Part 5: The CFO is Excluded

| [ Part 2 ] | [ Part 3 ] | [ Part 4 ]
[ Part 5 ] | [ Part 6 ] | [ Part 7 ] | [ Part 8 ] | [ Part 9 ]

CHAPTER 4: Is the new sponsorship arrangement in the best interest of the WICB and continued cricket development in the West Indies?

This question will only be definitively determined in the fullness of time; however there are current ongoing events, which clearly indicate both positive and negative developments in this regard. The best interest of WICB and the continued development of West Indies cricket may be determined if the following are considered in light of the new sponsorship agreement.

1) An improvement in playing facilities and Ground development generally. The poor state of pitches, training and coaching facilities are constantly mentioned in the press and the cricketing public generally. This new sponsorship agreement does not commit itself to the improvement in facilities. However, it should be noted that Digicel has contributed significant sums of money to improve the facilities at a few cricket venues across the region.

Digicel has assisted in the renovation of the Kensingston Cricket Club in Jamaica, and school facilities in Barbados to mention a few. There is still a lot of work to be done, and this sponsorship agreement does not attempt to tackle this problem specifically.

2) An improvement in Players remuneration, personal development and long-term financial security.

The personal welfare of past and current players has been an issue dating back for decades. This is evident from the hardship faced by a number of past Test and First Class players who have ended up destitute. In many cases within recent times, the Governments of the region, Private Citizens or Corporations have had to intervene to assist past players. This continues to be a major problem, which has been ignored. Very little emphasis has been placed on the players? livelihood or welfare after they have retired from the game.

Many players have problems in maintaining their families, with major consequences ultimately. Most of the players have only achieved academic levels of Primary or Secondary level and are unable to handle a number of issues which inevitably confront professional sports men and women.

In the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa and the Indian sub continent, the Players operate in environments where professional sport managers and agencies are readily available to handle their affairs. In those countries, professional services are available to players from the onset of their professional careers; and their careers are professionally handled to ensure their long-term career development and financial security is protected. The Board might have been better served, if the sponsorship agreement had placed more emphasis on these matters.

3) Does the new sponsorship agreement provide for a better relationship between management and the players? It is evident that the new sponsorship agreement has created tremendous antagonism between the players, the WICB and the new sponsors Digicel. The ongoing saga, which has been acted out in the full view of the Public since 2004, has continued to date.

The exclusion of a number of key first team players at the beginning of the South African Tour of 2005, and subsequent tour to Sri Lanka is evidence of the effect that this new agreement has had on the Board and Players. It may be argued that the current dispute may have resulted from what is perceived by some as "Ambush Marketing" by C&W, which has resulted in the ongoing impasse.

This new agreement has also resulted in the regional Governments getting more involved in the administration of cricket in the sub region than ever before in the history of West Indies cricket.

The breakdown of trust between the Players and the Board has become so serious; the Caricom Heads of Government Sub-Committee had to intervene in an attempt to have the impasse resolved.

The sport purist who have insisted in the past that Governments should be kept out of sports, have in some instances reversed their position on this issue. In light of the suffering of the peoples of the region during ongoing saga, some have come to the conclusion that all that has transpired is not in the best interest of West Indies Cricket; and that Governments should get involved if necessary to solve this problem.

4) Does the new agreement cater for the long-term development of Cricket throughout the member territories of the WICB?

The new sponsorship agreement will assist the development of cricket throughout the region, if the $1 million development included in the agreement is spent wisely. This is a positive development in this new contract, and the WICB should be commended for this new development initiative. The sum is relatively small, with less than $200,000 to be divided among six (6) territories annually. It may be argued that the one million is insufficient, but it is an improvement on the arrangements they had in the past.

5) Was the process by which the sponsorship agreement was negotiated facilitated the optimal or acceptable levels transparency and accountability to the Board and Players by the management of the WICB?

The evidence seen by the committee and the practices of the Board and Digicel in our view does not lend itself to an optimal level of accountability and transparency. Throughout the negotiation of the new agreement, according to the testimony of several Board officials, they were uninformed in respect of the details of the new sponsorship agreement with Digicel.

Board members were told that in order to protect the identity of the new sponsor, they were not advised about the identity of the new potential sponsor until the deal was almost consummated. This behaviour in the committee's view was not in the best interest of transparency and accountability.

It is a right of all Directors appointed by their territorial bodies, to know the identity of any individual or company with whom the WICB is desirous of establishing a relationship. The fear of a leak of identity is not enough to deprive a Director of this right, and now they have had to bear the responsibility for a matter of which they were kept in the dark for the most part.

These are a few instances where transparency and accountability may be questioned:

a) The only Board member who have seen and examined a signed copy of the new sponsorship agreement are the President and Mr Dave Cameron who did so as a part of the negotiating team and chair of the marketing committee.

b) The information presented to us revealed that the no member of the Board was aware of a Commission Agreement signed by the President and CEO, which allows for a 10% commission to be paid to ISM/SBI. The commission will amount to at least $1,975,000, however the commission is not only due on the WICB base fee of $18,750,000 and $1,000,000 cricket development fee, but on players bonuses as well.

c) The players have not been told that their bonuses are subject to a 10% commission.

d) It should be noted also that Mr Dave Cameron is the President of the Kensingston Cricket Club, which has been extensively renovated by Digicel. This was confirmed by Mr Cameron and Digicel official during the committee's interviews with them. Mr Cameron said that both C&W were approached to provide assistance, but only Digicel responded positively. The Kensington Cricket Club and Digicel might have been better served if some person, other than Mr Cameron had approached Digicel in light of his prior involvement in the sponsorship negotiation as chairman of the Marketing committee of the WICB.

THE EXCLUSION OF BOARD MEMBERS AND THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

During the course of our review, we observed that two key administrative sectors were excluded or played a minimal role in the negotiation process. It is the view of the committee that the WICB would have been better served if their skills and expertise were utilized in the sponsorship negotiations process.

Our review revealed that Mr Barry Thomas, the CFO, played a minimal role in the negotiations; except for the input with respect to the timing of cash flows from the sponsorship agreement. The committee is of the view that in negotiating contracts of this nature, a co-ordinated effort of all departments is essential; particularly the Finance and Marketing departments.

The CFO should have been asked to prepare a detailed analysis of both the Cable and Wireless and Digicel offer; with detailed explanations of the effects of both offers; highlighting the Advantages and Disadvantages of each proposal. This would have facilitated a more informed process for the Board, the Marketing committee and all concerned.

For example, the Sky Television broadcasting rights contract is coming to an end, and the rights fee will be significantly reduced over the 2005 and 2006.

If the CFO was involved, he might have asked the negotiators to bargain with Digicel for a greater portion of the fees to paid at the front of the contract rather than evenly or as is the case in the later years.

i) The CFO was not aware that there was a 10% commission payable to ISM/SBI until he was preparing the proposed offer for a presentation to the Executive Committee via teleconference and subsequently for the 2005 budget preparation. The agreement also commits the Board to a commission on players' bonuses and other benefits; this agreement has serious financial implications for the Board and West Indies cricket in general and the CFO had no say in it.

Under the Cable and Wireless contract, players' appearance fees were negotiated separate from the base fee. Under the Digicel agreement, the Board has to deduct it from the base fee. This new arrangement has cash flow implications, which the Board is only now coming to realize after the fact.

ii) Under this new sponsorship agreement the WICB is not paid directly, the fees are paid to ISM/SBI. Consequently, the Board has to wait until SBI/ISM deducts their commission and remit the remainder to the board. Effectively, the financial controller cannot directly obtain WICB fees from the sponsor due to the commission agreement signed by Mr Roger Braithwaite dated February 23, 2004 and subsequently July 8, 2004 by the President.

We have raised our concerns about all the above points with Mr Roger Braithwaite in two separate interviews and on both occasions we were told that in his view there was no need to involve the CFO in these matters; they were marketing matters and were dealt with as such.

* In the next installment, the committee examines the evidence of the West Indies Players' Association (WIPA).