The West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) has offered to take a look at the controversial sponsorship clause 5.5 in their MOU with the West Indies Players Association (Wipa) and this has been included in the players match/tour contracts for the upcoming South African tour.

The West Indies players have been given until 5 pm on Tuesday (November 1 to sign the contracts to make themselves eligible for the Test series, which starts on December 17 in South Africa.

Full Story

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

The WICB is not entitled to the players' sponsorship money. What is there to take a look at?

A player agrees to wear the uniform of a given team. The team's administrators sell parts of the uniform to sponsors and them have to pay players to wear those ads.

When the hell will these incompetent morons not get that. This crap has been going on from 2005.

Change That to what

In reply to Chrissy

Kindly allow the big men to climb down and save face.

Who exactly is renegotiating this on behalf of the players? Wavell and Michael Hall? Don't make me laugh.

_r

In reply to Chrissy

You say this like they have a choice - once selected.

is the article saying the players will go to SA without knowing what they will get of the $35000 and will wait , up to 6 months for a resolution of that matter?

In reply to camos

Money could go into escrow to be awarded after the decision.

I would prefer that the cricket shut down until the board is reorganized and then the outstanding matters dealt with.

Will the ICC intervene in this matter ???
as usual the Players are sailing on a ship full of Fools .

In reply to Larr Pullo

I would agree with an escrow account because WICB is legally bankrupt plus the threat of the BCCI suit.

In reply to POINT

Why? Your shit. Fix it.

In reply to Larr Pullo

Yep. That's the best thing to do. WI should take a break like Zimbabwe.

In reply to gvenkat

take or given?

In reply to Chrissy

No they are not (and I am going along with your faulty premise). That's why they are giving the money to the FC players. After all, West Indies cricket is not just the international team. It includes the FC, under-19s, under -15, etc.

The international team was not created out of thin air.

In reply to camos

Either way. They cannot be a disruptive element in international cricket. Fix your problems and comeback

In reply to JOJO

The WICB is a pimp?

It seems most people dont seem to know the issues.

This is the WICB own fault because if they were transparent this issue would be understood long time ago.

In reply to Larr Pullo

It would be interesting to note how many of these players have personal endorsements from any company unrelated to either WI Cricket or IPL Cricket ?

In reply to JOJO

the international cricketers are the ones that earn that money and the $35000/per game day is only part of that the revenue they make for the WICB.

In reply to Larr Pullo

I don't know why people continue to push this simplistic notion that the international players "bring in the money". These players are just the most visible aspect of product.

Just a little exercise: if WICB decides to end all these loss making ventures today (under 15, under 19, A team tours, regional FC), how many of you think there will be an international team in three years to "bring in the money"?

In reply to JOJO

LIkewise, if the international players disappear today... POOF...

_ryan

In reply to Admin

This is a dotish chicken and egg argument that is beneath you.

In reply to Commie

My point. It is dotish on both sides.

_r

In reply to Chrissy

Uh no Chrissy. You are putting the cart before the horse.



Factually what happens is the WICB being the employer approaches a bunch of sponsors to sponsor the team. The mileage a sponsor gets out of sponsoring a team is exposure and in your specific case comes in the form of a spot on the uniform. The WICB is giving the players a portion of the proceeds. They do not have to give them a cent but then the players would ask for an increases in their base pay so this is the arrangement they have in place.

I do not know why academics have a hard time understanding business practices

Edit: Simple Question - When a cricketer is no longer representing the West Indies does he keep his uniform? Who owns the trademarks/likeness on the uniform? The answers should clearly show you ownership and why what you are saying is ridiculous.

In reply to JOJO

The WICB used to be able to enter into sponsorship deals to run those age group competitions. What happened?

In reply to nick2020

Right

_r

In reply to Admin

Thanks for helping me make my point---that they are all just producing parts of the same product (BTW, FC cricket can exist some without international cricket. They're poorly funded anyway so they do not need much).

In reply to Admin

How is my statement wrong?

In reply to JOJO

You're running around in a circle, hoping to catch your tail. Oh, by the way, the existence of FC cricket isn't the point. It's about which group is bringing in the money.

WICB sold the sponsorship deal short then renew the same bad deal twice, undersold the CPL and are now asking the players to foot the development bill!

In reply to Admin


This isnt a WI issue, its a sporting administration issue. The ICC mandates the way cricket is governed.

Note that the WI players do not retain their IP rights for IPL. Your argument is that they get paid loads of moolah, but actually, compared to what the BCCI makes of the exploitation of those rights, they make very little.

Otoh WI players take 25% of WICB annual revenue. That is a quantifiably greater proportion of that organisations income.

Now if WIPA were serious they would ask FICA to assist in an audit the value of the investment in regional cricket by the WICB so that they could be in a position to say that the WICB was in fact mismanaging the largesse of funds at its disposal.

Instead they are arguing from a weak base.

In reply to camos

That's what I've been saying all along. If you asking me to foot the bill, then I have to have a say in how the cricket is administrated, ergo, ownership!!

In reply to Admin

Don't understand this statement by you. Wont the WICB always be able to field a team to play international cricket. We can argue about the quality of said team. Or does international team means something else to you.

In reply to camos

The WICB for once got an excellent deal with the CPL.

In reply to Admin

No single group brings in the money. West Indies cricket brings in the money. The fact that the international players are the most visible does not mean that they are the only ones who do.

In reply to Commie

That's not the point Commie. IPL the players have little to no negotiating power. However, they do when they play international cricket, so apples and oranges to you....

In reply to Larr Pullo

Foot what bill ?

Larr

I dont get that. They are individual free agents playing licky licky with the Indians and bad man Dons with WI ?

And you all want to have a serious debate about this ?

In that case best the WICB just gets rid of all of them.

In reply to Commie

The Christines of this world claimed we got hosed.

In reply to Commie

how you figure $1mill/per year for 20 years?

In reply to Commie

Yea, 50 years at a nominal fee for a sport that is growing is an excellent deal.

In reply to Commie

Dude, it's the players rights. That's why it's called INDIVIDUAL rights. If they choose to give it away for free, that's their choice. What part of that don't you get as it relates to how they take IPL money (supersalary) for those rights?

_r

In reply to JOJO

are you serious,whose logo is on the domestic players clothing,who televise their games,you remember WICB giving away radio broadcast rights for free awhile back?

In reply to Commie

Bollocks!!!

In reply to camos


Read your question...then read the part you quoted...then read your question again.

In reply to JOJO

and that will tell me the contribution to revenue of domestic players?

In reply to Admin

And what you dont realise is that if they dont play for WI they dont get to sell their rights to Digicel.

Look at Sarwan. He isnt a WI player, he isnt contracted to a Digicel contract. Have LIME approached him to sponsor him ?

He has no value to them. Zilch.

Anyway this is a diversion from the topic. The sponsorship money was initially paid explicitly as a salary for these players because they had no retainer.

Now they have a retainer. Now...if they were smart, they would try to extend the branding and shirts etc to the entire fc structure so it justifies the extension of the fees to the fc players as they would also have their IP rights coevred under the same deal.

all these arguments are side bars, as a matter of urgency the players need to get an agreement that WICB establish an escrow account for the original part of the $35k while they renegotiate.

In reply to JOJO

THen they must generate their income to run other levels. Once players wear gear with sponsors ads on it, the players are entitled to sponsorship money.

I might recommend a few text books on the subject but allyuh plantation oversears have never been fond of reading anything but the Willie Lynch meme.

In reply to Admin

As I said...this is simple. All the WICB is doing is managing their risk.

Same thing BCCI does. And now the ICC have given the WICB room to swing hammer.

ALl because of this tour nonsense.

In reply to Commie

Let's put aside all the rigmarole for a second because we've been arguing, agreeing, disagreeing for a month now.

I have a very simple question for you. Do you think the $35K/day should be used to pay FC players? In other words, is it the players responsibility to give up money for the rest of the pool to be paid better? Or should the WICB be footing that bill from elsewhere (new sponsor/s, lottery, etc.?)

Very basic question.

_ryan

In reply to nick2020

Open a gawd damned book.

In reply to Commie

Disagree.

In reply to Chrissy

.

Hahaaha....that's rich!

Trust me, Woman there is nothing that you could recommend to me on the sale and licensing of IP products...or any product.

I have no doubt you have read on the subject. However, based on your simplistic interpretation, I doubt you understand much.

[b]in reply to Admin
[/b]

No it shouldnt be used.

The players shouldnt be retained. They should use the retainer pool to fund fc cricket and pay thee guys series by series on performance, like SA does.

This whole situation is because WI overpays the players and are now trying to rollback their poor negotiations to be able to afford what they cant.

But I wholly understand why this is happening and most of you are talking from the view of not giving a shit about anything but the intl players.

In reply to Commie T&T and Bim had started to give players retainers how they paid and why the other boards can't or did not?

In reply to camos

All the retainers being paid are coming from the same assumed MOU / 35k.

After arbitration if the WICB lose then they have the headache as they have to roll it back to the intl players, which is why they have started this new discussion.

In reply to Admin

The money should come from where it can is a realistic answer. In an ideal world everything should be self-sufficient. So the regional system should earn enough to pay of itself through sponsorship, TV rights, gate, etc. That is where the system needs to get to.

But we do not live in that ideal world so we have to look for the next realistic answer. We could bicker about that until the cows come home but the international players' revenue is an option.

In reply to Chrissy

Authored by you? Or anyone?

In reply to nick2020

Trotsky, Engels, Guevara....

WIPMACOL, WIPA HOLDINGS, IP RIGHTS again.

In reply to Admin

What I love about most of the morons on this thread is that they are all well and good with the Board's perspective of the business of sport - so they pay their 'international' and management staff international salaries but want to decide whether players are entitled to their earnings from sponsors. Typical greedy middle class parasites. It really does mad dem to see peeps living better than dem.

These folks have always been parasites.

In reply to Chrissy

Middle class are not parasites Chrissy. However, this redistribution of "income" is the perfect socialist ideal, so it's so ironic that you and Commie are on different sides of the divide.....

In reply to Chrissy
Has anyone seen the contracts for the 90 players.
Curious to know if incentives are built in them. From my vantage point they are the ones who need incentives because 90 % of them are overpaid already.
Not that I begrudge them but the money for them should not come from the Intl players who earned their way to where they have reached and are the face of the 'Waste Indies ICC franchise'.

In reply to Chrissy

from what I understand you are middle class also


careful how you point your finger

In reply to Cuter

But she isn't a moron.

But that is the thing about academics; don't know a thing about business.

If you can't do teach right?

In reply to nick2020

ever heard of Stanford Business School?

In reply to Chrissy
Maybe it is not that simple or straight-forward. This may be an interesting read:

http://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/news/230521-bcci-faces-cut-in-sponsorship-media-rights-money

In reply to Chrissy

I would have loved to respond to something...anything in this post. But there is nothing there!

UWI like LIAT and the WICB is a subsidised organisation.

Chrissy hasnt worked an accountable day in her life, which doesnt make her useless but which dilutes her views on business to someone who sits in the window gazing at the real world.

Real working people around the Caribbean are paying for UWI and LIAT. Unfortunately these same people pay little or nothing into the WICB. The ICC does.

Therefore cricket is run at the behest of the ICC and the BCCI, the people who generate the money that subsidises WI Cricket and its players.

You want to talk to which fans should have a say, it is Indian, Aussie and English fans and players because in a sliding scale it is they who 'monetise' the game we love.

It isnt a fair world but neither is it fair that Liat prices are higher than flying to the US or that cash strapped Governments are paying for students who are effectively migrating out of the region in record droves.

In reply to Commie

WTF does any of that have to do with Wavell, Michael Hall colluding with the WICB to redistribute the players income without their express approval?

_r

In reply to Admin

man...I gave my answer to your specific question.

Scroll back and read.

In reply to Admin

Btw...I hope you notice that the WICB has been emboldened since the ICC meeting.

Why is it only West Indies has a problem with the sponsorship money. India have shara and England has Vodafone etc. how are they sharing that money?

Can we learn from the other nations how they are sharing in the sponsor money and use that to resolve this issue.

In reply to Gmoney
WI is the only team providing retainers and issuing sponsorship money like water, despite sponsorship money being used to pay said retainer. This has catapulted WI players into the upper echelon of compensation among test playing nations, while occupying the basement in terms of ranking.

In reply to carl0002

correct is right!!!

In reply to carl0002

our players are 5th on the pay scale and that is after a huge gap between the top 3 and 4th.

In reply to carl0002

WI has been relating them with NZ with regard to all agreements. Does the NZ team get the Sponsorship money? Do they get from the ICC tournament money?

In reply to camos

India, Eng, Aus and SA are clearly way ahead of the WI payments.

NZ and SL are better than or on Par with WI but Commie will say because WI players dont pay taxes they get more. But that is all closer.

Only Pak out of the lot is disadvantaged and is not reflecting their capabilities on the field. WI is rightly bunched up with NZ and SL

In reply to carl0002

This too can't be right, why are we using the sponsor money to pay players for the retainer contract?

That money needs to come from earnings. Are we earning any money from playing cricket?

if we have a test match and we collect money at the gates that should be earnings. If we sell TV rights then that money should be considered earnings.

That is where retainer money should come from. It should be run as a business.

Now the money coming from Digicel to sponsor the team for an overseas tour is what I understand is the problem. Does Digicel pay that as a separate payment? Did WICB negotiate that for the players? Does WICB own the players or are the players just employees?

If the players are employee and are given a uniform to wear with WICB logo then that is acceptable, however the problem arise when another company slap on their logo on the uniform. If that company is Pepsi and I don’t believe in the Pepsi product I as a player can refuse to have the Pepsi logo on my shirt unless I am being paid separately by Pepsi to wear the shirt. That contract needs to be transparent to the players also.

So what that means, if WICB went to Digicel and negotiate this deal on behalf of the players then the players can refuse the deal or accept the deal as a collective group.


WICB can negotiate the deal and come back to the players and say we receive 300,000 from Digicel for you the players to wear the Digicel logo on the uniform and make appearances and so on for Digicel but the board will keep 100,000 and the players get to share 200,000. This money should not be part of the players contract to play cricket.

Same can goes for WICB, they can spend the 100,000 anywhere they feel like including putting a big fat bonus in their pockets.

In reply to Pacy

I don’t think the players are entitled to any of this money because they are being paid separately on a contract. However id the West Indies win the world cup all the prize money should go to the players. The WICB should also give the players a bonus from the ICC tournament money for winning the WC and that amount should be at WICB discretion

In reply to Gmoney

"If the players are employee and are given a uniform to wear with WICB logo then that is acceptable, however the problem arise when another company slap on their logo on the uniform. If that company is Pepsi and I don’t believe in the Pepsi product I as a player can refuse to have the Pepsi logo on my shirt unless I am being paid separately by Pepsi to wear the shirt. That contract needs to be transparent to the players also."

That is the most absurd thing I have heard in here. If you do not want to wear a uniform because a Pepsi logo is on it then you don't have to be employed by the company.

Look a business is in the business of making money. Employees need to be fairly compensated by the company. There are many factors that go into what fair compensation is. How much money is involved? What is the supply and demand like? Chris Gayle is well paid because demand for him is high and there are no other Chris Gayles.

And I really do not see the point in drawing simple comparisons between what India pays its cricketers vs us. There will always be an economic factor to contend with even if we did the same exact job as our counterparts. Players are entitled to their fair share of the pie but India's pie is large and ours is smaller.

In reply to Admin

That does not take into account, the commercial/economic realities of the region.

Regional cricket is simply not attractive to sponsors for various reasons (ironically, the struggles of the international team is one of these reasons).

In fact, international cricket isn't commercially viable in the region; therefore, the WICB makes a large chunk of its money through the international appeal of the team.

so now....we come back to your chicken and egg situation.

In reply to Chrissy

You are so right.

They all suffer from the "American ghetto mentality".

In reply to Commie

BTW, do you know the story behind the fiasco with LIAT and the cancelled flights during the first CPL?

In reply to nick2020

What I was saying is if you are employed by WICB then it is acceptable to wear a uniform with WICB logo, however the problem arise if WICB ask you to wear a uniform repsenting another company other than WICB.

If I work for JPMorgan and they ask me to wear a shirt with Goldman Sachs on the front then I would question that.

In reply to Pacy

Im starting to believe you cannot understand English.

WI are better paid than both SL and NZ even BEFORE their Tax relief.

150k US at top rate retainer, 112k at the bottom end of the retainer.

NZ bottom end of their retainer is 79k and their top end just about 140k USD.

SL are not comparable.

In reply to Commie

And what happen to NZ sponsorship money?

In reply to Larr Pullo

Businesses realized that they were taking their good money and watching men driving 'di latest cars' and living bigger than dem and not seeing improvements in the sports. One day they woke up and said 'allyuh meking sport' - and withdrew their sponsorship money.

One such businessman used to pump nuff money into another sport and he gave me di lowdown on why he stopped giving dem his money.

In reply to Gmoney

NZ players do not get separate sponsorship money. The retainer covers their ip rights.

Here is a small breakdown of how it works in NZ Cricket.

NZ retainers

In reply to Commie

Why do they choose to renegotiate it now and not when the team was begging for this to save the India tour?

_r

In reply to Cuter

You have no idea how good a position I am in to speak on these matters. I know the people of whom I speak.

In reply to Admin

Because they have been humiliated in front of the entire planet.

That they haven't resigned says more than we need to know...they are shameless unaccountable incompetent morons.

In reply to Gmoney

What else would they use. You might be reading on here how WI team generating truckloads of cash but that is agenda driven and nothing is farthest from the truth. I have said that cricket in the WI not generating enough income/revenue/profit to support the cricketing infrastructure. How much you think WICB can sell the media rights to its home games given these money grubbing, inconsistent medicare players that we call professionals ? Some series they can't even give it away. That depends more on who is touring rather than the attractiveness of the WI team. Selling it is one thing, producing it is another. It is probably costing WI more to produce these home series than what they can sell the rights. Logistics don't make it all that profitable. Gate receipts , well you see the stands in the Caribbean. Thats why you see a lot of cricket in non traditional venues in the Caribbean, cuz it cost more to host cricket in certain islands. Whatever money WICB generate is used to fund cradle to grave cricket development across the entire region. Not even the richest cricket board in the world has that responsibility.

In reply to Chrissy

Yes, including Michael Hall and Wavell Hinds. They, too, refused to help save the tour.

_r

In reply to Commie



That article says Ross Taylor get 177,000 because he is captain and all the non national players receives 72,000

in terms of WI players Blackwood would make 72,000NZD?

In reply to Chrissy

Love it

In reply to Admin

Because they are backed up by THIS.

In reply to Gmoney

In retainers the C contract players for WI under the new terms will receive 112k USD.

In reply to Commie

I know you're prone to a lot of gibberish but what does a benign (expected) ICC statement have to do with the WICB doing now what they should have done to save the tour?

In fact, if you're arguing that they are now emboldened and have backing, they should now be refusing to renegotiate. You're not making sense.

_r

In reply to carl0002

Are you sure you meant to say this?

In reply to Admin

Well lets see how it unfolds.

You were at nuclear option a week ago.

Now you down to bigging up isolated tweets.

The ridiculousness of this all is pretty obvious.

And in the end, when the 42m gets wrapped up in some extra tour or some other swap from one pocket into another, players will be more under manners, and this lot will be eminently discardable after the SA tour.

How the hell has this advanced the lot of the players ?

And now the same WICB is going after the 35k altogether.

In reply to Commie

They've been going after it since 2005...blasted parasites.

In reply to Chrissy

They dont earn anything themselves so technically you are right on that

In reply to Arawak

You'd probably recommend Thistlewood's Diary.

In reply to nick2020

Are you serious?

The concept that being hired by a company implies that my individuality vanishes or ceases to exist or is negated went out with Ebenezer Scrooge in a Christmas Carol.

When some sponsoring company dictates what logos may be worn in the NFL interviews: have the Players association not negotiated to be paid for permitting that privelege? Are they not fined for failing to do so? How do they become liable to a fine if they were not being recompensed for granting the privelege to wear some company's logo?

In reply to Carib_man

Leff di overseer class bro - yuh cyan help dem. They are freaking clueless.

In reply to Chrissy

Ah cyan leff dem so.

wen ah was in mi yute days in primary dem did sen mi tuh Timbuktu. Po dem did wan go Oxford and Cambridge.

Dah is where de architects an engineers did of our inglorious history o 400+yrs did wan gih school tuh.
Dem still wan big up de Oxfords an Etons dem cos 400+yrs is a lot of Stockholm Syndrom tuh overcome.

yuh see dem is like mi Patty Hearst ...mi daughtah buh still loss

Bless Timbuktu yes .. like de rabbit in de briar patch

In reply to nick2020


Most here do not understand on iota about contracts--Sponsorship etc--

Thanks for reminding those who need a re-education on the subject--

In reply to buds

Look like all the smart people who understand contract and sponsored in here on Caribbeancricket and not on WICB board

In reply to Carib_man

The Etonians never acknowledge that Timbuktu was a centre of learning while they were barbarians in di bush. The overseer class has long made fun of the institution but yuh done know that that is expected of mimic men and women. They really are parrots with not one original thought.

In reply to Commie

Look this aint the first time that the Image & Reputation of the WICB & the ICC has been
damaged and it aint going to be the last .

Exhibit A . I present the Fiasco at the Sir
Vivian Richards Stadium . FYI
British Sports Journalists are
are still writing about this .

BTW , for those who do not know ; the WICB'S Headquarters is located in Antigua .
Obviously this means that there was , and can be absolutely no excuse for the WICB
embarrassing not only itself , but the Region and the ICC ; that has allowed the
WICB to become a Rogue Cricket Board .

I guess that you are fully prepared to defend the indefensible , so go ahead , give it your best shot . I am fully cognizant of the fact that YOU cannot state
that this is a figment of my imagination .

It looks like Commie gone Country , I know that he aint afflicted with Writers Cramp .

In reply to POINT

Yuh forgot Sabina 1998 when the test against England was cancelled during the first session because of the pitch?

In reply to buds

What I do not get is why people in here are confusing who owns what.

An employee owns his real name and his likeness. If a company wants to monetize an employee's image and likeness then approval must be obtained. Notice I stress real name because in wrestling those made up names are the property of the WWE. If they followed that principle of players owning their names and likeness in college football they would not have had this problem now.

The players do not own the likeness of the maroon uniforms; that is the trademark of the WICB. But at the end of the day you can negotiate anything into your salary. It is really that simple. In some professions you have a low base salary but make a percentage of sales (commission) or receive tips. Usually the more things you take a cut of the less your base salary is and as everything in life there are pros and cons to each.

At the end of the day I know people like Chrissy will never be "happy" with how much money employees make. But I do wonder if she lobbies for the employee performance to mirror how much they are paid?

In reply to Chrissy

Thank you , you are correct , I had forgotten about that ; and still the ICC allows those in the governance to
maintain their status as being a Rogue Cricket Board unabated .

In reply to POINT

So ICC is to be blamed for WICB incompetence and corruption.

In reply to nick2020

Recently Amla and another player from India rejected to wear certain logos associated to Alcohol since that dosent suit their beliefs. They were docked some amount for that too but they had that option.

How does that fit into the theory of Logos Nick?

If WI is maroon and who dons that dosent matter why was there a big fiasco when Lara,Gayle and Sarwan stood up to digicel in the past? Digicel wanted them to be part of WI team. Why were they concerned about the players when there would have surely been another 11 representing them?

In reply to Commie

I am surprised. I remember seeing a seperate line item on the % sharing for ICC revenues and other incomes but not sure. Missed saving that document Joshua shared. Do you have that link to the post where Joshua shared the document for the next 5 years?

In reply to Pacy

Pacy that does no change what I am saying. I am addressing who has rights to what. Those rights can be negotiated. People on here are claiming because you wear a uniform you have the right to say what goes on it. You own your name and likeness but you do not own the uniform.

How do you know the board did not work with the players? In that instance it seems like the right thing to do based on the religious grounds.

In reply to Gmoney

My belief is that the ICC has oversight of its Member Boards . That being the case in
my opinion , the ICC needs to ensure that ALL its Member Boards adhere to not only Good Governance , but also not glean headlines in the Press for the wrong reasons .

The point I am making is that whenever the WICB makes an Ass of itself , like it or not , it reflects on the ICC . Some years ago there was a scandal regarding one of the Members of the Olympics , that also reflected on the Olympic Organization .

FIFA has many members , and what they do also reflects on FIFA , exhibit A. Jack Warner is still being investigated . He was a very high official in FIFA . This obviously hurts FIFA's reputation .

Neither you nor those who think like you can factually state that what I stated about the WICB is a Fairy Tale .

In reply to Pacy

Its online somewhere. Let Google be your friend.

Most teams simply have retainer and match fees and bonuses. The ip rights are held in the retainer agreements.

Initially WI did not have retainers and so they were paid from the sponsorship money directly as well as match fees. When they got retainers the Wicb then tried to argue that they were being double paid. One of the key ppl in that negotiation debate was Dave Cameron.

Here is Aus.

Aus

In reply to Commie

What I do not understand is why these concepts are so difficult to understand.

It is really easy.

Some areas in the employee employer arrangement are covered by law. But other things are negotiated. Employers will negotiate what is in their best interest and so will employees. So in our regular lives there are rules for minimum wage, over time pay, vacation, etc but a company can negotiate that employees cannot take vacation around certain times.

Look at the end of the day employers have an obligation to respect the employment rules, to provide an environment that is safe and conducive to be productive and to fairly compensate its employees. Employees have an obligation to respect the employment rules and to do the job they are paid to do to (to the best of their abilities).

I believe both entities in our cricket fail at fulfilling these requirements.

In reply to nick2020

Because the WICB are a stunted organisation and quite frankly has a bloated structure, it is easy to just point at them.

They are really low hanging fruit.

In reply to Commie

And the players? Just happy to be here and think by being on cricinfo player profile and driving around big cars they are the greatest?

In reply to nick2020

I dont think that is a fair characterisation.

These players have spent their lives specialising in a sport which does them few favours.

At the same time the WICB executive have an education and the ability to earn and income in multiple spheres of life.

How players or executive spend their money is their problem.

What I am interested in, is how an organisation is losing money and committing more money to player salaries, whilst not being able to even afford radio production for regional cricket (which isnt cheap btw).

IMO they should abandon the retainers and do as Cricket SA does, ie give series by series contracts with performance incentives.

In reply to Commie

Ive been saying that series by series contracts with performance incentives will do much for WI cricket fir a while now. If not,then a fair revenue split % that covers salaries, pensions etc. Then WI cab do wgat it wants with its portion (hopefully invest it conservatively). I know what they did last time but they pushed all the wrong buttons in terms of advice and investment vehicles. I really do believe WI can become more financially stable with a continual long term investnent strategy a la governments and big university trust funds. But that is fir another discussion.