Sourav Ganguly has quit the ATK Mohun Bagan board after he faced questions of conflict of interest as a co-owner of the Indian Super League team, along with Sanjiv Goenka.
This came a day after The Indian Express reported about the BCCI president’s potential conflict of interest, as Goenka’s RPSG Ventures Ltd won the bid for Rs 7,090 crore to own the new Lucknow franchise at the Indian Premier League. Ganguly’s position as the BCCI chief, alongwith his presence in the ATK Mohun Bagan board, was seen as potential conflict of interest even by some BCCI members.
Asked if he has quit the ATK Mohun Bagan board, Ganguly responded to The Indian Express with a one-liner: “Yes I have”.
At least until Thursday morning, however, the club website still showed Ganguly as a member of the board and Goenka as its chair. “The team was owned by Kolkata Games and Sports Pvt. Ltd. consisting of former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly, alongside businessmen Harshavardhan Neotia, Sanjiv Goenka, and Utsav Parekh,” the website stated.
A message to Goenka wasn’t responded to yet. A couple of days back, though, the Lucknow IPL franchise owner told CNBC TV18: “Well, I think he (Ganguly) is going to step down from Mohun Bagan completely.”
Earlier, talking to this paper, a senior BCCI member had said: “Ganguly is the president, he needs to understand. This is not the first time that he has been in this situation.”
Ganguly had faced conflict of interest questions before, when he joined Delhi Capitals in an advisory role while being the Cricket Association of Bengal president. The former India captain had rubbished the allegation, saying he took up the role after consulting the Committee of Administrators, in charge of the BCCI then.
As per the BCCI constitution: “When the BCCI, a member, the IPL or a franchisee enter into contractual agreement with entities in which the individual concerned or his/her relative, partner or close associate has an interest. This is to include cases where family members, partners or close associates are in positions that may, or may be seen to compromise an individual’s participation, performance and discharge of roles.”