Complaint has left me non-puzzled: Sourav Ganguly

Former Indian skipper Sourav Ganguly defended himself against a conflict of interest between himself and the BCCI. Ganguly however, conceded that he does have a 5 percent stake in the club Atletico de Kolkata, the club that is owned by the promoters of the Pune Super Giants.

In response to a complaint filed to the ombudsman, Ganguly stated that he was neither aware nor interested with New Rising Promoters Pvt. Ltd. that owns Rising Pune Supergiants. He also claims to be unaware of their shareholding partners. Sourav Ganguly is a member of the IPL governing council.

The BCCI initially approached the ombudsman stating that they didn’t know about Ganguly’s business interests. However, BCCI president Shashank Manohar has dismissed the charges against the former Indian skipper.

“As such the complaint has left me nonplussed. I am a partner with 6.67% share in ‘Catch 22 Informatics LLP’ a limited liability partnership which has about 75% share in Kolkata Games and Sports Pvt. Ltd. In other words my stake in Kolkata Games and Sports Pvt. Ltd is about 5%. However, I have no interest or stake in or connection with New Rising Promoters Pvt. Ltd. which bid at the auction held on December 8, 2016,” wrote Ganguly to the ombudsman in an email that has been accessed by The Indian Express.

Niraj Gunde, the person who filed the complaint, gave his official statement to the media.

“BCCI is unaware of the business links of Mr. Sourav Ganguly and this information could be obtained from him directly,” BCCI’s general manager games development Ratnakar Shetty writes on behalf of the board in a mail which is also in possession of this paper. “

“Having a 5% stake in the football team or having 100% stake is immaterial to the case of conflict of interest at hand,” while reiterating many of his initial complaints. Basing it on the BCCI’s application, he also goes on to write that Ganguly failed to disclose his ‘relationship’ with the new IPL team. “BCCI knew the names and entities who have taken the Invitation to Tender prior to the submission of Bids. A simple company search would have revealed the names of persons who are owners/promoters and their business links,” writes Gunde.

“Sealed bids had all been submitted on that day itself. I was away in London and returned that morning to Delhi and by the time I reached the venue of the meeting the technical bids were already opened by the lawyers appointed by BCCI. Even if he wasn’t present at the time the technical bids were opened, he was aware of who the five bidders were, and therefore, should have disclosed that he had business links with one of them before the process was closed,” he added.