Sri Lanka Cricket responds

With reference to the article titled ‘Stakeholders question SLC Interim Committee decisions,’ which appeared in Daily FT on 24 June, the Interim Committee of Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) has issued the following statement.

We would like to express its deep concern of the fact that the Daily FT has continually given unjustified prominence to a group of individuals masquerading as representatives of the SLC stakeholders.

They are in fact a very small minority of disgruntled members of the former Executive Committee,motivated by greed and self-interest, who do not have any legal or moral right to represent themembership of the SLC. Their self-professed claim to represent the “Stakeholders of SLC”,consisting of member clubs and member associations, is not only baseless and false but also adesperate attempt to mislead the cricket loving public of this country.

This group of individuals has resorted to making scurrilous attempts to undermine the bona fides ofthe current Interim Committee of SLC by making baseless, unsubstantiated claims directingresponsibility regarding the low value bid received for the sale of TV rights for the upcomingIndian tour. 

SLC categorically denies any such accusations and further states that it was theprevious Executive Committee’s decision not to include the Indian tours on to the list of‘unscheduled tours,’ which has directly contributed to this low value bid. 

It is SLC’s view thathad the former committee included the Indian tours on the list of ‘unscheduled tours,’ as with theother countries there listed, SLC would have been rewarded with a substantially higher bid. Thisview is based on the positive global cricket TV market conditions prevailing at the signing of the2013 agreement with TajTV. It is hoped that in keeping with the high traditions hitherto practiced by your publication, that youwill adhere to the principles of impartial journalism that have contributed to the lasting popularityof the Daily FT. As such, please take measures to grant the same scope of publicity to this responseas your original article. We would also appreciate if in future your coverage also includes theopinions and views of the other parties involved as well.