Message Board Archives

One of the biggest mistakes the players made was leaving the region without their contracts. The WICB also made the same error. I realise that this always happens. People are selected for tours. You have training camps and people leave without knowing anything. So when things fall apart, no one knows what the various rights and responsibilities are.

The CBA was meant to resolve this need to keep having contracts for every tour every minute. But it has to be like that because of the nature of cricket teams. Unless you have a roster (like other pro sports) you will have ad hoc agreements per tour. Even for international teams it is this way.

I do not understand why, after so many years, and this need for a business model, we cannot have these basic things in place.

Based on what Condi Riley said ... if 25% goes to the players where does the other 75% go ... who getting that, who spending that? all this focus on the 25% and how the players sharing it up ... the players are the game ... how come they only getting 25%?

In reply to cg

Riley said they looked to the contracts of Ozzies and the English to come to that %. Obviously it is a satisfactory position for WIPA. What is the concern about the remainder if it is not an issue

In reply to sudden

I take your point about looking to the Ozzies and English ... Problem with looking at the contracts of Ozzies and English is that their revenue base is significantly larger than that of West Indies and therefore 25% for them is a significantly larger absolute amount that shares up so many more ways!

If the WICB wants to widen the number of retainer contracts should they not be open to allocating some of the 75% to funding that? The focus for the past week has been on sharing up the 25% into many more smaller pieces.

In reply to cg

Who pays the cost of travel and hotel accommodations?
25% is net. 75% is gross.

In reply to cg

And that was Chrissys argument. The WICB has expanded staff without expanding the pool of funds. They also lost significant revenue when they sold the CPL. So instead of say using a 45% to run the WICB and the other 30% to pay the regional players, they hugged up the entire 75% for the WICB administration and told the players to share up the 25% amongst themselves. Another alternative would have been to give all players 50% and then have WIPA and the Players decide how they want to divvy up that pie.

In reply to dale_staple

25% is a number. So say it was 50% wouldnt there still be a fight between WIPA and its members as to how that is divy up? In addition WICB lost nothing in selling the CPL becos prior the CPL was worth nothing and still is not profitable, so it is still worth nothing. It could be worth something but that is left to be seen. WICB has a lot of responsibilities that you all are not taking into account

In reply to sudden

So....they sold a product when it was worth nothing at the time in their estimation when it might become something given proper investment and nurturing of the product? Hmmmm....

In reply to dale_staple

its called WICB logic

In reply to dale_staple

Unfortunately that is how business works sometimes. Liability for success is not now the WICB's and there is no guarantee that the CPL will work.

In reply to sudden

that argument only holds if WICB was paid a none refundable up front fee, but I will bet they are being paid annually hence bearing some of the risk.

In reply to dale_staple

Regardless, the tour should never have been abandoned! This will have far reaching consequences and West Indies who have lost its image and status in the sport is now loosing one of its most powerful allies in the BCCI

In reply to dale_staple

Yep - that was their big mistake.

In reply to FanAttick

Stop man. The percentages from Australia and England are based in a revenue number that (at least in Australia) is almost 10 times the revenue of the WICB.

Twissys CPL argument is a bs argument. There was no media giant in the Caribbean to pay a hefty fee for broadcast rights. There are certain things lacking in the cricketing and media infrastructure within the Caribbean which makes a lucrative 20/20 model impossible for the WICB.

Since twissy singing dat song perhaps she could let a few folks in on the model that would see WICB raking in boat loads of cash from said 20/20.

In reply to carl0002

simple, they control the tv rights and sponsorship money by being the majority shareholder and then licensing the rights worldwide.. easy concept.. not rocket science

but it would involve spending their own money and raising capital

In reply to Controversy

And do you think the WICB have the money to do this ?