Players Who Signed Aren't Scabs

The continuing debate surrounding the players' contracts, tour fees, sponsorship funds, and endorsements is rather unfortunate and, in my opinion, not good for our cricket, especially at a time when we are struggling to reestablish our once proud status as world beaters.

I am very disappointed and indeed embarrassed that the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) does not possess the management acumen to sensibly discuss and arrive at a workable consensus that would put an end to this nonsense once and for all. They have failed to see that they are destroying the very same product that they have been entrusted with the responsibility to direct and develop.

While I fully empathize with the players who refused to sign the tour contracts, I cannot honestly join the chorus of castigating those who signed and term them as "scabs." For me, this is rather harsh and not necessary. One needs to look at the bigger picture, which is West Indies cricket.

West Indies cricket is not an entity in itself, and although over the years we have excited the world with our brand of cricket, it should never be forgotten that we are a member territory of the ICC and are guided by its regulations, policies and procedures. Tours between member countries are organized years in advance and while changes can be made it is impractical and neigh impossible for tours to be cancelled at the eleventh hour without the defaulting country suffering severe repercussions.

What would have been the consequence if every player in the West Indies refused to sign the tour contracts?

Were we prepared for the dire consequences that would have occurred if the West Indies were unable to field a team in Sri Lanka?

What would have been the effects on our plans to host World Cup 2007?

The current impasse, although largely due to its own incompetence, placed the WICB between a rock and a hard place. Whom do you please, the sponsors or the players?

Every player has a right to take what ever action he sees fit in so far as it reflects on his survival and future. It must be borne in mind that WIPA, while advising the players not to sign, did not at any time order the players not to.

Some people may disagree with this notion but I view the players in Sri Lanka like the players of the past, in the Packer era, that saw the opportunity to represent the West Indies in a situation that would not have normally been given such a chance.

At the same time these players may have saved the West Indies from further embarrassment and dire consequences from the ICC for failing to honor an obligation that was agreed to long in advance.

Which of the players are wrong? Those who refused to sign or those that did? In my opinion, as far as the players are concerned they are no right or wrong answers here, it was a matter of personal choice.

The WICB has to be held responsible for all that transpired here, it is they who did not make the effort to ensure that individuals that are ensuring their continuity are adequately taken care of. It is they who failed to ensure that the interests of their employees are placed before that of their sponsors. The continued incompetence of the WICB is to be blamed and its failure to properly handle the affairs of our precious product.

Are the players in Sri Lanka scabs? An emphatic No! There was no breaking of "picket lines" here. That?s my view.