The WICB has an unmistakable upper hand. Wavel has unwittingly handed the handle to Cameron and the WICB. I say unwittingly because I believe he was either manipulated or out manoeuvred and is now in a corner. We may be seeing the last days of WIPA as we know it.

The players have appealed to WICB directly to intervene. The players recognise that it is now in the hands of Cameron and the WICB to disavow the agreement signed by WIPA on their behalf. But I do not know if the players recognise what they are asking. If they, the players, authorise the WICB to negotiate directly with them and ignore WIPA, they are essentially handing power to the WICB. Remember, a player has no RIGHT to be a West Indian player. They can be maliciously cast aside (like Sarwan) as a message to others who do not toe the line.

If the players try to stand by WIPA, WICB will stand by the ostensible authority that Wavel had to enter into the new agreement. The players will revolt against WIPA (or Wavell and the present executive). It will weaken WIPA for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile the WICB has its MOU.

So in either scenario, Cameron is sitting pretty. He will either break the back of WIPA or he will keep his MOU as is and leave WIPA a fractured mess (as good as dysfunctional).

What is the better alternative for the players?

Now Wavel has gone to India to beg the players to stay. Cameron watching the WIPA unravel right before his eyes. If the Players try to negotiate one on one with WICB, WICB will always win.

The best thing for WIPA and Wavel is for Wavel to step down and allow the players to put in a new executive. It is better for WIPA to be in existence rather than not.

In reply to dale_staple



i'm in sync with your thoughts..

In reply to dale_staple

I believe the players will ask the current representatives to resign and replace them with the new representatives.

If the MOU and other documents clearly show that WIPA Chief was not given the right to finalise this agreement would this agreement still hold good in the court of law?

In reply to Pacy

That last question is debatable. Fanattick holds one well reasoned position and others have another. I am on the legal fence.

In reply to dale_staple

That last question in my mind is what makes me feel that WICB is not in such a rosy space. Digging more in WI cricket will turn more crap as usual

In reply to dale_staple

Has Wavell broken the fiduciary trust inherent in his position? Secondly, there is the question of Michael Hall in all this. Hall seems to be negotiating on behalf of WIPA after resigning from his position to take up a position with the CPL. As President, Wavell should have ensured Hall stayed away from WIPA.

In reply to Larr Pullo

All these are legal questions to be decided if the parties decide to take it to court. It may well hinge on what Wavel is able to achieve with his constituents.

In reply to Larr Pullo

If Wavell has broken the fiduciary trust of WIPA members then members have a remedy. They can remove Wavell from the presidency in line with the constitutional provisions. Unfortunately his removal will not invalidate the MOU.

As far as Hall is concerned Hall resigned from his executive position in WIPA but his resignation does not disqualify him from acting in an advisory capacity. .I am sure Hall is one of many subject matter experts that Wavell consulted during the negotiations. .Bravo being another though the expertise of the latter is a matter of considerable debate. .

In reply to Pacy

Considering that Andre McCarthy has the same number of votes that Bravo does, and that this last agreement represents improved circumstances for players not on WI team, do we know whether or not Wavell has the support of the majority of regional players?

In reply to spider

Can WIPA Stay without the International Players?

Also the ones in the international sides are the ones that majority of the FC players look up to... Chanders, Gayle, Sarwan, Bravo, Sammy. Not everyone could side with the WIPA. Should be interesting how this pans up.

In reply to dale_staple

Dale,

Constitutionally Hinds's authority to bind WIPA comes through the players. Hinds cannot act unilaterally. He must seek the permission of the members by majority or however it is stated in the bye laws. This is done through meetings, votes and resolutions whereby he is given authority to act or carry out some specific function. Such instructions are minuted.

The minutes clearly states and in Hinds's own voice that he will consult with senior players. If he did not and he then proceeded to finalize a contract then on the face of it he acted outside his procedural powers.

In addition if the senior players no longer want him to represent them then his position is untenable. Given the nature of his reply to Bravo I don't know what he expects to achieve by flying out to India, except a beating physically and verbally. Maybe he should have done this instead of replying to Bravo by letter

In reply to sudden

What part of "WICB will argue..." dont you all understand??? SMH. LOL. It's an argument that WICB will make. Can it stand up is another question to be determined by a Court, if it gets that far.

But the players may decide to kiss and make up with Mr. Hinds. You never know how these things can work themselves out. All I know is that the WICB will try to stand by the agreement negotiated by Hinds.

In reply to dale_staple

I made no reference to WICB. What are you on about?


Of course they can make up but that will take a major mea culpa from Hinds. I hope he is prepared to do so.

In reply to sudden

Don't worry.

But we will see if this is a big clash of egos at the end of the day. I hope not for their sakes.

In reply to dale_staple

In the interest of the players, WICB should declare the MOU void and restart negotiations

In reply to sudden

i agree....but is the WICB...do u see them doing that?