SLC have raised concerns on the 'Big-three' proposal © Getty Images
SLC have raised concerns on the ‘Big-three’ proposal © Getty Images (Representational Photo)


New Delhi: Feb 7, 2014 


Responding to opposition from Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) to the proposed changes in International Cricket Council(ICC)’s structure, ICC’s head of legal affairs Iain Higgins has said that the revamp model was “legally sound” and member boards can vote against it should it be brought to vote during the Board meeting in Singapore.


On Wednesday, SLC president Jayantha Dharmadasa wrote to Higgins after a special meeting of the SLC stakeholders voted unanimously against the revised proposals presented to the ICC directors at the ICC Board meeting on January 28.


According to Cricinfo, Higgins has replied to Dharamdasa, saying that “the proposals themselves could be “considered” within the ICC’s “Memorandum and Articles of Association” and members are free express their opposition.


“On the face of the resolutions themselves, they would appear to be correct. Any Member who disagrees with that analysis or any of the resolutions is, of course, free to vote against the resolutions, or take such other action as they see fit,” Higgins wrote.



                         Catch all the stories on ICC’s Big Three proposal and other key events here




Apart from SLC, Cricket South Africa (CSA) and the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) are also unhappy with the proposals that will give a major say to Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), England Cricket Board (ECB) and Cricket Australia (CA) in the running of the game.


In his correspondence to Higgins, Dharmadasa had said the “purported proposals” were completely against the fundamental principles on which the ICC had been formed.


He feared that the revised structure would put power in the hands of “just three Full Members” and make available to them a “disproportionately large share” of the ICC funding meant for all ten Full Members. That, he said, would only violate the equal revenue-share model that was part of the ICC constitution.


One of Dharmadasa’s reservation was against the proposed “contribution costs” which would erase the existing equal distribution of funds to all Full Members from the ICC surplus.


And Higgins admitted that the financial redistribution model might need further discussions.


“Our preliminary view is that the payment of ‘Contribution Costs’ and ‘Test Cricket Fund’ are in furtherance of the ICC’s objectives and consistent with the prevailing provisions within the ICC’s constitution. We will consider that matter further, and will reflect on your comments in that respect,” Higgins wrote.


Higgins also said that it was not necessary to give the Members  three months notice for the proposals to be studied, as argued by Dharmadasa. The period, he said, was necessary only if the resolutions were being tabled in front of the Full Council. The ICC’s Full Council meets in June every year.