Part 6: The Players Have Their Say

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

WIPA'S SUBMISSION

The West Indies Players Association has been the focus of attention, particularly since the WICB decided to enter a new sponsorship agreement, with a sponsor which is a business competitor of the previous sponsor. A material number of the senior test players have personal endorsement contracts with Cable and Wireless, the previous sponsor of the team. In this regard, the committee felt it necessary, to facilitate the wishes of the players, who expressed an interest in our deliberations.

It is the view of the committee, that WIPA, as the players? representatives, might have been able to make a contribution which would facilitate a better understanding of one of our terms of reference: "Is the new Digicel sponsorship agreement in the best interest of West Indies Cricket?"

WIPA was facilitated to make their submission to the committee. During their submissions they clearly expressed the view that their main intention was to do what was necessary to improve the relationship between the Union and the Board; and ultimately improve the terms and conditions of all its members. They were firmly of the view, that players' contracts would significantly improve the lot of the Players and remove the greatest impediment to the resolution of the current impasse between the board and the Union. WIPA highlighted a number of concerns, namely the following:

It was submitted by WIPA that they had not seen a copy of the Digicel/WICB sponsorship Agreement. The consequences in their opinion were as follows:

a) WIPA has no idea what are the obligations of players to the Board and Digicel;

b) WIPA is "in the dark" as to how to advise their members;

c) Demands seem to fluctuate;

d) Negotiations are often difficult;

There are misgivings in that WIPA is of the view that by entering the contract (Sponsorship agreement with Digicel);

e) The Board had given away certain rights which were not theirs to give away;

f) WIPA is assailed by the lack of transparency; without a copy of the official agreement, WIPA was and is unable to advice and counsel its members;

WIPA is of the view that they had no input because its President was told that negotiations were confidential and secret. We are of the view that the WICB might have been better served if WICB officials, specifically the negotiating committee, had sought the views of WIPA prior to concluding the new Sponsorship Agreement. Generally prescribed industrial relations procedures would indicate that employers, the WICB in this instance, would communicate fundamental and or material changes in expected work practices and or arrangements.

Our review of the Digicel sponsorship agreement revealed that the Board gave commitments, which would be difficult to deliver, particularly in the absence of players contracts.

We have seen no evidence that the Board acted in bad faith, but the consequences of Clause 5 of the new agreement is evident, by the failure of the Board and Digicel to get members of WIPA to conform and agree to new match contracts. The Board and management of the WICB would have had an opportunity to foresee that the rights of Players might have been infringed and the new clause 5 could be deemed a restraint of trade.

The submissions of WIPA inter alia were of considerable assistance to the committee when the following question was considered.

The Board and Digicel may be well intentioned but one has to consider the information currently at hand. The sponsorship Agreement has not and apparently will not be made public.

Therefore those involved are left to speculate and, as in the case of WIPA, make proposals in the dark.

The Committee found that the negotiations were conducted in secret. So-called confidentiality agreements were mentioned but not produced. It seems to us that the CEO and, to a lesser extent, the President were privy to discussions and arrangements which Board members were not aware of and did not question or query.

Members seemed to accept whatever they were told disregarding or forgetting their fiduciary responsibility. Questions arose; therefore

i) Why would the CEO entertain discussions without informing the Board at a Board meeting when he had ample opportunity to do so?

ii) Why, if it is true, did the president and CEO agree to confidentiality agreements? Why was Cable and Wireless misled into thinking that they still had an opportunity to close a sponsorship agreement when the CEO knew since February 2003 that he had, apparently on behalf of the WICB, had entered into a commission agreement with ISM?

iii) Why did the President and the CEO execute a contract of Sponsorship without Board approval at a Board meeting?

Accepted company and management practices would require that the matter be put before the full Board of Directors; and that the Board by resolution after due consideration of the proposed contract make a decision by vote. There would then be a subsequent resolution authorizing the President and secretary or such other person or persons to sign on the Board's behalf.

* In part 7, the committee crunches the numbers and matches up the C&W and Digicel contract offers.