IPL 2018 Auctions: Rajasthan Royals unhappy with auction policies
The owner of the Royals reportedly wrote to the BCCI expressing their concerns.
Published - Jan 23, 2018 11:07 am | Updated - Jan 23, 2018 2:57 pm
The IPL 2018 auctions are fast approaching and the build up to the mega event is getting intense with every passing day. While all the franchises are busy figuring out the players they would want to go for, team Rajasthan Royals is unhappy with the policies that the Governing Council has been floating with for the auctions. The Royals, along with the Chennai Super Kings, will be making their comeback to the IPL roster after serving their suspension period of two years.
As per the recent report in the Deccan Chronicle, the owners of the Rajasthan Royals have written to the BCCI expressing their concerns on the protocols followed for the player retention and the auction process. Manoj Badale, a co-owner of the Royals franchise, believes that the system of auction is flawed this time around. Usually all capped players go under the hammer first and then the uncapped players come to the fore.
However, this time, there will a round of capped players going for the auctions and will be followed by the uncapped players. After that, the second round of capped players will come to the fore. With this logic, a youngster like Washington Sundar, who is making big strides in world cricket, will be 139th player to be auctioned. By that time, most teams are expected to have shelled out their big bucks.
“Historically, all the capped players have been auctioned first, followed by the uncapped players. This year, however, the first round of capped lots for every position is being followed by the first round of uncapped lots… then the second round of capped lots is followed by second round of uncapped lots and so on…” a report in Mumbai Mirror said.
Why a disparity in policies?
Speaking further on the same issue, the Rajasthan Royals owner also pointed out at the fact that the teams retaining just two players are shelling out a higher amount than the teams retaining three players are giving out for their first two players. He feels that these issues need to be addressed.
“Firstly if you could explain why the retention pricing methodology changed, so that when retaining two players, you pay less for those two than a team retaining three pays for the first two. Then could you explain why, once this decided, there is no reduction for the team only retaining one player,” a disappointed Badale questioned.