Wouldn't have dreamt of walking away from ICC - Srinivasan

On his first day as the ICC's new chairman N Srinivasan has insisted the BCCI would never "have even dreamt" of walking away from the global governing body had its proposals for a vastly greater share of event revenue and formal influence at the board table been opposed.

Watched by several of the men who had told the world that India's board had indeed made such threats on multiple occasions, including the BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel and Cricket Australia chairman Wally Edwards, Srinivasan applied a rewrite to history as he settled into a role of enormous power and influence.

The most common explanation given for the original plan to restructure the ICC's administration and finance distribution came from the need of other cricket boards to keep the BCCI "in the tent." Asked whether the BCCI's threat of walking away had played a driving force at any stage across the development of the "Big Three" proposals, Srinivasan replied to the contrary.

"No. I think that is an incorrect assessment," he said. "India has at all times been very supportive of ICC, and has appreciated what ICC has done. We may not always agree, it is not possible to always agree with each other on all aspects. But that doesn't mean that one walks away. We have a view, we feel we have the right to one. The ICC is like a large family, so we always felt we had a right to express our view, and that doesn't mean at any time that we would have even dreamt of walking away from the ICC."

These words were a direct contradiction of those uttered by Patel earlier this month, when he outlined India's brinkmanship. "We got criticised by many in the media and lot of them did not agree but we told them that if India is not getting its proper due and importance then India might be forced to form a second ICC of its own," Patel told the Sports Journalists Federation of India's annual convention in Hyderabad. "England and Australia agreed and after that it was decided and from June 27th onwards the new structure will come into place. I would like to state that all 10 Full Members have signed the resolution."

Also speaking rather differently was Cricket Australia chairman Edwards, who has worked tirelessly to tell other Full Members, Associates and Affiliates about what was at stake without the constitutional changes approved at the ICC annual conference in Melbourne on Thursday. In March, Edwards told ESPNcricinfo that there had been a "very real chance" of India leaving the rest of the world behind. "We've had lots of talks about that, and that was a real possibility before we came to all these agreements. There was a very real chance that India would have gone on an IPL voyage and left world cricket behind," Edwards said. "That was said more than once. If that had happened, you were looking down the barrel of a Kerry Packer moment. It would have been easy to say, 'They aren't going to do it, they want to play in World Cups', but that was a reality.

"They've said more than once, 'You can have a World Cup but we won't be coming.' We can argue they might come, but will they come to Champions Trophy or a World T20? They might not. I can easily see them not coming. Why would you risk turning the IPL into a travelling circus that would take all our good cricketers 12 months of the year and leave us with second-rate international cricket? It's not a pretty thought. But it's possible, and they know that. Maybe in the end it will still happen one day, but I don't think it will happen in the next eight years."

In England, the ECB chairman Giles Clarke and his head of communications Colin Gibson refrained from speaking quite so bluntly. "Now we get India to take responsibility for driving the ICC. Previously they'd been standing outside chucking rocks," Clarke told the Evening Standard. "India has every reason to want to lead and generate the most possible money for the ICC."

However the English press wrote often of the threat posed by Indian non-participation in the ICC, summed up by the following passage by Stephen Brenkley in the Independent as part of a piece entitled "India and England give ICC a plan to save Test cricket": "If it is not approved, or if it is delayed for long, the feeling is that India will simply play who, where and when they want. They have frequently indicated that the Future Tours Programme of international cricket is a hindrance and that playing in ICC events such as the World Cup are inconveniences."

In discussing how the new landscape came about over the past year or more, Srinivasan said he had never intended to become ICC chairman. "I never thought of becoming the chairman," he said. "We had a working group to start looking the next rights cycle of the ICC from 2015-2023 and we started to look at what financial models we should be having. From there we went on to say why only look at the financial model, is ICC in its present form all right? Should we have a slightly different governance model, should we not give a better opportunity for Associates and Affiliates?

"So this is how the thought process, the whole concept, discussions widened. At the end of the day then, we said one should take responsibility for leadership in cricket. That is how England, Australia, ourselves and others thought. It evolved over at least a year ... it is not that we started out with this, we ended up with this."

Re: Wouldn't have dreamt of walking away from ICC - Srinivas

Opening statement.
First of all it's a great honour for me to have been elected as the first chairman of the ICC, at a time when the ICC also has restructured itself to become more viable and offer better financial stability to Full Members as well as Associates, concentrate on meritocracy, afford Associate members the chance to start playing Test cricket with Full Members, and also to emphasise the development of cricket among the Associates and Affiliates. This new structure provides for a fund for supporting Test cricket, and it also has a guaranteed FTP, which will ensure better quality cricket, competitive cricket and offer all members the chance to play everybody else. So I look forward to this assignment, I think there may be other challenges, but I think we will witness a period when overall all aspects of cricket will improve.

How did these constitutional changes and your move to become chairman evolve over time, and when did the process begin?
I never thought of becoming the chairman. We had a working group to start looking a the next rights cycle of the ICC from 2015-2023 and we started to look at what financial models we should be having. From there we went on to say why only look at the financial model, is ICC in its present form all right? Should we have a slightly different governance model, should we not give a better opportunity for Associates and Affiliates? So this is how the thought process, the whole concept, discussions widened. At the end of the day then we said one should take responsibility for leadership in cricket. That is how England, Australia, ourselves and others thought. It evolved over at least a year ... it is not that we started out with this, we ended up with this.

It is well known that you've been barred as the BCCI president by the Supreme Court of India for the duration of the IPL investigation. Can you explain you're an appropriate, fit and proper person to run world cricket, given your involvement in that investigation?
Actually the court did not ask me, I stepped aside voluntarily.* The Mudgal Committee made a report which did not involve me, but they had given a sealed envelope in which they said there were some unsubstantiated, unverified allegations made by some people, which the court is looking into. I said I'll voluntarily step aside during that period. Now as far as I'm concerned I have done nothing wrong, there is no wrongdoing on my part, and therefore my conscience is very clear, that there is no taint on me. Whatever investigations there are will take their course, it will come out, reports will come out. But unless I have in my mind any doubt I have done anything... I have to think if I have not done [wrong], I do not have any concern.

When you say "there is no taint on me", does that include your son-in-law?
There are some charges against him, he has to defend himself in court. It's a question of whether it is going to be proved or not, but that's up to him. This is a question about me.

But it reflects on you, it [Chennai Super Kings] is your team.
You have to wait until everything is clear. At the end of the day if nothing is proved, I think all this comment would have been unfair.

How big a concern is corruption in cricket and how do you propose to combat it?
The ICC has been taking very strong steps. They have an anti-corruption and security unit, which has done extremely good work. They don't publicise what they do, but I think [they do good work], and I'd ask David Richardson to say a few words on it because it comes directly under him. They've done extensive work, but cricket is being played worldwide in a number of geographies, a number of jurisdictions and is being played simultaneously in many of these places, so it is an arduous task and I think they're doing quite well.

But is it a big problem?
Richardson: The ACSU was formed [14] years back under Lord Paul Condon. Initially the strategy was all about education, prevention, disruption, and that strategy has been arguably very successful. In recent times our ACSU unit has been determined to be more proactive on the investigation side, have sought to engage more with law enforcement agencies to be more effective on the investigation side, and investigations have been concluded over the past two or three years and have come to fruition. But the strategy does remain education, prevention and disruption of attempt to match- and spot-fix by a large number of bookies who travel the world and try to corrupt players.

If you look at the state of things today you can count on less that one hand the amount of ongoing investigations, and even with that small number it is doubtful whether one or two will result in charges being laid. And to me that is reflective of the current state of corruption. Yes, of course it is a threat, we've got these unscrupulous individuals travelling around the world, pitching up wherever cricket is played. And we've got to make sure that we disrupt all their efforts to engage with players or umpires or groundsmen or whoever. The overwhelming majority of cricket played is clean and the cricketers playing it are clean.

Mr Srinivasan, in the past you've always professed to act in the best interests of Indian cricket, do you now propose to act in the best interests of the game globally, and what is your vision for it?
Cricket is a very old game, it has evolved over time, from Test cricket we went to ODI cricket, on to T20 cricket. One of the issues that is facing cricket is we are, in many countries, not seeing the kind of attendances at grounds that we are used to in the past. Some forms of cricket are more popular and see more spectator attention. Having said that, I think the most important thing we must be look at is how to make cricket more interesting by making it more competitive. You will find in this new structure there is a lot of emphasis on meritocracy. The glass ceiling has been broken, the Associates and Affiliates, up and coming teams, they can come up and play the longer version.

As the public sees there is greater competition, I think cricket will also improve. That is something we will drive.

What do you have to say to India having taken up this role?
I am humbled by this opportunity to be a leader in this great organisation, which has done so much for cricket.

Your appointment has been heavily criticised in many parts of the cricket world, what do you say to those who don't think you're the best man for this job?
I believe that some of the criticism is not fair to me and is not well-founded. Beyond that all I can say is that over a long period of time I have been involved with cricket and its administration, and one must judge me by results. It is the first day, I've just been elected, and one has to wait and see as to what is the effect I have on the ICC and on cricket, before you make that judgement.

When you look at world cricket right now, do you think it has an image problem?
No I think the ICC, as David Richardson was explaining earlier, has taken a lot of steps to root out whatever problems are sniffing at world cricket today. As a result of the efforts of the ACSU and the education programmes they have put in place around the world, I think one can say that there is substantial improvement and I can't accept that cricket has an image problem. There may have been some instances, rare instances [of corruption], few and far between, but I think almost all cricket is very competitive and very fair.

Is it that the Western media tried to portray the Indian board when it comes to a chairman, or previously president of the ICC, in a different way and is critical to him?
I have no such view. Media are entitled to have a view, entitled to be critical, but ultimately the facts have to be there. According to me most of the criticism is not well-founded, as time will tell. Beyond that it is difficult for me to speak, there is a matter in court and I do not want to overstep.

What about relationships with the players, the Austrlaian Cricketers Association recently said the ICC was the No. 1 problem in world cricket?
I do not want to respond to the ACA's comments. But I don't think the ICC has a problem with the players.

Over the time of talks about changing the ICC constitution and establishing your chairmanship, was it ever a realistic possibility that India might walk away from the ICC and the game?
No. I think that is an incorrect assessment. India has at all times been very supportive of ICC, and has appreciated what the ICC has done. We may not always agree, it is not possible to always agree with each other on all aspects. But that doesn't mean that one walks away. We have a view, we feel we have the right to one. The ICC is like a large family, so we always felt we had a right to express our view, and that doesn't mean at any time that we would have even dreamt of walking away from the ICC.