The Independent Voice of West Indies Cricket

Message Board Archives

WICB in danger of being suspended from ICC

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 10:54:48 

Now allyuh see why a timeline was necessary from dat WICB release yesterday!

Wasn't this the journalist on Mason yesterday? Dis impasse need to end NOW!

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 10:58:56 

The ICC Members' Agreement (clause 7.6 under sub-heading Non-Compliance) states that "where... an Offending Party notified of compensation payable by it fails to pay the same in full... then such payment may be made to the Compliant party concerned by ICC out of such monies as may otherwise become due to the Offending Party whether out of its share of revenues arising out of the ICC Cricket World Cup or other ICC events."


We soon will be playing fuh free...

 
eXodus 2014-10-22 11:00:50 

In reply to WestDem

tell yuh india soon call in that marker lol lol

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 11:03:33 

In reply to eXodus



The ICC also has the authority (clause 2.7, section F of Suspension of Membership) to warn WICB of possible suspension if remedial steps are not taken within a "timeframe notified by, and to the satisfaction of, the Executive Board".

Were the WICB to be suspended, West Indies would not be able to play Test, ODI or T20I cricket and would have very little chance of paying the debt incurred to the BCCI.


Who ever going to meet with the BCCI better tek a class at BEGGING without a bowl... lol lol

 
Walco 2014-10-22 11:08:05 

In reply to WestDem

India is likely to keep the pressure up until there is a complete overhaul of WICB management.

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 11:10:15 

In reply to Walco



Ah suh me see it too...look like India gonna use the leverage they have to completely overhaul the WICB....knowing them they might get rid of WIPA too...

 
Chrissy 2014-10-22 11:13:48 

In reply to WestDem

Yes

 
Walco 2014-10-22 11:18:57 

In reply to WestDem

They are even floating that bogus $65 million loss number as leverage. Please explain this to me. How can you lose money when you replace I ODI, 1 T20 and 3 Tests against the West Indies with 5 ODIs, 1 T20 and 3 Tests against Sri Lanka? It's not like the Sri Lanka series was planned or would have been played if the WI had not pulled out. The way I see it, India owe we money. But don't tell dat to the WICB lol

 
Larr Pullo 2014-10-22 11:20:00 

In reply to WestDem

Ah suh me see it too...look like India gonna use the leverage they have to completely overhaul the WICB....knowing them they might get rid of WIPA too...


That's why we should take the bull by the horns and reorganize ourselves, before someone do it for us.

 
tc1 2014-10-22 11:24:49 

In reply to Walco

agreed

I mentioned that a couple days ago.

what was their projected profits before the pullout of the tour.

 
Walco 2014-10-22 11:27:08 

In reply to tc1

It's common sense really, but if their threats spur the WICB to drastic action, more power to them.

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 11:27:35 

In reply to Walco



Its business and each customer is unique....BCCI losing money from the WI not finishing the tour and those losses are directly related to WICB's arrogance....The SL replacing WI is juss anodda smart business move by BCCI...limiting their losses....that $65M still is against West Indies.

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 11:29:11 

In reply to Larr Pullo



Its about time a few regional cricket leaders see de big picture and forced the needed changes....If BCCI only implement the changes, WI cricket will forever be their biatches!

 
JOJO 2014-10-22 11:30:06 

In reply to Walco

India is likely to keep the pressure up until there is a complete overhaul of WICB management.


Yep. Because the BCCI cares about West Indies cricket and having an efficient WICB as a partner.

 
Walco 2014-10-22 11:35:29 

In reply to WestDem

That's not how it works legally. The profits from the previously unplanned SL tour will be considered mitigation and will be deducted from the losses suffered as a result of the WICB pulling out of its tour.

If the SL tour had been pre-planned, it would be a different story

 
Gmoney 2014-10-22 11:36:56 

In reply to WestDem

India will take the 65milliom and buy out the WICB and run the thing properly

 
Pacy 2014-10-22 11:45:07 

In reply to Walco


That's not how it works legally. The profits from the previously unplanned SL tour will be considered mitigation and will be deducted from the losses suffered as a result of the WICB pulling out of its tour.


I dont think that would be part of the Equation at all Walco. SL accepting to play India is because of BCCI's clout.

BCCI and ICC will only look at the overall revenue loss from the WI series and ask for that from the WICB.

 
Walco 2014-10-22 11:52:31 

In reply to Pacy

I dont think that would be part of the Equation at all Walco. SL accepting to play India is because of BCCI's clout.


Answer this one question. Would the Sri Lanka tour have been scheduled if the WICB tour had not been called off? Then look up the concept of mitigation of damages as it relates to contract law.


BCCI and ICC will only look at the overall revenue loss from the WI series and ask for that from the WICB.


And you know this how? Anyway, familiarizing yourself with the concept of damages mitigation should disabuse you of that notion.

 
hubert 2014-10-22 11:55:25 

In reply to Walco


I am guessing that this is due to their TV rights obligation.. 5 days cricket as against 16, 3 Tests plus an aborted ODI.
Sri Lanka's replacement is not a marketing stream as WI's full tour was (is).
Just a guess but it could be a hoax. lol

 
FuzzyWuzzy 2014-10-22 11:56:32 

In reply to Walco

Don't worry with pacy. He thinks once he believes something it's law big grin

 
tc1 2014-10-22 11:58:05 

In reply to Pacy/ walco

Do think that India want to open their books on the 65m.
suppose the profit from the SL/ india is more than the loss (65M).


WI is off the hook for the 65m?

 
carl0002 2014-10-22 12:04:02 

In reply to Walco
Walco as a legal beagle can WICB counter sue BCCI for tampering resulting in the players walking out. WICB will also sue for future revenues if it's determined that as a result of their action (tampering) they cancelled future tours.
The backdrop being that BCCI confirmed that their IPL contracts are safe.

Also if BCCI sue the WICB can WICB also sue the players as a result and name BCCI as part of said suit. To me it seems the BCCI is more than complicit and may have precipitated the final decision for the players to walk out.

 
Pacy 2014-10-22 12:04:25 

In reply to Walco


And you know this how? Anyway, familiarizing yourself with the concept of damages mitigation should disabuse you of that notion.


I would love to see how things are decided finally.

 
Pacy 2014-10-22 12:05:48 

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Don't worry with pacy. He thinks once he believes something it's law


Atleast I think and it is only my thoughts I believe in smile We will hear once BCCI and ICC come with the details.

 
Walco 2014-10-22 12:07:15 

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Please to stay out of me and Pacy bidness. We is cyber frens smile

 
Pacy 2014-10-22 12:08:38 

In reply to Walco

Fuzzy wants Support smile

 
Walco 2014-10-22 12:10:59 

In reply to hubert

cool cool cool

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 12:16:47 

In reply to tc1



suppose the profit from the SL/ india is more than the loss (65M).


If you are true here....India should Play SL all year round!!! lol lol lol

 
Walco 2014-10-22 12:35:03 

In reply to carl0002

Walco as a legal beagle can WICB counter sue BCCI for tampering resulting in the players walking out. WICB will also sue for future revenues if it's determined that as a result of their action (tampering) they cancelled future tours. The backdrop being that BCCI confirmed that their IPL contracts are safe.


I don't think assurances that the IPL contracts were safe would amount to tampering. IPL contracts should not have factored into the equation in the first place. It does seem though that the BCCI sided with the WI players in this dispute, which is rather odd.

By the way, the WICB ceded the legal and moral high ground when it made the request to the BCCI for cancellation of the IPL contracts of the WI players.

Also if BCCI sue the WICB can WICB also sue the players as a result and name BCCI as part of said suit. To me it seems the BCCI is more than complicit and may have precipitated the final decision for the players to walk out.


It's going to be hard to sue players who are (were) not under contract with the WICB because they were free to withhold their services. Whether the players under contract can be sued will depend on the terms of the contract. I guess the BCCI could be sued for rejecting the idea of a scab team, but that would depend on the facts.

Also, the players apparently are now claiming that it is the WICB that called off the India tour, not them. It's all one big clouded mess.

 
carl0002 2014-10-22 12:47:04 

In reply to Walco

I don't think assurances that the IPL contracts were safe would amount to tampering.

So are you telling me that a player in dispute with his board call u to ask if his IPL contract is safe and you think that is not pertinent to the decision not to play? I see lawyers make a case out of less than that.

By the way, the WICB ceded the legal and moral high ground when it made the request to the BCCI for cancellation of the IPL contracts of the WI players.

Really, or this can be interpreted to mean that they were trying their best to get the players to not walk out and play.

 
carl0002 2014-10-22 12:47:17 

It's going to be hard to sue players who are (were) not under contract with the WICB because they were free to withhold their services. Whether the players under contract can be sued will depend on the terms of the contract. I guess the BCCI could be sued for rejecting the idea of a scab team, but that would depend on the facts.

Also, the players apparently are now claiming that it is the WICB that called off the India tour, not them. It's all one big clouded mess.

They played 3 or four games already so it seems partial fulfillment of and partial fulfillment of some agreement. This is why it was important for Bravo et al to issue a statement under their union.

BCCI in rejecting a replacement team is further evidence that the WICB was making an effort to proceed with the tour. BCCI is the one who rejected that idea and then turn around and sue for damages. How would that play out in a court.

 
nick2020 2014-10-22 12:50:55 

In reply to Walco

So what it seems like is there was no contract but there was an MOU in place. Now without being a lawyer or understanding the whole process I can only ask logical questions:

I would assume there must be some agreed to conditions that would govern both sides. So just like the WICB couldn't decide not to pay the players or not to pay the players what they agreed to would the same duty fall on the players to do the job they were assigned to do?

It seems unreasonable that the WICB would have to uphold its end of the bargain but the players not being under contract would not. And yes, I understand there are mitigating circumstances like unsafe working conditions that could come into play but that is not why the players abandoned the work.

I want to pay you $100 a day to build a wall for me. This will take 7 days.
On day 4 you decide the money is not enough and you want to walk off the job with $400 and me an unfinished wall. Can you do that?
Or on day 4 I decide the money is too much and I want to pay you $50 a day for the remainder. Can I do that?

 
Walco 2014-10-22 13:03:27 

In reply to carl0002

So are you telling me that a player in dispute with his board call u to ask if his IPL contract is safe and you think that is not pertinent to the decision not to play? I see lawyers make a case out of less than that.


It is pertinent to the player's decision whether to play, but not to the issue of BCCI tampering. The BCCI is under no duty to cancel IPL contracts at the WICB's request. In fact, the BCCI would be opening itself up to a restraint of trade lawsuit by the players if it did what the WICB requested.


Really, or this can be interpreted to mean that they were trying their best to get the players to not walk out and play.


Sure, but the WICB's request can also be viewed as an attempt by the WICB unlawfully to interfere with contractual relations between the players and the IPL.

 
Walco 2014-10-22 13:08:41 

In reply to nick2020

You raise a lot of issues there that I don't have the time to get into right now. I will respond in detail later.

 
tc1 2014-10-22 13:10:10 

In reply to nick2020

want to pay you $100 a day to build a wall for me. This will take 7 days.
On day 4 you decide the money is not enough and you want to walk off the job with $400 and me an unfinished wall. Can you do that?
Or on day 4 I decide the money is too much and I want to pay you $50 a day for the remainder. Can I do that?


without getting into the contract, he can walk on the job at day 4, since he is working by the day.
second part , you can do that also.
I am assuming there are no provisions on scheduling or completion of the work in your discussion with the other party.

 
Pacy 2014-10-22 13:24:25 

In reply to nick2020


So just like the WICB couldn't decide not to pay the players or not to pay the players what they agreed to would the same duty fall on the players to do the job they were assigned to do?

It seems unreasonable that the WICB would have to uphold its end of the bargain but the players not being under contract would not. And yes, I understand there are mitigating circumstances like unsafe working conditions that could come into play but that is not why the players abandoned the work.


The difference is you see WICB / WIPA as 2 different entities and asking why players are fighting WICB while they should ideally be fighting with WIPA.

I doubt if the players are seeing them as 2 different entities. Their statement say that they acted as one to reduce the salary of the players big time without their consent. Their fight is with both since there is no way one of them can be innocent in this deal.

 
carl0002 2014-10-22 13:24:54 

In reply to Walco

The BCCI is under no duty to cancel IPL contracts at the WICB's request. In fact, the BCCI would be opening itself up to a restraint of trade lawsuit by the players if it did what the WICB requested.

Course not and that's not even the intent. Its merely leverage to get the players not to walk out. Instead BCCI did the opposite. They should have offered no comment. Instead they said it does not affect their IPL contracts.

Now all WI would need to do is get one player to admit that the final decision to walk out was based on that confirmation, proving BCCI assisted and was complicit in catapulting their own series.

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 13:31:20 

In reply to carl0002



Now all WI would need to do is get one player to admit that the final decision to walk out was based on that confirmation, proving BCCI assisted and was complicit in catapulting their own series.


Knowing de history od WICB and de players, who you think will admit?

 
bird 2014-10-22 13:37:30 

In reply to WestDem
the heads of caricom must meet and the first mandate should be the arresting of Wipa and Wicb chief this damage is irreparable

 
carl0002 2014-10-22 13:45:41 

In reply to WestDem
I should have preface the above by saying.

The entire lawsuit would depend on whether the WICB got the intestinal fortitude for such a daring move and whether they hire a good legal mind or their usual village idiot.

Having said that they are 15 players, and as Walco said more than half of them "igrunt". Get all 15 on the stand in front of a good lawyer and u will see what happens.
lol lol lol

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 13:49:42 

In reply to carl0002



They won't have to say anything....their legal aid lawyers from INDIA will speak on their behalf meanwhile WICB better read this before their meeting with the BCCI! lol lol lol

 
tc1 2014-10-22 13:52:50 

In reply to carl0002

Having said that they are 15 players, and as Walco said more than half of them "igrunt". Get all 15 on the stand in front of a good lawyer and u will see what happens.


even for smart guys on a stand is no fun

 
nick2020 2014-10-22 13:54:26 

In reply to tc1

But we agreed that you would build a wall. What I am left with is an unfinished wall.

The sum of all this to me is history. If players do no like the terms of the agreement they withhold labour leaving the board to find replacement players until the dispute is settled.

If the board does not like the terms of the agreement can they replace the players with cheaper alternatives without getting sued?

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 13:57:52 

In reply to nick2020



If players do no like the terms of the agreement they withhold labour leaving the board to find replacement players until the dispute is settled.


Ah know Wavell is to be blamed but why an MOU with such significant changes from the previous one was never given to the players to review before signing off? Did the WICB side with the WIPA to screw the players? It may not be illegal but it is ethical of the WICB?

 
nick2020 2014-10-22 14:18:51 

In reply to WestDem

The fairness of the contract depends not only on the side you sit on but if you are a regional or international player.

From what little I know about the contract Wavell had a good idea.

 
Disciple 2014-10-22 14:25:18 

In reply to WestDem

Didn’t Hitlaire say the players were barely literate? Why give these same illiterates a complicated legal document for them to review? If each of the 100 or so first class players have a issue with something, do u make 100 revisions? That’s why you have collective bargaining and all the players empowering WIPA to act as their agent in negotiations. The agent makes the decision on the players behalf. If the agent fcuks the players, that’s between the agent and the players.

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 14:27:30 

In reply to Disciple



Fcuk dem he did....he signed for something that was not even collectively bargained!

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 14:29:17 

In reply to nick2020



From what little I know about the contract Wavell had a good idea.


Wavell's idea is still very good but its nat de responsibility of the International Players to fully fund the change...How much money for this change is coming from WICB?

 
carl0002 2014-10-22 14:42:01 

In reply to WestDem

Wavell was a player. As a matter of fact Wavell was big in WIPA business as a player. After his playing days Wavell was secretary of WIPA. With this history do you think Wavell deliberately set out to screw over the players?

 
Pacy 2014-10-22 14:44:16 

In reply to Disciple


The agent makes the decision on the players behalf. If the agent fcuks the players, that’s between the agent and the players.


The only means of agitation from the players was to stop working. If the players decide to stop the work with a fight against their union dont make it an issue.

If you say the fight is with WIPA, let us assume you are right. Players fire Wavel but what is the use? The MOU is still there and WICB will ensure that it remains. So the problem is With WIPA and the MOU that was signed.

 
Pacy 2014-10-22 14:49:47 

In reply to nick2020


The fairness of the contract depends not only on the side you sit on but if you are a regional or international player


Wavell was given specific instructions in the Meeting to follow... When they are not followed he there should be more to the urgency than just incompetence or ignorance.

WIPA says that the Salaries are increased & New categories are added to the Retainers with increased fees.

Just asking has those new retainers given to the players? Have the FC players started getting their Monthly payments? Why the urgency to do something under the disguise of MOU but not the others?

 
WestDem 2014-10-22 14:54:11 

In reply to carl0002



With this history do you think Wavell deliberately set out to screw over the players?


Man screw over dem best friends fuh a quarter...what make you think he is not a changed man since his playing days are over? True leaders should never be influenced by anyone....

 
hubert 2014-10-22 15:34:28 

In reply to Walco



Just a guess but it could be a hoax.

missed adding....For WICB sake.
lol lol

Should it not,WICB will be broke/bankrupt . That would certainly lead to changes that many if not all want to see in WICB total operations.

 
Walco 2014-10-23 03:15:54 

In reply to nick2020

So what it seems like is there was no contract but there was an MOU in place.


There is doubt over whether there is a legitimate and enforceable MOU in place. The players claim that the new MOU is invalid because it was never approved by WIPA membership, a fact which appears to be borne out by the available WIPA minutes. Based on currently available information, that MOU will likely be ruled invalid but a court of law.

It seems unreasonable that the WICB would have to uphold its end of the bargain but the players not being under contract would not. ...

I want to pay you $100 a day to build a wall for me. This will take 7 days.
On day 4 you decide the money is not enough and you want to walk off the job with $400 and me an unfinished wall. Can you do that? Or on day 4 I decide the money is too much and I want to pay you $50 a day for the remainder. Can I do that?


In the example you give where there was a valid contract (either verbal or in writing) and the worker walks off the job, the worker can be sued for damages caused by his action. So if you have to hire someone else to complete the job and you incur increased costs and expenses in doing so, you can go after me for that in court. The same would be true if you decided that you wanted to pay me $50 instead of the agreed upon $100. I could sue you for the difference and I would win.

In the case of this recent dispute between the WICB and the Players, the WICB apparently has hung its hat on a questionable MOU that I would argue is invalid. While Wavell had apparent authority to sign the MOU on behalf of the players because of his position with WIPA, he apparently did not have actual authority. And the WICB arguably was negligent in not obtaining "proof" that the MOU had been approved by the players prior to its official signing.

But to make a long story short, if the new MOU is valid, the WICB can sue WIPA (the players) for breach. If it is not, it becomes a much more difficult equation. That's not saying that the WICB has no legal basis for suing the players, but it's a very difficult case that will ultimately depend on the facts of the particular case. There was no written contract, and it could be argued that there was no verbal contract either because of the dispute over compensation. Then you get into legal theories such as at-will contracts, implied contracts, quasi contract (unjust enrichment), quantum meruit, etc.

 
Walco 2014-10-23 03:25:21 

In reply to carl0002

My initial comments on this thread to which you first responded dealt exclusively with the WICB's exposure to money damages in a case brought by the BCCI. As far as liability is concerned, which must be decided before you get to the issue of damages, I have serious doubts about the strength of a case by the BCCI against the WICB, and I don't think the WICB would have a strong counter-suit against the BCCI except perhaps on the issue of the BCCI's refusal to accept replacement players.

 
carl0002 2014-10-23 10:32:58 

In reply to Walco

A counters-suit is there as a deterrent not necessarily there to pursue but to create doubt and to force parties into another course of action different than the one initially chosen.

The counter-suit actually builds off the weakness in the BCCI case and there is enough doubt in this whole mess for any decent legal mind to build a credibly lawsuit against BCCI in reaction to its lawsuit against WICB, if they took that action.
What they say about a drowning man?

 
POINT 2014-10-23 20:57:51 

In reply to WestDem

Why would they wan to suspend them now when
for decades they have allowed the WICB to
become a Rogue International Cricket Board ?????