BCCI pressurised CA, ECB for ICC revamp: Sanjay Patel

The BCCI had threatened to form a parallel world cricket body before the England and Australia boards agreed to the controversial restructuring of the ICC and decided to give a lion's share of its revenue to the India board, according to the BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel.

"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 said at 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."

There was also no stopping BCCI president-in-exile N Srinivasan from taking over as the chairman of the ICC later this month in Melbourne as the Indian Supreme Court has not prevented him from doing so, Patel said.

"By the month end, India will take a leading role in the ICC. Mr Srinivasan is going. There is no Supreme Court bar on him. Both of us are going to Melbourne. In the last four months we have settled (the issue) with all the Full Members of the ICC and convinced them about the new structure and the new financial model of the ICC which would be followed in the coming years.

"India would play a leading role in the ICC and the reasons are well known. India is more or less responsible for 68 to 72 percent of the ICC's gross revenue but unfortunately so far we were getting three to four percent of it."

Patel said that a private agency study had confirmed India's substantial contribution to the ICC.

"Srinivasan asked a private agency to study the model and find out who is responsible for what amount and we found that India is responsible for 72 percent and ICC worked out that it was 68 percent. We had a meeting with the ICC officials in Dubai and we informed that 68 to 72 percent is not an issue but it was clear that the majority of the income is coming from India, so why should India take only three to four percent?"