Internet Desk: The 70 year age cap rule with a rider has been agreed by the 7 member BCCI panel to look into the reforms of the Lodha committee. No BCCI office bearer can be over the age of 70 years has been proposed and will be put forward to the members in the Special General Meeting the coming week. However those above 70 years can be part of other committees.
The 70 year cap would be holding ground for office bearers but that doesn’t stop them from being members of other committees said a source to the media.
“To make things clear, the president, secretary, treasurer and other office bearers cannot be over 70. But that doesn’t close the door on the members who have crossed the 70-year cap and they can be a part of the secondary committees like say for example the disciplinary committee or any other committee,” the official said.
When asked about if they are doing this do help the likes of former ICC and BCCI chief N Srinivasan to continue their job, the official added,“Why can we not talk about the positives? The ball is moving and we are showing the intent to move forward and put in place the reforms suggested by the Lodha committee. Conjectures have no place and it is for individuals to think on whether it is a case of ‘half-empty’ or ‘half-full’. You could also say that this is a way of closing the doors for some to hold top posts ever again in the board.”
The official further said that the committee would request the Supreme Court to reconsider the ‘one state one vote’ clause, but the BCCI would definitely abide by the suggestion that North East gets the required representation in the board.
“The committee feels that while the suggestion from the Lodha panel to have fair representation throughout the country stands ground, it would be unfair to ask the likes of Mumbai Cricket Association to stay away from decision-making processes as they have served Indian cricket over the years. As a result, the committee wants the BCCI to request the SC to reconsider the clause,” he said.
The committee also came to a conclusion as regards to the ‘cooling off’ clause. The committee feels that it is best to have one 9-year long tenure rather than any break-ups.
“It was unanimously felt in the meeting that it is best to have one single tenure of 9 years in the board rather than breaking it up and having cooling-off periods in the middle as that breaks the flow and functioning,” he said.