by RYAN PATRICK

West Indies players have finally received contracts from the WICB for Cricket World Cup 2007 but the absence of pension (Provident Fund) contributions has set off alarm bells among the cricketers.

The contract were sent to the players on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, a full week after the start of the tournament and more than a month after an arbitration panel headed by Barbados chief justice Sir David Simmons gave a binding ruling on how the $11.5 million World Cup pot should be split. Full Story

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com When will the WICB be taken out of their misery. They are beyond em·bar·rass·ing with their unprofessional antics.

Wesley

i doan know wot to think. ive been following this stuff on the google thing and the guy deyal has done a good job of defending himself and the board against ccc/ryan's claims.

i suppose i am reading these tings more critically these days....and from the get go when i see " has set off alarm bells among the cricketers."...i make some allowance for journalistic sensationalism.

im also sceptical when i see "sources say"....which sources? why are they unamed? and so on. also who told the board that they just couldnt change the amount/percent? so i guess i have more questions before i can take an informed position.

ps
small re edit is in order.

In reply to southward

Nothing new there.

_ryan

In reply to Admin

true, true...im usually an empty space...unlike u o great one. u always know wot to think.
:D

In reply to Admin
Who would have thought you would deal in hearsay? One writer called you the powerful
Editor from the Caribbean site, but you are no different than Uncle Tom Cozier objective
In the popular arguments where everyone will tap you on the shoulder and say well done.

In reply to Dreama

Are you claiming that there is untruth in the article? If you are then we're all ears. Your go...

In reply to hewesleyb

Man those guys never cease to amaze.

In reply to Admin Good job Ryan, you have now joined the ranks of the Powerful, congratulations.

same thing again. :roll:

damm :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

"the WICB sought several "clarifications" on the tribunal ruling after it learned that the expected $11.5 million -- which is paid to participating nations by the ICC -- might be significantly reduced.

The Simmons tribunal then told the WICB that it must be fully transparent and prove to WIPA that the amount is reduced. The board then submitted contracts to WIPA with the full $11.5 million figure."

Do the men of the WICB have no sense of moral decency at all? Does their word mean nothing at all?

Sources tell CaribbeanCricket.com the WICB sought several "clarifications" on the tribunal ruling after it learned that the expected $11.5 million -- which is paid to participating nations by the ICC -- might be significantly reduced.


good lord! that statement above in my interepretation means that the amount ($11.5M) was going to be reduced not by the wicb but by the icc.

come on people.

if my interpretation is correct (and i dont know that it is becos the more i read the article the more i am convinced that too much is left unsaid)--if my interpretation is correct then all the tribunal is saying to the wicb is that it is not enuf to say the amount is reduced...it must be proven/shown to all and sundry-in particular to wipa. the fact that the board submitted contracts with the full $11.5M simply suggests that the icc did not cut/reduce the amount.

the thing is we dont know and we are left to interpret becos the writer has not been explicit. again that whole statement starts with...sources say....again which sources?

the whole thing is riddled with question marks and is really an innuendo piece - far from responsible journalism.

the only thing i accept is the wipa statement which is in quotations.

It is understood that the WICB has unilaterally altered the match contracts, removing clauses that cover contributions to the Provident Fund, which serves as the pension plan for all West Indies cricketers.

According to the match/tour contracts for the recent ICC Champions Trophy and DLF Cup competitions (both one-off series that fall outside of the ICC's FTP), the WICB contributes 10% of its take to the Provident Fund. However, for this World Cup, the board decided it was not going to make the Provident Fund contribution.

The players signed the contracts under the condition that the Simmons arbitration panel will determine whether the Provident Fund contribution should be made.



look at the 3 para's above.

it starts "it is understood"....again there is an unnamed source behind that. but lets leave that...it goes on and uses the word unilaterally---thats v much a loaded/emotive word, it suggests that the wicb have acted excessively and heavy handedly...well we dont know if they were entitled to do that...the last para suggests that they might have been entitled to becos the panel will decide whether or not the contribution should be made. in other words its not clear cut.

but even more questions arise when scrutinizing the second para. the icc champions trophy and the dlf cup by the writers own admission were one offs falling outside of the normal where the wicb contributed 10% to the fund. well come the world cup it may just be that some other rationale guides the process.

again we dont know. the writer only leads us to x place without filling in the blanks.

as i said i dont know wot to think, so i am going to reserve judgement till i get answers to the missing blanks.

In reply to Admin
I hope yuh ready to face up to the possible heart attack and early demise of my good friend Kenny G. Do not get me wrong - I applaud you and I would do no different - but my heart is tough....yours seem to be soft...lately.

In reply to HumbleCalf


yuh tekking dis ting 2 far! :D

In reply to southward
No man......the Admin hunderstand my slant. But seriously, don't you think Gordon, is wondering who the hell is leaking these things and don't you think he is stressing over it?

In reply to HumbleCalf

I hear Gordon getting cussed by other WICB man for giving the players too much money.

In reply to HumbleCalf

yeah i guess thats right. the problem from admin's point of view is that repeated unnamed sources makes his journalism akin to that of the enquirer. its robbed of credibility.

ideologically, im in support, and yeah the guy deserves kudos....but he just cant go on with hearsay.

think ill leave it here and wait for the customary abuse.

Old leatherface Gordon has to read the riot act to the skuntholes in the WICBandits who continue to be as dishonest and as money-grubbing as possible, seeking to rob the players of their just due in any and every possible way.

People here do not know the extent to which WIPA and Dinas exercise restraint in coping with the torrent of shyte constantly being offloaded by the Bandits in their dealings with WIPA. But for that restraint, the public would be shocked...appalled even, to know of just how reckless the Bandits can be in failing to meet their obligations to the players.

The old sticky-fingers ones among the Bandits, the ones who believe in "by any means possible", continue to behave in the same old way. Gordon must cause them to change their ways or leave.

This era of WI cricket cannot accommodate their kind of behaviour any more, if only because Dinas and WIPA are very incisive in dealing with any and all attempts at skullduggery. But more than that - if WI cricket is to improve, it must not be hamstrung by unprincipled behaviour by the Bandits that keeps it in a state of turmoil off the field - something that must negatively impact performances on the field and the public's perception of the cricket.

As an aside, the exit of well known Bandits accomplices like Tony CozyUpToTheBandits will go a long way to foster change. The less accomplices the Bandits have in the press to unfairly blame the players and poison the public's mind against the players, the better the chances for WI cricket to improve.

In reply to redbaron

Everyone on this MB seems to forget that none of the players have performed consistently, yet they expect to be rewarded handsomely, regardless. Calling for the idiots in the WICB to be professional without similar calls for the players is at best disingenuous. None of these current crop of players deserve anything special in terms of compensation because they have all failed to perform at the highest level even 50 percent of the time. Until they can demonstrate the level of professionalism of the top two teams, quite frankly they have no serious claims to make for the obsecene compensation they seek. As Mikey Holding, the BEST fastbowler to ever grace the cricketing grounds across the globe, said recently - this team is all about the money, World Cup or no World Cup.

In reply to Fortis
i seriously disagree with what u have written. we live in a money world. the players have all right to demand proper remuneration, indeed if the wicb had a rep for paying then maybe we would all be entitled to demand professional performances.

on this mikey is wrong.

my problem with the article is its lack of substance and its ability to lead people like the baron etc thats the disingenous part.

In reply to Fortis
The team "inconsistent" performance are still raking in millions of dollars for the WICB. Therefore the players should be fully paid based on the agreed compensation with the WICB.

In reply to Fortis

Is either you very naive or very stupid, take your pick, to write that shyte.

Good or awful, it's the players who play cricket, and, by extension, bring in the money - ALL OF IT.

If you capable of understanding that, then you'd be foolish not to understand that what people bring in they must have a share of - and a very good share, to boot.

I am one of the harshest critics of the players here, and I say that the 22% they getting for this WC 2007 is NOT, IMO, a fair share. 50% would have been barely adequate, with the other 50% for the Bandits to squander, as they are wont to do and have a well documented history of doing.

The Bandits earn no money - not a fugging cent - but you would have them keep all and the people who earn ALL the money get little or none.

That's how stupid some of you people are.

In reply to southward

Kindly say what you talking about when you call my name so I can respond.

Thank you.

In reply to redbaron

scroll up to the top of the thread.

In reply to southward

That has nothing to do with me.

Your opinion that the article "had no substance" is just that - your opinion, and holds no water for anyone else, so WTF you calling my name for based upon your opinion and not fact?

Exactly WTF you referring to? Don't obfuscate - say what you mean. Vague reference to "top of thread" won't do.

If you hold brief for the Bandits, that's you. I have access to information that you don't, so I know whereof I speak when I speak of their skuntholery.

If you have a point, speak up so I can discuss it. Else don't call my facting name in vain.

Who cares, lets play cricket!!

Million dollar contracts typically take a long time to negotiate, and are going to have some nitpicking, last minute details to be worked out. Thats why you start early on these things.
To be honest, taking time to work out the details of a multimillion dollar contract Is a GOOD THING. What the WICB and WIPA should have done is start negotiating earlier.

In reply to redbaron

all i did was ask u to scroll up to the top of the thread so that u could read and understand why i said what i have said.

seems that u havent done that, because if u had u would have known that my references are very specific and that i have even gone to the trouble of outlining them point by point.

no big deal, im sure it wouldnt make any difference to u anyway becos yer access to info which the rest of us dont have gives u a license.

so carry on. yuh bad like a yaws!

In reply to southward

In general as you are well aware Journalists often use the term " reliable sources " , in a effort to protect the persons who have supplied them with information .

Obviously if the names of the source or sources is revealed , then getting information from that source would vanish .

That being the case , WE would at sometime in the future know whether the Admin's Source or sources is correct .

In my opinion we should withold judgement regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of the story .

I am sure that you are aweare that credible stories come from unnamed people , who have to remain anonymous to protect themselves from being canned . They are generally described as whistleblowers .

In reply to POINT

absolutely agree with u point.

all i am doing is witholding judgement and waiting for the claims to be substantiated.

i dont think anyone is more anti wicb than u (or for that matter me) and what i realize is that in order to take them on one has to have credibility. its that important.

i like to believe that i am a thinking human being and that makes it so very hard for me to just accept what is served up hook, line and sinker becos it comes from ryan or becos i wanna believe it.

In reply to southward

WTF...you can write crap but you can't say exactly what you mean?

I must waste time reading to please you? Say what yuh mean or STFU.

Look, next time you have shit to write, do me a favour - don't effing call my name, and I won't call yours.

Make your point without using my name - I don't use yours when I have a point to make. And if you fail to heed my request, you will be suitably rewarded.

In reply to redbaron

missah baron, id say yes u must waste time reading wot i have written if u want to make a meaningful contribution to the exchange....otherwise its a monologue...good enuf for yer pardnahs but not good enuf for me.

further, yuh aint exactly in a position to legislate as to who uses yer name/handle or who doesnt, so if i were u i would relax, take a chill pill and return to posting something or other about shamaicans.

In reply to redbaron

WoW!!! lotsa venom on dem words. Like you calling de man out to defend his honor. :lol:

Will it be swords or words?

In reply to Fortis

Yep. This guy is a WICb member for sure.

In reply to redbaron
Southie roughing yuh up man.....yuh nyan mek dat happen. The man treating you like a cheap whore!

In reply to southward

You seem to have your tongue up the Bandits' arses. That OK by me, but I still don't see why you call my name in yuh arse licking mouth, but at least I was willing to debate you on it.

Since you refuse to say why, all you deserve is what I save for the simple minded ones here:

HYMC!!!!

In reply to HumbleCalf

WTF...how you get in this? What ...you a commesse loving jammette ooman???

:lol:

In reply to redbaron
I just don't want to see anyone be so dismissive towards yuh man. It's your interest I have at heart. :lol:

In reply to HumbleCalf

Yeah...right...

...throw gasoline on fire to look after interest....ent?

:lol:

In reply to HumbleCalf

Plus the skunthole coward fraid to say what he mean. Call my name and when I confront he, dogdancing like a fugging pothound dog who bark worse than bite.

Leh he HHMC. He can't be dismissive to me...no damn dog can.

In reply to sabina

They are so transparent aren't they?

In reply to redbaron

Southie's had some run-ins with cc admin in the past and he's being quite transparent when he goes to these heights of disingenuity in vain attempt to cast a shadow on the excellent work done by Ryan. After all, every investigative reporter has "sources." We see this kind of reporting every day (sources in the whitehouse, pentagon sources, sources close to the candidate etc).

Southie has never expressed anywhere that he was ever skeptical of this kind of reporting when it appears as it does every day in the NY Times, Washington Post and virtually ALL top newspapers in the USA. As a matter of fact, I'm sure he reads at least some of these papers and relies on their "sources" for news. It's obvious that if these reporters reveal their sources, they would no longer be sources...duh!

Raising red herring issues like he does here, does more to reveal his vindictive agenda than anything else.

In reply to redbaron

"In reply to southward

You seem to have your tongue up the Bandits' arses."

Aint it amazing how these 'rebel' guys like Southward and Rastaman are the biggest uncle toms around who want the plantation owners WICb to have everything and the guys actually doing the revenue generating work in the hot sun to have spit? Sheesh.

In reply to sabina

That is just NOT true! The fact that Southie raises some issues does not mean that the man is supportive of the WICB and unsupportive of the players - for you to jump to such a conclusion is an insult to the man's intelligence........and the name calling part....the less said the better.

In reply to Zikdaman
Whereas I do not have any issues with Admin using his "sources"......it is wrong to say a man like Southie has stooped to vindictiveness.....Southman and I have argued many points before .....and with respect - and never any bitterness. The Southman is one of the most open-minded people you will meet on dem here MB and calling for proof is something he has used against me nuff nuff times........ill-advisably so, but that's the man.

I kinda believe we should resist the temptation of "if you are not with us you are against us".

And, BTW, Southman not paying me either - I do not want any of his vomit-up punnany and dat's all im have to use as currency.

In reply to southward

I understand your position , and I see nothing wrong in you witholding judgement on the matter.

In reply to HumbleCalf

Did you have this opinion before or after he likened Ryan's investigative reporting to that of the national enquirer because Ryan (as most reporters do in these kinds of situation) did not reveal his sources? Did that sound to you like a man who had an opened mind or did that sound more like a man with an axe to grind?

In reply to Zikdaman

Before - not sure what your point is, it is common in my world to see "according to reliable sources" or "sources close to" blah blah blah. Obviously, when you see that you understand that the author does not have confirmation but the author is satisfied enough regarding accuracy to print it. It is completely reasonable in general for person "A" to swallow it hook line and sinker and for person "B" to be skeptical. Based on Southie's history here which includes excellent, thoughtful, provocative and absolutely brilliant contributions so far, he is one who is likely to be skeptical unless you give him solid proof.

In this case we are talking about the WICB so most people will accept they are in the wrong because of their reputation .....most people ....not all.

In reply to HumbleCalf

Dat is my point...it is a common practice used by just about every journalist worth his salt if he's reporting on information that is not supposed to be privy to the public.

Now let's move on...what do you think about the skuntishness of the WICB.

Sources say Ryan Patrick did confirm all the contentious issues with sources within the WICB who sources say are actually involved in the negotiations.

_r

In reply to Zikdaman
The mistakes repeated time and again by the WICB is incomprehensible to me. How is it possible that every series is preceeded by some WICB v Players wrangling?

And look here now. The biggest event in the history of the Caribbean - one where they got the governments to spend a shite load of money that they cannot afford and still they open themselves and the region to major league embarrassment. Could anyone blame the players if they reach the finals and strike unless the issue is resolved?

I look on in disbelief, shake my head and ask where are we going wrong. And, I silently laugh at the posturing of Jamaica, Guyana, Trinidad etc producing so many brilliant people ........ how can that be when we cannot run a patty shop?

The inability of our leaders to command respect through leading by example is the single most reason for the wide spread break down we have in our region ......... I done preach today.

In reply to sabina

That southward is just an ass in a lion skin, if you ask me.

I don't usually take he on...is just that he call my name in vain.

missah calf...yer check is in the post. i appreciate the kind words!

i'm not going to waste time and get involved in a futile slanging match with the various parties on this thread. neither am i going to waste time with zik's rationlization of what has transpired save to say that i am entirely beyond the scope of zik's imagination or experience and that aint his fault.

the main issue speaks directly to the way our societies have evolved. the quote below illustrates:

Leadership of the party was first contested by Bustamante and St William Grant. Grant was essentially a Garveyite. Bustamante is more difficult to categorize. His rallying slogan perhaps speaks loudest…“My people, you don’t have to think, I will think for you Followed by the “The Chief! We will follow Bustamante till we die!”

this is really about the way we think and loyalty. to critique the chief is viewed as disloyal and therefore the criticizer must have an agenda-an axe to grind.

but there is so much more beyond that. on the specific article...i am asking that the writer steers clear of anything that might be interpreted as inuendo or anything that is akin to gutter press reporting. i am not suggesting that it is deliberate, i am not saying there is any fabrication what i am saying is that it is too loose for thinking people to take it seriously. there is evidence:

there are two articles on this subject both penned by cc. in the first on march 15 (which is much better imo) there are some things which have been adjusted in the second:

a. the figure quoted on march 15 was $11m-this figure became $11.5m on the 19th.

b. writing on the 15th cc say that contracts had not been provided for the players. in the later piece contracts were said to have been provided on the 14th.

c. in the earlier piece the reduction in the $11m figure was clearly stated to have been a reduction perpetuated by the icc. in the later piece it reads as if it is the wicb that was trying to reduce the figure (it certainly suggested that for poor sabina as u can see by his reaction above).

i could go on but i wont. the thing is that the errors/inconsistencies etc come from sources who apparently later correct these errors.

ccc is an opinion former, it is so by its stature and all i am asking/suggesting is that the bar be raised in order that its utterances be taken to be more credible by a thinking audience. nothing wrong with that....unless people want to imitate busta and his followers.

u come and go too quickly mon ami!