65 Million Lawsuit !

Duty of Performance !

WICB could NOT perform due to the players walk out !

Slam dunk : BCCI on their own 

There you go. Maybe there is such a thing as Karma. Take it WICB!

Andy Bull of The Guardian provides his take on the potential $65 million lawsuit.

Quote:Early estimates put the BCCI’s losses at $65m. The more hot-headed members of the Indian board have suggested that they should seek to extract that same sum from the WICB. This would be an entirely fruitless pursuit. At the start of the 2012-13 financial year, the total sum of the WICB’s retained earnings was $128,090. Which is, to put it in perspective, about a quarter of the amount they spent on “balls and gear” in the next 12 months. This time last year, the WICB was $5,693,323 in debt. This year’s financial report actually began with a paragraph written by its chartered accountants at KPMG emphasising that “there is substantial doubt the company will be able to continue as a going concern”.

The BCCI is still threatening legal action and has said it will suspend all future tours to the West Indies. Either way, the WICB will be sunk. It is simply a question of how long it takes to reach the bottom. The last Indian tour to the Caribbean bought in $22.3m for the WICB, money which has sustained it for the last three years, and which is now exhausted. Which explains why the board look more concerned with appeasing India than it is in repairing relations with their own players. In fact it seems to be prepared to throw its own players under the wheels if that means it is spared itself. This, then, is the first real test of the new ICC. The BCCI will need to be beneficent, because it holds the fate of the WICB in its grasp.

Surely international law states that organisations are not responsible for natural disasters, strikes, acts of piracy etc. It looks as if BCCI are blaming the WICB for the Tour cancellation because this is the only way they can get compensation. If the players on strike are responsible for the cancellation by virtue of withdrawing their labour then surely the Indian Board are not entitled to compensation?

The Board could have stepped in and tell the players :

we will pay the 35 ooo Sponsorhip $ : and let the Tour proceed as planned !

They did NOT : hence the India board lawsuit !

[quote author=ketchim link=topic=93468.msg594746#msg594746 date=1413728434]
[size=14pt]BCCI : damages bill to West Indies may touch $65m[/size]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-west...90375.html

[/quote]

Their claim for damages would be severely diminished as a result of the Sri Lanka series arranged by the BCCI.  In other words, the BCCI mitigated its damages by inviting Sri Lanka to fill in for the Wondies.

So damages are basically out of the picture.  The BCCI will now most likely seek a declaration from the court that the WICB committed an anticipatory breach of contract and use that decision to pull out of all the existing bi-lateral tours as well as other arrangements with the WICB.  The WICB will probably argue that performance was impossible once the players took the position they took and they offered a replacement team which was rejected.

Yes I understand the Duty of Performance.

BCCI will argue that the crux was 35 K in sponsorshp revenue !

Heck BCCI may even claim they would have donated that pittance for the TOUR to proceed !

[quote author=ketchim link=topic=93468.msg595447#msg595447 date=1414015501]
Yes I understand the Duty of Performance.

BCCI will argue that the crux was 35 K in sponsorshp revenue !

Heck BCCI may even claim they would have donated that pittance for the TOUR to proceed !

[/quote]

The BCCI doesn't care about that $35K issue.  That's a matter between the WICB and its players/union.


The BCCI's legal position is that the WICB knew of this dispute (players/WIPA/WICB) before the tour and more importantly knew that this dispute could lead to the players withdrawing from the tour if unresolved.  Hence, the anticipatory breach of contract by the WICB which lead to partial performance of the contract.

I have to say that both the WICB and WIPA have the crappy legal advisers.  Either that or they don't listen to those legal advisers.  All of this could have been avoided before a ball was even bowled. 

You do know the Players went on TOUR , without a contract  !

that is even more damning !

So even If classified as a wildcat strike :there was no contract with the Board !

[quote author=ketchim link=topic=93468.msg595453#msg595453 date=1414017846]
You do know the Players went on TOUR , without a contract  !

that is even more damning !

So even If classified as a wildcat strike :there was no contract with the Board !

[/quote]

They had a MOU.  Whether we like it or not that MOU is still a legally binding agreement absent a court order declaring it otherwise.