Life is Funny that Way
arahim
"It's a miracle that we were able to finally file the Compliance Bid
on April 20, a day before the final deadline. After being informed by
the Pakistan board officials about presenting the joint bid, we came
to know that we were utterly lacking in completing the formalities.
Then February 28 was the last date to file the bid. I along with
Srinivasan and Niranjan Shah [Indian Board officials] flew down to
Dubai for filing of documents. We spent two days in ICC office trying
to understand the formalities to be completed."
Bindra said they had sought time from Ehsan Mani, the ICC president,
and pleaded at the meeting of the ICC board that due to the regime
change of the Indian Board a lot of things were still in transition,
due to which lot of time had been consumed. "In between taking
permissions from the highest Governmental levels and not talking about
the problems we faced with Bangalore and Kolkata associations, we
finally filed the bid on April 20."
http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/246390.html
http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2009/06/life-is-funny-that-way.html
RSC Poster
> Or BCCIs guide to How to Kick a Friend When He's Down: A Case Study
It would save you a lot of time if you were to rail against the MCCI
instead of composing separate diatribes against your current two bete-
noires.
Taking the World Cup away has you feeling like a rejected husband.
You've come home to find your things out on the front lawn. You're not
ready to let go, but the World Cup you love has gone.
That's what you are, the bitter divorced guy whose World Cup has left
him -- obsessing over it, haranguing the guy who took it away,
blubbering one minute about how much you love it and vowing the next
that if you cannot have it, nobody will. <Credit due to Bill Maher>
Really Rahim, when compared to you that other woman in Fatal
Attraction seems sane, composed and rational.
Regards,
Jayen
arahim
I am sorry to hear you had all these problems with your husband but
you shouldn't throw out people's things. Anyway I would advise your
husband to move on and count himself lucky; you do sound the nagging
type.
> Regards,
> Jayen
Gilly's Danda
What is Pakistan's standing to demand that games be played in Dubai?
If there was any agreement in force between the various parties
hosting the 2011 World Cup (and if they had sought legal advice) or if
the ICC had agreed terms with the putative host nations, it seems
likely that such agreement would have included either an implicit or
explicit force majeure clause. These clauses typically state that if
the circumstances assumed at the time the agreement was made change so
drastically that the contract cannot be performed, it will be varied
or cancelled entirely (on defined or undefined terms).
Clearly the Lahore attacks seem to present a force majeure. Clearly,
also, there is a simple solution: remove the games which were to be
hosted in Pakistan. Any compensatory damages would be the subject of
the initial agreement. To be honest, I'm not sure that damages from
the ICC are the right remedy for the PCB. There's a fairly strong case
that instead, they should seek recompense from their own government
for failing to maintain security at a level where the games could
continue.
It falls to the ICC or to the other subcontinental countries
(depending on which agreement gave Pakistan the right to host matches
- I suspect that it is some combination of the two) either to vary or
to cancel the initial agreement entirely. Why the PCB - which is the
subject of the change in circumstances and seems to be receiving more
than adequate compensation for no longer hosting the games. At that
point, their opinion should not really matter, and the reallocation of
the games becomes a matter for the remaining parties to the hosting
agreement. The onus is on Pakistan to show why, on top of
compensation, it has any contractual right to demand that matches be
played in the UAE in addition to receiving compensation. Beyond
statements suggesting that they would like this to be the case and
shifting the onus to the other boards to argue why the games should
not be played in the UAE, they have done nothing of the sort.
A
RSC Poster
Don't bother Glenn Close, just go back to your recipe for rabbit stew.
Regards,
Jayen
arahim
wrote:
Well first of all why not write plain English.
Now an unusual circumstance has occured. The affected party is
providing a solution which in no way affects the financial status of
the other parties as was agreed. The affected party is trying to find
the solution that best serves its financial interests while changing
nothing for the other parties involved. Why is the BCCI so damn
greedy? At least explain this dilution of concept reasonably enough.
Note that Morgan didn't use this term.
Now if you wish to talk about legalese or clauses then well where
should we start? Where is the tournament supposed to take place? I
have heard three versions. BCCI says sub-continent, Morgan says four
countries and other writers have said Asia. If it is the subcontinent
which incarnation of it are we talking about? Some include only the
eastern half of Pakistan, some go up to Iran some exclude Sri Lanka.
Which map is BCCI following. Are matches in Nepal and Bhutan and
Maldives fine? They are parts of the subcontinent.
If its Asia it should be ok anyway.
If it is four countries then whatever dilution and concept BCCI is
talking off has no meaning if there was any to begin with.
No it is simply this. One party has been affected. It is trying to
fulfil its obligations and in doing so is taking nothing from the
other parties. They will have exactly what they would have if nothing
had happened.
> A- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
arahim
Dear Jane,
I gave your proposal some thought (the one about merging the BCCI and
the MCC and calling it MCCI lest you misunderstand that I mean
something else) and I think it is a splendid idea. I think Mike and
you should get married to comemmorate the occasion. Jane Hol'm'an's
has such a nice ring to it and will fulfil Mike's wishes since the
last decade (after the fall of the MCC. Before that it is highly
doubtull you would have even gotten a second look).
Gilly's Danda
> Well first of all why not write plain English.
>
> Now an unusual circumstance has occured. The affected party is
> providing a solution which in no way affects the financial status of
> the other parties as was agreed.
Hold on, it does. Someone is paying the $10.5 million ahead of time,
before any profits have been reaped from the tournament. Whether
that's the ICC or the other three boards, that's a financial
consequence.
> The affected party is trying to find
> the solution that best serves its financial interests while changing
> nothing for the other parties involved.
Wrong again. The PCB has received compensation. At this point, it's
out of the game. Either it forfeits its right to compensation (and
sets up the UAE as an alternative), or it takes the compensation and
goes away. What is egregious about the current conduct is that the PCB
seems to want two bites at the cherry.
> Why is the BCCI so damn
> greedy?
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are also set to profit from the reallocation,
incidentally. It seems as though the PCB - which is relying on grace
and favour anyway, since they're no longer party to these arrangements
- is the one that's being greedy. As I said in my earlier post, it is
for the PCB to show why it is entitled to both compensation and any
say in how the tournament plays out.
> At least explain this dilution of concept reasonably enough.
> Note that Morgan didn't use this term.
Talking about diluting the concept is additional. As it is, the PCB
has no standing once it has been compensated. The notion that the
hosting rights for the 2011 World Cup were granted to four
subcontinental countries is simple enough - this is the basis on which
SLC, the BCCI, and the Bangladeshi Cricket Board signed up. They've
already faced one variation of terms, one with which they might be
able to live. Why should they have to countenance another?
> Now if you wish to talk about legalese or clauses then well where
> should we start? Where is the tournament supposed to take place? I
> have heard three versions. BCCI says sub-continent, Morgan says four
> countries and other writers have said Asia. If it is the subcontinent
> which incarnation of it are we talking about? Some include only the
> eastern half of Pakistan, some go up to Iran some exclude Sri Lanka.
> Which map is BCCI following. Are matches in Nepal and Bhutan and
> Maldives fine? They are parts of the subcontinent.
Yes, clutch at strawmen. Fantastic argument.
> If its Asia it should be ok anyway.
To you, perhaps. The other three boards had their reasons for siding
with some countries and not with others. As other parties to an
agreement for financial benefit, I'm not sure it behoves the PCB to
question BCCI's, SLC's, and B'desh's motives, when it neither has a
leg to stand on nor seems to be acting entirely reasonably.
> No it is simply this. One party has been affected. It is trying to
> fulfil its obligations and in doing so is taking nothing from the
> other parties. They will have exactly what they would have if nothing
> had happened.
Less either $10.5 million or hosting rights for additional matches,
depending on which way you look at it. The PCB's neither made a case
for exemplary damages (which is what the US$10.5 m will be if the
matches move to the UAE) or the hosting rights by a third party
(which, given the way Abu Dhabi's pockets are always open when there's
an earthquake or another military incursion or offensive, Pakistan
will ultimately get back in spades anyway). At present, it/you seems
to be asking the other boards to prove a negative ("why shouldn't
we?") while not making the case for the move to the UAE on top of the
damages. If it were to forsake the money, that would be one thing. The
PCB shows no intention of doing so. Why is the PCB being so greedy,
and on what basis?
A
RSC Poster
> On Jun 27, 12:02 pm, "Gilly's Danda" <finallyfinis...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Now an unusual circumstance has occured. The affected party is
> providing a solution which in no way affects the financial status of
> the other parties as was agreed.
It can affect. Assume the dilution of concept of a subcontinental WC
for the moment. If the movement to Dubai affects the whole WC
(remember that it was only a couple of things which led to WC 2007 not
being deemed a success), then the rest of the hosts do have a stake in
deciding whether it is moved to Dubai or not.
> The affected party is trying to find
> the solution that best serves its financial interests while changing
> nothing for the other parties involved.
It does change.
> Why is the BCCI so damn
> greedy?
What's greedy about it? They have a WC at stake.
> At least explain this dilution of concept reasonably enough.
> Note that Morgan didn't use this term.
No matter. It's what the other hosts say that matters.
>
> Now if you wish to talk about legalese or clauses then well where
> should we start? Where is the tournament supposed to take place? I
> have heard three versions. BCCI says sub-continent, Morgan says four
> countries and other writers have said Asia. If it is the subcontinent
> which incarnation of it are we talking about? Some include only the
> eastern half of Pakistan, some go up to Iran some exclude Sri Lanka.
> Which map is BCCI following. Are matches at Nepal and Bhutan and
> Maldives fine? They are parts of the subcontinent.
You picking a few very feeble nits here. The official grant is to the
four full-fledged ICC members, it's being branded as a sub-continental
WC and it's expected to be most successful that way. There's no point
in asking "How do you know it won't be successful in Burma?" - this is
what the other hosts feel.
>
> If its Asia it should be ok anyway.
It isn't. There's a difference between hosting a WC match in Pakistan
and hosting it in Israel.
>
> If it is four countries then whatever dilution and concept BCCI is
> talking off has no meaning if there was any to begin with.
It's four countries which are the major cricket-playing nations in the
sub-continent.
>
> No it is simply this. One party has been affected. It is trying to
> fulfil its obligations and in doing so is taking nothing from the
> other parties. They will have exactly what they would have if nothing
> had happened.
Except for the difference between hosting a successful WC and not
doing so.
Suppose, only for the sake of argument, that NZ is not able to conduct
it's matches in WC 2015. If they were to suggest that the matches
should be moved to Dubai, Australia might well have a problem. The ICC
could decide to allow Australia to host all the matches of the WC.
What's the difference between that situation and this? And would NZ
get a lot of support?
Regards,
Jayen
HVS
FWIW -- and I have no dog in this fight -- his post was crystal
clear and understandable to me.
It might have benefited from a few paragraph breaks, but it was in
perfectly "plain English" to this English Canadian who's lived in
England for almost half his life.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
RSC Poster
Your level of your repartee is on par with Straight Drive's.
Seriously, you're coming apart at the seams and badly need a break.
I'll check up after a couple of hours for your next pathetic attempt
at an insult. Keep thinking (or what passes for it in your case).
Regards,
Jayen
arahim
I will repeat it once more and then you can keep on going with the
side issues. Here is the main points. BCCI or its supporters are
telling us how they will have to to do all this extra work and on top
of that will have to pay PCB for doing nothing. PCB is saying please
do us no favors. We will do our administartive part. We will not cut
into any money that you are going to get and let us handle our part.
Now BCCI itself has only claimed this dilution of concept. Why does it
clearly define it and tell us how much money it will loose because of
this dilution. Also why doesn't it publish how much it will gain to
stand (or what it will gain) by getting the extra matches. In a
contract it is not majority rule in every sense that oh the majority
thinks you shouldn't have anything so you the fourth partner will have
nothing. That is why I think things should go to court and we will no
greater detail of the contract and what each party is hoping to really
accomplish. But as a general over arching rule if one party is able to
fulfil its obligations without affecting what others are getting the
court will ask the question: What is your problem? And they better
have a good answer. This dilution of concept does not look good.
> A
arahim
Perhaps you have been dealing with force majuere a lot recently.
> --
> Cheers,
> Harvey- Hide quoted text -
arahim
Why does'nt it
> clearly define it and tell us how much money it will loose because of
> this dilution. Also why doesn't it publish how much it will gain to
> stand (or what it will gain) by getting the extra matches. In a
> contract it is not majority rule in every sense that oh the majority
> thinks you shouldn't have anything so you the fourth partner will have
> nothing. That is why I think things should go to court and we will no
know
> greater detail of the contract and what each party is hoping to really
> accomplish. But as a general over arching rule if one party is able to
> fulfil its obligations without affecting what others are getting the
> court will ask the question: What is your problem? And they better
> have a good answer. This dilution of concept does not look good.
>
>
>
> > A- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
RSC Poster
Every contract has one such clause. If your job involves reading a
contract, you can't help encountering the term. And in any case, there
was a reasonable explanation for it in the post itself.
The important point about the Force Majeure is that, if it is invoked,
the contract is more or less dead. If this clause is not invoked by
the PCB, then IMO the ICC can claim damages from the PCB for not
satisfying the contract. If the clause is invoked by the PCB, then the
ICC has no obligations left to fulfill. Even the hosting money needn't
be given (again, IMO).
And satisfying the contract would involve hosting the matches in
Pakistan. Holding them Dubai would definitely be a violation of the
terms.
Regards,
Jayen
Gilly's Danda
> I will repeat it once more and then you can keep on going with the
> side issues. Here is the main points. BCCI or its supporters are
> telling us how they will have to to do all this extra work and on top
> of that will have to pay PCB for doing nothing.
I don't think the "extra work" has been cited. This is another
strawman. I should also be grateful if you could point me to a PCB
statement where Ijaz Butt or someone similar offers to forsake the US
$10.5 million in consideration for matches being hosted in the UAE. In
the last release which I read, the suggestion was that four out of six
issues (including the compensation) had been attended to. Two further
issues (including where the additional matches would be hosted) were
still to be resolved. This does not seem akin to forgoing compensation
to me.
> PCB is saying please
> do us no favors. We will do our administartive part. We will not cut
> into any money that you are going to get and let us handle our part.
Not quite. And I like the way, in your reading of events, you are
shifting the onus. In terms of causation, this change is closer to
being the PCB's can to carry than anyone else's, yet they seem to be
the ones seeking all of the benefit from this - twice over,
apparently.
> Now BCCI itself has only claimed this dilution of concept.
As an additional counterpoint. Contractually they do not need to.
> Why does it
> clearly define it and tell us how much money it will loose because of
> this dilution.
For someone criticising others for their clarity (or lack thereof) you
seem to be frothing at the mouth.
> Also why doesn't it publish how much it will gain to
> stand (or what it will gain) by getting the extra matches.
I think the simple response is that the PCB has not yet made a case
that matches should be moved on top of compensation. If it willingly
says "fine, don't give us the $10.5 million, we'll continue to have an
administrative role to play and tell you where to host matches" that's
fine. This is not a side issue, but the main point.
> In a
> contract it is not majority rule in every sense that oh the majority
> thinks you shouldn't have anything so you the fourth partner will have
> nothing.
You're quite right - it's an agreement reflecting a meeting of the
minds (or something close to it). You vary a contract for various
reasons. Force majeure is one such reason. Again, you reach some kind
of compromise agreement. This case is slightly different again,
because the hosting rights are in the ICC's gift, because only the ICC
have the right to give the World Cup or otherwise. Conspiracy theories
aside, the ICC has made its choice.
It is right that the ICC compensate the PCB for its losses as a result
of no longer being part of the agreement and put it back in the
position it had been in had the contract been performed. That's what
the 10.5 million is doing. Once those damages have been settled in a
settlement agreement between the ICC and the PCB or mandated by a
tribunal or court deciding damages. At that point, the PCB is out.
To keep harping about Abu Dhabi and Dubai - when Abu Dhabi and Dubai
have not been part of any of the organisation or planning thus far
(which ostensibly has already progressed significantly) and when the
PCB is already being compensated - looks like wanting double
compensation. Some might call it a negotiating tactic to get more
money from the ICC/other countries to go away, some kind of strong-
arming to up the ante. Others might call it extortion.
> That is why I think things should go to court and we will no
> greater detail of the contract and what each party is hoping to really
> accomplish.
Like hell. Five organisations based in five different countries are
extremely unlikely to go to court. Any negotiations and agreements
will have been carried out behind closed doors months in advance. The
dispute resolution clause for what is, essentially, a commercial
agreement (with no overriding employment, franchise, competition or
human rights issues) will almost certainly stipulate a confidential
arbitration. It will be monumentally stupid of the PCB to take it that
far; the other boards will probably throw it an extra million dollars
each to get rid of the nuisance (total bill likely footed by the BCCI)
and it will slink off into Cricketing no-man's land again, fielding a
team but not hosting matches. Why the PCB thinks it has these rights
to stand on, nobody knows - particularly when it seems congenitally
incapable of honouring its own commitments to other countries (like
the Bangladesh tour).
> But as a general over arching rule if one party is able to
> fulfil its obligations without affecting what others are getting the
> court will ask the question: What is your problem? And they better
> have a good answer. This dilution of concept does not look good.
Sorry, where did you obtain your law degree? Anything is subject to
agreement. If the original contract is unable to be fulfilled and
other parties are unable to agree to the PCB's demands (thereby
rendering a variation impossible), dispute resolution procedures will
kick in. If it seems impossible that the parties will reach any sort
of agreement, the arbitral tribunal will determine costs. $10.5
million seems very generous anyway given the smaller population in
Pakistan for TV rights (is there still TV reception in the Swat
Valley?) and likely ground attendances. The PCB might find they get
even less. Tribunals are likely to take a dim view of the PCB wanting
double compensation anyway.
If the parties act in a commercially rational fashion, in all
likelihood we'll hear about a confidential settlement and the PCB
shutting up. Rationality is not something of which any subcontinental
Cricket board is often accused, least of all a board which sees fit to
tell the world about its star player's STD.
A
HVS
Thankfully not; but "force majeure" is one of those technical terms
that's been naturalised -- I'd expect any reasonably competent
English speaker/writer to know it.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
arahim
Then I suppose I am not one:)
arahim
> On Jun 28, 12:54 am, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I will repeat it once more and then you can keep on going with the
> > side issues. Here is the main points. BCCI or its supporters are
> > telling us how they will have to to do all this extra work and on top
> > of that will have to pay PCB for doing nothing.
>
> I don't think the "extra work" has been cited. This is another
It was certainly mentioned that PCB is getting money for doing
nothing. I assume it was implied that some one else would do that
work.
> strawman. I should also be grateful if you could point me to a PCB
> statement where Ijaz Butt or someone similar offers to forsake the US
> $10.5 million in consideration for matches being hosted in the UAE. In
That would be idiotic. Why should they do that. And what does it have
to do with the demands that the BCCIs supporters are making. Remember
initially they were giving PCB nothing. It was stated that they have
been removed as hosts. After the lawsuit it changed to Ha ha no they
are still the hosts and have hosting rights. It was all a
misunderstanding. I am sure you feel that the BCCI is very generous.
> the last release which I read, the suggestion was that four out of six
> issues (including the compensation) had been attended to. Two further
The hosting rights fee. But as I said let all of them release how much
else they stand to make or lose from the different scenarios and we
will see.
> issues (including where the additional matches would be hosted) were
> still to be resolved. This does not seem akin to forgoing compensation
> to me.
>
> > PCB is saying please
> > do us no favors. We will do our administartive part. We will not cut
> > into any money that you are going to get and let us handle our part.
>
> Not quite. And I like the way, in your reading of events, you are
> shifting the onus. In terms of causation, this change is closer to
> being the PCB's can to carry than anyone else's, yet they seem to be
> the ones seeking all of the benefit from this - twice over,
> apparently.
>
What are the twice over benefits? They are just trying to get what
they would if the matches were in Pakistan. Again remember this
determination is the ICCs and we know who is sitting there and making
the decisions. Once it goes to the courts and if the case is made well
Mumbai and many other Indian cities have had bombing and the BCCI is
also unfit to hold the cup then basically it will come down to court's
determination whether a reasonably equal standard has been employed
and their determination may vary from that of the ICC with no IPL
money going to the court. In any case we don't know how it will be
resolved. Once the thing goes to the court then anything can happen.
> > Now BCCI itself has only claimed this dilution of concept.
>
> As an additional counterpoint. Contractually they do not need to.
>
Then why even mention it. It just makes them look bad. With the way
things have gone it is probably better for them to state the real
reason. We'll only know if the case goes to the court or one of the
parties releases the contract. Until then it is all speculation.
> > Why does it
> > clearly define it and tell us how much money it will loose because of
> > this dilution.
>
> For someone criticising others for their clarity (or lack thereof) you
> seem to be frothing at the mouth.
>
Only if you had gone one post later:) I have said many times before
this is like a conversation i do not check for typos or spellings
here.
> > Also why doesn't it publish how much it will gain to
> > stand (or what it will gain) by getting the extra matches.
>
> I think the simple response is that the PCB has not yet made a case
> that matches should be moved on top of compensation. If it willingly
> says "fine, don't give us the $10.5 million, we'll continue to have an
> administrative role to play and tell you where to host matches" that's
> fine. This is not a side issue, but the main point.
>
Why would they say that? Why doesn't the BCCI say let us host all the
matches and you take all the money? All we want is nondilution of the
concept. Because it would be idiotic. And it is idiotic whether it is
BCCI or PCB.
> > In a
> > contract it is not majority rule in every sense that oh the majority
> > thinks you shouldn't have anything so you the fourth partner will have
> > nothing.
>
> You're quite right - it's an agreement reflecting a meeting of the
> minds (or something close to it). You vary a contract for various
> reasons. Force majeure is one such reason. Again, you reach some kind
> of compromise agreement. This case is slightly different again,
> because the hosting rights are in the ICC's gift, because only the ICC
> have the right to give the World Cup or otherwise. Conspiracy theories
> aside, the ICC has made its choice.
>
> It is right that the ICC compensate the PCB for its losses as a result
> of no longer being part of the agreement and put it back in the
> position it had been in had the contract been performed. That's what
> the 10.5 million is doing. Once those damages have been settled in a
> settlement agreement between the ICC and the PCB or mandated by a
> tribunal or court deciding damages. At that point, the PCB is out.
>
Not quite if the PCB argues and the court agrees that the ICCs
decision-making was fixed. PCB is part of the ICC and it may go to the
court claiming unfair trade practices to squeeze it out. Its been
known to happen. In any case we won't know until we see the contract.
Also there is the precedence of the IPL. Morgan was fairly willing in
considering fifth country until a few days ago. If it is established
that BCCI is the main force behind this issue then there is even
precedence.
> To keep harping about Abu Dhabi and Dubai - when Abu Dhabi and Dubai
> have not been part of any of the organisation or planning thus far
> (which ostensibly has already progressed significantly) and when the
> PCB is already being compensated - looks like wanting double
> compensation. Some might call it a negotiating tactic to get more
It may look like that to you but please put it either in financial
terms if you think there is double financial gain or how is it double
compensation?
> money from the ICC/other countries to go away, some kind of strong-
> arming to up the ante. Others might call it extortion.
>
Every one is free to call it what they wish, I suppose. The point is
that a very weak ostracized board even got this far. The ICC and BCCI
are not such nice guys. They knew they were in some trouble. Even
Pawar seemed ready to discuss other venues few days back. Look their
lawyers may have said ok may be this you have to give and may be this
is the iffy part and this what we can probably prevail with. Certainly
negotiation is going on. The point is PCB was not cutting into
anything that the other boards were going to make or do. They are the
ones cutting in even though it is fulfilling the security concerns.
Legally four things have been conceded. At least BCCIs history points
to the fact that it simply does not give on anything that it can take.
It was opportunistic in finding its partner in a weak position and
trying to benefit from it financially and also in teaching it a
lesson. Probably its lawyers told it ok agree to these and continue to
see if the PCB will collapse anyway given its ineptness. Personally I
don't think BCCI will move back further. I am even pleasantly
surprised that PCB had the perseverance to go this far. I did not
think they had it in 'em.
> > That is why I think things should go to court and we will no
> > greater detail of the contract and what each party is hoping to really
> > accomplish.
>
> Like hell. Five organisations based in five different countries are
> extremely unlikely to go to court. Any negotiations and agreements
> will have been carried out behind closed doors months in advance. The
> dispute resolution clause for what is, essentially, a commercial
> agreement (with no overriding employment, franchise, competition or
> human rights issues) will almost certainly stipulate a confidential
> arbitration. It will be monumentally stupid of the PCB to take it that
Right now the case is against one organization, the ICC. I too think
that it will be settled outside but I am not sure its due to any
stipulations of confidential arbitrations. PCB has already filed a
case. If all parties had already clearly agreed to arbitration then
this probably would not have been the case. But I do think it will be
settled simply because PCB probably does not have the stamina, force,
and resources to go all the way. At some point it will probably
succumb. And I think this is probably the calculation of the BCCI (err
I meant ICC) lawyers as well.
> far; the other boards will probably throw it an extra million dollars
> each to get rid of the nuisance (total bill likely footed by the BCCI)
> and it will slink off into Cricketing no-man's land again, fielding a
> team but not hosting matches. Why the PCB thinks it has these rights
> to stand on, nobody knows - particularly when it seems congenitally
Apparently so do the others for backing off on four of the points just
with a letter.
> incapable of honouring its own commitments to other countries (like
> the Bangladesh tour).
>
I had argued against government intervention of tours when it was
introduced. But Australia, India, and others have used it. Almost
everyone has used the security grounds. I said at the time that ICC is
inviting trouble with these blanket security bypasses. But it is a
part of the ICC procedures with many different precedents. People said
no we don’t care about the ICC reports we will do our own analysis. By
the way if you are getting so agitated for an U19 tour you should
probably understand the PCB:) And it has a legitimate point in that
the Pakistan team's (the real one) tour to BD was cancelled by the
hosts on this very ground. Which way is it? Should other boards listen
to PCB if it says now you can come it is ok or should they decide of
their own judgment? Then PCB can say well in two years it will be
certainly safe for the cup. No guarantees but no one else can give a
guarantee either. Here the case of Zimbabwe comes in too. They had
been ousted due to human rights violations. Well how many rights
violations by the government are enough? Is sixty thousand in Kashmir
with the current conflict enough? Is Kashmir part of India? Can PCB
have some matches in Kashmir? It will be like a home ground for them.
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/cricket/12-celebrations-in-srinagar-after-pakistan-win--bi-01
So let's not busy ourselves with extraneous issues and talk of the
case at hand and not Swat as you later do. At least the government is
trying to fix it unlike in Kashmir where the police are destroying
evidence.
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/04-kashmir-shuts-over-arrest-of-separatists-rape-qs-05
The rest just muddies the water but perhaps that is your goal. So
let's stick to this discussion I am sure there will be a "few" posts
coming in countering the Kashmir thing:) One last thing about the BD
tours; its a strange comment from a BCCI supporter when BCCI itself
has decided to only have one way tours with BD (so has CA but again
all this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand).
> > But as a general over arching rule if one party is able to
> > fulfil its obligations without affecting what others are getting the
> > court will ask the question: What is your problem? And they better
> > have a good answer. This dilution of concept does not look good.
>
> Sorry, where did you obtain your law degree? Anything is subject to
I think the more important question is that if I am asking about some
basic legal term why do you suppose I have a law degree. All you need
is a logical discussion.
> agreement. If the original contract is unable to be fulfilled and
> other parties are unable to agree to the PCB's demands (thereby
> rendering a variation impossible), dispute resolution procedures will
> kick in. If it seems impossible that the parties will reach any sort
> of agreement, the arbitral tribunal will determine costs. $10.5
> million seems very generous anyway given the smaller population in
> Pakistan for TV rights (is there still TV reception in the Swat
> Valley?) and likely ground attendances. The PCB might find they get
> even less. Tribunals are likely to take a dim view of the PCB wanting
> double compensation anyway.
Please specifically show this doubling of compensation. All you have
said means nothing until we take a look at what the agreed upon rules
and procedures are. As I said don't bring in extraneous issues about
Swat that have nothing to do with the thing at hand. The share was
mutually decided. If you are questioning Pakistan's rights and
population shouldn't you be doing it of other hosts or is that a bribe
to get the support? Anyway again this is not what BCCI or ICC or
anyone else is claiming. Again this is straying from what is at hand
>
> If the parties act in a commercially rational fashion, in all
> likelihood we'll hear about a confidential settlement and the PCB
I think there is reasonable chance of settlement mainly because of
PCBs limitations. It will be very hard to keep it confidential with
the interest present.
> shutting up. Rationality is not something of which any subcontinental
> Cricket board is often accused, least of all a board which sees fit to
> tell the world about its star player's STD.
>
PCB has many faults and I have written many times about many of them
but that does not mean that it should not fight for what is its right.
Here is a chance for them to do something right.
> A
Mohan
<snip>
> accomplish. But as a general over arching rule if one party is able to
> fulfil its obligations without affecting what others are getting the
> court will ask the question: What is your problem? And they better
> have a good answer. This dilution of concept does not look good.
You seem to have a strange definition of "fulfilling ones
obligations". If the contract says the PCB was supposed to host the
matches in Pakistan (with complete security) and they are unable to do
that, then hosting the matches elsewhere does not constitute
fulfilling the obligation. You have breached the contract already.
Remember, ICC is the customer here and PCB is the vendor. ICC awarded
the hosting rights to PCB. Then, they have the right to insist that
PCB host the matches as per the contract. PCB cannot ask them, what
difference does it make where we host them. ICC or BCCI does not have
to explain why Dubai is not acceptable to them. Dubai is not
acceptable simply because it is not as per the contract.
Even if "hosting the matches in Pakistan" was not explicitly
mentioned, they can still argue that based on past world cups and
common practice, it was implicit that matches should be hosted in
Pakistan and now that that is not possible, the contract is null and
void.
Mohan
arahim
Why Jane I thought my usage of Hol'm'an's as a short for Hold my hands
was rather romantic.
> I'll check up after a couple of hours for your next pathetic attempt
> at an insult. Keep thinking (or what passes for it in your case).
>
Well as long as you do return and check.
> Regards,
> Jayen- Hide quoted text -
arahim
"Gilly's Danda" <finally...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a186b711-3efd-4c1e...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 28, 5:17 am, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2:24 pm, "Gilly's Danda" <finallyfinis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > strawman. I should also be grateful if you could point me to a PCB
> > statement where Ijaz Butt or someone similar offers to forsake the US
> > $10.5 million in consideration for matches being hosted in the UAE. In
>
> That would be idiotic. Why should they do that. And what does it have
> to do with the demands that the BCCIs supporters are making. Remember
> initially they were giving PCB nothing. It was stated that they have
> been removed as hosts. After the lawsuit it changed to Ha ha no they
> are still the hosts and have hosting rights. It was all a
> misunderstanding. I am sure you feel that the BCCI is very generous.
Let me try and put this as simply as I can.
1. The ICC contracted with the BCCI, BCB, SLC, and the PCB to give
them hosting rights for the world cup. This gave rise to contractual
rights to each of these parties - to the ICC, to have these 4
countries host the World Cup, to the various boards, to have matches
played in their countries. It was almost certainly a covenant that the
safety situation in those countries would be sufficiently safe for
matches to take place.
2. Due to various issues in Pakistan, it is no longer possible for the
PCB to host matches. This can be read either as a breach of contract
by the PCB r a force majeure. The latter interpretation is most
charitable to the PCB.
3. The ICC has sought to buy out the contractual right granted to the
PCB. This is the US$10.5 million. This is the extent of its right to
host matches all bought up. (Incidentally, this is the value the PCB
came up with, not the BCCI or PCB.)
4. At that point, on any understanding of contract theory, the
contract is varied or novated, such that the PCB is no longer a party
to the contract.
5. Hence the question arises: what the hell is the PCB doing
interfering in a World Cup of which it is no longer part? Does it
realistically think it has any standing to do anything further, or is
it just being a nuisance?
> The hosting rights fee. But as I said let all of them release how much
> else they stand to make or lose from the different scenarios and we
> will see.
No. Neither you, the PCB, nor I have any right to stand in judgement
of gains and losses. All the PCB has a right to is fair recompense for
its lost hosting rights. Anything thereafter is either unfair, anti-
competitive, or simply inquisitive conduct.
> What are the twice over benefits? They are just trying to get what
> they would if the matches were in Pakistan.
Plus matches in the UAE. How do matches in the UAE benefit the PCB,
anyway? Why isn't Zardari revealing "how much he would stand to gain
or lose" from backhanders from the Gulf States? If the answer is "it's
none of your business", then the same applies to the PCB/you wanting
to know about the other boards' gains and losses. What's his cut from
the PCB damages, anyway?
> > > Now BCCI itself has only claimed this dilution of concept.
>
> > As an additional counterpoint. Contractually they do not need to.
>
> Then why even mention it.
They are, at least, providing some justification for their actions.
The PCB hasn't even shown that they have any standing to have matches
played in the UAE.
> > I think the simple response is that the PCB has not yet made a case
> > that matches should be moved on top of compensation. If it willingly
> > says "fine, don't give us the $10.5 million, we'll continue to have an
> > administrative role to play and tell you where to host matches" that's
> > fine. This is not a side issue, but the main point.
>
> Why would they say that? Why doesn't the BCCI say let us host all the
> matches and you take all the money? All we want is nondilution of the
> concept. Because it would be idiotic. And it is idiotic whether it is
> BCCI or PCB.
Sorry, there's no analogy here. PCB said it would do something. It is
no longer able to and is getting compensated for any gains it may have
stood to make. (And that too, from the wrong party - it's the
Pakistani government which ought to be footing the bill. The ICC is
being extra-ordinarily generous.) What you want the BCCI to do, and
how it's at all analogous to the PCB's stance, is slightly lost on me.
I'm sure it makes sense to you though.
> Not quite if the PCB argues and the court agrees that the ICCs
> decision-making was fixed. PCB is part of the ICC and it may go to the
> court claiming unfair trade practices to squeeze it out. Its been
> known to happen. In any case we won't know until we see the contract.
> Also there is the precedence of the IPL. Morgan was fairly willing in
> considering fifth country until a few days ago. If it is established
> that BCCI is the main force behind this issue then there is even
> precedence.
No-one forces the PCB to be part of the ICC. As a private
organisation, the ICC is free to set its rules as it sees fit. One of
its rules seems to be that it can appoint committees. Assuming that
(a) the PCB signed up to these rules or approved them at their most
recent amendment; and (b) the committee which decided on the hosting
rights was properly constituted and acted within its powers and
according to its charter/rules, then the PCB doesn't have a leg to
stand on.
Even if it can be shown that the relevant committee was carrying out a
public function in a jurisdiction with administrative law, the PCB
will need to show irrationality, procedural unfairness, or
unreasonableness to have its decision reviewed. All seem unlikely, but
then again, as you've admitted, you're more of a lawyer than me.
> It may look like that to you but please put it either in financial
> terms if you think there is double financial gain or how is it double
> compensation?
See above. If that still doesn't make sense, let's try an analogy. X
and Y enter into a service contract. X will pay a certain amount to Y
for building X a house. Due to circumstances that are neither party's
fault (Y's father breaks his legs in a fit of pique, for example), Y
is unable to build X's house. X generously tells Y, "fine, here's the
money I would have given you for building my house - I'm going to find
someone else to build it and our agreement is done." And then Y, who
really should be suing his father for compensation, goes back to X and
says "screw you - if you want me to accept this money to get lost, you
also have to hire my agent, who'll pay a portion of his profits to me
for building your house". That is double compensation. And the PCB,
roughly, fits into Y's shoes in that story.
> Every one is free to call it what they wish, I suppose. The point is
> that a very weak ostracized board even got this far. The ICC and BCCI
> are not such nice guys. They knew they were in some trouble. Even
> Pawar seemed ready to discuss other venues few days back. Look their
> lawyers may have said ok may be this you have to give and may be this
> is the iffy part and this what we can probably prevail with. Certainly
> negotiation is going on. The point is PCB was not cutting into
> anything that the other boards were going to make or do. They are the
> ones cutting in even though it is fulfilling the security concerns.
> Legally four things have been conceded. At least BCCIs history points
> to the fact that it simply does not give on anything that it can take.
> It was opportunistic in finding its partner in a weak position and
> trying to benefit from it financially and also in teaching it a
> lesson. Probably its lawyers told it ok agree to these and continue to
> see if the PCB will collapse anyway given its ineptness. Personally I
> don't think BCCI will move back further. I am even pleasantly
> surprised that PCB had the perseverance to go this far. I did not
> think they had it in 'em.
This is crap. The nuisance value of litigation is the main reason
compensation came up - these guys don't want to go to an arbitral
tribunal and they want the PCB out of the picture as quickly as
possible. Many parties who have a perfectly good chance of winning
settle when faced with litigious claims (such as, perhaps, Michael
Jackson) because dealing with the claims takes a long time, is
expensive, and tends to leave even the winners substantially out of
pocket and forces them to expend a great deal of time they'd rather
spend doing other things.
<snip>
> Then PCB can say well in two years it will be
> certainly safe for the cup. No guarantees but no one else can give a
> guarantee either.
They have to, or the Pakistani government does, if they have any
chance of hosting the tournament.
> Here the case of Zimbabwe comes in too. They had
> been ousted due to human rights violations. Well how many rights
> violations by the government are enough? Is sixty thousand in Kashmir
> with the current conflict enough? Is Kashmir part of India? Can PCB
> have some matches in Kashmir? It will be like a home ground for
them.http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/cr..
.
If you're worried about human rights violations, perhaps we should
talk about a government which carried out a genocide against half of
its own people in 1971, still routinely subjects its citizens to high
levels of extortion, and still has provinces where girls can be stoned
for being raped. And it's ironic that you're raising human rights
(when no-one else has) given the PCB wants to relocate matches to the
UAE. And regarding the court case - it's a symbolic gesture rather
than anything else. If the Lahore courts had any shame, they'd cite
forum non conveniens and tell the PCB to sue under the governing law
and as per the dispute resolution clauses of the contract. (Space here
for you to tell us about how Pakistani law is the governing law of the
hosting rights agreement.) Incidentally, has Zardari reinstated the
pre-Musharraf judiciary yet?
> The rest just muddies the water but perhaps that is your goal. So
> let's stick to this discussion I am sure there will be a "few" posts
> coming in countering the Kashmir thing:) One last thing about the BD
> tours; its a strange comment from a BCCI supporter when BCCI itself
> has decided to only have one way tours with BD (so has CA but again
> all this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand).
I'm not a BCCI supporter; I just disagree with the spin you're trying
to put on these contractual negotiations. And, again, the BCCI/PCB
stances to tours are not analogous. Everyone is clamouring to tour
India (for the money if not the safety) while Pakistan is a virtual
pariah. It doesn't befit a team based in a country which no-one wants
to tour to fail to honour its commitments and then, in seriousness,
demand that other countries tour it. It's not acting with clean hands.
If the BCCI was worried about countries failing to show, doubtless it
would be sending teams all over the world and honouring every
commitment. It isn't, so it doesn't.
> I think the more important question is that if I am asking about some
> basic legal term why do you suppose I have a law degree. All you need
> is a logical discussion.
I just thought, that with the level to which you presumed to know
about the outcome, that you had some legal training.
> Please specifically show this doubling of compensation. All you have
> said means nothing until we take a look at what the agreed upon rules
> and procedures are.
See above. These are common law rules of apportionment and
compensation.
> As I said don't bring in extraneous issues about
> Swat that have nothing to do with the thing at hand. The share was
> mutually decided.
Yes, and that contract can no longer be performed. The current focus
is on unwinding it.
Anyway, I'm done on this. Go for gold on the last word. I don't know
why I've spent so long talking about this - everytime I tell myself
I'm done with rsc, I seem stupidly to come back.
A