There are plenty of signals that the two Malcolms from Australia - Gray and Speed - are preparing to make a move against the president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Jagmohan Dalmiya. That fact became very apparent during the media briefing at the Taj Samudra in Colombo on Wednesday.

Malcolm Speed cleared the air regarding the events that lead to the players' contract issue, one that almost resulted in leading Indian players boycotting the ICC Champions Trophy.

Speed, chief executive of the International Cricket Council, was categorically said that it was not AC Muttiah who signed the controversial ICC contract. Speed also explained that there were essentially three basic contracts, and the one that Muttiah signed on behalf of the BCCI was the Cricket Events Agreement "that locks in the ICC's agreement with the Global Cricket Corporation and agrees to play in all ICC events for the next seven years and field its best team."

"That was the agreement Dr Muttiah signed," said Speed. "The boards have had the Participating Nations Agreement since December last year. Dr Muttiah was defeated in October last year and was no longer the president of BCCI in December. Dr Muttiah is right; the player terms were not included in the agreement he signed and were included in the agreement signed by his successor."

That successor is none other than Dalmiya, who had earlier tried to pin the blame on Muttiah for having compromised player interests by signing the controversial contract.

There were indirect but definite barbs aimed at the Kolkata businessman who is presently at the helm of Indian cricket. In the coming days, Dalmiya will have a handful of issues to deal with, especially with the Indian players.

Speed was quick to admit that there was some confusion about the terms, causing a delay in resolving the crisis, and that he sympathised with the Indian team for that. The chief executive of ICC said that during his successful negotiation meeting with the Indian players in London, a few important issues came to the fore.

"One of the issues that came up is that the players wish to have a player representative group," said Speed. "What I have urged the Indian team to do is to go through the correct processes and go to the Board and to seek this group. I would strongly urge the Indian board to give very careful consideration to the players' request when it comes forward."

Speed explained in detail the dramatic events of the last few days of negotiations between the ICC, BCCI and the Indian players. He said that the ICC put forward the idea of talking to the Indian players to get the issue resolved. It was upon the submission of a written request from the BCCI to the chief executive of the ICC that negotiations with the players were held.

Speed quickly added, "Shortly after that, the Indian board then asked that there be no further contact between ICC and the players.

"The boards have had the player terms under this agreement since December last year," added Speed. "They have had it for the last nine months. If there was a serious problem, we would have expected to hear about it. We only heard about it only when we were approaching the deadline for this event".

Speed's revelations only left one thought at the forefront of one's mind – whose rights and interests were Dalmiya and the BCCI actually trying to protect through these days of complete uncertainty?

To put things in perspective, Speed said that the Indian players have signed the same document with one amendment, the post-tournament contractual obligations being reduced from 30 days to 16 days for the Indian players.

© CricInfo