International Cricket Council president Malcolm Gray has accepted the resignation of Board of Control for Cricket in India president Jagmohan Dalmiya from the ICC contracts committee.

Dalmiya resigned from the committee on Monday, backing the Indian team in its dispute with the ICC on the player contracts, and threatening to take the matter to international law courts.

Gray, in an exclusive telephone conversation with rediff.com from Melbourne, Australia, said that if Dalmiya believes there is a conflict of interest in his holding the post of BCCI president and being a member of the contracts committee, he [Gray] would accept the resignation in the hope that it would be a "move in the right direction".

But he repeated that the BCCI had a contractual obligation to the ICC to send its "best possible team" to South Africa for the World Cup in February. "If Mr Dalmiya believes that by resigning he will be able to deliver the best Indian team for the World Cup, then it is an excellent move," he remarked.

Gray said he feels sorry for the Indian players, "who are being sandwiched in this issue for no fault of theirs".

Blaming the BCCI for the impasse, he said the players did not receive in time the contract that the BCCI had signed with the ICC and its sponsors. "Unlike other boards that have a very professional relationship with their players, the Indian board has failed to give the same respect to its players," Gray said bluntly. "The BCCI should have taken the players into confidence before signing the Participating Nation's Agreement in March."

He said it was important for everyone to understand that the terms of the contract were made clear to all the boards, including the BCCI, and the responsibilities of the various boards to their commercial sponsors should be acknowledged.

The Indian players had suggested moving away from the previous undertaking, according to which they would have to block their personal sponsors for the duration of the World Cup, to blocking them only on the days on which India plays. But Gray argued that if India failed to make it to the 'super six' stage, that would mean blocking the players' commercials for only six days, which is the number of games India plays in the first round.

"Dalmiya has told us [the ICC] not to talk to the players directly," he said. "With the relationship between the BCCI and players also not especially warm, the situation seems grave. Since the board has a contractual relationship with the
players it is their responsibility to deliver the best possible team for the World Cup."

Refusing to get into the legalities of the issue, Gray added that if any television channels aired advertisements that were in conflict with the tournament sponsors, the Indian board would have to face the legal repercussions, not the players.

He argued that the ICC had already agreed to reduce the number of days for which the sponsorship restrictions will apply to just five after the tournament instead of the 30 days promised to the sponsors. If the Indian team were to reach the final of the event, this period will extend to 20 days. The ICC had also agreed to reduce the period for which the official sponsors can use the images of the players after the tournament from six months to three.

"We must realise that the sponsors are doing a great job," he said. "They should be applauded instead of being ambushed. Each country stands to gain $9-10 million for participating in the World Cup while the host country South
Africa will get $80 million from the sponsors."

But this $10 million [approximately Rs 48.5 crore] is chicken feed for many of the Indian players because only 25 per cent of it will be distributed among them while the rest will go into the BCCI's coffers.

"That is a matter to be sorted out between the BCCI and the players," Gray said. "It is important to remember that the World Cup is the leading world event and participation in the World Cup adds to the prestige and commercial value of the players."