Nice Try Teddy, But...

In a live broadcast to the Caribbean region Friday night, WICB president Teddy Griffith gave a type of clear-the-air speech. After combing through the text of Griffith?s presentation, it is increasingly apparent that something still doesn?t smell quite right at the WICB. In fact, the air there smells fouler than ever.

The WICB boss beseeched the sympathy of the Caribbean public by revealing that his organization has been hemorrhaging cash to the tune of $16.8 million for the last five fiscal years. He then cunningly sought to leverage the sympathy thus gained to highlight the players? present compensation requests as unreasonably burdensome on such a cash-starved entity. Frankly, there is no surprise that the parrots of the punditry fell for Griffith?s sleight-of-hand. Nevertheless, let?s examine the figures.

Using Griffith?s numbers, if the WICB was to accede to the cricketers? demands, the board?s total expenditure on players per year for retainers and match fees would amount to 19.7% of total revenue. Is this truly an outlandish request or are the players just trying to bring an organization ? one that historically compensated its players far below market value ? up to the norms of world practice?

Australian cricketers recently signed a deal that guarantees them 25% of Cricket Australia?s revenue on top of match fees and retainers. Our upcoming opponents, the South Africans, are pushing for a similar revenue sharing deal. In New Zealand, the cricketers are guaranteed 23% of gross revenues in addition to match fees and retainers. Why, then, does Mr. Griffith present WIPA?s demand of 19.7% as overbearing and unreasonable? Indeed when one considers that this 19.7% figure, which unlike the others mentioned, actually includes match fees and retainers, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the demand is more than fair and reasonable.

Keeping in mind when dealing with percentages, the argument that the Aussies, Kiwis, etc, have bigger economies and can better afford higher players? salaries becomes irrelevant. The players? demands are barely in range with world best practices even when one takes into account the relative economies.

Griffith seems to be crying poverty as a strategic maneuver to gain public support for the board?s denial of the players? salary request. This begs the question; what about the other 80.3% of revenue that the players bring into the organization? To what, where, or whom would the remaining WICB yearly revenue be allocated? How much does the WICB spend shuttling its dignitaries across the region? What are the salaries for its Factory Road staff?

How much are the stipends and other perks for WICB board members? Why, in his quest for fiscal solvency, does Mr. Griffith completely ignore the larger portion of the total WICB expenditure? How did he decide that the extra 5.6% of total revenue requested by the players will bring the WICB into financial ruin while the other 80.3% of total revenue spent has yet to be scrutinized for the same purposes?

/p>

Why won?t Mr. Griffith disclose all of WICB?s expenditures? Why does he assume sensible folk would buy his spin that meeting the players? demands will create a fiscal emergency? Why won?t Mr. Griffith just show us all the numbers and allow us the courtesy of making up our own minds using facts and not his handpicked ones? It certainly would be nice if Mr. Griffith would clear the air on this matter.

THE APPEAL TO JEALOUSY

Mr. Griffith went on to brag that, under the WICB proposal, the West Indies players will be in the top 1% of Caribbean earners. Does Mr. Griffith realize that this fact is more a function of the low wage standards in the region on a whole, rather than a function of the fairness of the WICB? The threshold for attaining top 1% status in the Caribbean is not very high. This line of argument by Griffith is specious at best and designed simply to induce jealousy within the ranks of the fan base.

What gall the WICB has to big up themselves by using the relatively depressed economies and wages in the region as their yardstick for player compensation! Did Mr. Griffith also use this same yardstick in determining executive compensation and perks? Wouldn?t it be interesting to see how the comparison of salaries and compensation between the WICB executives and their counterparts in other countries stack up to the comparison of salaries and compensation between West Indies cricketers and their counterparts? Mr. Griffith, knowing this information would certainly help to clear the air on this matter.

QUESTIONABLE BIDDING PRACTICES

With regards to the bid for master sponsorship, isn?t it curious that the WICB refused to reveal to Cable & Wireless that the rival bid was submitted by their chief regional competitor? Just think; if C&W had known that their bidding competitor was also their bitter industry rival, they would have most certainly tried to outbid them. A bidding war between these industry rivals would unquestionably have been in the best interest of West Indies cricket.

In the modern world, playing rivals against each other is a tried and true tactic to increase the price in a negotiation. Just look at how the New York Yankees are always linked to every baseball free agent on the market.

If WICB wanted to maximize the sponsorship revenue numbers, why did they inexplicably seek to suppress a bidding war between Cable & Wireless and Digicel? Would not the resulting higher bids from a bidding war helped stem the hemorrhage of cash Mr. Griffith spoke of? One must wonder whether a decision maker in the WICB had a personal stake in making sure that Digicel won this bid. That admission from Mr. Griffith sure sounds like someone rigged the bidding in Digicel?s favour. The WICB boss needs to clear the air on this rather peculiar behavior by the marketing committee.

Interestingly, this is not the first time there have been questions about the motivations of WICB board members and executives with regard to the acceptance of bids and the negotiating of deals. A few years ago, when the British TV company BSkyB bought the exclusive TV and Internet rights for West Indies cricket for $40 million, it was greeted with press release fanfare, complete with liberal doses of superlatives with regard to the size and scope of the deal. Sounds familiar? It was when BSkyB turned around and resold just the Asian portion of those rights for $20 million that the more astute observers started smelling a dead rat.

How is it that BSkyB was able to resell for $20 million, a small portion of what it paid $40 million for? The interests of West Indies cricket in the broadcast rights negotiation would have been to get the maximum value for selling these rights. The diametrically opposite interests of broadcasters would have been to secure these rights for as little money as possible. This leaves us to wonder whether anyone considered the conflict-of-interest questions that arise when a Caribbean television outfit becomes the rights-holder for the region. Is history going to repeat itself in the Digicel deal? Again, one must ask, why does Mr. Griffith place the burden of financial woes on the shoulders of the players? Would Mr. Griffith clear the air on that for us please?

THE WICB?S FUZZY LAW

Then there is the issue of player endorsement contracts. The WICB claims to have removed several of its top players from eligibility because of their refusal to submit their personal endorsement contracts for WICB perusal. OK, already the creepiness alert goes to condition red when an employer demands to see personal contract documents as a condition of hiring. But since Mr. Griffith claims to have the law on his side, let?s investigate his claims before we pass judgment.

Note well, that Mr. Griffith does not claim that any of the players breached any contract signed between them and his organization. Instead, he explained that clause 1(k) of the players? tour contract gave the WICB the right to view any third party endorsement contract that a player under tour contract was contemplating entering into. Not so fast Mr. Griffith. Here is a reading of clause 1(k):

Not at any time after his selection and during the Tour undertake, participate or in endorse any advertising as a member of the Team without permission of the Board, such permission not be unreasonable withheld;

First of all, contrary to what Mr. Griffith said, this clause certainly does not give the WICB permission to view a contract that a player on tour is merely contemplating. It simply states that if the player signs this contract while on tour, that he agrees to get prior permission from the WICB. But wait; there is an even bigger glitch in Mr. Griffith?s interpretation. According to the arbitrator?s ruling, even when on tour, a player is only obligated to seek permission from the WICB if the endorsement or advertising he is signing on for is being done ?as a member of the Team.? So, the WICB has no contract perusal rights under clause 1(k) unless it can prove that the endorsements its cricketers are contracting for are being done in their capacity as team members.

This puts the WICB in somewhat of a pickle. Since clause 1(k) only grants perusal rights if the contracts were entered upon in the player?s capacity as a member of the team, the WICB must first prove that this condition exists before seeking to invoke the rights of clause 1(k). Mr. Griffith seems to have it all backwards in his speech.

This curious and legally unsupported demand from Mr. Griffith is even more puzzling when one considers that the WICB does have recourse if a player breaches his contractual obligations. They can fire the player or sue both the player and the endorsee should they overstep their bounds. Is the WICB afraid that it is on shaky legal ground in this regard? It seems an awful rush to judgment (and perhaps legally suspect) to preempt players from being hired even before you have a shred of proof of any wrongdoing on their part. What is the WICB afraid of? Would Mr. Griffith mind clearing the air on this issue?

And lest we forget, isn?t this the same WICB who blessed and approved Lara?s C&W contract? Why then, do they now demand to see a contract that they have already approved? The more one analyzes the clause 1(k) issue, the more it becomes apparent that this demand to see contracts is simply a smokescreen for something else, something the WICB doesn?t want the public to know.

WILL WICB GUARANTEE THEIR INTEGRITY?

While on the subject of contracts, if Mr. Griffith wants our sympathy, is he, along with his board members and WICB staff willing to sign integrity contracts, guaranteeing that they do not now and will not in the future benefit personally from any deal they approve of on behalf of West Indies cricket?

If they want our sympathy for the organization?s financial condition are they willing to prove that their primary commitment is to West Indies cricket and not to a personal side interest? Are they willing to make full disclosure of all personal business dealings and assets?

Please clear the air for us Mr. Griffith. Thank you and good night.