IPL teams may retain 3 players
The Board of Control for Cricket in India may have to pay Rs 850 crore as compensation to disbanded IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala for terminating their contract in 2011, IPL chairman Rajeev Shukla said .
- Published 25.10.17
New Delhi: The Board of Control for Cricket in India may have to pay Rs 850 crore as compensation to disbanded IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala for terminating their contract in 2011, IPL chairman Rajeev Shukla said .
"The Kochi franchise has demanded Rs 850 crore as compensation," said Shukla after the IPL governing council meeting in the capital.
"The matter came up for discussion today. We are not in a position to take any decision... Any decision on the issue will be taken by the general body. I cannot specify how much money will be paid as there will be some negotiations before a particular figure could be quoted," Shukla said.
Asked what should be the players retention policy for the franchises before the next edition of the IPL, Shukla said it could be between three to five players.
Another official, who did not wish to be named, said the proposal would be about retaining one Indian and two foreigners by each franchise, while the right to match (RTM) policy could be applicable for two more players.
Shukla said the cricketers, who played for Rising Pune Supergiants and Gujarat Lions last season, can be retained by Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals.
While Pune and Gujarat would not be there this season, the Super Kings and Royals are back in fray after serving a two-year suspension. "The retention policy could only be finalised only after it is approved by the franchises at a workshop," Shukla said.
In case the proposal is accepted, the likes of Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Suresh Raina and Ravichandran Ashwin may be back with Super Kings.
On the issue of paying huge compensation to Kochi, some members blamed former office-bearers for the fiasco. "There was a time when the Board could have wriggled out of the situation by paying Rs 300 crore. It was not accepted which led to the matter being referred to arbitration."