NEWS
SCHEDULES
COLUMNS
PREVIOUS TOURS
OTHER SPORTS
STATISTICS
INTERVIEWS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

Did Dalmiya negotiate with Doordarshan?

In the interview with Khalid Ansari referred to earlier in this article, Dalmiya says, and we quote verbatim, this:

"I wish to state categorically that I did not negotiate with anybody at Doordarshan or favour them, nor did I do anything to grant television rights to World Tel. There is no question of my defrauding or cheating Doordarshan in collusion with Mark Mascarenhas or anybody else.

"I am at a loss to understand the logic of the allegations. If I wanted to favour Mark Mascarenhas, who is supposed to be a friend f mine and if I was the sole ‘negotiator’, as alleged, where was the need for me to stage such a drama? I could have awarded him the contract right away.

True, ICC authorised me to negotiate in its best interest. That does not mean I was given the freedom to manipulate, to receive kickbacks. What is the Oxford dictionary definition of ‘negotiate’?"

A rather strange statement, this -- in one breath, Dalmiya says he did not negotiate with anyone at Doordarshan, in the same breath he says he was authorised by the ICC to negotiate in its best interest. If he was authorised to negotiate, why then turn around and say he never did?

Here is the relevant portion of the official ICC press release, put out by Chief Executive Officer David Richards, on May 2, 2000:

"The President, Jagmohan Dalmiya, was not involved in negotiations with any of the 4 bidders."

That is a lie, as was pointed out, with irrefutable evidence, in our stories dated May 3 and May 4.

Those two stories very comprehensively prove one fact -- Dalmiya was intimately involved in the negotiations, at every stage.

Now for his failure to "understand the logic of the accusations". Let's take it item by item, to show what in fact was done:

1) Mr Dalmiya questions the logic of saying that on the one hand he favoured Prasar Bharti, and on the other hand he caused losses to that body of US $4 million.

That is in fact what happened, nand here is how it ws done: Prasar Bharti was informed by Dalmiya and David Richards, at the initial stage, that the Doordarshan bid "while being substantial, was not the highest". That was a deliberate attempt to mislead Prasar Bharti -- an attempt that worked. The facts are that at the first round of negotiations, Prasar Bharti had bit US $8.5 million, whereas the next highest bidder, TWI, weighed in at US $8.2 million. Prasar Bharti, thus, had effectively won the bidding right at that first stage itself.

However, PB was informed that it's bid was not the highest -- a lie. PB was then asked by David Richards to negotiate with Dalmiya (who now says he did not negotiate). Dalmiya conducted negotiatons at his Calcutta office on March 3, 4 and 5, 1998. Dalmiya set a deadline of March 4 for receiving final bids from PB and TWI. PB then substantially hiked its original bid, having been deceived by the ICC claim that its bid was lower than that of the competition.

And that is how the firm of Dalmiya and Richards caused a loss to Prasar Bharti -- the logic of which statement, Dalmiya now claims not to understand.

Interestingly, in the interview given to Khalid Ansari, Dalmiya says: "And if I wanted to give the rights to Doordarshan for personal reasons, I could have easily done so since in any event, their bid were the highest on both occasions."

DD's bid -- and this is Dalmiya himself saying so, was the highest on both occasions. Which raises a question: if DD's initial bid was higher than that of the competition, why then was DD informed by David Richards that its bid was not the highest, and that DD should negotiate further with David Richards?

2) 'If I wanted to favour Mark Mascarenhas, I could have awarded him the contract right away', Dalmiya argues.

An argument that doesn't stand -- Dalmiya could not have awarded any contract "right away" to anyone, without going through the process of open bidding, because other bidders would have filed suit immediately. What did happen was that by clubbing national rights with international rights and awarding it to the sports consortium of which Mascarenhas was a part, the latter got the international rights for US $3 million, including the production contract -- whereas other parties had bid higher than $7 million for the international rights alone.

The best deal for ICC -- which is what Dalmiya himself says his brief was to negotiate -- would thus have been to award the national rights to Doordarshan, as the highest bidder, and the international rights to the organisation with the highest bid in that regard -- in this case, TWI.

So much for the logic that Dalmiya fails to understand.

One part of Dalmiya's statement to Khalid Ansari, quoted above, raises a question. The relevant quote is: "True, ICC authorised me to negotiate in its best interest. That does not mean I was given the freedom to manipulate, to receive kickbacks. What is the Oxford dictionary definition of ‘negotiate’?"

First, Dalmiya and Richards both swore that the former did not negotiate with any of the bidders at any point in time -- which, as shown in our earlier stories, is just not true. Second, no section of the media raised any question about whether Dalmiya got any kickbacks. What has been said, on Rediff and in other sections of the media, is that the Richards statement is a blatant lie, that Dalmiya was involved intimately in the negotiations, that the negotiations caused enormous losses to Prasar Bharti.

Why then is Dalmiya talking of kickbacks? A case of 'Methinks the lady doth protest too much"?

One further statement Dalmiya made to Khalid Ansari merits mention. We quote: "Former Prasar Bharati financial advisor Arun Agarwal has alleged that I, possibly along with Richards, have ‘cheated’ Doorsharshan of four milion dollars and deposited the money in a personal account in the Virgin Islands.

As far as the ICC is concerned, awarding contracts, sub-contracts or production fees is an internal matter of the boardcaster and of no consequence to them.

Coming to the Virgin Islands account, since 1992 ICC has been maintaining, for tax reason, an offshore account in the name ICC Development International, in which 100% shares are held by ICC member-nations, since most countries have taxes on incomes from sport. This is tax planning, not evasion.

The successful bidders applied to the Reserve Bank of India for permission and remitted the money to ICC, not to me. All nine ICC members and 27, Associate Members hold this account I can’t take a penny from it, not even as director’s fee. The persons raking up this issue.

Where’s the ‘golmaal’ in this? I don’t have an account anywhere outside India. Instead of making idiotic statements, those who claim to be in the know should go to the CBI, to the Finance Minister. To L K Advani, to the police instead of being after my blood."

In the press of recent matters, a little factoid might have slipped Mr Dalmiya's mind. We think it pertinent to remind him of it. That fact is: Dalmiya has an interest in Lancaster Holdings Limited. The company was incorporated on April 26, 1990, under registration number 28619 and with authorised capital of $50,000. The registered office is PO Box 3136, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands.

And the last time we checked on a map, the British Virgin Islands were not part of Indian territory -- which makes his statement that he doesn't have an account anywhere outside India a bit iffy, to say the least.

But then, Dalmiya and Richards are masters of misdirection. Remember what Richards said in his statement defending Dalmiya? That the bids were opened in the presence of himself and Ehsan Mani -- implying that Dalmiya was not part of the process. However, as a document we are attaching below shows, Dalmiya was involved in the negotiations even before the original bid was finalised.

Similarly, Arun Agarwal and others talked of Dalmiya's interests in an offshore company. Dalmiya attempts misdirection by stating that he does not have an account off shore. Correct -- Lancaster Holdings is not a bank, Dalmiya does not have an account in it. It is, however, an offshore company in a tax haven, and Dalmiya is a part of that company.

And finally, Mr Dalmiya suggests that those having information should go to the CBI. That has, in fact, been done -- all information in these pages have been made available to the investigating authority.

The telecast scam -- from the Doordarshan files

Related links:

Minutes from the BCCI meeting relating to Dalmiya's bid to be ICC chairman -- dated May 9, 2000

Sound and fury -- David Richards springs to Dalmiya's defence -- dated May 3, 2000

Why is the ICC lying? -- May 4, 2000

Prem Panicker