3 formula?

10. Why Mr. Najam Sethi accepted this purported MOU without the agreement of the BCCI to include the clause of the [ international court of arbitration] as was aggressively taken up by Mr. Zaka Ashraf?

11. The BOG must ask Mr. Najam Sethi as to why he was not taking legal action against the ICC for not paying to the PCB $15 million per year, which Mr. Najam Sethi told to the media and was widely reported in the press that the ICC has made PCB as Big4 and has more than doubled annual payments to PCB to $15 million (after Mr. Najam Sethi voted for the Big3 formula which enhanced astronomically BCCI’s financial share from the income of the ICC), or did Mr. Najam Sethi made a deliberate wrong statement at that time to hoodwink the Pakistani public, from the main issue of his casting an unconditional vote, in favour of making India, the king of the ICC, which started getting lions share of the ICC’s income?
12. Why this so called MOU document was never presented in original, before the members of the BoG of the PCB?

It is earnestly hoped that the timely intervention of BoG members of the PCB may save a huge amount of USD 1 million of the Pakistan Cricket Board.
The issue of participation of Pakistani players in the ICC [unapproved] T10 League.

1. Has the the ICC accorded its approval to the T10 League? If not, then how and why their presence will be there and will have a check on any misdeeds of the players/officials.

2. Why PCB wants to take a chance of sponsorship losses for its own franchises, by holding ICC non approved event, so close to PSL tournament, which is definitely expected to suffer losses due to sponsorship fatigue, which is bound to happen by the diversion of sponsors budgets/funds to T10 League?

3. Why such a tight Indian strangle hold have been allowed over this ICC unapproved league where 67% shares are held by an Indian named Shaji al Mulk?

4. Will BCCI ever allow its 28 players to participate in a League of a Pakistani major (67%) share holder? If not then why PCB has thrown its approval to the feet of an Indian investor?

5. The non participation of almost any reputed Indian player is a big question mark which needs answer in light of the fact that out of the six teams three are owned by the Indians and one by a SriLankan. Only two out of the six teams are owned by Pakistanis.

6. The mother of all questions is that why the PCB chairman took a 180 degrees U turn and allowed 28 players to participate in the T10 League? after announcing that:

a). No Pakistani player to participate in the T10 League.

b). PCB has no connection or link with T10 League.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Why to amend the PCB’s constitution just to please the Regional Cricket Association presidents to allow them to extend their tenure from two terms of three years each (total six years)? This will kill the room for the entry of fresh blood and create monopoly of old stuff.