Message Board Archives
Breaking: Ramdin tells Wavell Hinds to resign!
In reply to FanAttick
What exactly is your cut-off in the definition of 'breaking' 
In reply to FanAttick
I must admit that it was a lot more fun when the Trinis were in charge.
If we choose to forget the abandonment of the Hindian tour, you'll have to go all the way back to the (Richardson) Bangla WI tour to find an organized strike.
How boring!
How much was originally paid to non-contracted players for test, odi, and t/20?
That perennial failure should be that last to tell anyone to go..How about him stepping aside and let some with better
Globe work take over? He is like Scammy..
In reply to FanAttick
maybe Hinds should join WICB as deputy president
In reply to sudden
He already has that job...In addition to being Salary negotiator, Chief selector, Jamaica sprint team captain, AND a full time doctoral student in his spare time.
On Sundays he's the fry cook at Old Dread old restaurant, once he's finished teaching Sunday School classes...
In reply to FanAttick
Did he hold up a "Talk Nah" sign when he asked for Weasel Blinds to resign?
Seriously though, Wavell is either incompetent, or he's corrupt. He doesn't seem to even know what he "negotiated" for.
He should do the right thing and resign.
In reply to Larr Pullo
Is Ramdin a WIPA member? If Hinds resign will the salary changes be reversed? 
In reply to Larr Pullo
I disagree. Wavell bought into Cameron's vision for the way forward for the big picture of West Indies cricket. Obviously that does not find favour with the seniors but the regional players, the majority members, have no complaints. Doesn't the majority any longer rule?
In reply to buds
Globe work take over
Look at the message ...
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Thats a compelling argument .
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
i get the sense that the senior players are more angry over how and the extent to which their salaries were reduced than the fact that regional players are being paid. i believe that they would have welcome more say if not more consultation in the matter. lets face it, a 75% reduction in match fees is quite dramatic.
In reply to sudden
Maybe. But that's beside the point Hinds is representing the majority of his constituents.
Btw. Do seniors pay WIPA more dues than the regionals?
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
How could that be besides the point?????!!!!!
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
which set of players bring in the more revenue to WICB's coffers?
In reply to sudden
Oh..so now you want Hinds to represent WICB's interest? Interesting turn of events
In reply to Jabari18
You figure it out
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
I can't figure it out because it is a moronic statement
In reply to Jabari18
Fair enough. You not bright enough
In reply to sudden
You hit the nail on the head there my friend. There is a contingent of WI fans who follow an end justifies the means philosophy. So they will support the fact that regional players can now eat a food (a good thing) without regard to how that goal was accomplished. Don't know if Fuzzy is one of those fans though.
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
come on, mate. not WICB's interest but the interest of the players who bring in the more revenue. you just cant reduce match fees by 75% unless you are absolutely sure that that has been agreed upon by those who are mostly affected. why do you think they are veto powers or comparable rights in most organisation?
Posted previously by de Courtesy sometime last year after the new MOU was signed.
Test match fees slashed from US$18,000 to US$5,000 per player; One-Day match fees slashed from US$5,000 to $1,700 per player; World Cup fees for this year slashed from US$300,000 per player to US$50,000 per player.
With regard to the present tour of South Africa, whereas the previous contract would have given each player over US$33,000 per match, they are now earning a little over US$16,000.
Additionally, WICB previously gave players 25 per cent of what was received from the International Cricket Council. Now with the new MOU, the players are getting nothing
Players with worldwide ratings and in highest demand in international cricket in every country, involving tournaments like Big Bash, IPL etc, such as Dwayne Bravo and Pollard, each earn over US$12,000 to US$20,000 per match.
Playing for the West Indies, they are paid a little over US$1,500.
So in reality they are playing for the West Indies out of pure patriotism as West Indies cricket cannot afford them. However, as true team players, they have been fighting for the other players.
That to my mind is a huge decrease in pay.
And the international players had little difficulty with some redistribution in pay, but by jove, this is a drastic reduction.
In reply to Walco
Of course that's all speculation as to what level of reduction would've been satisfactory to the seniors.
I am not saying they don't have a grievance but Hinds couldn't satisfy everyone and may have chosen to go with what he perceived to be the greater good and please the majority over a vocal and powerful minority
In reply to sudden
You are saying revenue declines when Gayle etc not playing? Do tv rights fall? Does ICC subs fall? The gates are poor either way
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
The seniors were railroaded. Its simple.
In reply to Commie
But this thread is about a senior and a non WIPA member telling WIPA president to go.
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
i am saying that the regional players add no revenue to WICB's coffers and if they do it is minimal. but that is getting away from the argument which centres around a drastic reduction in salary not agreed on in the final draft
In reply to Courtesy
those figures are quite telling
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
You speak like a union man.
Well you right.
In reply to sudden
Can non WIPA members decide who should lead WIPA? That's what this thread is about
WIPA should tell us the extend of burden sharing by the WICB to pay the new regional players' salaries?
In reply to Commie
Just maintaining balance
In reply to sudden
Indeed.
I posted them whem the new MOU was signed and stated that this will spell trouble.
In principle, I support the reduction but like the international players have said, the pay cuts were too drastic.
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
i ought to be able to decide who negotiates on my behalf, ent?
In reply to sudden
Well then that quarrel is with WICB
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
yes but via WIPA, ENT?
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
And that's the problem...the WICB is hiding behind the firewall of the new MOU "and the sole bargaining body" provision.
...such intransigence.
The international players have no other choice but to seek answers and accountability from those who negotiated the new MOU on their behalf.
In reply to sudden
But they are no longer WIPA members
In reply to Courtesy
EXACTLY. fuzz knows better.
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Yeh right. Let your old lawyer sell your house for much less than you instructed him/her and let me know how it plays out with you.
In reply to Courtesy
Ironic. The old mou seemed stacked for senior players..this one appears to go the other way. Who negotiated this one?
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Hazard a guess.
In reply to Courtesy
Malpractice insurance??
In reply to Courtesy
DAVE?
In reply to Walco
...and Fuzzy's reaction before insurance.
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Well...it seems that the WICB was negotiating with itself.
In reply to Courtesy
WIPA / WICB relationship is flawed. The WICB contracts only with international players therefore if these players get together and decide that WIPA does not represent them then WICB in good conscience must review its relationship with WIPA.
For regional players their employer is the regional boards, their interest are not the same.
Wavell Hinds has merged the relationships and this is bad industrial relations practice, WICB is playing mafia.
In reply to sudden
Ramnarine bailed when the old MOU / CBA was thrown out in court.
At that point, without the insurance of a sure win in every arbitration, he deserted WIPA and Wavell stepped in.
No-one paid attention.
Cameron was the main guy negotiating the same agreement for years with Ramnarine. Once the WICB gained the advantage they ran with it.
The whole idea that the fc cricketers and the intl cricketers had a divide has been around a while. Ramnarine did negotiate for FC players increase. It meant that 90 players made 20% of the player revenue. If the 15 who were earning 80 percent were outstanding, I think this would have been settled in the court of public opinion as it has with t20. But apart from a small group of people on here and some uninformed people, other than the case of HOW it was done, the same thing would have happened.
In a vote, the CBA would have been enforced same way.
Lebron James doesn't like the fact that he has to earn the same max salary as everyone else basically, but the CBA majority decided that and it was adopted. So he tops up with his endorsements based on him being one of the very best and winning titles.
In the years preceding no-one complained about the CBA which was wholly skewed. You had for an example the ridiculous scenario of Sarwan winning a settlement for being called unfit and then him being out of cricket for the same reason about 3 years later. The reason why of course is that if being in the senior team made you most of your income, you would do anything to deny you were not in shape.
its all linked.
Its interesting you have two schools.
People who don't necessarily stomach Dave Cameron but see him as a useful tool to smash a group of players who have had little regard for WI Cricket for a substantial amount of time.
People who don't necessarily stomach these same players but who see them as a useful tool to smash the WICB for its mismanagement of WI Cricket.
In reply to Commie
Simple. The WICB could have created the avenue for a soft landing for the international players. There is such a thing called "phasing in" or "phasing out".
Reasonableness should have been the order of the day...and the WICB should also have shown good faith by contributing to the pool of dough to pay the regional players.
In reply to Commie
[Quote]Its interesting you have two schools.
People who don't necessarily stomach Dave Cameron but see him as a useful tool to smash a group of players who have had little regard for WI Cricket for a substantial amount of time.
People who don't necessarily stomach these same players but who see them as a useful tool to smash the WICB for its mismanagement of WI Cricket[/quote]
In reply to Courtesy
Reasonableness should have been the order of the day...and the WICB should also have shown good faith by contributing to the pool of dough to pay the regional players.
In reply to Courtesy
A soft landing was not an option available to Dave because the PCL (the pillar of his campaign for WICB president) had to be implemented before the next election. A simple example of personal interests winning out over the "bests interests" of WI cricket.
In reply to Courtesy
Simple and reasonable. ..no doubt 
In reply to Commie
People who don't necessarily stomach these same players but who see them as a useful tool to smash the WICB for its mismanagement of WI Cricket.
a useful assessment. i am in both camps
In reply to Walco
...and if this is the very reason,...personal interests and self aggrandizement, then any President of the WICB should step down.
In reply to Walco
Do u say PCL not in Windies cricket best interests? What happens when Gayle etc join the ranks of Shiv and Lara?
In reply to sudden
Trust you....politicians! Lol
In reply to Walco
perhaps that is why they could not delay the process for more consultation
In reply to Courtesy
Starring.
Soft landing is not an option after at least 10 years of being beaten in every arbitration on a flawed MOU which remember the WICB begged to renegotiate. Ramnarine laughed in their face everytime.
You are not talking about reasonable parties in either camp, well until the camp united on one side
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Would you agree that a soft landing was the preferable route?
In reply to Commie
You are not talking about reasonable parties in either camp, well until the camp united on one side
That's why I am in full support of a middle ground on this matter.
The international players are on record btw in agreeing fully with a pay cut. They brought something to WIPA which could have been used at the negotiating table.
In reply to Courtesy
Yes....if at all possible
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
...And the big stick approach by the WICB if it were impossible?
In reply to Courtesy
Where you trying to lead me? Some way have to be found to break an impasse...it can't go on indefinitely
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Yes...it's called the middle ground.
Thank you sir. Dis done.
In reply to sudden
That's Powenesque
Like others you are also spouting that senior players bring in the revenue. Could you please outline the revenues the so called senior players bring in. Put a figure to it so that we can all appreciate the huge dollar value that can be directly attributed to senior players. Tenks.
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
No. How come sudden got what I was getting at, but you did not?
In reply to Walco
You and he are liars....i mean lawyers. I am not. Could that be it?
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Okay I get it. You playing mock sport
In reply to carl0002... so does the WICB earn any from the non-senior players?
And if they are not earning from the senior players, how are they earning?
In reply to Courtesy
Following are some of the new fee arrangements:
Test match fees slashed from US$18,000 to US$5,000 per player; One-Day match fees slashed from US$5,000 to $1,700 per player; World Cup fees for this year slashed from US$300,000 per player to US$50,000 per player.
With regard to the present tour of South Africa, whereas the previous contract would have given each player over US$33,000 per match, they are now earning a little over US$16,000.
Additionally, WICB previously gave players 25 per cent of what was received from the International Cricket Council. Now with the new MOU, the players are getting nothing
Players with worldwide ratings and in highest demand in international cricket in every country, involving tournaments like Big Bash, IPL etc, such as Dwayne Bravo and Pollard, each earn over US$12,000 to US$20,000 per match.
Playing for the West Indies, they are paid a little over US$1,500.
So in reality they are playing for the West Indies out of pure patriotism as West Indies cricket cannot afford them. However, as true team players, they have been fighting for the other players.
That to my mind is a huge decrease in pay.
And the international players had little difficulty with some redistribution in pay, but by jove, this is a drastic reduction.
And wha tI don't like is some folks here supporting such injustices and not being honest
About how they would just say ok seeing that's how it's done and walk away
No one minds the fact that everyone can now eat a food. That's great the way how it was handles is extremely disingenuous, immoral, wrong, cruel on many levels.
Wavel is either ignorant of the fact of what he's done or plain ignorant.
In reply to Walco
My man. Ranting on here has not and perhaps will not change anything in Windies cricket.
Commie got it right. Maybe if the seniors and DD went away this msb might be happy
the msb would be happy if some of the seniors here would go away.
In reply to Courtesy
The problem with that approach is that FICA got involved and gave their blessing to the WIPA-WICB agreement as recent as covering the T20 WC.
That is why this is being played out in the public domain.
There is no legal footing or even support from the general union body both regionally and internationally that can rollback the changes.
The only thing that really helps their cause is winning and Cameron talking in the public domain.
In reply to sudden
How do you calculate the 75%?
Not in a democratic union. It's majority that decides.
In reply to Headley
the same way you do. i am not too sure but i dont think the math formula changed? did it?
In reply to sudden
You need not say any more. The numeracy problem is understood.
A union is a democratic organisation. No group of players, no matter how important or wealthy or talented or politically connected overrules the majority.
I will not defend WICB. Dem can afford lawyers and PR folks. But Wavel Hinds is the saviour of WI cricket. Dat man deserves praise for standing up for the majority, when sycophants and prostitutes were prepared to see the 100 men who provide the foundation of WI cricket, survive on US$ 3,000 - 7,000 per year.
In reply to Headley
man add something to the deabte. stop trying shoite but then again...
In reply to sudden
Go ahead .. a waiting for yuh to get personal. Ah have some time to describe yuh attributes.
Meeting to discuss the new MOU and matters relating to pay including fees for the T20 World Cup (May 2015).
o The members of the Test squad for Australia of which Denesh Ramdin, Jason Holder, Marlon Samuels, Jerome Taylor attended – they are members of the current World T20 squad; other players present were: Darren Bravo, Jermaine Blackwood, Shannon Gabriel, Kemar Roach, Kraigg Brathwaite, Carlos Brathwaite, Shai Hope, Shane Dorwich, Veerasammy Permaul
What a joke...discussing pay and the new MOU?
Pay inclds fees for the just concluded T20 World Cup.
A truly representative body of international cricketers.
In reply to natty_forever
Does that question even make sense. Steeupps!!
In reply to Headley
that says it all
In reply to carl0002... I'm not surprised.
...You decide.
Thank you for your e-mail of October 7th and congratulations to you and the team on today’s victory.
Before making any substantive response I am compelled to first refute in the strongest possible manner all of your previous assertions claiming ignorance on the part of the “senior players” regarding the proposal to discontinue the payment of $35,000 per day of cricket for the benefit of members of the senior West Indies team, and the reallocation of these monies to help to fund retainer contracts for an additional ninety (90) members of WIPA.
Please recall your attendance at WIPA’s AGM held in Trinidad on Saturday, February 1st 2014 at the Capital Plaza Hotel where you, other senior players including Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Ramnaresh Sarwan, along with several other members in attendance, participated in a lively and lengthy discussion about this issue following a presentation made by WIPA Director, Michael Hall.
The minutes of that AGM record your comments expressing 100% support for this initiative and you will be provided with a copy of the resolution authorizing the WIPA Executive to pursue same, which was passed by majority vote of the members present on the floor. The minutes also reflect the only qualification to your support, which was to ask that the current WIPA executive make every effort to ensure that the shortfall in revenue accruing from the reallocation, be made up in other areas of player remuneration.
I also wish to place on record my strong rejection of your assertion that the press release issued by WIPA on October 3rd 2014 was “inaccurate”. Contrary to the misinformation contained in your now public e-mails to me, the new agreement between WIPA and the WICB reflects the following increases in match fees (15% across the board) and retainer contracts (ranging from 12.5% to 25%), along with the introduction of two (2) new contract categories :
Match Fees Previous New
Test match $5,000.00 $5,750.00
ODI $2,000.00 $2,300.00
T20I $1,500.00 $1,725.00
Retainer Contracts Previous New
Category A+ (new) $150,000.00
Category A $120,000.00 $135,000.00
Category B+ (new) $125,000.00
Category B $100,000.00 $115,000.00
Category C $80,000.00
You have expressed, purportedly on behalf of all of the players currently in India, the belief that
“…this present WIPA Executive under your leadership has failed to properly represent the best interest of ALL the players.” While we respect your right to express this belief, the fact is that this WIPA Executive has made a concerted effort to represent the best interest of the MAJORITY of our membership – as was clearly pointed out at the AGM.
I would like to respond to your suggestion of there being a “special relationship” between WIPA and the WICB which seeks to “embarrass” and “demonize” some players who represent the West Indies, by stating that the relationship which exists between WIPA and the WICB is special only insofar as it is a departure from the adversarial nature which characterized it under WIPA’s previous leadership. My Executive has made a designed effort to operate in an environment of mutual respect and professionalism, with the common goal of providing an opportunity to earn a livable wage for more of your fellow cricketers, while attempting to produce better cricketers. I hope that you would see the value in such an approach.
I note your concern regarding my advising that I would be consulting with members of my Executive before responding to the questions posed in your correspondences of “the past few days”. Your erroneous conclusion that I needed to do so in order to get the answers, once again demonstrates the stark contrast in my approach to leadership as against what was the previous norm. I am not a one man band.
You have advised that you have conducted your own “preliminary investigation” while awaiting my response to your questions, and have shared the results of those investigations with me.
I must let you know that during the course of our negotiations with the WICB, our team of Secretary Wayne Lewis, Treasurer Nixon McLean and myself were provided legal and IR advice by resource personnel who are either members of the Executive of the Federation of International Cricketers Associations (FICA) or resource personnel provided through their offices.
Regarding the negotiation process, I wish to address the following two (2) assertions made in your e-mail of yesterday:
3) None of the players were consulted during and after the negotiations of this purported new MOU. This is a process that has been the common practice between previous WIPA representatives and the players. This was completely ignored.
4) The Players were never given the opportunity to consider the document (MOU) and approve it before it was signed consistent with past practice.
I am sure you will recall that prior to my current role at WIPA, I have held several positions within the Association’s executive – including that of Vice President from 2006 to 2012. While I am willing to concede that best practices may not have been observed by not sharing the document with any but a small group of our members, I cannot agree with your above assertions that “this has been the common practice between previous WIPA representatives and the players’ or that players have previously been given “the opportunity to consider the document (MoU) and approve it before it was signed consistent with best practice”.
I must also refute the following assertion:
10) WIPA is receiving in addition to the 3% of all players earnings, a sum of $500,000.00 USD annually from WICB (1% 0f WICB Revenue) once this new agreement remains.
The assertion is wrong on 2 counts:
1. WIPA does not receive 3% of all players’ earnings. In fact there are many of our members who contribute nothing to the Association by way of dues – including a number of them who are currently on tour in India. May I also remind you that it was this current WIPA executive which (at the request of some “senior players”) reduced the percentage of players’ earnings to be paid over as dues from the previous 5% to the current 3%.
2. Your equating 1% of the WICB’s projected revenues over the current 4 year cycle of the new MoU to $500,000 annually is significantly inflated.
You have asked a number of questions regarding the finances of the WICB in your correspondence of October 7th and I respond by advising that disclosure of the WICB’s annual revenues to WIPA is an obligation of the WICB embedded at Article 8 of the new MoU.
In the midst of this response, I acknowledge receiving further correspondence from you (received today October 8th at 2:46 a.m., Jamaica time) which repeats much of what has been previously communicated, and which inter alia:
1. Calls for the immediate and unconditional resignation of myself as President & CEO, and of the other members of the current WIPA executive “who may have a conflict of interest.”
2. Suggests that this would allow you and the other players “the right to seek the necessary advice of professional advisors who we have confidence in and take the necessary course of action as we see fit.”
3. Advises us that you “shall inform the WICB that they are to not take any instructions from any of the Officers until such time as we are able to consult with the members of WIPA to put in an interim measure that is acceptable to all.”
I must take this opportunity to remind you that there is a process embedded in WIPA’s Memorandum & Articles of Association regarding the election and removal of officers, and that your call for some members of the current executive and Board to resign is not supported by that process. We were placed here by the rules of our Association, and will leave only according to the will of the majority of our membership as provided for in those rules. There will be no resignation by any member of the current executive as our negotiating team considered they had a mandate, took legal and industrial relations advice, consulted with members from time to time, if not all members, acted diligently and in good faith in the interest of all members mindful of our fiduciary duties as Directors, and are of the view that they acted and fulfilled their duties properly in all the circumstances, including the subsequent ratification of the signing of the new agreement by the Directors present at our Board meeting held in Jamaica on October 2nd, 2014.
Notwithstanding, you are free to continue to engage the advisors whom you have already consulted, or any others, as we seek to find a solution to what I still believe is a salvageable situation. We are happy to have any discussions with you to reach an amicable resolution to this present difference.
Your intention to inform the WICB that they are not to take any instruction from this current executive has no merit, as the duly elected executive of the WIPA is the only body which the WICB will recognize and deal with in matters to do with West Indian cricketers.
I note also the reference made in your e-mail of October 7th to the alleged “confusion” on my part stemming from the “….plethora of positions that you occupy being Chairman of Selectors for Jamaica Senior team, a Board member of the Jamaica Cricket Association and the dual role of President and CEO of WIPA have in some way contributed to the confusion or perhaps being a member of the same club as Mr. Cameron in some way may have clouded your judgment”.
In responding to the above I must remind you of your own involvement with the club to which Mr. Cameron and I belong, you having played for Kensington CC at our invitation at the start of your career in 2004. How ironic that you have been elevated to the captaincy of the West Indies ODI team under Mr. Cameron’s presidency
I also refer to the following statement in your e-mail of October 8th calling for my resignation:”…..we the players have now lost all confidence in your ability to properly represent the players in any meaningful way and as such, we are calling on the Officers of WIPA and any of those who may have a conflict of interest to tender their resignation unconditionally with immediate effect.”
Where was the conflict of interest when the former President and CEO of WIPA was invited to sit, and accepted a seat, on the WICB’s Board of Directors in 2006?
It is both unfortunate and surprising, that your “advocacy” on behalf of the players has been coloured with personal attacks on my competence and integrity considering the history of our relationship. You should never forget where you are coming from, and who you have met along the way to the current location in your life’s journey.
Wavel Hinds
President & CEO, West Indies Players Association
...................
Thank you for your letter dated October 8th in response to our letters sent to you between October 3rd to October 8th 2014.
Please be advised that all correspondence sent via my email was with the full blessings of the players in India and their input.
We must again reiterate that in our view ,the positions you have detailed are not in keeping with the stance taken by the players and which we would have expected to be conveyed not only at your meetings with the WICB but in your response of October 8th copied to all players and copied to the media. From a review of the minutes of the Annual General Meeting held on February 1st, 2014 only excerpts of those minutes were quoted or referred to that may have given one impression which the whole extract of a comment or of the minutes would have given clarity. The players here in India believe that the comments referred to should be placed in their whole context and do so now. Additionally, comments attributed to me at the meeting were my personal views then and still remains that way . I will now let the facts speak for themselves.
In your letter you stated, “The minutes of that AGM record your comments expressing 100% support for this initiative and you will be provided with a copy of the resolution authorizing the WIPA Executive to pursue same, which was passed by majority vote of the members present on the floor. The minutes also reflect the only qualification to your support, which was to ask that the current WIPA executive make every effort to ensure that the shortfall in revenue accruing from the reallocation, be made up in other areas of player remuneration.”
The recorded minutes of the February 1st AGM which you referred to and relied upon in your response to the players do not reflect this.
Extract from minutes:
Mr. Dwayne Bravo then stated “that he support 100% the proposal but certain conditions must be discussed, one of them being no pay drop for the senior team and the other salary be raised to compensate the loss of sponsorship fee. He agreed that the first class players need the raise and the retainer; he made the point that is was long overdue. He said he hoped the first class understood what WIPA was trying to do and that all players stand together as one. He wanted WIPA to speak to the board on the issue of relocation for the retained players and the pay grade structure being raised.”
Mr. Hall former CEO of WIPA, Chief Operations Officer of the CPL and Director of WIPA who presented to the player the proposal in response to clarification by Dwayne Bravo of what is being asked by WIPA and the WICB gave the undertaking as stated in the minutes “Mr. Hall informed the meeting that more information would be circulated via emails to all members of WIPA before any final decision is made”.
As indicated above, other members shared their views on the matter as well, Mr. Shivnarine Chanderpaul then “raised the question of senior players match fees and whether the proposal would affect their payment; and West Indian players match fees are at the lower end of the scale compared to other test playing cricketers.”
Mr. Wavell Hinds in his capacity as President and CEO WIPA, answered this by saying “all these points will be raised with the WICB and to balance of the loss of sponsorship fee a compromised MUST be reached to EVEN out the difference.”
Mr. Sarwan stated, “ he found that the idea had some merit and that the meeting must be held with players of senior West Indies team to get their views on it”.
Mr. Hinds confirmed that, “one of his considerations is to meet with the two captains Daren Sammy and Dwayne Bravo and have them to be a part of the discussions on the proposals. As well as Christopher Gayle, Ramnaresh Sarwan and Shivnarine Chanderpaul are included aslo as they are the most senior West Indian players”.
As is evident from the minutes of the AGM, Mr. Hinds and Mr. Hall promised to provide more information, meet with senior West Indian players, make up the shortfall if the sponsorship were taken away, even out the difference and certain conditions must be discussed one of them being no pay drop and more importantly discuss with the players before any final decision is made.
I want to state categorically without fear of contradiction that not one of those promises made by Mr. Hall and Mr. Hinds were met in relation to me or a number of players whom I have spoken with. I doubt we would have been at this juncture had the information and dialogue as promised were forthcoming. To date, we are yet to see the new purported MOU signed by you.
In your letter to the Players you made reference to a resolution. You stated, “you will be provided with a copy of the resolution authorizing the WIPA Executive to pursue same, which was passed by a majority vote”. None of the players who were present at the meeting recall any resolution being passed. In fact we have only through this letter heard any mention of a resolution for the first time. After careful reading of the minutes of the AGM again, it is clear that no resolution was passed. There is no mention whatsoever of such a vote taking place and that is in keeping with what persons attending that meeting have said. These minutes were signed by you to signify the true nature of them.
This therefore raises more serious questions. On whose authority were you and the WIPA representatives acting when they negotiated and signed this new purported MOU with WICB. We have been advised that there are more issues arising from this but will allow our advisors at the appropriate time to advise us accordingly should it get to that stage.
In light of the above, it should be no surprise to you that we have lost all confidence in you and the WIPA Board and we reiterate that you are no longer authorize to represent us in any matter whatsoever. This decision has been conveyed to the President and the CEO of the WICB. Please note that we intend to address the other inaccuracies and any misrepresentations in your letter of October 8th 2014. We reserve all rights.
Regards,
Dwayne Bravo on behalf of the West Indies Players.
In reply to Headley
as a former convenor I can vouch fuh that
But Ramdin is a joker imagine he a known scab telling the head of the union to resign !!!
In reply to ponderiver
why cant he tell Wavell to resign? then again Wavell ought to have resigned when it was brought to light that he never consulted the senior players as was promised before signing off on the final agreement. that was really bad form, wont you say?
In reply to sudden
Didn't all the players sign their contracts to play in the recently concluded WC T20?
In life you win some and you lose some.
In reply to sudden
The senior players were too busy playing 20/20 cricket all over the world to respond when they were informed. The other 90% of the union responded.
Wavell's problem is that he should have added to the deal that whatever the senior players so called lost in guaranteed money would be made up in performance bonus. Then set the performance standards at a fairly high level. Knowing how these senior players love money I am sure they would have hit these standards out of the park right?
In reply to sudden
it would carry more weight coming from anyone other than a scab
scabs have always looked after their own interest eg Sammy Reifer Ramdin and a host of others
Cameron deserves credit for settling the 42mil with India that allyuh were hoping we would be landed with
where Wavell and his negotiating team erred was in how the seniors already negotiated pay was then reduced to the extent that it created genuine ill feeling
they should have honoured the ones who fought for the previous agreement but make it clear that new recruits would be part of the new structure.
In time the seniors would have been phased out ...... the cost would have been a small price to pay for future goodwill.
who knows it was probably proposed and rejected
Deadly Dave in yuh pwefen !!!
Anyway I have some dancehall tearing up in the background , the rhythms and lyrics are quite beyond compare
In reply to carl0002
The agreement was that the players would get sponsorship fees separately and WICB would arrange WI Regional cricket in such a way, that the stars could play IPL, Big Bash, Banglabash, Englishbash and Anywherebash without having a conflict, and make additional money which would more than compensate for their 'losses', under the then proposed agreement. Which btw explains why WI Regional cricket is now played in the rainy season.
Of course the players like Ramdin who have no IPL deals have to be satisfied with measly test cricket money and live in a house instead of a mansion like Gayle.
In reply to ponderiver
i hope you know that DD did not settle with the Indians. the 42 mil was just a figure assumed from lost revenue over the tour cancellation. it was never an order from a court and as such is an arbitrary figure. the settlement with india was brokered by Sir Garry after he was sent to India because the Indians didnt want to deal with DD.
The Indians never intended to go to court in the first place. there was simply no point.
Ramdin of all persons? He is literally at the doorsteps right now. I don't see him lasting out this year...
In reply to ponderiver
Many anti-democratic peeps around here breds. Btw this is not the first time that a man suddenly found himself in a pickle because he was unable or unwilling to calculate other people's fees properly.
The last time he lost after it became a legal matter, so be careful not to accept any calculations or matters requiring numeracy skills from the fellow.
In reply to sudden
hindsight is a great thing
but drunk arredi garry negotiating ?? pleeeeuse ??
In reply to ponderiver
Breds please edit your post and kindly take out any reference to the great man. Let us be silent on such matters. Thanks.
In reply to ponderiver
come on, Mate. Sir Garry can get as drunk as he likes. but how do you account for DD's behaviour
In reply to ponderiver
The drunk man didn't have to negotiate.
The great man's presence was enough!
In reply to Headley
watch it, fella. i know who you are. you coming v close
In reply to sudden
Go ahead. Don't wait.
Ramdin can't write a proper sentence.
_r
In reply to sudden
In reply to Kay... willing to take a bet?
In reply to Headley
I also read that if the senior players play the CPL they would also make back whatever money they supposedly lost from the WICB. So it seems it not so much a pay cut but the money redistributed to make more people earn a living.
In reply to carl0002
The only players who could actually earn less are the players like Ramdin who have no T20 contracts. All such players have retainer contracts - minimum US$ 105k.
I may be wrong, but as a democrat, I must applaud WIPA for getting a result which allows 100 Regional players to earn a minimum of US$ 2000.00 per month. That is a basis on which you can attract young players to be professionals.
Players like Tonge, Stoute, Willette and Lambert (?) who have given so much to the game, and are on the verge of leaving knowing that they will never make star money, may play for an additional year or two and help to make WI Regional cricket more competitive.
CPL is not affiliated with WICB. WICB takes a fee so that the matches can be played in the Caribbbean, but other than that, they have no involvement in CPL
So why does income that players earn elsewhere have any bearing whatsoever on this issue?
You were initially employed by Company X
You then became a contractor and do contract work for several companies...including company X. Company X is your preferred "employer", mainly for sentimental reasons. You started with them, they helped you get to where you are today, and you feel a certain sense of loyalty to the company and it's staff. But they don't pay you anywhere near as much as other companies, and the relationship is rocky at times.
You have a signed agreement to contract for Company X for a certain dollar amount.
Company X decides to contract you for a job and when you start to do the work, you find out that they have cut your payment by 75% and instead distributed the surplus to junior contractors who are less experienced, less competent, and less expensive. They justify it by saying their primary interest is to build their company and besides....you're making plenty $$ working for other contractors so you haven't really lost anything.
You would still take work from Company X?
In reply to imusic
Like the BCCI is not affiliated to IPL ?
You veer from brilliant to dotish literally by the word.
One of the WICB sole smart plays was granting the CPL a license to run their league in the region but to take no liability for salaries or marketing etc.
That gave them a low risk medium reward given the expense of running anything in the Caribbean.
Regards
In reply to imusic
To maximise one's earning, Yes some people would.
See there are some that seen their money fall, eg Ramdin, while others will still be able to pull in a fair amount of money Russell.
It all comes down to Marketability. It won't work for all but will work for some.
Right now though all the seniors are singing the same tune. And if they don't play for WI and the WI get a bigger beat down than normal look for even more cries for the current WI set up to be gone hey.
In reply to Commie
That gave them a low risk medium reward given the expense of running anything in the Caribbean.
I never disagreed. carl0002 posted this
The first sentence and subsequent question of my post dealt with that
So why does income that players earn elsewhere have any bearing whatsoever on this issue?
....as supported by your post quoted above.
In reply to Commie
In reply to Commie
How much did the WICB "grant" that right for?
Test match fees slashed from US$18,000 to US$5,000 per player; One-Day match fees slashed from US$5,000 to $1,700 per player; World Cup fees for this year slashed from US$300,000 per player to US$50,000 per player.
With regard to the present tour of South Africa, whereas the previous contract would have given each player over US$33,000 per match, they are now earning a little over US$16,000.
Additionally, WICB previously gave players 25 per cent of what was received from the International Cricket Council. Now with the new MOU, the players are getting nothing
Players with worldwide ratings and in highest demand in international cricket in every country, involving tournaments like Big Bash, IPL etc, such as Dwayne Bravo and Pollard, each earn over US$12,000 to US$20,000 per match.
Playing for the West Indies, they are paid a little over US$1,500.
So in reality they are playing for the West Indies out of pure patriotism as West Indies cricket cannot afford them. However, as true team players, they have been fighting for the other players.
Interesting that no mention of money available in the FC and senior contracts etc were made here.
Looking at things in isolation will have a dramatic effect, sure...
1) The overall idea is that stay and play in WI and build WI cricket and you will be rewarded
2) If you want do it part time then the money will be rewarded to those who comply to 1 above
In reply to imusic
WTF kinda nonsense u starting a post with?
In reply to Larr Pullo
1 million usd a year I believe.
In reply to imusic
All the players from the Caribbean who play in the CPL are WI FC players produced by WI club and FC cricket.
All the WICB did was to take a no liability position but they esp Ernest Hilaire were the ones who signed the CPL into existence.
It's a cute trini like statement to say they planned this to meet the shortfall but the fact that it does in revenue terms to the players, unfettered by sharing with anyone ( note I am using the conventional meaning of share here) means that their complaints of being driven to the poorhouse are even less relevant now.
Does everyone here agree that CPL is a recent addition to the West Indies cricket calendar and that, in fact, the players are performing additional work when contracted to the CPL...right or wrong or yes or no?
In reply to Courtesy
Piano off key?
In reply to billydred
Mate, add something to the discussion or answer the question...will you?
Zort kweer say kaka kalbass ki en tete moin.
The WICB and WIPA can only fool some of the international cricketers some of the time.
And perhaps, some on this MB.
In reply to ponderiver
There you go again.
We all understand this is a rum shop but was that necessary?
The players are a bunch of liars..The amount of concessions the board made to the 15 or so top players is nothing short of robbery..However, WICB and WIPA needs to do a better job at communicating to the people of the various countries their point.
The top players get about 57% of about 35 million.NTM other perks etc..
Too much info to divulge now..
Hold your ground WICB..
In reply to Headley
Imusic..one of best poster on the board..He makes nuff sense.
Dotish reserved for the Ditties..
In reply to Admin
But wait. Are'nt you one of those who cussed Hilaire when he said the very same thing?
In reply to Courtesy
Are lawyers moonlighting in the caribbean, taking jobs away from realtors?
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
I am not saying they don't have a grievance but Hinds couldn't satisfy everyone and may have chosen to go with what he perceived to be the greater good and please the majority over a vocal and powerful minority
Endorsed!
In reply to openning
I know of some lawyers who spend more time selling real estate than they do in a court of law. The market for lawyers has become saturated....so they need to diversify their portfolio..
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
I am not saying they don't have a grievance but Hinds couldn't satisfy everyone and may have chosen to go with what he perceived to be the greater good and please the majority over a vocal and powerful minority
Well said.
I cannot disagree with Wavell Hinds for giving the rich 'a haircut' to help the poor. Very few leaders have the balls to even attempt that.
In reply to imusic
Great synopsis
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
You realize why it's speculation, right? Dave and his co-conspirator struck a deal behind their backs.
When I read statements like yours on this message board I dismiss what's said before the word "but" because the author's more strongly held opinion usually comes after that word. Fuzzy, you is one a dem ends-justifies-the-means guys?
What exactly do you mean when you acknowledge that the players have a grievance?
In reply to Walco
I would not attempt to put that rebuttal better, mate. Well said.
In reply to Walco
A grievance by its very nature means that the writer acknowledges that something did not go right. That being the case how can the writer then praise the outcome or the process?
In reply to sudden
When I saw who was endorsing Fuzzy's statement I had to go back and give it a second look
In reply to Walco
Hope you were not too surprised.
In reply to sudden
In reply to Walco
I did the opposite...I instantly knew judging by the endorsers, that the statement was void of substance and logic.
In reply to Courtesy
Fuzz is muh pardna but ever so often he does bowl some big big no balls
In reply to sudden
I was not, but we have to bring Brother Fuzzy back from the dark side
In reply to Walco
Yeah we must. Next time I see him at tennis I am going to beat him first and then lay down the law to him. Bring him back to the path of the righteous so to speak
In reply to sudden
He may made need to undergo a little therapy first but I am all for it. Something has gone drastically wrong.
I had a long ass reply to wunnuh but said why bother.
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Stewwps
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Double stewps. This is a civil discourse fuzzy. Talk yuh talk
In reply to Walco
Nah wunnuh is lawyers who like to parse words. E.g. depends on what is is.
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Wuh Powen seh bout you may be right- yuh is one big friten man
In reply to sudden
Maybe what he said about you is true too!
I said my piece and nothing more to add.
I am not seeking to convert anybody
In reply to FuzzyWuzzy
Ok...when next yuh going tennis
In reply to sudden
There now . You coming?
In reply to Courtesy
I only have one complaint about Sammy's post-game speech. He should have said that the players feel disrespected by their board and abandoned by their union (former).
In reply to Walco
How do you see this fiasco ending?
In reply to sudden
That Sammy speech after the World Cup victory has them scrambling. At least two conference calls so far and they still don't know what to do They can't dismiss Sammy's statements because he has credibility with CARICOM and with the greater international cricket fraternity. As you know, Dave has little credibility with the BCCI, and the ECB probably probably have an unfavorable view of him as well after hearing of his exploits from Holding and Gibson.
If I were the WICB I would offer up Dave as a sacrificial lamb by voting him out as President next February/March, adjust the West Indies first policy so that the best players can represent us in ODIs and Tests when available, and make some cosmetic structural changes in hopes that this overall course of action would get CARICOM to back off.
But you never know with these jokers running our cricket.
Whatever Hinds says regarding redistribution is baseless because as a players association he is suppose to represent the players not the board.
He (and even the board) should first have tried to convince players in the merits of their argument.
In reply to Walco
Go ahead and posit your iteration of the current policy to achieve this.....
In reply to Kay
It's already stated in what you quoted.
Search
Live Scores
- no matches