that left India
Should be interesting
A few more things to look forward to:
Statement from the WIPA executive on the issue
WICBC's plan to guarantee the BCCI, ICC, and other member boards that not meeting their obligations will never happen again in the future
The tour management team report
Message Board Archives
Looking forward to hearing from the players
In reply to imusic
Barry Wilkinson said last night on Mason that one player told him that this whole mess could have been avoided if Cameron had met with them in India after the Dubai meeting with Patel of the BCCI
In reply to imusic
I'm looking forward to seeing them banned. There is no excuse for holding fans, their employer, and the BCCI hostage over a dispute amonst themselves. They should all be banned for a year.
In reply to Arawak
I wanted a two year ban but one year would be fine with me.
In reply to imusic
Court case brewing. I spoke to two players who were in India and the consensus among everyone was to let the lawyers handle the throwing out of the MOU. No public statements so don't hold your breath too long.
_r
In reply to Arawak
I agree. There must be consequences. What those consequences will be remains to be seen
I have to assume the players fully understood the possible ramifications of their actions but deemed the matter important enough and bigger than the consequences of said actions.
In reply to Admin
If that is the case, who cancelled the tour then?
In reply to imusic
The WICB.
_r
In reply to Admin
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
Will the ICC accept a WI "A" team for the World Cup.
In reply to Gupta
the wicb may ban the fringe players for a short time.
but could they play for their local teams
In reply to Arawak
Source: WICB press release.
_ryan
In reply to Admin
How do you continue a tour without players?
Semantically, you may be correct. However, in every way that matters, the players cancelled the tour.
In reply to Arawak
I can come up with several other options.
_r
I wonder why nobody wants to explain this?
In reply to Admin
I'm listening.
In reply to Cuter
I cannot reconcile the above...
With this below
Something not adding up
Now....one is reported as an official statement from Captain Bravo on behalf of the players
The other is 2nd hand information passed on by the founder (and owner?) of this site. Usually _admin is very credible.
But there's definitely a disconnect between the 2 statements. Can anyone fill in the blanks?
In reply to Arawak
1. Fly to India with Wavell and sit down to talk.
2. Pay the $35K for this tour and tell WIPA to fix their shit afterwards.
3. Negotiate with Wavell to find a way to make up the 60% - $70 paycheck shortfall.
Shall I continue?
_r
In reply to Arawak
You keep listening. All you will get is legalese. The players messed up and now they are being advised legally on how to spin that decision.
The players cannot cancel the tour so of course they did not cancel the tour. If you are a teacher and no one comes to class did the student cancel the class?
People do things that are wrong and they look for lawyers to make it right. The BCCI also messed up by refusing to let the WICB field and alternate team but they have a tremendous amount of leverage so they will not lose.
A calypsonian won a competition. The crowd was unhappy with the decision. A stipulation of the contract was the winning calypsonian has to perform again after being crowned the winning. That did not happen.
"He feared for his life."
Good answer.
In reply to nick2020
Where has it been reported that....
1 - The WICBC offered to send an alternate team?
2 - The BCCI refused said alternate team?
In reply to Admin
Question
Have the players ever reciprocated?
In others words when the shoe was on the other foot have the players ever said we will suspend our current contract, take less money temporarily until we can find a better solution?
In reply to imusic
This was said by journalists with sources. But I won't sit here trying to defend that. I will leave that up to time for the truth to come out.
That statement will be either true or false one day.
Is it false right now?
In reply to nick2020
Man you are wasting your time. The pro-player crew never sees anything wrong with the players stance. afterall they are poorly educated fellows just wanting a buck to feed themselves and family
In reply to imusic
1 - The WICBC offered to send an alternate team?
2 - The BCCI refused said alternate team?
It's in the WICB statement. Keep up, nah.
_r
WICB statement:
_r
In reply to Admin
- Arriving in India without contracts.
- Contracts arrived with 60%-70% pay cut.
- Call Wavell and ask WTF.
- Wavell says, wait, don't sign, lemme find some money.
- Wavell calls DaveC and mumbles...
- Dave says FU, we got an MOU that you signed.
- Wavell mumbles something to players about we trying to find the money.
- Players again say "WTF dude, what did you sign. Where's the MOU?"
- Wavell mumbles some more.
- Bravo writes letter saying "dude, these conflicts catch up with you and Michael Hall."
- More letters are sent to DaveC, saying "dude, Wavell had no authority to sign whatever it is he said he signed. We still ain't see the MOU."
- Dave says to please to F off, I only dealing with Wavell.
- Players warn that situation is untenable and action may be taken.
- Players play and ask again for situation to be settled.
- Nothing happens.
- Players play again... etc. Another warning.
- Nothing.
- Players play again.
- Shit hits fan.
Who's the terrorist now?
The questions are:
1 - Should the players have finished the entire tour and then come back to deal with the issue?
2 - Is this the first time players have started a series without contracts?
3 - Did the players threaten to walk out on the tour hoping that would be enough to coerce the WICBC to grant their demand of reverting to the old contract until something could be worked out?
4 - Did the WICBC decide to call the players "bluff"?
5 - Given the drastic reduction in player remuneration, did Wavell Hinds & they WIPA Executive have some kind of side deal with the WICBC, or can they just simply be that incompetent?
In reply to Admin
Thanks. Didn't see it previously
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
The pro-WICBC crew never sees anything wrong with the WICBC stance. afterall they are highly educated fellows just wanting to a buck to feed themselves and family
In reply to imusic
Could, sure. Should, maybe. If you want my opinion, they played it perfectly. Leverage.
No. But it's the first time contracts showed up with ridiculous money missing.
Probably. I can't speak for them. If I'm a guessing man, that's exactly what happened. They opted to use the only leverage they had. Very smart, IMHO of course.
Yes. Exactly. But they weren't bluffing, as we all found out.
I've asked this before. Incompetence? Or worse?
_ryan
In reply to Admin
Imusic is not going to take the word of the WICB is what I gather. We will find out the truth one day.
In reply to Admin
Does the ends justify the means in this case?
In reply to imusic
Like I keep saying, unless someone can provided additional information which surfaced subsequent to this Last letter from Bravo, I have no choice but to believe that the players abandon the tour
In reply to Admin
Surely you mean fly to Trinidad with Wavell? Cut out the middle man.
Would that have worked?
Or this?
Sure!
but let's look at the BCCI's timeline of WICB's withdrawal:
17 October 2:00 pm
Mr. Richie Richardson sent a mail to the BCCI stating the following:
Seems pretty clear that it was the players who called it quits.
In reply to Admin
What if this impasse results in WI cricket being banned/suspended? How would the use of their leverage have benefitted the players?
In reply to Admin
Admin,
Did the players go too far?
They may have ended cricket in the caribbean as we know it. What that the appropriate course of action?
I guess that is a leading question. Let me start over.
What do you believe is the possible future of West Indies cricket after this fiasco? If you believe this could end our cricket then do you think the actions were appropriate?
Unemployment gone up?
In reply to Admin
Mason asked Barry Wilkinson an "odd" question yesterday. He asked him if he knew if WI captain Dwayne Bravo had a contract for the tour.
Wilkinson replied he would be extremely shocked if Bravo DID NOT HAVE A CONTRACT
Mason then told Barry to "do your research" and left it there.
Weird.
In reply to imusic
That was no empty question. A coy way of throwing that in the public domain.
In reply to imusic
This is up for debate and discussion. At the very least, it signals the end of Wavell/Hall in charge of WIPA with all those conflicts all over the place. And these are not perceived conflicts. They are real and obvious and it's mind-boggling that it just sits there like an old leftover sandwich.
On which planet is it appropriate for a CPL official/executive (the employer) to negotiate a contract for the WI players (the employees)? I know that anything goes in the Caribbean but come on.
In which world is it appropriate for Wavell to be a JCA board member and the chairman of Jamaica selectors and still be the president and CEO of WIPA?!? And his explanation was that Dinas was once a WICB director so it's all good.
You know, it's all comical to me and I enjoy picking it apart but if I was a real stakeholder, you won't imagine the anger. Now you see why the players, as Bravo/Roach/Pollard/Sammy explained, had to take a stand.
_ryan
In reply to Admin
Yea take a stand. Like this was about world peace. They took a stand when it threatened their paycheck.
In reply to Admin
I believe Hinds got caught up with the money and sold out the very people that put him there.
What I could not understand is, there were five senior x players on the tour -
Lloyd
Holding
Bishop
Richardson
Haynes
And they would have advised the players to walk away from the tour?
There got to more to this than we know
In reply to Admin
I don't understand the Hall connection post leaving WIPA.
However, wasn't Wavell elected by the membership and empowered to do the things he did and is doing?
In reply to Admin
All you said above, to me is that the players were at least negligent in having Hinds and Hall continue to be WIPA execs. And so their beef is clearly with WIPA
In reply to Admin
You may able to answer this for me....With the implementation of the additional contracts issued to the FC players:
1: What is the annual amount paid in total for the additional contract?
2: What amount of # 1 is funded by WICB and what is funded by the reduction of players payments?
If we get these numbers, then there can be additional headache fuh de WICB.
In reply to nick2020
Maybe. History will figure that out. IMHO, their stand was appropriate. You can argue that I'm wrong, that's okay.
West Indies cricket died a long time ago. We're just all fixing our suits at the burial.
Unemployment gone up?
What masquerades as West Indies cricket will continue. Maybe, just maybe, maaaaaybbbbeeeee, the board will be restructured and the archaic territorial approach will be abandoned. I always argued that there needs to be a full official burial before something happens. I'm not holding my breath, but just maybe.
_r
In reply to nick2020
Did the players go too far?
They may have ended cricket in the caribbean as we know it. What that the appropriate course of action?
I guess that is a leading question. Let me start over.
What do you believe is the possible future of West Indies cricket after this fiasco? If you believe this could end our cricket then do you think the actions were appropriate?
Who are the custodians of WI Cricket? What effort did they take to get this situation to a closure?
In reply to Pacy
The only effort you are interested in would be revert to the old mou
In reply to Arawak
Michael Hall never left WIPA. He is still a director today.
_r
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Dude, have you been asleep all week. Their beef is with WIPA. Fuq man, keep up nah!
_r
In reply to Admin
dude you can spin this how you want, the players should have completed the tour
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Fuzzy, forget about the international players for a while, did Wavell have a mandate from the players to sign the MOU without any input from them?
Now don't tell me his election as President provided this mandate.
It did not.
In reply to Arawak
Not only that India rejected a replacement team.
In reply to Courtesy
I believe whatever he negotiated should have been reflective of what the players that WIPA represent willed. De he do that? Only He and the negotiating team can say.
In reply to Admin
So why punish everybody then? I see u coming around bit by bit
In reply to Courtesy
so are you saying the wicb should have asked Wevell did he have the mandate of the players?
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Not necessarily Fuzzy.
When there is employee unrest there is a need for dialogue and clarifications. At times employees might not be able to see the bigger picture as they are way down the ladder and that is the reason HIGHLY QUALIFIED people are identified to take care of the administrative position.
1. There was a need for the Leaders or representatives to be there to discuss and clarify the Players queries. If WICB and WIPA's intentions were right they should have tried to explain (This never happened)
2. Also in a crisis like this, when all the players raise a concern which is genuine (as a responsible Organisation) WICB could have agreed for the existing salaries to continue for this series alone.
3. Even if WICB had said that they completely understand their concerns and we will look into the pain points of the MOU and clarify / Discuss post the tour.
One of these assurances would have gone a long way in averting this problem.
If I am player, I would clearly not believe in coming back to the Caribbean and have a dialogue. If they are not interested in a dialogue in this crisis situation they would never do that when the series is over and the WICB pockets are full.
This reminds me very much of the previous strike when English were here. Strike was looming large and WICB did not act for more than a month and finally when the players reacted with a strike in the next series the fault was all dumped on players. Same tactics by WICB again but unfortunately BCCI exposed them.
In reply to Admin
Good lord. I thought when he resigned as CEO he was done.
This is a tangled mess.
Of course, isn't WIPA a stakeholder in the WICB as well?
In reply to Cuter
Questions were not asked, the only thing that was asked is for Wavell to sign de damn MOU!
In reply to Cuter
I'm curious to know what the WIPA's constitution or governing rules say. I would expect that they grant Wavell the authority to act on the players' behalf. If he is not doing that to their satisfaction, that is their problem... they elected him.
OTOH if he is required to seek a mandate for every negotation, and failed, then they surely have the right to recall him. You'd think.
What do the unionistas here think about that?
In reply to Cuter
You see Cuter, this whole matter arose because of an MOU that was signed without the input of the players. Wavell admitted that much.
It is incumbent on the WICB once it was drawn to their attention as gatekeepers of the game to take corrective measures ASAP.
Simple mgt practice. Not rocket science.
The mgt of the WICB has a greater burden of responsibility to ensure that they meet their obligations to India.
In reply to Courtesy
Ok...What sort of corrective measures would you have suggested?
In reply to Arawak
I was thinking the same thing
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Communication first:
(i)De Prez was in Dubai. For chissakes just hop a bird and have some dialogue with the players.
(2) There is some information released today by at least one cricketer that there was no information on the planned trip to India by the three officials from the WICB and WIPA.
By jove!! You are not running a ti boutique and in this modern age of communication. Come on man.
That is only on the communication front. There are other mgt options that have been well ventilated.
.........
Chest beating by the WICB got us to where we are now.
In reply to Courtesy
You know I not going to agree with this one.
I asked you a question the other day and can't find the thread to determine if you provided an answer.
Can you confirm that Bravo approached Wavell with instructions to get something done so they can play and Wavell told Bravo there is no movement on the issue with WICB?
In reply to Courtesy
I do not disagree on the communications issue, but I have my doubts whether any promise short of immediately reverting to old MOU would have placated the players
In reply to Courtesy
You may able to answer this for me....With the implementation of the additional contracts issued to the FC players:
1: What is the annual amount paid in total for the additional contract?
2: What amount of # 1 is funded by WICB and what is funded by the reduction of players payments?
You have any idea about this?
In reply to carl0002
Do you think Wavell on his own without any query from the players came to the decision that the tour contract should not be signed?
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
For this tour, they could have reverted to the $35K from the old MOU. Or simply find $35K, save the tour, and let WIPA sort themselves out afterwards.
You have doubts this could have saved the tour?
Dave was convinced the players were bluffing. He told other directors not to worry, that they are bluffing.
Well, they weren't.
_r
In reply to Admin
Dave vs Rams...part 223.
In reply to WestDem
2: What amount of # 1 is funded by WICB and what is funded by the reduction of players payments?
I don't have these figures. Maybe I do but I'm too lazy/busy to go look. I'll look later.
_r
In reply to Admin
I guess they were both bluffing...as is the norm between these parties.
In reply to Courtesy
No.
Now answer mine.
Tenks.
In reply to WestDem
Sponsorship fees given up by the international players = 2.4 million US.
The total amount paid to be paid to the 90 regional players is contained in Wavell's letter.
Take it from there.
In reply to carl0002
There is a post from Admin which adequately spells out the sequence of events with some slight embellisments.
- Arriving in India without contracts.
- Contracts arrived with 60%-70% pay cut.
- Call Wavell and ask WTF.
- Wavell says, wait, don't sign, lemme find some money.
- Wavell calls DaveC and mumbles...
- Dave says FU, we got an MOU that you signed.
- Wavell mumbles something to players about we trying to find the money.
- Players again say "WTF dude, what did you sign. Where's the MOU?"
- Wavell mumbles some more.
- Bravo writes letter saying "dude, these conflicts catch up with you and Michael Hall."
- More letters are sent to DaveC, saying "dude, Wavell had no authority to sign whatever it is he said he signed. We still ain't see the MOU."
- Dave says to please to F off, I only dealing with Wavell.
- Players warn that situation is untenable and action may be taken.
- Players play and ask again for situation to be settled.
- Nothing happens.
- Players play again... etc. Another warning.
- Nothing.
- Players play again.
- Shit hits fan.
Who's the terrorist now?
In reply to Courtesy
That is an average of $26.7K per player coming from the International Players....Darn! my guess is de WICB not funding a penny to give these additional players contracts.
An additional $72K in Union Dues to the WIPA (3%)....
Now de odda question...The above Sponsorship Fees is separate from their match fee and retainer contracts, right?
In reply to Admin
IF THIS IS ACCURATE....sounds like the heart of it all
Players before 1st ODI - we go pull out de tour if you don't restore the old contract terms
WICBC - steupes....pull out nah! Go ahead...make my day
Lloyd et al - Allyuh cyah pull out man. Play de game and dey go reach a settlement
Players before 2nd ODI - dem man like dey eh hearin we or wha?
Lloyd et al - Doh worry man...yuh eh see Cameron flyin to Dubai? He go fall een right after and deal wit de issue
3rd ODI washout
Players before 4th ODI - Nutting from dese people. if we keep threatenin and do nutting, dey go jes laff at we and doh do anyting. We have to stop playing NOW
Indian Host - Fellas please....allyuh cyah do dat. We done sell out de match already. Come on man!
Ambrose - Fellas....allyuh cyah pull out now. At least play this one and hopefully the WICBC will make a statement saying they will resolve the issue
WICBC - Mute
Players after the 4th ODI - NAH! Cameron eh even call to say nutting. We cyah continue this tour. Man have no contract and we now talkin bout 75% cut in pay? We going home
Lloyd, Ambrose, Richardson et al - But But But.....fellas....oh gorm
Players go home - OH SHIT! What have we done?
WICBC - OH SHIT! Yuh mean dey really leave de tour in trute? SHIT!
Wavell/HAll - Hello?? Hello?
In reply to WestDem
Yep.
The players wanted this to be beefed up to make up the shortfall or at least not to have them severely disadvantaged.
In reply to Courtesy
but mate, WICB engaged Wevell who is the sole authority to act on the players,
they signed and MOU which I believe was subsequently approved by the wicb board of directors.
you expect Dave to do away with that document and revert back to the old MOU (without the board approval) because the players claimed that Wavell didnt have the mandate to act?
doest it work like that?
In reply to Pacy
1. There is no single person to blame.
2. Once the patient is alive there is hope.
Admin is spinning that Wi cricket has been dead for years but that is clearly untrue. If he said bed-ridden then I wouldn't argue that.
Truth is this notion that it is dead is questionable. Dead because we are not winning?
Were the custodians of our cricket ever competent?
In reply to Cuter
When an employer is faced with the threat of industrial action by his employees that would cripple his company he does what is necessary to save his company with utmost haste.
Risk to benefit all the time Cuter.
In reply to imusic
I have to work with you a bit on these.
Everything is there, but you havent got a punchline or a strong localisation, which for a Trini is surprising, but for a diluted expat Trini isnt.
Apart from all of that...good effort.
In reply to Cuter
doest it work like that?
Ordinarily no.
But you don't act pedantic and talk bout process when shit going down
As a leader, you need to see the big picture. The big picture has opened before our eyes and it ain't pretty. It could have been prevented.
It appears that those in charge didn't really believe the players would abandon the tour...especially in India where many of their main players make their living.
That miscalculation has us where we are today
In reply to Courtesy
But that not making sense.
If that is accurate. If Wavell went back to the WICB and Cameron sent him away, why would Bravo turn around calling on the WICB to intervene, WIPA no longer representing them etc.
In reply to Courtesy
but would Dave have the authority to just go to India and tell the players yes, let use the old MOU for the series.
In reply to imusic
Litigation seems the obvious route and changes will result in both bodies.
We all just have to wait and see.
I would like to see the bylaws / constitution of WIPA if such exists
In reply to Courtesy
Thanks!
WOW!!! Look like dem bwoys also paying Dave and de CEO Salaries also with this new MOU...
In reply to carl0002
Remember, there was little or no communication with the players.
They were all desperately trying to have something said to them but to no avail.
Imagine players having two hours sleep waiting for some form of communication before the fourth ODI.
Man put yourself in the players' shoes.
In reply to Cuter
If he didn't have it he could've obtained it as needed from the directors (informally) and ratified later
In reply to imusic
As a leader, you need to see the big picture. The big picture has opened before our eyes and it ain't pretty. It could have been prevented.
It appears that those in charge didn't really believe the players would abandon the tour...especially in India where many of their main players make their living.
That miscalculation has us where we are today
I totally agree
In reply to Commie
But imusic not that far off from exactly what happened.
_r
In reply to Cuter
OK. Where would that authority come from...isn't it from fellow board members?
Call a damn conference call meeting.
In reply to carl0002
If Wavell went back to the WICB and Cameron sent him away, why would Bravo turn around calling on the WICB to intervene, WIPA no longer representing them etc
Because the WICB told them that they,the Board would only deal with WIPA (Wavell)
Reminds me of the song ' There is a hole in the bucket'.
Who in this case is liza ?
In reply to nick2020
Never were and I agree with you. This time again it is more to do with their negligence and incompetence.
As a Fan I am completely unhappy that the matches against better opposition were lost (Particularly after the 1st ODI). I am unhappy that WI as a brand is being ridiculed by everyone around. Manjrekar in Ten Sports that day was saying that it is good that WI aborted since atleast India can play against better opposition (Sl) to prepare for the WC. It hurts.
I can expect or hope the players are more mature... But the Buck stops with the WICB who are supposed to manage the Brand WI Cricket.
In reply to hubert
At least Liza showed up home when will was mentioned.
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
we not talking about simple agreement.
we talking about a document which has financial implications in the millions
In reply to Admin
Close to it I guess.
Brinkmanship is a dangerous ting.
The players didnt intend any of this imo.
They didnt advise themselves.
This was Dave vs Dinas 223.
No maturity.
In reply to Pacy
That is whole hog. and the beat goes on
In reply to Courtesy
So hold on when these players get pulverized they don't lose any sleep but sitting up all night waiting to hear about money issues b4 a game. I assume by now they not sleeping at all, cuz no money on the way.
Perhaps if Bravo did not have Dinas writing all dem letters and posting it in the public domain he would have been able to get hold of Wavell.
I am not buying that bs about cant get hold of anybody. The players was listening to the puppet master and they had their blue print.
In reply to carl0002
Perhaps if Bravo did not have Dinas writing all dem letters and posting it in the public domain he would have been able to get hold of Wavell.
You have moved into another realm with Courtesy lagging far behind.
In reply to hubert
Who in this case is liza ?
You lissen to Lloydie & the Lowbites too?
In reply to imusic
Nice ton dis
In reply to Courtesy
one more question
had wicb reverted back to the old MOU as per the players request .
would the new MOU still be valid after this decision?
In reply to Cuter
The courts have ruled on the old MOU. It's dead.
WICB would simply be applying similar figures in the interest of the survival of the tour and to show some goodwill.
It's like a normal contract between two parties using figures from a previous document or get approval from board members to use a similar figure from anywhere.
No big thing.
In reply to Courtesy
yes I get that
but that would be in conflict with the new MOU
In reply to imusic
That's entertainment
In reply to Cuter
He would have been insulated from the approval gotten from the conference call board meeting.
Or at the very least even if he did not get the approval from the other directors he would have covered his arse.
In reply to Courtesy
can the players now claim that because of this decision (to revert) the wicb cannot go back to the new mou?
In reply to Cuter
The old MOU is dead. It's at Crick's Funeral Service.
The players understood this clearly. Repair the new one.
In reply to Cuter
The new one would've been DOA
In reply to Courtesy
I know
but you not answering.
let me make it simpler.
can the decision to revert, give players a loophole to kill the new MOU
In reply to Cuter
As they indicated the new one needs repair.
In reply to Courtesy
hmmmmmmm
I rest my case
In reply to Cuter
The minute Dave agreed to revert the new MOU is null and void in my opinion
In reply to Cuter
But even without reverting to the old one the international players will attempt to repair the new one.
Film at 11.
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
and Dave would have consulted his lawyers first
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
No. The courts will determine whether the new MOU is null and void.
In reply to Courtesy
...but until then it was de facto DEAD
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
You got legal advice from Conde?
In reply to Courtesy
you would not have asked that when he was on your board
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
I heard him from the recording of the show last night and would not have worked for him or any board with him on it.
BTW, thanks Powen.
In reply to Courtesy
Here's the rub:
The (international) players are profit maximizers looking after their own interests;
The key income sources--sponsors; broadcasters--are profit maximizers looking after their own interests;
Yet, WICB is essentially a coop that is supposed to be all magnaminous, look after the intersts of cricket and all surplus FC cricketers, safeguard the interests of the governments, safeguard the legacy of the sport...
It cannot work. It will never work.
In reply to JOJO
So....they maximize THEIR profits and look after their own interests just like everybody else.
So what if they don't generate any revenue of their own? That's what the players and sponsors are there for
In reply to JOJO
This is why now they are now begging India, Australia, South Africa and ICC for a chance at survival.
Relenting to the players demands IMHO was a far better option than begging cup in hand.
In reply to JOJO
And you know what's even sadder, the WICB already knows this. They have it in their 2011-2016 Strategic Plan that they crafted (see page 6 PDF).
They agreed it needs to change. They brought in Charles Wilkin to figure it out. The man worked hard and provided them with the blueprint (PDF).
Then they rejected it.
Let Wilkin explain himself:
2. A key statement in the Strategic Plan is the recognition by the Board of the need to revise the method of appointing directors to move from a territorial based approach. The plan also accepts as a core value the promotion of the inclusion of critical stakeholders. We understood the latter statement to mean the inclusion of critical stakeholders in a meaningful not token way in the governance of West Indies cricket to recognize the fact that West Indies cricket is a regional asset.
3. At the special meeting of the Board in Barbados on Friday 14th September 2012 the territorial board directors flatly rejected the recommendations of the Governance Committee as to the restructuring of the Board and refused to make any change at all to the current structure.
4. Knowing full well that they wanted to preserve at all costs all of their positions on the Board, a conclusion I draw from listening to them for the whole day at Friday's meeting and at the earlier meeting in St.Lucia to which I was invited, the territorial board members should have spared the Governance Committee our valuable time and saved the Board the cost of the review exercise.
5. The blunt refusal of the territorial board members to follow their own stated principles casts serious doubt on their commitment to the rest of the strategic plan and their capacity to implement same.
And just imagine this story went largely unreported in the Caribbean
This is why I say the players should keep getting them cheques. Every last dollar!
_ryan
In reply to Admin
The story was public.
The public in the Caribbean dont care. They have issues like findign work and getting their kids to school to worry about.
In reply to Commie
Tony Cozier wrote the only real story on it. All the other media wrote thumbs-up stories about the WICB accepting 10 of the 17 recommendations.
_ryan
In reply to Admin
WHo else out there is a cricket journalist ?
You realise most stories that had substance or any breakign news or analysis nature from the past came from CC.com ?
The story part of WI Cricket is really followed by expats. Just as most Americans wont give a f about a lockout but foreign fans who having withdrawal by TV will follow every inch.
I told you already. The millionaires vs billionaires thing lives.
Caribbean people in the region have no sense of affinity with either party.
In reply to Admin
Someone said this to you yesterday but I go repeat.
The people in the Caribbean don't even resign when they mess up.
Good luck getting someone to restructure himself out of a work.
This is not unique to WICB for that matter.
Thats why they need to create these territorial boards as some kind of incorporated independent business units and get them out of the WICB as paid execs for these BU's. The quasi business/electable organization model not working and I am not sure how Wilkens plan would have been any different.
In reply to Admin
Thanks.
Very enlightening. Never saw it before so I now have a better informed. Nuff respect to Wilkin for his work ideas and savvy.
Truth is, after the Patterson reportI read very little of WI cricket except on Forum.
Hope CC Com is being rewarded bountifully in the tangible ways.
In reply to Commie
Fazeer. Barry Wilkinson.
_ryan
PS: Oh right, sorry. That paystub thing.
By the way, lemme go on record with a shoutout to Lasana Liburd. He is doing good work at Wired868.com.
An example
_ryan
In reply to imusic
Yuh see it!!!
I don't get all this flim-flam about had the WICB acquiesced to the players demands and paid the rates called out under the old MOU that it would have rendered the new MOU defunct. The WICB had 2 options to avert the cancellation:
1. Pay the players a "bonus" amount that would be in addition to that spelt out by the new MOU. The new MOU may specify the amount the players can expect but I sincerely doubt that it limits the WICB from exceeding that amount. Surely the WICB has a "rainy-day" account which could have been used for this purpose. Heck the BCCI would probably have chipped in as well.
2. Wavell & Cameron signed the new MOU. They can therefore sign a revision to this MOU. All they would have to do is add an addendum/revision that changes the commencement date of the MOU until after the India tour was over. That would reset all payments to the old MOU and allow time for the communication and negotiation that was clearly bypassed when the new MOU was signed.
By hiding behind the MOU, the WICB made a terrible decision. For the sake of about $500,000 they made themselves liable for a loss of $65,000,000. To paraphrase the words of the old knight who guarded the Holy Grail in the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade movie, "They chose poorly".
In reply to carl0002
That is one of the main reasons the BCCI were siding with the players and was totally disgusted by Cameron/WICB devious actions.
Well....we've heard from ONE PLAYER
Any others?
In reply to Kurt
No Kurt yuh wrong. WIPA does not only represent test players. You can't just undo a contract that involve multiple parties without the permission of all without prejudicing one of the paries opening yourself to suits.
What he could have done is to indicate to the players that WICB is willing to void the MOU and renegotiate the MOU with the permission of WIPA which represents all the players
In reply to sudden
In reply to Gupta
If I'm management and I supposed to be dealing with the Union rep and that rep is authorized to sign off on contracts on behalf of the union, why would I ask the union rep if they finalized the MOU with the players?
Dat come like the Union rep asking the authorized signatory on behalf of the board if they spoke to the BOD and got approval for the MOU.
It's a reasonable assumption to make by both parties. Good faith bargaining I think is the term
In reply to Kurt
BCCI illing to lose $65 million, when they could pay WICB the difference. I can't believe its cheaper to sign Sri Lanka than pony up the half mil to save the series. BCCI and the anti-Hinds players should be charged with match fixing, because some of those outs in the 4th ODI were very fishy. Cricket is dead 'Cricketainment' is alive and well. Not too far behind professional wrestling.
In reply to imusic
Correct itito. There is still some hope for you
In reply to imusic
why would I ask the union rep if they finalized the MOU with the players
Hinds promised the players the MOU to review before it was submitted to Cameron. He never gave them. Many of the items discussed/agreed at the players meeting were changed substantially. The senior players told Cameron about the changes but he refused to have any discussion with them. That is plain arrogance.
In reply to Gupta
Why would the WICBC think he's wayward? Unless......
What makes you think that clause isn't present?
Perhaps Hinds and krew were so anxious to put their own stamp on the negotiating process that this quote below became the focus at the expense of all else:
The bottom line is that a new agreement has been signed which holds both the players and the board accountable - which can only be a good thing.
That it has happened without the accustomed hullabaloo may not be good for the warring factions on cc.com....but must be good for what is left of West Indies cricket.
In reply to Gupta
But they could have only found out after the fact.
Do you think an employer negotiating with a union representing its employeres should before agreeing certain employment issues with the union ask the employee if that is what they agree to?
In reply to sudden
its been a long day but I am sure punctuation exists for sentences like these.
In reply to imusic
In reply to sudden
Wavell negotiated MOU without their consent and they were told about the changes when already in India. As Christine says some are not too bright, and as my grandfather used to say trust but verify, should never go on tour without a signed contract. Incompetency by WICB and WIPA, they needed to have stepped down since yesterday. Damn us West Indians look inept, foolish and duncy.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for not clouding this important thread with tangential stuff like is normally the case.
Having said that, I just want to add my two cents.......
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
Search
Live Scores
- no matches