The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), backed by the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA), shot an 11-page, 24-point letter to the International Cricket Council (ICC) on Sunday (March 19) clearly stating that India is not in agreement with the changes proposed in the finance and governance models of the sport's parent body.

"We draw your attention to the Members Participation Agreement (MPA) dated 12th October 2014 entered into between BCCI and ICC Business Corporation, relating to ICC Events between 2015 and 2023.The proposed new ICC constitution and financial model will, if adopted, entitles us to exercise certain rights under the MPA and also to avail remedies under applicable law," the BCCI wrote in the letter, a copy of which is with TOI.

In layman terms, what the BCCI has essentially conveyed to the ICC is that since there happens to be no scientific formula behind the figures mentioned in the new financial redistribution model proposed by the governing body, and since there is no logic in the proposed voting system other than the potential risk of curbing India's global dominance of the game, India will not agree to the amendments. Should the ICC continue to persist with the proposed policy changes, India will invoke the MPA, which fundamentally means they reserve the choice to move out of the ongoing eight-year bilateral cycle.

The letter, in many ways, is also a hint as to why ICC's independent chairman Shashank Manohar who was at the forefront in pushing the reforms quit office last week.

Calling the move to change the finance model of ICC an arbitrary one, BCCI's letter further reads: "The ICC is seeking to change the existing financial model without having any scientific formula or technical analysis behind the proposed changes. It is a fundamental attribute of any resource allocation system to first collect information and then allocate resources based on the information, priorities and a defined methodology.

"Since no methodology has been articulated in support of the proposed new financial model, we are unable to evaluate the same on any recognized and or accepted parameters. Any discussion on the proposed new financial model has to be based on clearly articulated and acceptable principles which recognize the relative contribution of BCCI to the revenues of the ICC. For the above reasons, we are not agreeable to the proposed new financial model."

BCCI's stated logic is that the move to include Ireland and Afghanistan as full members and chart out their revenue allocation from funds generated by Indian cricket is an irrational one.

The methodology of payment of a participation fee (called `Contribution Cost') to all members to secure their participation in ICC events and compensate them for the opportunity cost incurred on account of blocking portions of their cricketing calendar in order to participate in ICC events is one that isn't based on a sound scientific formula either.

Outlining this, the Indian Board says: "The model treats Afghanistan and Ireland as Full Members without reducing the funds allocated to them from Associate Members' share.

"The proposed model seeks to introduce a contingency fund and contemplates transfer to ICC reserves without any explanation."

Even if the ICC member board members decide to vote on the proposals, it will come up for a final ratification at the ICC's annual conference in June. Interestingly, the Champions Trophy, which has been an immediate threat in the backdrop of the ongoing tussle, is also scheduled for June.

BCCI's objections on revenue model

BCCI has listed out a four-pointer to ICC on the financial redistribution, which reads as follows:

A) As per ICC Board resolutions dated February 8, 2014 & April 9, 2014, levels of event cost expenses were approved corresponding to gross revenue levels and it specified that for gross revenue between US$ 2.5b & US$ 2.74b, event cost expenses would be US$ 550m whereas for gross revenue of 2.75 or higher, expenses would be US$ 600m. As per Revised 2014 model, expenses have been increased to US$ 610m despite gross revenue remaining same.

BCCI: There is no explanation for this increase.

B) As per the 2014 resolutions, levels of admin cost central expenses were approved corresponding to gross revenue levels and it was specified that for gross revenue between US$ 2.5b to US$3.24b, the admin cost central expenses would be US$ 250m whereas for gross revenue of US$3.25b or higher, expenses would be US$ 275m. As per the revised 2014 model, expenses have been increased to US$ 320m despite the gross revenue remaining the same.

BCCI: There is no explanation for this.

C) The revised 2014 model introduces a contingency fund of US$ 40m which is not envisaged under the existing financial model.

BCCI: There is no explanation for why this is necessary.

D) The revised 2014 model contemplates US$ 25m being transferred to ICC reserves which is not envisaged under the existing financial model.

BCCI: We need to understand why transfer of funds to ICC reserves from out of ICC's operating funds is now being contemplated.