Zorol Barthley clears his name
interview by MICHELLE McDONALD
While employed with the beleaguered West Indies Cricket Board, the only utterances from Zorol Barthley were to do with mundane affairs – tours, players and the like. Since his departure at the end of November last year, Barthley, the former Chief Cricket Operations Officer, has gone about pursuing the business interests which he gave as reason for his departure.
His name would perhaps have faded into obscurity, had the WICB not mentioned it in its submission to the arbitration panel which recently ruled on the status of the just-concluded tour to the United Kingdom. The public read how the WICB suggested that Barthley did not have the authority to act on its behalf in negotiating tours outside of the ICC's Future Tours Programme (FTP). It also attacked his character and integrity.
In what he says will be his last interview on the subject, the former West Indies U-19 captain describes how the tour of England the Ireland came about, how he felt when he learnt of the WICB's submissions which sought to malign him, and why relations between the WICB and WIPA have turned on its head.
MM: During your tenure as Chief Cricket Operations Officer, you were not usually heard in the media talking about anything apart from the tours and so on. However, recently you were on two radio stations on the same day being very vocal. What brought that about?
ZB: Dishonesty. I've always been very confidential in my dealings with corporate matters of the West Indies Cricket Board. There were occasions when the press thought that there were juicy tid-bits to be had and tried to get information. I guarded the business of the WICB. I took it very seriously and I guarded the details of things that I knew.
So you were never the source of any leaks?
It wasn't my style, and even now, it's not my style to do things like that, however, the whole process of arbitration as undertaken between WIPA and WICB recently, the way in which the WICB through affidavits by some managers tried to malign me, tried to paint me as a hostile witness, didn't go down very well with me. Just the way in which they came out it was an attempt to discredit me.
You were able to see a copy of the WICB's affidavit?
I have seen the details of it and just the way it was approached, I took it in a very sad way. As I said before on the radio programmes, it hurts even to speak about it now, because it's not so much about clearing my name, it's not so much about me. It's about corporate governance in general and I am just disappointed the way they attempted to tarnish my reputation, my image.
What in particular were you struck by?
It was mentioned that I had no authority to negotiate or to confirm with WIPA that the tour of England was going to be a tour outside of the FTP. Even though that was not true, subsequent comments were intended to discredit any material that the arbitrators would have dealt with which involved me.
Before you go into details of that, were there any other tours that you had arranged that were outside of the FTP?
The DLF Cup in Malaysia during the summer of last year, but the genesis of the tour of England was at an ICC Scheduling Summit that I had attended in August 2005 in Dubai, where Roger Braithwaite and myself represented the Board. On the first day of the Summit, Roger Braithwaite was absent and I was the only representative of the WICB there. Prior to attending the Summit, Boards had submitted their proposals and their peculiar requests, their demands as far as the FTP, so by the time we got to Dubai, we were down to about draft number five.
And this would have been seen and agreed to by the WICB?
Oh yes. We had been in discussions with the ICC all along, so when the ICC came back with its draft of what was going to be feasible based on the objectives of the ICC Future Tours Programme, what I noted was that at the end of CWC 2007, the West Indies team would have been free from then until the Twenty20 World Cup in South Africa. Bearing in mind the way that tours are conducted these days, money does not really change hands…..
Those are the ones within the FTP...
Yes. It's done on the principles of the ICC's programme and there are set guidelines on the finances of those tours. But if you arrange tours outside of the FTP, you have the opportunity to negotiate just like you used to in the old days. It is known, it is common, that tours of Australia and England are the tours that make money for the West Indies, or have made money.
At the end of the first day I remember approaching the representatives from the England Cricket Board and highlighted where we had a break and discussed the possibility of West Indies touring England in 2007, since the ECB's primary tour would only be India. We reviewed and agreed that it was feasible. Five minutes after I approached England, New Zealand cricket approached England to try and get the same dates. As you notice, even the way the schedule of the West Indies 2007 tour of England was set up, it has been set up as some would say, not in favour of the West Indies.
Right, because there was only one practice match before the Test...
Originally, it was supposed to have been two, but between the West Indies Cricket Committee and team management, one game was cancelled. Had the other game been played, the team would have had to leave about a week earlier and it was thought to be coming too soon after the WC.
But the principle of the tour of England, and the ECB stressed it over and over, was that it's 'additional.' It's outside of the FTP and the ECB kept stressing their main tour for 2007 was going to be India. So it almost came down to the WICB having to take what it was given based on this tour, which was a money making tour of the WICB. There was even the possibility of reducing it to three Test matches. If that had happened, the WICB would have lost money. So in the end, the WICB decided to go along with it and the bottom line was going to be the money that was going to be made.
Let's go back to the warm up match because that was a sore point. That was foremost on the English journalists' questions to the West Indies players. You said that there were originally two warm up game before?
Originally. Early discussions, yes.
When was it changed to one?
That would have been done sometime last year.
While you were still at WICB?
Yes. Normally the ECB put out their schedule before the end of the previous summer so that would have been done since last year.
So everybody knew?
Yes. Once the Operations Department started to discuss the proposed itinerary of England and they sent us a draft, I remember sending a copy of that draft to the West Indies team who were in Australia at that time.
One of the things that stood out, was the response that came through from the then captain Brian Lara – the fact that these Test matches, outside of the one at Lords', the others were going to be played in the north of England, which, at that time of the year was always colder and he made the suggestion to have the games changed and come closer to London and make it a little more practical for a West Indies team touring England.
Did you try to get the venues changed?
Of course we did. Over time, we tried, we discussed and every time it came back that it was outside, that their primary focus for 2007 was India.
Let's get back to the Scheduling Summit. You said Roger Braithwaite wasn't there when you spoke with the ECB.
Yes, he wasn't there on the first day. He arrived on the evening of first day. He was made aware and we went ahead and we confirmed those dates, subsequently submitted it to the ICC in a subsequent draft along with the ECB, so it was placed as an additional tour, and 'additional' means outside of the FTP.
Was that within your authority to do – yourself and Roger Brathwaite?
It definitely was. It definitely was.
Give another example when you would have negotiated tours outside of the FTP.
The DLF Cup in Malaysia for example. I had gone out to Singapore and Malaysia to do a reconnaissance and whilst there, and we were in the middle of finalising with the Board of Control for Cricket in India and a proposal was made to the WICB by the BCCI, where we were going to be paid US$1m for each game against India. There were four games – two against India, two against Australia.
Having looked at that proposal, we approached the BCCI on what would be the financial benefit if the West Indies and Australia progressed to the finals. They tried to stick to the fact that it was US$1m to play against India and I thought from discussions, that an opportunity existed for us to negotiate a better deal. I called President Ken Gordon, who was at the time overseeing the Board after Roger Braithwaite had left, and suggested that I travel back to the Caribbean via Mumbai to enable some eye to eye discussions.
Having agreed to my suggestion, I then went over to India and within 20 minutes, it was negotiated that we would get an additional US$1m for making the Finals, so it was ironic that I had that kind of authority then. It's all in the job function of Chief Cricket Operations Officer.
You said that one of the things that upset you with what was in the affidavit, and subsequently reported in the media, was the way that the WICB tried to imply that you did not have the authority.
Right, also there were other motives used try to tarnish my personal image as to say I was not worth listening to. I didn't take it very lightly and I saw it that my confidentiality with WICB had been breached because I certainly had given the Board the opportunity to withdraw that affidavit once I became aware of it.
Can you expand on that please? What do you mean you gave them the opportunity?
Once I became aware of the affidavit and the details of it, I wrote to them and asked them to take the opportunity to withdraw them. That wasn't done, and as far as I was concerned, the boxing gloves came off then.
What specifically was the response?
I was advised by the CEO Bruce Aanansen that he certainly didn't want to get involved in anything that happened at the Board before his time and the fact that the arbitration process had been in place, we should wait and see what the outcome is.
Do you know who prepared the WICB's affidavit?
I think there were a number of affidavits, but that one in question came from the Corporate Communications Manager/Company Secretary/Human Resource Manager, Tony Deyal.
Did you have direct contact with him about the contents of the affidavit?
No I didn't, I went straight to the top to the CEO.
Were you satisfied with how it was handled?
I wasn't satisfied then, I have left it at that. I haven't enquired subsequently but I think the arbitrators did make some comments about my input in the whole process because I think once you looked through details of meetings, they saw where meetings might have been adjourned or decisions not taken because of my absence and my critical role in the scheduling.
And so that helped to support the fact that you had the authority.
Yes, but at the end of the day, I was not in question as to whether or not I had done something that was not allowed. As I said, I just didn't like the way in which the Board tried to handle it.
When you heard that the WICB was insisting that the England tour was within the FTP and knowing you were at the Scheduling Summit, what was your thought about them going to arbitration?
I always knew it was going to be a lost cause. I wouldn't say I was 100% confident. Saying that would appear as if I had a vested interested, but I just thought it was a waste of time.
As all the other four before it have been...
One of the things that has happened over time is that maybe the WICB has not planned and prepared well, whether for arbitrations or for dealing with WIPA. I don't know it if has come out of maybe a form of some disrespect towards WIPA and players in general, but WICB has tried to be strong and bold on some issues, and it's important to note that after a while, I had not attended any meetings with WIPA after January 2006, even though I left the Board at the end of November.
This was your normal custom to attend?
It definitely was. But I think there was a perception that maybe I was soft on player relations, that I was sympathetic towards issues with WIPA. At the end of the day I have just got to be honest and up front and say things as they are and deal with it. The consequence of lies will always follow you and I just was not prepared to twist any story to suit ANYONE.
While you were employed at WICB, before a WIPA discussion, would there be a pre-meeting with who you reported to, to discuss the details of what you were going to talk about and what position the Board would be prepared to take?
In most cases, yes. Some of the meetings with WIPA, we literally went through the Retainer Contract and the Collective Bargaining Agreements word for word, so a lot of details were covered. So over time, we met regularly.
It's ironic that at the time when the negotiations were completed for the Retainer Contract for example, most of the people who were involved at the start of the negotiation and who probably had the gist and genesis of where this was going to lead, were not involved at the end. I think that is probably one of the problems the WICB is facing now, because a lot of time you find that the intent and the wording might have a slight variation and it's always better sometimes to go with the intent. I think we are seeing a little bit of that problem at the moment.
In specifically what?
There could be so many, from Players Code of Conduct to travel to timelines as far as notification is concerned. Varying things.
Your predecessor Michael Hall told me he had what he thought was an excellent relationship with WIPA.
And so did I. There are a lot of things that happened between WICB and WIPA that may not have come to the fore. Things happened and WIPA would call and say 'so and so happened, can we move on,' and vice versa. Those things happened. Excellent relationship.
I had opportunities to stand firmly in opposition to WIPA. The South African tour of the West Indies in 2005, the West Indies team to Sri Lanka in 2005. Remember they had the scenario with Chris Gayle and Sarwan and the sponsorship and in those situations, Ramnarine and I exchanged strong words on principled positions that we both thought we had, and I respect that.
At the end of the day, we were always able to sit over a drink or meal and discuss where we may have gone wrong and I think that is what mutual respect does.
Do you think the mutual respect has disappeared in recent times?
I definitely wouldn't want to sound as if I was all perfect and that nothing went wrong under my watch, definitely not. But what I would want to say is that a lot of it has to come from understanding the processes of what you are going to go through and I come right back to mutual respect. Is there not the respect on both sides? Maybe not. I think WIPA has accused certain executive management of the Board, and sometimes Board members, of being economical with the truth and you see WIPA getting to the stage where there is a document with I's dotted and T's crossed before they make any moves, so trust is probably not a big factor at the moment.
Communication is key, and a lot of communication has to take place between the operations of the WICB and WIPA - and timely communications, but also there has to be a genuine trust and understanding. If you are going to stick to the word, then you want to hit all the timelines, but if you're sticking to the intent, then you have some scope for negotiation and you have some scope for that human factor.