The Board of Control for Cricket in India's (BCCI) conflict management policy is in place, drafted in line with the recommendations of the Committee of Administrators (CoA) who are working on the implementation of Justice Lodha Panel reforms.

The policy is among the five items listed on the agenda for the Board's Special General Meeting (SGM) on July 26 in Delhi. Among many things mentioned in black and white, the primary objective is to ensure that blatant conflicts - material and otherwise - plaguing the game across the country are wiped out.For instance, it is on the basis of this policy that CoA renewed Rahul Dravid's contract as India's junior national coach. 

Dravid was told that going forward, his stints with the national team as well as the IPL franchise cannot coexist. Based on this very policy, Dravid was handed a 12-month contract instead of the 10-month arrangement that was earlier in place.

It is the same policy that will apply to former pacer Zaheer Khan, who - as recommended by the Cricket Advisory Committee - aspires to be a bowling consultant with Team India. Zaheer has to first clarify if he intends to play the 2018 IPL season and only if he hangs his boots can he look forward to any such arrangements - of coming on board as consultant assistant coach (part-time or full) - in the future. Sources indicate he's keen to play another year of IPL.

But that is not the CoA and BCCI's headache right now. With the renewal of Dravid's contract as India coach, they've already set the benchmark for what constitutes conflict, especially for individuals who work through contracts with the Board. The bigger problem, that the CoA believes can be sorted only through the appointment of an ombudsman, is about tackling third-party arrangements of individuals who are conflicted through outside contracts - commercial and otherwise - which the BCCI has no control over.

Former India Captain Sourav Ganguly, who is a president of a state association, chairman of the technical committee, member of the IPL governing council, member of the Cricket Advisory Committee and more simply cannot have a contract with a television channel on which he is a "cricket expert".

The clear impediment in dealing with an arrangement like this one, from CoA's point of view, is that a solution cannot be achieved without an ombudsman coming in place. That ombudsman -six individuals have been shortlisted for the role already - will have to be appointed by the Supreme Court.

"We are hoping the SC appoints an ombudsman at the earliest and this conflict issue can be seriously looked into," says a state unit member.

"This conflict issue has become a huge headache because every day we keep receiving so many complaints through e-mails pointing out some instance or the other of violation. What can the CoA do but request SC to appoint the ombudsman? Ganguly's many roles are a matter of discussion but that's only one of the multiple concerns," says an administrator in the know of things.

(Courtesy: The Times of India)