Late IPL signings: what's driving the rush?

There had been a flurry of late signings by franchises, almost on the eve of the final set of league games of the IPL season. Kolkata Knight Riders picked Luvnith Sisodia as a replacement for the injured Matheesha Pathirana, Mumbai Indians signed Mahipal Lomror and Ruchit Ahir in place of Quinton de Kock and Raj Angad Bawa respectively, while Rajasthan Royals roped in Emanjot Chahal for the injured Ravi Singh.

So why was there a sudden rush to complete signings, even by teams with no chance of making the playoffs? Cricbuzz tried to dig deep into the thinking and it has emerged that the reasons varied from franchise to franchise – some driven by necessity, others by strategy.

The most pertinent rule yet in this context is that a replacement is allowed – for injury or illness – even for one match of the season. Rule 6.1 (b) of the player regulation states: "A Player who suffers a Season ending injury or illness may be replaced even if he has already played in a League Match during that Season if all of the following criteria are met:

i) a doctor nominated by the BCCI confirms that the injury or illness is season ending (i.e. it means the Player will not be match fit until after the end of the Season (including the Playoffs));

ii) absent the injury or illness, the Player would have been available for all of the remaining Matches in the Season; and

iii) as a result of the injury or illness the Player would miss 1 or more League Matches in that Season."

The Kolkata Knight Riders, it is understood, did not want to be left without a wicketkeeping option should they qualify for the playoffs. With Angkrish Raghuvanshi ruled out for the season due to concussion and a finger injury, the franchise was left with only one Indian wicketkeeper in Tejasvi Dahiya, who featured in the last league game against Delhi Capitals. Since KKR had a realistic chance for a playoff spot until the conclusion of the 69th league game between Mumbai Indians and Rajasthan Royals, they signed Luvnith Sisodia, a wicketkeeper-batter, as cover.

It is for a similar reason that the Rajasthan Royals brought in Emanjot Chahal as a replacement for the injured Ravi Singh. With potentially three more games left in their season, the Royals, who have qualified for the playoffs, wanted adequate cover in the squad.

In the case of the Mumbai Indians, however, it appears to be a well thought-out strategy. Since franchises cannot sign replacements after May 24 – the date of MI's final league game – they opted to rope in players and broaden their player pool for next season. They could legally sign the players without having to buy them through bidding in the auction.

This is permitted by the IPL rules for a team as long as the franchises abide by the larger guidelines of players and salary cap – 25 players and Rs 125 crore. IPL clearly states this: "In taking any Replacement Players under this paragraph 6, Franchisees must remain in compliance with the squad composition regulations described in paragraphs 1.2 (about cap of eight overseas players, 1.4 and 1.5 (about four overseas players in the Playing XI) of this Section A."

The bottom line behind the signings is an IPL provision that allows franchises to retain rights over both the replacement player and the player being replaced for the following season. Below is the rule:

Re-signing Replacement Players

7.1. Franchisees who take Replacement Players will sign the standard Player Contract for such Season which will (a)) include the Franchisee's right (if any) to extend the term of the contract for the next applicable Season.

7.2. For the avoidance of doubt, if a Franchisee extends the Player Contract of a Replacement Player as contemplated in the preceding paragraph, he shall, for any relevant subsequent Season, be treated as any other Player for the purpose of the squad composition regulations and the Salary Cap.

There is still one more clause that is as important and relevant to the context. A team can sign a replacement player during the season without that player's fee impacting on the salary cap for that particular season.

6.7. The League Fee payable to any Replacement Player signed pursuant to this paragraph 6 will be ignored for the purpose of the Salary Cap for that Season. If a Replacement Player's Player Contract is extended in accordance with its terms, the League Fee payable to the Player for the subsequent Season will be charged against the Salary Cap for the relevant Season.