WICB Press Release: St John’s, ANTIGUA – We acknowledge that the matter of player release fees is between full-member boards and should never be seen as an issue with players who wish to play in other jurisdictions. We at the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) recognize that the global cricket industry has changed and we would like to place the following on record:

1. We would always like all eligible players to participate in our regional tournaments to ensure the highest quality of competition

2. We are aware that over the last three years, the number of domestic Twenty20 leagues has increased and there are now eight, including our own Caribbean Premier League. This means that there are now year-round lucrative opportunities around the world for West Indian cricketers, competing with WI regional competitions and sometimes even with WI international cricket. At present, there are 18 players in seven leagues.

3. Unlike some of the other ICC Full Members, WICB is not able to match the level of contracts that players can earn playing outside of the West Indies, while maintaining the levels of investment necessary to ensure and nurture future generations of West Indian cricketers and the sustainability of West Indies cricket

4. We have an agreement with two Full-Member boards – the BCCI and the BCB - for player-release fees

5. The release fees form part of an overall contribution to the continued development of:
a. The six franchises and clubs represented
b. High Performance programme
c. Training and development of technical officials
d. Women’s cricket
e. A-Team tours
f. A comprehensive under-19 programme
and are split between WICB, the Territorial Board and the club within the territory with which the player is registered

6. WICB is seeking to encourage other ICC Full Members to recognise the impact that players leaving the West Indies to play in domestic T20 leagues has on West Indies cricket and to work with WICB in finding a solution to the challenge of securing the best cricketing talent with the limited resources available.

7. WICB has made numerous appeals to the individual member boards, We will continue to have these discussions with the full member boards to resolve as soon as possible. We would like them to follow the precedent already set.

8. The WICB will continue on its quest to develop its player to help our teams maintain top positions in each format of the game. We need the best mix of financial and human resources at all levels to achieve those goals.

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

Sounds a bit reasonable, their objective, the fee though... hmmm
And why now and how come thi wasn't discussed with players before so a least they'll know what is coming. I'm sure some those guys would of been reasonable.

In reply to positiveg... but the players have no say here, it's between the boards. So it is up to the SA Board, for example, to accept or not.


Yes the player is affected ultimately, but he can do not one rahtid about it, well other than sue for "Restraint of Trade", I think.

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

In reply to Pacy

they don't have plans on cutting down any spending on their end.
None at all
they feel their spendings are fully justified.
So you wuk the players like slaves, tek the little you giving them, tek some more and still decide when and how they should wuk and the only how you can get money is if they wuk plus you making all the decisions without including them. Modern Day Slavery man

wow

Instead of getting out ahead of stuff they always pushing from behind. WICB is always reactive rather than proactive. Not commentating on the legality or morality of collecting their 20% but it always takes a crises for them to figure out that they need to communicate. They need to fire whomever doing PR cuz its seems like he only doing damage control.

In reply to carl0002

Exactly always reactive. However this is one the quickest piece of damage control they put out lately

In reply to carl0002... GoatHead?

I believe that the WI should recover for players development if the player is not available for duty , but let be fair and cap this amount and duration.

The board should not impose a continuous tax on the players.this is outrageous

I do understand what they are trying to do with the fee. But in Pollard case, he does not have a contract with the WICB, so they should be able to give him a NOC to play. How can WICB blatantly stop a player from applying his trade elsewhere and you drop him from the WI side? I agree he should sue for "Restraint of Trade." I think he would win, but maybe he will not be selected to play for WI again, since the WICB is very vindictive!!!

When the story was first leaked, my interpretation of the release was that Pollard would be refused a NOC unless he agreed to WICB getting a 20% cut of his salary with a foreign T20 team

Then I listened to Mason & Guest and Muirhead came on and said they had not refused any NOC, but rather had informed Pollard of their new position and they were in negotiations with Cricket South Africa (CSA) regarding the proposal to increase their compensation cut to 20% from the previously agreed upon 10%

He further stated there was a delay as a result of the ongoing negotiations between WICB and CSA on this matter which is why Pollard wasn't provided with a NOC at that time.

He went on to say that Pollard was granted his NOC and that the WICB fully recognizes that they are unable to compete financially with the salaries players earn in these leagues.

He also said that the "compensation tax" was never intended to come out of a player's remuneration, but rather it comes from the home board of where the tournament in question is held. In this case, it's Ram Slam T20 so CSA is involved.

So...my understanding changed to the following:

Players are not generally refused WICB NOC's (although Jason Holder was refused a NOC earlier this year to play ion the Pakistan T20 league)

The current "compensation tax" of 10% does not come out of player earnings, but rather is paid by the respective cricket board where the tournament is held.

The request to increase from 10% to 20% therefore means a cricket board would pay that "compensation tax" and apparently CSA said no.


The question I have is this. If the WICB's position is not to bar WI players from playing foreign tournaments and this increase was just a proposal, why would it delay the issuing of a NOC to any player?

If this is truly just between the respective boards....then this really has no bearing on the issuance of a NOC....especially to a non contracted player like Pollard.

Their explanations seem to suggest some back pedaling...to say the least.

De Courtesy posted this in 2009. All parties have allowed the current situation to suppurate.

'Where there is no vision the people perish.'

In reply to imusic

In reply to Courtesy

In reply to Courtesy
The reality is, the WICB is not in a position to influence anything. Our market is too small, purchasing power to small to effect a darn thing. In 2009 when you wrote that at the time they were under the future tours program and 1 20/20 league. Subsidies were big then. Today we are with the big 3 and move from 1 20/20 league to 3 or 4 20/20 domestic league all paying big money. WI player have the God given right to play all and to hell with West Indies because it can not pay that kind of money.

I think WI have a legit case to seek compensation from these boards as they are at a significant disadvantage. I think the intent is to seek additional money for these players who are forever willing to walk away from local cricket or even if they play the effort is so pitiful as they prefer to ad value elsewhere.

In reply to carl0002
BRAVO SENT HOME
-----------------
Justice moves fast against the players not the administrators. THIS IS SLAVERY !!!