Re: Life is Funny that Way
- From: "Gilly's Danda" <finallyfinished@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 26, 8:23 pm, arahim <arahim_ara...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Or BCCIs guide to How to Kick a Friend When He's Down: A Case Study
"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
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
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Life is Funny that Way
- From: arahim
- Re: Life is Funny that Way
- References:
- Life is Funny that Way
- From: arahim
- Life is Funny that Way
- Prev by Date: Re: Question for Andrew Dunford
- Next by Date: ODI 300s with only one 50
- Previous by thread: Re: Life is Funny that Way
- Next by thread: Re: Life is Funny that Way
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
