PSL production rights winner got non transparent awards in previous leagues

ISLAMABAD: A fresh controversy has erupted regarding the allocation of production rights for Pakistan Super League (PSL) Season 9. The company that secured the production rights for PSL-9 was found to have obtained three non-transparent contracts amounting to billions of rupees in the preceding two seasons of PSL.

An audit report, available the Hum Investigation Team (HIT), disclosed that M/s Trans Group, the recipient of the production award for the 9th edition of PSL this week, acquired “non-transparent” awards from the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) in previous seasons.

According to the audit team, the PCB granted three “non-transparent awards” to M/s Trans Group, including the non-transparent award and partial production of a contract for the sale of Instadia Sponsorship Rights valued at US$ 7.805 million.

The audit revealed a lack of evidence from the PCB management regarding the tendering process for the sale of these rights. No bidding documents or Request for Proposals (RFP) were shared with the auditors, as indicated by the records.

The PCB found itself embroiled in controversy as it entered into an agreement with M/s Transgroup FZE for the sale of Instadia sponsorship rights, encompassing gold, silver, and umpire categories, totaling a significant amount of Rs338.00 million. However, upon scrutiny by the audit team, glaring irregularities surfaced.

The audit team discovered a notable absence of evidence regarding the tendering process for the sale of these rights. The PCB failed to produce any bidding documents or reserve price details, leaving the audit team in the dark about the procedural aspects of this substantial agreement.

Additionally, there was a lack of proof in the form of comparative statements for the sale of live streaming rights, further casting doubt on the transparency of the entire process, as outlined in the comprehensive report.

Further raising eyebrows, the report highlighted the non-transparent award of a contract for the sale of virtual advertising rights and truck branding rights, amounting to a staggering US$ 0.584 million.

According to the report, the PCB management engaged in agreements with M/s Transgroup FZE for the sale of virtual advertisement rights at US$ 0.254 million and truck branding rights at US$ 0.330 million.

The audit team uncovered a lack of evidence regarding sealed bids received for the technical and financial proposals, signaling a significant lapse in the procurement process.

The report disclosed that critical information, such as the valuation provided by M/s Lagardere, an independent sports valuation firm hired for assessing the value of various PSL rights, was mysteriously absent from the records. Original quotations concerning technical and financial proposals were also nowhere to be found, further undermining the transparency and legitimacy of the transactions.

The audit team deemed the sale of virtual advertisement and truck branding rights without open competition as irregular and unauthorized, attributing this lapse to a deficiency in internal controls and poor administrative oversight within the PCB’s procurement process.

The PCB management chose not to submit a reply to the audit team during the finalization of the audit report, leaving questions unanswered and intensifying the scrutiny surrounding these controversial dealings.

The unfolding narrative paints a picture of a sports management entity grappling with allegations of irregularities, sparking a wider conversation about the need for transparency and accountability in the cricketing landscape.

The audit team asserted that the sale of Instadia sponsorship rights without open and transparent competition was irregular and unauthorized. Compounding the concern, the management’s refusal to provide records is viewed as an attempt to conceal these irregularities.

No response was received from the management up until the finalization of the report, prompting auditors to recommend a thorough inquiry and the identification of individuals responsible for the matter.

Simultaneously, concerning revelations have emerged regarding the awarding of production rights.

Sources told Hum Investigation Team that, contrary to convention, the PCB opted to grant production rights to the second-ranked bidding firm instead of the lowest bidder in the financial bid. Technical prowess accounted for 60 percent of the marks, with the remaining allocated to financial bidding. Officials familiar with the matter revealed that the company holding the broadcast rights was disqualified, leading three bidding firms to express no confidence in the marking process by approaching the PCB’s Grievance Committee. This move was driven by concerns from PSL franchisees and objections raised by the bidding firms.

Salmaan Naseer, the Chief Operating Officer of the Pakistan Cricket Board, publicly apologized for not participating in the bidding board. Sources indicate that PSL 9 franchisees may face an additional payment of Rs500 million due to apprehensions about the elevated cost of the new production award and the allocation of production rights to two bidding companies. Alleged objections were raised against Babar Hameed, the head of the bidding committee.

Adding to the complexity, the PCB objected to the appeal committee’s sudden increase in the marks for the three bidders. MS Transgroup, the winning bidder, received the highest score of 178, whereas the firm holding World Cup rights was only awarded 145 marks. Notably, the bidding process report has not been made public by the PCB.

In response, the PCB insisted that concerns raised by all bidders were not related to transparency or procedural considerations. All three parties, including Trans Group, requested a reassessment of their technical marks, and the process was meticulously documented on the PCB and PPRA websites. The PCB asserted that there are no unresolved observations and that the PPRA process was diligently followed, including an advertised tender and bid process. The audit team successfully addressed any concerns arising from these procedures.

The PCB also claimed that there is no conflict of interest between ground rights and production. Ground rights and other in-stadia rights specifically pertain to stadium dressing and branding. The COO, they clarified, does not participate in every Bid Committee or Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC). In this particular instance, the COO’s absence was attributed to prior travel commitments, and the PCB asserted that all queries related to various audit observations concerning M/s Transgroup have been adequately resolved. No pending queries exist regarding M/s Transgroup, according to the PCB.