First published in Daily Star on October 25, 2005

Alluding to a statement that accuses PCB of devaluing the forthcoming England Series attributed the TWI Rep, which appeared in a leading national daily newspaper, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my comments, with-out conveying the impression that I write this in defence of the Pakistan Cricket Board.

The fact of the matter is that other than the 2004 tour by India no series has yielded as much as the amount raised for the forthcoming England tour. I might add that it is my understanding that the two rights of the title sponsor and co-sponsor had already been sold before England actually won the Ashes.

In regard to the onerous conditions said to prevail in the matter of the highest bidder having to bid again against all other bidders as opposed to only those who had met the reserve price, the statement is contradictory and those who have not followed it are requested to have a re-read.

The aforementioned rep alleges that it was not a level playing field and did not justify the time and effort needed to expend (sic) in providing a bid! In such an eventuality one fails to comprehend why TWI requested 'a few days' extension for the bundled rights for five series (India, Australia, West Indies, South Africa and Zimbabwe) to be able to put in a considered and competitive bid.

What is somewhat perplexing is that the rep on the one hand justified the purpose of bundling so that lower value tours are covered by more profitable ones and on the other hand advocated, virtually in the same breath that bidders should have the right to bid for any one or more rights.

I get the impression that the rep is a confused man. This impression is strengthened by the comparison he makes between the $4 million for the title sponsorship, co-sponsorship and the in-stadia rights for the England tour. This is a naïve comparison as it omits to take cognizance of the fact that India was touring Pakistan after a gap of 14 years. Apples and oranges.

Incidentally (and may I add, moreover) a fly on the wall tells me that the rep's organization is in long standing debt to PCB of a very considerable sum of money.

To conclude, the advice to those who live in glass houses will find it to their advantage if they were to wear, at least, loin cloths when bathing.

The foregoing paragraph also applies to PCB's former Marketing Director in the context of his criticism of the bundled commercial rights which in his view was not within the mandate of the current (Ad Hoc) board.

He had overlooked the fact that he himself had arranged two such long term deals in the course of his tenure as a member of an Ad Hoc board.

(Article: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author only.
Copyright © 2005 M U Haq)