11 Blockbuster Trade Deals In IPL History As Sanju Samson Nears RR Exit
As Sanju Samson formally asks Rajasthan Royals to trade or release him ahead of the IPL 2026 auction, here's a look at major trade deals in IPL history.
Rajasthan Royals captain and star wicketkeeper-batter Sanju Samson has formally requested the Jaipur-based franchise to trade or release him ahead of the IPL 2026 auction. It has been reported that the 30-year-old cricketer from Kerala is interested in a move to Chennai Super Kings. Samson will not be the first player to join the rival team via the trade deal. In the past, on multiple occasions, many top players have joined other hands via a trade deal and proved to be a major hit. Here's a look at 11 players who joined via trade deal and proved to be a big hit/miss.
1/11
Ahead of the IPL 2024 auction, Australian all-rounder Cameron Green joined RCB from MI for Rs 17.50 crore. (Picture Credit: PTI)
Delhi Capitals signed Punjab Kings captain Ravichandran Ashwin in a trade deal worth Rs 7.60 crore ahead of IPL 2020. (Picture Credit: Sportzpics)
RCB signed Harshal Patel from DC for Rs 20 lakh in a trade deal ahead of IPL 2021, and in IPL 2021, Patel picked up 32 wickets for the Virat Kohli-led side and won the Purple Cap. (Picture Credit: PTI)
South African wicketkeeper-batter Quinton de Kock joined Mumbai Indians in a trade deal from RCB ahead of the IPL 2019 auction. In 2019, De Kock scored 529 runs in 16 matches for MI and helped them win the title. (Picture Credit: PTI)
Rajasthan Royals signed Rahul Tewatia in a trade deal ahead of IPL 2020 for Rs 3 crore. In the 2020 edition of the IPL, Tewatia played 14 matches, scored 255 runs and dismissed 10 opposition batters. (Picture Credit: AP)
Next Photogallery
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
CSK have to trade R Ashwin and... for Sanju Samson: Chennai offered way out to enforce 'transition from MS Dhoni'
Former Chennai Super Kings star Robin Uthappa reacted to media reports claiming all was not well between Sanju Samson and Rajasthan Royals, prompting the captain to ask the franchise to release or trade him ahead of the IPL 2026 mini-auction. Uthappa said that, considering RR's decisions during the IPL 2025 season, Samson's reported move was always a writing on the wall. Sanju Samson is reportedly set to part ways with Rajasthan Royals(PTI) Speaking on his YouTube channel, Uthappa pointed out that the Rajasthan Royals already have promising players like Yashasvi Jaiswal, Vaibhav Suryavanshi, and Riyan Parag filling key batting positions. He questioned where that leaves Samson, suggesting the captain would likely be pushed down to the number four spot—a role he might not want, given that he opens for India. Uthappa further explained that the wicketkeeper-batter probably saw this as a 'writing on the wall,' especially with RR's tendency to back their youngsters. He added that Samson may be trying to stay ahead of the curve by seeking a move now, aiming to open elsewhere and maintain his spot at the top of India's batting order. Uthappa said: "They have both Yashasvi, who has done really well for them, and Suryavanshi has absolutely smacked it out of the park, and Riyan Parag likes to bat at number three. Where does that leave Sanju Samson? A number four spot. Would I want to bat at number four when I am opening for India? Absolutely not. From his perspective, he probably felt that perhaps that won't change at RR, and they back their youngsters, quite a bit, don't they?" "That has been the culture there at RR. So he probably sees it as a writing on the wall, perhaps, and so perhaps, he's trying to get a little bit ahead of the curve a little bit and say, 'let me move now' so that I can go elsewhere and open the batting and still vie for that position at the top of the order in the Indian team. So that's perhaps a small reasoning as well". Uthappa finds a way out for CSK Media reports on Samson's departure from Rajasthan Royals also revealed that Chennai Super Kings have openly expressed interest in signing the India star, viewing him as a perfect replacement for MS Dhoni. However, with Samson's current valuation at INR 18 crore, a trade deal might prove difficult. Just days after the Samson reports, speculation arose that Ravichandran Ashwin might part ways with CSK, fueling rumours of a potential trade between RR and Chennai involving the two players. Although Ashwin clarified why such a trade may not materialise—citing his contract being half Samson's value—Robin Uthappa suggested a solution. He proposed that if Chennai are serious about acquiring Samson, they could trade both Ashwin and Vijay Shankar in exchange for the India batter. "CSK for sure. If they are able to get him and if they are able to snap him up, then it'll do really well for him. I think the transition of MS Dhoni to the next wicketkeeper, they already have in Sanju, so that is already taken care of. Otherwise, they would have to look at, say, at this point, say Devon Conway as a wicketkeeping option. But if he comes onboard, there is a lot of good that can happen for CSK," he said. "What they don't have? They only have Shimron Hetmyer at six. They don't have a finisher at number six or seven. Maybe Sam Curran. Vijay Shankar could be the one who goes with Ashwin as well. That could happen. He's a pretty decent bowler, but they haven't utilised him." "I think perhaps Rajasthan also feel Sanju doesn't want to be there anymore, so if a player doesn't want to be there, why do we have to keep him? Give him what he wants. In that sense, I think it makes sense for them," Uthappa said.
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Chinnaswamy Stadium set to lose Women's World Cup matches as KSCA under scanner for not getting police clearance
Bengaluru has been dealt a major setback ahead of the Women's World Cup, with the iconic Chinnaswamy Stadium reportedly set to miss out on hosting matches for the marquee ICC tournament starting September 30, 2025. The Karnataka State Cricket Association is under the scanner as the failed to get the police clearance by August 10. An aerial view of M Chinnaswamy Stadium, in Bengaluru, Karnataka.(PTI) According to a report on PTI, the BCCI had directed the KSCA to secure the required clearances by last Saturday, but local police officials confirmed that the process remains incomplete as of August 12. The report further suggested that the Greenfields Stadium in Karyavattom, Thiruvananthapuram, has emerged as a possible alternative venue to host the matches scheduled in Bengaluru. M Chinnaswamy Stadium was originally set to host tournament's opening game featuring India on September 30. It is also the venue for four other matches between England and South Africa (October 3), India and Bangladesh (October 26), the second semifinal on October 30, and the final on November 2. The Karnataka government's tough approach has cast doubt over the city's future as a venue for major events, especially with the T20 World Cup scheduled for early next year and the IPL. The government recently denied permission for the Maharaja Cup, which was subsequently moved to Mysuru. The KSCA had to shift the ongoing Maharajah T20 Trophy to Mysuru even after deciding to conduct it behind closed doors at the Chinnaswamy Stadium. The state body was forced to move the tournament after the one-man D'Cunha Commission deemed the Chinnaswamy Stadium "unsafe" for large-scale events. The state government appointed the commission to inquire into the stampede on June 4 here, in which people died and several others were injured during the Royal Challengers Bengaluru's IPL victory celebrations. According to ICC regulations, the host association must hand over the stadium to the global governing body at least 30 days before the tournament starts, with no other matches allowed during that window. Despite this, the Greenfields Stadium is slated to stage Kerala Cricket League (KCL) fixtures from August 21 to September 7. However, KCA officials remain optimistic that the T20 games can be shifted to an alternate venue if the World Cup fixtures are allotted to them. "We have backup venues, if the World Cup matches are shifted here. But as of now we are waiting for a final confirmation," sources close to the development told PTI.
Mint
3 minutes ago
- Mint
Sebi gets interim relief as HC halts special court order to probe a 1995 IPO
Can a special court order the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) to initiate investigation of alleged malfeasance brought to its notice by an investor? The Bombay high court is currently seized of such a case, and the final outcome could reinforce the line between judicial overreach and regulatory autonomy. The Bombay high court has in the interim stayed a special court's order that directed Sebi to investigate alleged irregularities in Radhe Developers' December 1995 listing on the BSE, after an investor sought a court-ordered probe through the criminal procedure route. The interim stay halts the special court's 23 January order, which required Sebi to investigate and file an action taken report, till the High Court hears the case again. The matter, listed in mid-June, is expected to be taken up again later this month. A single-judge bench of Justice R.N. Laddha issued notice to the complainant on Sebi's revision plea and recorded the regulator's core position: special courts under the Sebi Act are meant to try offences on complaints instituted by Sebi, and do not have the jurisdiction to compel the regulator to open investigations or supervise how it exercises its administrative powers. In its April order, the high court highlighted Sebi's challenge to the special court's authority and stayed the 'execution, operation and implementation" of the impugned order. The underlying proceedings stem from a complaint by investor and legal reporter Sapan Shrivastava, who alleged that the Gujarat-based realty developer Radhe Developers was listed on the BSE in December 1995 without complying with Sebi's listing norms and sought directions under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which empowers a magistrate to direct initiation of an investigation. Also Read: Sebi chief urges redefining role of independent directors as stewards of accountability While acknowledging that Section 26 of the Sebi Act allows cognisance of offences only on a complaint by the regulator, the special court nevertheless held it could direct Sebi to investigate in investors' interest, and ordered the regulator to inquire and report back. Arguing before the High Court, Sebi said that Section 156(3) CrPC is confined to directing police to investigate cognisable offences and cannot be applied to statutory regulators operating under their own enabling law. The regulator also stressed that special courts are designed for expeditious trial of offences arising under the Sebi Act upon a Sebi-filed complaint, not to mandate investigations or control Sebi's discretion at the pre-complaint stage. Shares of Radhe Developers closed 3.5% lower at ₹2.74 apiece on the BSE on Tuesday. Why this matters The case could reset the line between judicial oversight and regulatory autonomy in securities law enforcement, especially for investors attempting to revive scrutiny of legacy listings through criminal court applications. 'The role of a special court is to adjudicate offences brought before it, not to identify or investigate them in the first instance," Sachit Mathur, managing partner at Emerald Law Offices, said. Allowing special courts to direct Sebi to investigate would be an overreach and ultra vires, he said, warning it could disrupt Sebi's autonomy and the statutory design that vests investigation squarely with the regulator. Mathur added that magistrates' directions under the criminal procedure code extend only to police and do not bind Sebi. Investors can escalate grievances on SCORES, which is Sebi's online complaint redressal platform, approach Sebi's grievance cell, and, if needed, file a writ under Article 226 for a time-bound mandamus to consider the representation without dictating the outcome. Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, high courts can issue writs or directives for the enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights. Mandamus is one of the five writs, which is issued to force a public authority to perform a public duty. Aditya Bhansali, founding partner at Mindspright Legal, said the Sebi Act does not empower special courts to order Sebi to initiate an investigation on an investor's application, and Section 156(3) cannot compel statutory regulators to exercise investigative powers. 'The most effective lawful route for investors seeking action is to file a writ petition before the high court," he said, noting that while the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) is an appellate forum, it is available only when there is an order by Sebi or an exchange, often absent where investors allege inaction. The Bombay high court's interim stay aligns with its recent caution against trial courts mechanically directing criminal or investigative measures in securities market cases without clear legal footing. Also Read: Sebi mulls framework to boost resident Indians participation in FPIs Earlier this year, it stayed an Anti-Corruption Bureau court's order directing registration of an FIR against former Sebi chair Madhabi Puri Buch and others, finding the order mechanical and non-specific. Rohit Jain, managing partner at Singhania & Co, said that directing an investigation would usurp a function reserved for the regulator and act before the court's jurisdiction properly begins. Implications for investors For investors, the case could reshape how Sebi's online grievance redressal platform SCORES and other remedies are used. As Bombay High Court counsel Yash Joglekar noted, Section 156(3) authorises directions to the officer in charge of a police station, not to Sebi. Legacy matters face added hurdles: laches from decades-long delays, incomplete listing records, and missing witnesses—while Section 26 of the Sebi Act bars criminal proceedings unless initiated by Sebi itself. The doctrine of laches is a legal principle under which legal claims can be barred due passage of an unreasonably long time. If the high court affirms that special courts cannot compel Sebi to investigate, the practical path shifts to administrative and constitutional routes, he said. 'Investors will have to rely on escalation through SCORES and the grievance cell, use RTI to seek reasons for inaction, approach SAT where there is an appealable order, and file writ petitions for time-bound consideration—without asking courts to micromanage outcomes." Tushar Kumar, advocate at the Supreme Court, cautioned that vintage listings pose severe practical barriers. 'Listings from the mid-1990s raise formidable obstacles—from limitation and laches to the retrieval of contemporaneous evidence, records and witnesses," he said. A ruling upholding Sebi's stance would entrench regulatory autonomy and curb ad hoc, court-driven probes, while pushing investors towards regulatory and constitutional remedies, he added. Also Read: Sebi rejects Anil Ambani's settlement plea over Yes Bank investments 'Such a pronouncement would reinforce the line between judicial oversight and regulatory independence and may trigger debate on narrowly tailored statutory channels for independent scrutiny in exceptional cases—preserving market integrity without undermining Sebi's functional autonomy."
