Following Cricket West Indies’ announcement that contracted players will lose 25% of their annual retainer contracts, CEO Chris Dehring reiterated that every operational cost of the organisation is being evaluated.

In CWI’s stakeholder address, issued on their YouTube channel on September 24, where the changes were first disclosed, Dehring hinted at potential salary reductions for their staff in a “strive to improve operating efficiency."

“Every expense line item of Cricket West Indies operations is also being actively reviewed and reduced,” Dehring said at the time. He expounded on the complication days later in an interview with Cricinfo.

“Obviously, concerning the staff, we have labour laws, contracts, etc., given that they're unionised. So we have to go through certain processes, including consultations with the union in Antigua, which we have had. But there is no expense line item untouched.

Read more...

......................

CWI do you have a business plan that was presented to the Board of directors at least 5 years ago, and reviewed yearly at annual meetings?

Did no one see the shortfall in revenues vs expenses?

Then why have a board of directors?

The directors are the ones that approves and directs the CEO plans , it shows where their are downfalls in revenue versus expenses. Such are shown, a couple of years in advance.

It then allows management to take corrective actions.

The Board would direct the CEO on what actions must be taken to be solvent.

Most likely Banks in the region have looked at the clueless bunch at CWI and ran for the hills.

You have gone to the ICC on a few occasions for bail out funds. Doesn't that not say something?

Are your directors still flying first class...I have seen some on such trips.

It tells that no one in this group is familiar with financing and did due diligence.

Ken Gordon decades ago put CWI/WICB in the black and left a plan... it was never followed.

How did these individuals get such job opportunities ; I see why diamonds in the rough players are turned into charcoal, owing to the fact that charcoal acumen resides at the Board level.

When I nominate a Board member they bring certain asset to my board of directors, they are not there as an old boys club.

I do a dozen plus times the revenue collect by CWI and I have only 6 directors on my board.

Studies show that large boards severely compromise organizational agility, individual accountability, and overall governance efficiency. It shows that decision-making effectiveness drops by roughly 10% for every member added beyond seven. Strategies are often heavily compromised and lose their strategic edge.  Large groups naturally fracture ending up with 7 to 9 dominant members.

Think of the CEO , the amount of time it takes to contact a large board and developing relationships.

Why bother to proceed......they are like T&T bankrupt.

Sarge .. sigh

@sgtdjones wrote:

......................

CWI do you have a business plan that was presented to the Board of directors at least 5 years ago, and reviewed yearly at annual meetings?

Did no one see the shortfall in revenues vs expenses?

Then why have a board of directors?

The directors are the ones that approves and directs the CEO plans , it shows where their are downfalls in revenue versus expenses. Such are shown a couple of years in advance.

It then allows management to take corrective actions.

The Board would direct the CEO on what actions must be taken to be solvent.

Most likely Banks in the region have looked at the clueless bunch at CWI and ran for the hills.

You have gone to the ICC on a few occasions for bail out funds. Doesn't that not say something?

Are your directors still flying first class...I have seen some on such trips.

It tells that no one in this group is familiar with financing and did due diligence.

Ken Gordon decades ago put CWI/WICB in the black and left a plan... it was never followed.

How did these individuals get such job opportunities ; I see why diamonds in the rough players are turned into charcoal, owing to the fact that charcoal acumen resides at the Board level.

When I nominate a Board member they bring certain asset to my board of directors, they are not there as an old boys club.

I do a dozen plus times the revenue collect by CWI and I have only 6 directors on my board.

Studies show that large boards severely compromise organizational agility, individual accountability, and overall governance efficiency. It shows that decision-making effectiveness drops by roughly 10% for every member added beyond seven. Strategies are often heavily compromised and lose their strategic edge. Large groups naturally fracture ending up with 7 to 9 dominant members.

Think of the CEO , the amount of time it takes to contact a large board and developing relationships.

Why bother to proceed......they are like T&T bankrupt.

Sarge .. sigh

Surely you are wrong, a must the Yaadie fault.

@natty_forever wrote:

Surely you are wrong, a must the Yaadie fault.

Its not a yardie fault...he is trying to save their rass...

A tough road ahead

Look at the Clowns that took over after Ken Gordon...😡