Player Year Official Ground

Banning SRK in the best interests of the IPL

Who would cop it if it was discovered that players had been approached or matches fixed? Read The Article

Continued 1 2 3  Next»

Author

Messages

sachin sebastian	SRK is good owner.Appart from other owners in the IPL he knows the strength&weakness of his team very well.he is a very good team man.In the modern century a team need this type of leaders. His charecter is really good for his team members.we should live in the moment. ( Posted: Friday , May 23, 2008 at 22:55 )
sidharth	Rules are rules. are rules, are rules and have to be implemented without any exception whatsoever. SRK cannot be an exception. There is no point in creating a controversy on all this. It is all just an ego matter for SRK. He cannot his way through everywhere. Raaju nahi bana gentleman as yet. ( Posted: Friday , May 23, 2008 at 19:43 )
I fully agree. Shahrukh thinks he is above everything. His nonsense will be tolerated by his chamchas like Karan, Vivek, Kajol, Arjun, etc. Look at the way he was blabberging about his rights to meet his team and all that crap. He is so full of himself and has become so pompous that he cant see his own feet. Some king khan ...bah....royalty do not open their garbage mouths in public and certainly behave themselves. ( Posted by Hemant on Friday , May 23, 2008 at 23:27 )
Vasavan	And assuming that business tycoons like Ambani,Mally,SRK etc invested in their teams to fix matches a make a quick buck out of it is simplay hard to digest. They are well estabilished business persons and would not put their business empire,reputation and goodwill at stake for a few million bucks if at all. Cronje,Samuels, Azharudin etc are not in the same league as the owners of the IPL franchises to even consider a possibility of them selling their teams for money. I am sure several of these IPL team owners are wealthier than the Australian Cricket Board. Will it make sense to say that the by seeing the Aus Cricket Board chief in the dressing room could potentially mean that he is selling his team and country off to make some quick bucks for the board/himself. Credibility and reputations are built over a span of time, and those who have earned and worked for it deserves due respect. Like someone else mentioned, try selling this story to a (aussie/anglo) newspaper, they might buy you a drink. Thats about how far you could go with your points. ( Posted: Friday , May 23, 2008 at 19:29 )
Vasavan	Compariing SRK to the newly tainted WIndian cricket player is absurd. If the owner of a team wants to fix a match, he doesnt have to do it in the dugout or dressing room. He has plenty of time to do what he has to do. You are very naive about issues when it comes to the sub continent and people in the sub continent. ( Posted: Friday , May 23, 2008 at 19:29 )
Ram	i am glad that the most despicable team-kkr-r out of semifinals with regrettable characters like srk-buchannan and ganguly they deserved to be shown the door they wld have been a disgrace in the semi s they deserve this humiliation for the manner in which they have behaved Ram ( Posted: Friday , May 23, 2008 at 17:31 )
JASDEV	SHAHRUKH KHAN GOES OVER THE HILL. HE IS A PUBLICITY SEEKING MONGER. WHTHER IT IS THE DUG OUT ISSUE OR SMS THE PRESS GETS IT FIRST. HE WANTS TO SENSATIONALISE RATHER THAN SORT ISSUES. HE KNOWS HE CANT MAKE IT TO THE SEMI BUT WANTS TO BE IN THE LIMELIGHT. ( Posted: Friday , May 23, 2008 at 17:15 )
Hemant Ratanjankar	Shahrukh has overgrown his shoes. He has an identity crisis that he needs to deal with sooner than later. He has somehow merged his bollywood movie image to real life. Often he speaks and acts as though he the hero in real life and everything will happen as he wishes or fancies. Shahrukh, please show some dignity. Don''t try to play God. Learn from folks like Amitabh, Dilip Kumar, Aamir, Dharmendra, etc. who are respected and will be respected for ever for the dignity in which they carry themselves. Grow up out of DDLJ. ( Posted: Friday , May 23, 2008 at 02:08 )
raob	What was SRK doing in chennai dug out? and who allowed him and for what? did he have permissions? chennai is definitely not his team... this is exactly what I thought after reading this commentary in cricinfo: (41st IPL match CSK vs KKR) "13.6 Gony to Das, no run, attempts the stroke again and the same result, Gony gives him a glare, scary, brrrrr!! Shah Rukh is sleeping with the enemy. He was spotted sitting in the Chennai dugout " ( Posted: Friday , May 23, 2008 at 01:29 )
LVISS	Preventing a team owner from entering the dressing room or whatever connected with his team is akin to preventing the Managing Director of a company from entering his office and talking to his staff and assessing their work.It shd have been viewed as such. A simple thing was blown out of proportion and made to look like something serious. ( Posted: Thursday , May 22, 2008 at 21:11 )
chidanand	a franchise owner is a businessman. He looks for profits.Already Malliah is cribbing and S R K would want Gaguly to talk to the W B Chief Minister to exempt him from entertainment tax.Their love for the game is secondary. ( Posted: Thursday , May 22, 2008 at 20:33 )

Continued 1 2 3  Next»

Your Feedback

Maximum characters allowed

Name

Email

Country

Select Country Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burma Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cayman Islands Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo (Zaire) Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia Gabon The Gambia Gaza Strip and West Bank Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti The Holy See Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Islands Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe

Guidelines

• Do not be rude to other users/authors or disrupt an ongoing conversation/debate.
• Do not use ethnic slurs, engage in personal insults or use objectionable language.
• Criticism, when constructive and non-disruptive is always welcome.
• Comments with links in them won't be published other than in cases of rare exceptions.
• Comments that include personal details such as postal addresses and telephone numbers will not be published.
• Keep the comments relevant to the topic as much as possible.
• Do not impersonate another reader or a public figure.
• Do try to use English to write your comments.
• Comment Policy Explained

Disclaimer