In a series of e-mails released by WICB corporate secretary Tony Deyal, the ICC has offered its take on which matches fall within its FTP (Future Tours Programme).

This helps to shed some light on the dispute between the WICB and WIPA surrounding the current West Indies tour to England. WIPA is contending that the tour is outside the FTP and requires separate negotiations but the WICB says it's included in the FTP.
Full Story

"I am at a loss to explain how we can be expected to know what you intended thereby."

"Quite frankly I resent ICC being blamed for something which is not of our making."

Off! Oof!

In reply to sabina

What do you think should happen here i.e. what specifically should be the outcome of this dispute?

In reply to sabina

Not a man move to rass!! :lol: :lol:

So in other words. The tour to England is part of the FTP. Argument done. Move on. Its amazing the stupid foolishness that WICB and WIPA keep going to arbitration over. You are telling me that this could not be resolved without a judge. Phew

i taught ICC was talkin about FTP (files transfer protocol) that you can use to upload files to your web server

In reply to carl0002

You know the only question that I have... What is it that the players' association want? Any tour they go on they get paid per match once they selected (fee), per diem, incentives for winning, and a some sponsor money.

WTF??? I just don't get it?

If the issue is that they feel the fees are too low then okay say that, but every friggin time its a threaten strike. Like these fuggers don't want to work.

In reply to carl0002

Well if the WICB had not earlier agreed with WIPA that it was outside the FTP and had done their homework this issue would have been laid to rest already wouldn't you say?

In reply to primedog

I aint a lwayer or an arbitrator. But the ICC clearly don't think much of the WICB.

In reply to navindesigns

lolllllllllllllllllll

In reply to primedog

You know the only question that I have... What the fact does the WICB do with all the money it takes in?

And why is it going begging Bim for money it clearly it d oes not deserve? When no one evenknows exactly how much the WICB got for hosting the WC2007.

WTF??? I just don't get it?

Having said that the fellow name Tony ain't to bright is he.

In reply to primedog

WIPA needs to make sure the WICB isn't scheduling all kinds of bilateral tours without its approval. What's so hard to understand?

_r

In reply to navindesigns

'i taught ICC was talkin about FTP (files transfer protocol) that you can use to upload files to your web server '

You also thought "thought" was spelt "taught"...what's yer point?

In reply to primedog
Well the players Association want money that ECB supposedly will be paying WI to make this tour happen. Well if the tour is part of the FTP program, well there is no money from the ECB. The ECB not givin WI any money for this tour so WIPA want to claim money from monies that WICB ain't getting.

In reply to carl0002

Question.

Do people who work for the WICB become stupid when they join?

Or does the WIcb only hire stupid people?

I mean all fun and joke aside, the WICB is an extraordinarily inept organization.

In reply to carl0002

The problem is that the WICB.. and presumably WIPA... agreed to be bound by a term that wasn't clearly defined and not under the control of either of them. The future tours program should never have been brought into the wording of the contract, when it is a moving target.

Bad lawyering, I'd say.

Arawak

In reply to carl0002

Did you pull that bit out of a magic hat?

As this is a bilateral tour over and above the FTP mandatory requirements, the ECB is paying a participation fee of $1.2 million to the WICB.

_ryan

In reply to sabina

Technically, that was two question :D. You ask some good questions though. Not necessarily directly on point with the discussion of the tour contracts, but good questions nonetheless.

I don't think any reasonable observer would deny the fact that WICB in its best interest needs to be more transparent and communicate wha really a gwaan wid de finance ting dem. De way me seet dem a dey wurse enemy still iya, but it nah necessarily mean dem a do nuttin illegal in a sense you nuh.


So back to the point at hand, is it that the players would like to participate in the proceeds from a profit standpoint? It sounds that way, and if that's the case then that would be fair but it might not be what they expect.

In reply to Arawak

"Bad lawyering, I'd say."

WICB probably using Carib again so serve them right! :lol:

In reply to primedog

"I don't think any reasonable observer would deny the fact that WICB in its best interest needs to be more transparent and communicate wha really a gwaan wid de finance ting dem."

Well when an organization keeps refusing to be transparent reasonable people must wonder what they are hiding.

Fact is no one - players, governments, ICC - trusts the WICB. And without trust no enterprise can prosper.

In reply to sabina

Well, WIPA agreed to it as well, so they bear a small part of the blame too.

Arawak

so with Googly and sabina's excitement over the boof baff of the WICB, did they miss the salient point which is that the ICC are basically saying that the WICB was right all along that this tour is indeed considered part of the FTP?

As wackie said, the problem is in the MOU between wipa and wicb. 2 skuntish organisations

In reply to faada

You forgot that one is "terrorist".

_r

In reply to carl0002 ... it all depends ... do we have a tour to England 2008/9 and them to us 2010? suh how come 3 tours in a the period?

In reply to faada

Ent it sad that the WICB initiated negotiation for paymnet with WIPA and when discussions were well advanced they decide to seek clarification????

Poor WI cricket.....we up de creek without a paddle!!!!

In reply to faada

yeah, specifically they said that it's part of *their* FTP, which they never asked the WICB to use as part of their contracts with players.

Arawak

In reply to Arawak

Well WICB been the one who reluctant to give documents to the arbitrator so I suspect they feel they on shaky ground. And so far it's 0 for 4 for the WICB in arbitrations.

SO WIPA seems to have a little more sense than WICB. Course that may be like saying WI better than Bangladesh.

In reply to sabina

I had nothing to do with it, iya.
Somebody else mess dat! :D

Since "Future Tours Programme" is a term of art, that exact wording should have been used.
Thre's really nothing for the arbitrator to decide here. The ICC's ruling is definitive.

In reply to Admin

Ryan I truly never heard the issue pinpointed. Know that you state what the concern is I hear it although I must say to me it has limited weight.

Here is why I say that:

WICB is charged with promoting West Indies cricket. WIPA is charged with ensuring that the players are fairly treated in their interaction with WICB among other things. but that's the major thing.

Part of promoting the game, and quite frankly ensuring a livelyhood for players is making sure that there is enough work (matches to play).

From a common sense standpoint the WICB should always engage in discussions with WIPA before finalizing its agreements on tours, but it makes not sense for WICB to be seeking permission to negotiate.

An important question to ask is who does WIPA represent? Does WIPA represent all first class players, or players currently in the team. My understanding is that they represent first class players or else there could be no discussion of scabs and such.

Bigger picture, since WICB is charged with selecting the team, coordinating the tours etc., putting itself at a risk position financially on matches then it is counter-intuitive that an extraneous party gets override authority on opportunities it reasonably decides to pursue.

WIPA's position is akin to the pipe fitters union telling El Paso Energy we want override authority on whether or not El Paso can run pipelines through the desert. They might say the rates we have in place don't cover the dessert so lets agree on new rates. Maybe.

To this independent observer, WICB may show signs of a lack of operational competence, and do a poor job at corporate communication, but WIPA trying to expand their organization power beyond reasonable boundaries.

In reply to sabina

Tony really sounds simple in that letter. He appears to be argung that because the tour is included in the ICC schedule it's part of the FTP.

Apparently he doesn't know that it's only included with additional next to itbecause ICC sanction and provide services for all international matches.

I am convinced ther eis not one 'sports' expert working with the WICB.

One more victory for WIPA.

In reply to sabina

First sensible thing you've said in a week.

The medication must be wearing off.

Arawak

In reply to faada

That was not excitement bro... that was commentary based on my opinion after reading the piece. Nothing the WICBandits do excite me.. never have and never will...

In reply to Arawak

"First sensible thing you've said in a week."

Which is one more than you.

That 6 months snow bound 20 below cabin fever can really mess up the cognitive processing eh Canuck?

In reply to natty_forever

Because this one is additional. :lol: Di WICB will soon discover dat since it is clearly stated in the ICC letter.

Dem likkle boys begging ICC to help dem rip off players and they remain accountable to no one.

Dat done WICB. Clean up time now - World Cup 'dun'.

In reply to Admin
So Ryan, did I just miss where Naigoo said that the tour was part of he FTP or what.

In reply to Chrissy

I agree with you. WICB is arguing the letter and not the spirit of the agreement. It is like my employer telling me that I am supposed to give them a certain number of billable hours a year and paying me on that basis, then increasing my workload by 1/3rd and expecting me to work for free when my contract says I should be paid for overtime and they are earning money off my extra billable hours. Then they argue that the overtime is not overtime because they have notified me of the additional workload in writing.....

WIPA has the moral high ground here......

In reply to Chrissy

It is additional, but still part of the FTP.

This is where the problem lies... the FTP was never set up to be a basis for boards to negotiate with their players.

Arawak

In reply to jamgirl

exactly!

someone else on the thread also said that tony sound simple, I think that person was being kind.

In reply to carl0002

Yes, you did. And quite frankly I resent being blamed for something that is not of my making.

_r

PS: Deyal went back and asked for a "review" of Naidoo's take.

Well, let mi weigh in. FOA, I think the guy David Richardson is a snobbish MOFO. Does he think he is above the ICC board members??? He has no right responding in such a manner to the WICB guy. OK!!!

It is very clear that both WIPA and the WICB are two dunce orgs. This thing did not have to reach to this level, to the pointof even involving the ICC and arbitrators to resolve it. WIPA, in addition, is downright greedy and lacks credibility to boot. Shame on WIPA to wanna scape the bottom of the empty pan.

Admin: Why must WIPA approve FTP as it relates to the WICB? It seems yuh wanna say something here but it not coming out right. The WICB administers WI cricket and is a member of ICC. WIPA is not a member of ICC and has nutten to do with making up cricket schedule.

In general, WIPA should ask for and get an agreement with the WICB, for a guideline as to how many games it would like players to be involed with per period. ie. a range of matches that may be suitable for the players. But to say WIPA should approve the WICB's FTP is madness.

In reply to Rastaman

Bossman, calm down and think thing thing through rationally. There is an association in place to take care of the players' interests (which include protecting them from burnout, abuse, etc.)

_r

In reply to primedog

The WICB (or any organisation for that matter) cannot, must not schedule extra work for the players without their approval. If they are seeking to implement extra work, they must negotiate for extra pay. It really is that simple.

_r

In reply to sabina

I am convinced that when you join the WICB something happens to you. More often them never its not for the better either. Which brings me to the other conclusion. It is not the WICB that is the problem, its the system in which it operates. You could put Twissy with all the good intentions in the WICB and get the same results.

It is additional, but still part of the FTP.
===================================

Thanks, arawak. For a second there I thought Chrissy was right and everybody else was wrong! :wink:

Looks like WIPAS winning streak may be ending. But they are still 4-1.
I like this way of settling disputes, no strikes, no nothing.

In reply to Admin

"The WICB (or any organisation for that matter) cannot, must not schedule extra work for the players without their approval. If they are seeking to implement extra work, they must negotiate for extra pay. It really is that simple."

I gotta wonder why this basic principle seems to offend so many people on this MB when applied to WI cricketers. Especially when peeps post here precisely because they are fans if WI cricket. It is a very strange phenomenon.

I mean no one here would tolerate their employer acting towards them as the WICB acts towards the players.

In reply to Admin I am calm, very calm. But read Primedogs comments. (good take there PD). WIPA's place is to try and establish guidlines and standards for it's players, not to be involved in administration and operations. A general principle can be agreed on between WIPA and the WICB but no approval is necessary or required from WIPA. A suh mi see't!!!!!

In reply to carib

My father believes that legal disputes should incorporate a provision where the lawyers share the judgment given to their clients. Sometimes the old guy has good ideas. :D

Arawak

In reply to Admin What do you call extra work??? That must be clearly defined first.

In reply to faada

Lets hope Tony is moved out of the negotiating business immediately :D
Still, it was the fault of thepeople who put it that ambiguious term about overseas cricket.

Apparently this part:

is not showing clearly on Chrissy's computer. Wackie, make your fonts more universally viewable nuh?

Also Wackie, I note that Richardson says the MOU refers to an "overseas programme", is he mistaken there? I thought the MOU specifically referred to the "FTP"

In reply to carib

Hmm. So you putting your lawyerly reputation on the line then and calling this one defintely for WICB?

I wonder if any other lawyers are on this MB and what they think?

In reply to Arawak

They would be a lot fewer people practising law, thats for sure :lol:

In reply to Rastaman

Aha, now we're on the same page. And, when those guidelines are established, WIPA's role is to make sure the WICB doesn't unilaterally change things. If they agree that anything outside the FTP must be negotiated (general principle), then if they believe the WICB is reneging, it's their responsibility to challenge it. That's all that's happening here.

_r

In reply to carib

in her mind she still right!!!! :lol: Then again dem occupants at Belview think dem right too. :lol: :lol:

In reply to Rastaman

Some current examples: DLF Cup. Upcoming 20/20 tournament in Canada. These are all "extra work" arranged unilaterally by the WICB.

_r

Allyuh being hard on Tony for no reason.

1. The tour is included in the FTP, as revised by the ICC.
2. The language does include "additional tour" which creates the obfuscation. And it is contradictory.
3. The FTP schedule (inclusive of the "additional tour) is an actual schedule to the FTP agreement.
4. It is therefore definitive that the England tour is part of the FTP agreement .
5. YES- BIG FACTING YES- Deyal is absolutely correct when he writes:

The other part of the issue is what is the "Overseas Programme"? Is this the same as the FTP and, if so, which FTP. It seems to me that the ICC has not itself defined exactly what the FTP is or there is a huge gap between the definition and the understanding that you have.


6. The ONLY reason this became a question is because WIPA made it an issue.
7. Speaking of WIPA, the term "overseas tour" comes from their MOU.
8. David Richardson probably felt like an ass for being told the truth and countered by being wrong and strong....he probably learnt that from Chrissy.
9. Deyal can counter that condescending remark with:

"Neither is "additional tour", yah dumb skunt"

In reply to Admin But the guy Richardson say they are part of the FTP so, it cannot be extra work!!!! no??? Yuh and Chrissy related??? :lol:

In reply to Admin
Yes I notice that, thats why I said in an earlier post that he not sounding too bright.
However, it is becoming blatantly obvious that the FTP is a live and breathing document that can not be used to decide when WIPA should get extra money for touring, as everything from henceforth can be considered for all intents and purposes outside of the FTP. You can argue on the back of whose greed such an agreement was made.

In reply to Rastaman

Extra, additional, same thing.

_r

In reply to Admin

So the WICB is to be blamed for arranging " extra work?" Aren't the players getting paid for this " extra work".
Maybe you're right. Maybe the WICB shouldnt be arranging all this "Extra work" for these overworked players!
God knows, they are toiling day & night, as the coaches report shows. They need a break... :roll:

In reply to Admin

If they are seeking to implement extra work, they must negotiate for extra pay. It really is that simple.

I agree with you on the above. Quite fair and makes sense.


The WICB (or any organisation for that matter) cannot, must not schedule extra work for the players without their approval.


I have to disagree with you here. Here's why.

(1) The players aren't 9 - 5 ers. They don't get a fixed salary. They get paid to play on a per match basis. If what were negotiated were contracts on par with NBA, MLB, and NFL i.e. $ 1 million for 82 regular season, 162 regualr season or 16 regualr season games then I'd agree that you are right on point. Instead you have a per match or per tour arrangement. WICB seeks the work, and players decide whether or not they want to play under terms that are mutually agreeable.

Once again WIPA is fighting the wrong battle.

(2) The implication is that the players are being forced to do an unfair amount of work for insufficient pay. That's debatable. What's not debatable is that they are paid incrementally more for additional amount of work.

The argument that you present on behalf of WIPA is couched in an indisputable principle, but its a bit disingenuous here.

This is not about extra work for extra pay, this is an attempt by an individual to overthrow the existing power structure. Noble though it might be don't be ashamed to call it what it is.

In reply to carib

That is what I cannot understand. How many players complaining about the extra work they are not getting paid for. The way admin characterizing it is as if they don't get a cent. Do other boards pay their players extra for tours outside the so called FTP series. Is England playing their players differently for this series.

In reply to Arawak

Challenge dat in court if you bad!!

In reply to Chrissy

So you claiming ace lawyer Carib wrong?

In reply to sabina

Ace of jokers? ICC like WICB saying two different things. Jus laugh! Di issue is over and above the FTP - dat is the only issue in law.

These are the same resident lawyers that said Justice Saunders erred and that Bravo could never have a C&W contract while playing in a Digicel-sponsored team. Spoonfuls of salt, etc.

_r

In reply to Chrissy

Please tell me that you willfully feigning ignorance here. If not your powers of analysis are very weak.

Note number one see use of the word requirement. That means if you don't get up and play these minimum requirements you lose some status. The same exchange says that these additional matches - yes I use the words additional fall within the program.

You and Ryan are willful eh? The most inexperienced players would get around $3,000 U.S. per match on this tour, plus sponsor fees and incentives.

Does anyone other than Ramnarine, Ryan and Chrissy believe that 99% of the players would prefer to go out for three weeks collect a $25K U.S. than sitting at home and eating KFC?

In reply to Chrissy

You are completely missing the point.

It is over and above the requirement. But it was added to the FTP nonetheless, and is now part of the FTP . The point being, the FTP is a moving target and neither the board nor WIPA should have agreed to use it as part of their negotiations.

Note here that I agree that the board is wrong to push this tour on the players part of the original agreement.

Arawak

In reply to Arawak

Added as additional.

The FTP is not a moving target.
Let me check FICA's take on this.

In reply to Chrissy But what is not understood by you is that once that revised schedule was agreed on between the WICB and the ECB it became part of the the FTP. The ICC may suggest future tours and it's up to the respective boards to negotiate the schedules. Once the boards make up the schedules then they beocme part of the FTP. FTP can be revised between the respective boards in advance. That's probably what took place in this instance.

Admin, there is no additional work here. The England tour became part of the FTP as both boards agreed to that. And of course the players are being paid. But WIPA seems to want additional pay when it is not outside the FTP.

In reply to primedog

Cuold you tell me what part of the money being earned is linked to the administrators? They have not invested a single dollar in this entity. They cannot be organizing additional series and not pay players separately.

When the WICB learns that WIPA and it's players are the product we will move forward. These unaccountable men will have to be publicly exposed.

In reply to Rastaman ... a think we need a copy of the MOU.

In reply to Chrissy

It was not on the FTP, now it is. In English, this is what we refer to as a "moving target".

Chrissy, is it on the FTP right now, or is it not? I gave you the link to the ICC's website.

Arawak

In reply to Chrissy

... simple. Would Grace Kennedy treat any of its product this way?

Chrissy, the thing you not getting is that the FTP is not a fixed document. It is constantly changing. If you go by the strict definition any tour from henceforth can be considered outside of the FTP.

In reply to Admin

Again you mis-represent what some legally people (myself included) had to say about the Bravo situation.

The issue was not whether or not Bravo could have a Cable & Wireless contract and play for a Digicel sponsored team. There were several issues:

(1) Did WICB have a right to decline to select player who endorsed a competitor of WICB's principal sponsor?
(2) Could a player be required to agree to not represent a competitor as a prerequisite to team selection?
(3) Could WICB as a prerequisite to offer of a retainer contract require that a player not represent a competitor product.

3 is an easy question. Yes. There is the giving of value for value. Get a sum regardless of whether or not you get picked or not, and you forego a personal right. One caveat being that if selection were limited to players with retainer contracts then you have a much tougher question.

For several reasons questions 1 and 2 could go either way, but offering a retainer contract is a clear way to avoid some of these issues.

In reply to Admin

Actually, I along with the WICB counsel) still believe that that the WICB did not HAVE to sign Bravo to a retainer contract, but hey Kenny G wanted to. You see what a big success THAT was :roll:

For once(and once only) I agree with Ryan's take.

If the host country is not obliged to pay participation fees to guest teams - under the FTP program - then the fact that England warrants to pay $1.25MM to the WICB would lead to the default designation of the impending WI tour to the UK as being outside of the FTP.

So here are the questions;

Does England consider the tour as being part of the FTP?
If so - on what basis are they paying an appearance fee to the WICB?
Have they in the past paid participation fees to any other team for matches that fall under the "original" FTP?

In any event - regardless of the ultimate determination by the arbitrator - it is reasonable to expect that the WICB should share the revenues from the tour with the players.

In reply to Chrissy

Really its hopeless getting into these meaty discussions with you.

In reply to primedog

If not your powers of analysis are very weak.

========================================

BINGO! :D

In reply to carib

Doesn't it just amaze you when people speak about "the law" and "a court" with purely emotional arguments substituted for any form of reasoned analysis?

In reply to FanAttick

For once you're right. Welcome.

_r

In reply to carl0002

Is England playing their players differently for this series.


===================================================

Good question right there. I haven't HEARD that they are. Indeed, regardless of whats happening here everyone in England seems to think of this tour as a standard part of the FTP.

In reply to FanAttick Well, lets not jump the gun...If I&I visit you then yuh owe me a visit re original FTP. Now, if the FTP schedudle is revised (shortened) and so yuh neva get fi visit mi on the return leg then we haffi mek it up sum where. Or else somebody (I&I) get short changed. nuh???

In reply to Rastaman

Rasta - it really doesnt matter what circumstances caused the "makeup" tour to be scheduled. I agree that the FTP is subject to change - but once you enter into bilateral negotiations - that automatically puts the terms of WIPA contract into play.

In fact your point favors WIPA - because you are essentially saying that due to problems with the FTP - the parties(ECB and the WICB) have to negotiate a bilateral contract to make up for lost revenue - which plays right into WIPAs hands.

The underlying problem is that the contract between WIPA/WICB was poorly constructed.

In reply to FanAttick no fan...All FTP schedules are bilaterally negotiated by the respective boards. All. this is not new. The issue of an FTP is just a starting point schedule. THe boards really have to do the negotiations as to when, how many matches, what kinds of matches, and so on.

In reply to primedog

With respect to your first point, WIPAs fight is, or should be, the rates for tours which were not previously agreed on.

ie. if their agreement states that they get X for the tours included in the agreement, they may want to try to get X+Y for tours for which they have no previous agreement.

In reply to Rastaman

No - you are wrong. The discussions around number of matches(schedule/logistics) is not the same as negotiations around appearance fees. As I understand there is no obligation on the part of hosts to pay participation fees to visitors under the FTP.
Participation fees come in for "extra" tours(eg India/WI bilateral last year)

remember a fundamental complaint from minnows about the FTP -was that it eliminated the requirement for hosts(especially the cash rich ones like India and Oz) to share revenues as it was prior to the implementation of FTP.

It seems to me that all Test matches that fall under the domain of the ICC will be eventually show up in the FTP. After all they become tours in the future.

OK - Taking this to a ridiculous extreme...

Accepting the principle that there should be no additional remuneration for the England Tour means that:

- The WICB can enter into bilateral agreements with other boards for an unlimited number of additional overseas tours for which they get additional cash over and above that for the FTP minimum requirement tours.

- As a matter of course these additional tours will be added to the ICC FTP "Schedule", which is merely a schedule of all the matches/tours taking place each year.

- The players are required to accept an unlimited additional workload for no additional pay.

- The WICB rakes in the unlimited additional cash - presumably it is only the overseas tours for which it actually gets extra money.

Are we all really in agreement with this scenario?

I think that bad drafting is allowing the WICB to think it can get away with murder. Sounds to me like this agreement is missing a few critical words before FTP, like "minimum requirements of the"....

If this is some special, " additional', supererogatory tour, then why aren't the English players demanding additional payment?
The reason WIPA won those other arbitrations was that it came out that the WICB wanted to treat the WI players differently from other players. It kind of looks like WIPA wantsc special treatment for its players now.

In reply to carib

Umm, because they received it already?

_r

In reply to Kurt
The ICC is just throwing the WICB a bone(with a convenient interpretation). A tour cannot be additional and FTP at the same time.
It appears from the email exchange between the WICB and the ICC that the WICB communicated its intent for a favorable interpretation. The ICC initially said that the tour was additional - but due to pressure from the WICB changed its tune to suggest that the tour is FTP(and additional at the same time).
This was not an arms length(in good faith) discussion between WICB and the ICC.

If you read between the lines of the email exchange the WICB is practically begging ICC for a favorable interpretation.

In reply to Admin

Can you source that?
Did they recieve payments over & above what they would have got for any FTP tour?
Thanks in advance.

In reply to carib

You would have to see the terms of contract between the ECB and its players to see if there is any provision for additional payment for tours that fall outside the FTP.

In reply to faada

Simple as that!

But instead it has to be an international crisis.

In reply to FanAttick

Not even in the worst possible legalize :lol:

In reply to FanAttick

actually if you read the exchange its clear the ICC is NOT really trying to help the WICB. Read richardsons email again. :D

In reply to carib

Would it not be obvious that the FTP at the date of the WICB/WIPA agreement be the relevant FTP? I will bet that this is what the arbitrator would say.

In reply to BourdaGyal

Here's one thing that you are missing. You are assuming that the players are going to play this tour for free.

They get paid by the match. They do not get paid an annual salry for a fixed set of games. They get paid incrementally per match or per tour - so its not like they working extra and not getting paid extra.

Its arguable whether or not the incremental fee that they earn is appropriate and that's the issue to be negotiated, not whether or not WICB can schedule these matches.

In reply to FanAttick

I see no hint in any non Caribbean media that this series is considered a non FTP tour. If you can point to any such report, I'd be obliged.

In reply to faada

Who're you to tell WIPA what their fight should be? Does WIPA represent you? WIPA's *only* responsibility is to its members. Can't believe I have to actually explain this.

_r

In reply to carib

Which English player told you he wasn't getting extra pay for this tour?

The fact that the ECB are paying the WICB an "appearance fee" of in excess of US$ 1 million is the only proof we all need to confirm that this tour is outside the FTP.

Reciprocal tours which are part of the FTP require no exchange of payments whatsoever (provided the number of matches are the same) and, where the number of matches are unequal, the payment by the Host of US$125,000 per Test and US$ 50,000 per ODI for matches in excess of those staged by the visiting team when they were hosts.

This is not a reciprocal tour, and the underpinning principle of the FTP is reciprocity.

My money is on the arbitrator ruling in favour of WIPA.

Don't know how to post a link on this MP, but here is the web address of the FTP agreement.


http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/rules/ftp_agreement.pdf

In reply to dcbreds

Thats a good point, actually. Actually, I'd like to see what the MOU says exactly.

In reply to carib

The only place where the designation of FTP or Non-FTP is a matter of life and "debt"(who owes who what) is in the WI. I am not surprised that non Caribbean media would have no interest in splitting hairs.

The tour is an ICC sanctioned event between full ICC member countries and that is all that matters to people on the outside.

Of course here at home we have a contract between the WICB and WIPA that is predicated on FTP.

In reply to newdread

Yuh should jus tek ova Carib's office. What a lawyer!!! :roll: :lol:

In reply to carib

So are you admitting that WICB is up a creek with this one? It seems clear that both parties were negotiating with the assumption that the FTP would not change. I am sure if there were minutes of these meetings that everyone involved was assuming a fixed FTP.

I do not think WICB have a prayer here, and this is not because I dislike them.

In reply to Admin

Dude its an opinion? That's what this board is about right?

In reply to Admin

It can't be any simpler than those 2 responses ... UNNUH stop beating up unnuh gum ... WIPA has the right to question ... additional work thus additional pay ...

PHEW PHEW to rass!!
Gwaaannnn ADMIN!!

In reply to newdread

But the ICC says its part of the FTP. You cant really get around that. Surely they are the experts on whether this an FTP tour or not.

Must agree that if the spirit of hte FTP is to deal with the reciprocal tours, and WICB are being paid additionally for this tour, then whether or not ICC add it to a PDF on their website, it must be considered outside the intended agreement.

Now the next point is what exactly was agreed between the WICB and WIPA.

In reply to newdread

NUFF said...

In reply to primedog

leff admin, this is his little sphere of influence, why u think he post with the name admin instead of ryan or some other handle?

In reply to primedog

OK - if they actually get paid by the match, then is it really just the size of the match payment that everyone is making such a huge fuss about (WICB and WIPA included)?

In reply to carib

The issue is that apparently the ICC can randomly change definitions. However if there was an agreement based on the original definition, then surely no court will uphold the changed definition as being the legally binding one.

In reply to BourdaGyal

BG, you're correct, that's what this fight is about.

In reply to dcbreds

Listen bro - rest assured that WIPA has the list of tours included in the FTP that was negotiated at the ICC Scheduling Forum in Dubai, August 2005. This England tour is not on that list so mek Tony and KG fool up demselves. That won't chagne the facts. This England tour is not part of the FTP.

In reply to newdread


"The fact that the ECB are paying the WICB an "appearance fee" of in excess of US$ 1 million is the only proof we all need to confirm that this tour is outside the FTP."

Well I aint a lawyer. But this sounds like the name of dat tune.

The issue is not really additional tours per se but additional money. If the WICB getting extra money, then the players deserve their share.

I mean how can anyone argue against this principle?

In reply to carib

The said ICC also said that the tour is "additional". You cant really get arouund that either. Surely they are the experts on whether this is an additional tour or not. :D

In reply to dcbreds

The problem is that the FTP by nature isnt fixed. It changes all the time as the negotiating boards schedule tours.
They would have to be thinking of a changing FTP or they would be completely delusional.
actually, the wording in the MOU is not FTP, but "the Overseas Programme of Matches" which sounds to me to include ALL overseas matches, whether FTP or not.

In reply to carib

And the ICC is infallible?

The key word / principle in this issue is reciprocal / reciprocity. It is the foundation on which the FTP was built and provided the basis and impetus for the members to agree to it.

This current tour creates an uneven number of tours between the WI and England during the cycle.....there is no reciprocity......it cannot be a part of the FTP.

The only way the WICB would have had a leg to stand on is if the original FTP allowed for 2 designations "required" and "additional". This doesn't seem to be the case.

Again, the only reason I can see for the ICC putting this into the FTP schedule which is available for download, is for easy of use by the average joe looking for a schedule of test matches.

In reply to primedog

Your opinion is that that WIPA must choose their fights and stances based on your likes/dislikes. I'm telling you it doesn't work that way. WIPA's responsibility is to its members only. All the opining is useless.

_r

In reply to newdread

Dread, is this a fact?

cuz if that's really the case, then the designation of this tour as additional or not is irrelevant, no?

In reply to carib

Does this mean that you have actually seen the full wording of the MOU then?

In reply to primedog

Lets say that your boss contracts to pay you $50/hr for working a 40hr week(Mon-Friday). Would you expect to be paid at that rate if he suddenly ask you to work Saturdays and Sundays?

Tell me which union(and WIPA is a union) would agree to the same rate for weekends as it is for the normal work week?

In reply to BourdaGyal

Bingo! The only issue is how much they will get paid, not if. Now WICB will try to get them to play for how much they get paid for every other match. WIPA will try to get more.

Nothing wrong with either side. You see Admin presenting it as if the guys getting taken out of they yard to go to hinglant to work for free. He will counter that he neversaid that, but that's his implication.

Chrissy just doesn't get it. Period.

WIPA is right to try to get top dollars per match for the players. That's their job. But their argument is a charade.

It would be interesting on this thread to see who the actual lawyers are.

I know bout Carib and it seems Primedog. Any other real shysters on board who willing to admit it?

In reply to sabina

Carib is NOT a lawyer - but he did stay at the Holiday Inn last night. :D

In reply to primedog

OK - It would be interesting to see the whole of the MOU to see what it actually says. This takes us to a different question. Do they actually deserve to be paid "overtime" rates??

In reply to carib

I am no lawyer, but I am sure common law dictates that you cannot make someone accountable for a rule not created at the time of the act. So if the FTP was changed after WIPA and WICB met, one cannot assume that they are talking about a "moving target" UNLESS it is specifically spelt out in the agreement that the FTP is in fact a changing document.

In reply to Admin

sigh... no

you just don't get it.

In reply to dcbreds

u been reading my posts or what? :lol:

In reply to FanAttick

Actually Carib has owned up to being a lawyer, though how good a one we will see with this arbitrator's ruling since he says WICB gonna win.

Sounds to me that some others on this thread are shysters, but are ashamed - understandably so - to admit it.

What do you call a bus of lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start. :lol:

It is interesting how people's prejudices cloud their judgement.There is enough ambiguity for both sides to feel they can make a good reasonable case here.However putting aside lawyerly spins and the rigid parsing of words and phrases and looking to the spirit and timing of the MOU between the WICB and the WIPA one can come to only one conclusion.
The WICB are totally IMMORAL in their position and the fact that they can make a reasonable LEGAL case does not and can not absolve them from that burden.Those of us who pride ourselves in not only upholding the letter but the spirit of righteousness would instantly recognize the sleight of hand that the WICB have pulled.I happen to know an absolutely brilliant lawyer in the region who is deeply involved with the WICB and I know that he could make a case for the WICB and probably win it but he could never convince me that my opinion stated here is not correct.As a matter of fact I suspect that he would agree with me.

In reply to faada

Never knew you were that intelligent! :lol:

In reply to FanAttick

You would be spot on if that were the case. I broke this down for Admin earlier so you could reference my earlier treatise for a more thorough treatment.

Your analogy and analysis is flawed.

When we perform legal analysis we look at text, then context, then history, then surrounding circumstances.

Based on poor draftsmanship by WICB and WIPA the text and the context of the agreement are unclear. To your analogy though the history of the overtime laws is to protect employees from being overworked and advantaged by their employers. There is no indication or suggestion that the players are being overworked here. Additionally, at work if the employer doesn't want to pay overtime he just brings in a part-timer to fill the gap.

I don't think that's what we want here do we?

The players are much less like employees than they are independent contractors. They get called up and dropped like independent contractors. Second they don't work 40 hour work weeks 50 weeks a year they work 3-5 weeks at a time 3-4 times a year. They don't get a fixed salary, the more they work the more they get paid.

Like independent contractors they have the right to negotiate rates that don't fall under their original agreement.

I agree that this gives them a slight bit of leverage to ask for more per match. The leverage is not that strong though.
This whole issue is a negotiation. I support WIPA's attempt to negotiate a higher rate per match, my difference comes in when they blatantly mischaracterize they issue.

There is no reason why the players should inherently get a higher per match fee for these matches that are not covered. Not that they shouldn't or couldn't but its not inherent.

In reply to Dukes

morality?!?!? steeups, don't even start that. How about the morality of the players who are abysmal failures at their negotiated pay rates, asking for increased rates for these additional matches?!?!

This is not about morality, nor should it be!

In reply to faada
Yes the MOU in Article VI refers to the

(b) Overseas Programme of Matches

(i) The WIPA acknowledges that the ICC has determined a forward programme of international cricket, which contemplates the WICB sending the West Indies Cricket Team overseas to play certain matches/series. A copy of the overseas programme current as at the date of this MOU is set out in Schedule D

Which is one and the same as the FTP.

In reply to newdread

Bingo. What is in Schedule D?

In reply to newdread

wait wait wait, there is a copy of the programme in Schedule D of the MOU?!?!?!?!


hahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahahahhaa, I can't believe this thing even needs to go to arbitration :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

In reply to faada

WTF? Man, yuh scaring mih! We seeing eye to eye on all these tings man.

In reply to faada

Yu need to see the whole MoU before yu start laugh.....

If the lawyers on this thread represent the people of this region, it is no wonder peeps are screaming for justice :lol:

In reply to primedog

By its very definition and by established practice - Independent Contractors determine their own hours of work.

It is unusual for independent contractors to be asked(or expected) to show up for work at 10am and work until 5pm(test match) -- not to mention Finlay's 11pm curfew to boot!

But that is beside the point.

My analogy was intended to say that if you warrant that a task will require 40 hours(expressly or impliedly) - and then it turns out that it requires 56 hours - you cant expect that the contracted rate will stay the same.

Independent contractors are free to renegotiate their fees. It is the WICB that seem to be suggesting that the fees(wages?) are fixed(regardless of the duration of the task).

In reply to Chrissy

not to mention the educators!!

In reply to newdread

there's more?
check u pm

In reply to dcbreds

:lol:

In reply to FanAttick

By its very definition and by established practice - Independent Contractors determine their own hours of work.

Not always, varies by industry and type of work. I did acknowledge they they were employees, but stated that they were more like independent contrcators in the above stated respects.

It is unusual for independent contractors to be asked(or expected) to show up for work at 10am and work until 5pm(test match) -- not to mention Finlay's 11pm curfew to boot!

Again independent contractors are given more autonomy is terms of how they accomplish the work, and sometimes where they do it. Where they do the work though is dictated by the type of work. Nobody tells them on the field what shots to play etc. But I acknowledge for these purposes that they are employees.


My analogy was intended to say that if you warrant that a task will require 40 hours(expressly or impliedly) - and then it turns out that it requires 56 hours - you cant expect that the contracted rate will stay the same.

The key distiction here is they each player signs a new contract for each tour so that kind of turns your argument on its ear.

Independent contractors are free to renegotiate their fees. It is the WICB that seem to be suggesting that the fees(wages?) are fixed(regardless of the duration of the task).

WICB are wrong to suggest that they have some legal basis for stating fees are fixed for tours that fall outside the listed tours. There is no basis for this. There has to be a negotiation.

I'm saying this isn't rocket science and that both groups can negotiate this without the histrionics.

In reply to primedog

I've gotta catch a train. I will respond in a couple hours. :D

In reply to faada

"In reply to Chrissy

not to mention the educators!!"

Not a man (or woman) move!

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

Imagine... all this discussion to figure it out. Who is in charge here?!

Obviously the WICB has no teeth and don't know their ass from the head. No leadership. No accountability.

As for ICC official... tut.. tut. You and your organization have much to be blamed for you bloody thieves. Alienating West Indians in their own backyard. Shame on you.

In reply to FanAttick

Not only will it be fair, it will engender a better relationship.

While I understand that teh contracted players are getting paid by the sponsor(s), such a move would be a good faith move to create a more trusted relationship.

In reply to sabina

Well you know what I think about the state of primary and high school education.

In reply to Chrissy

So what do you think about the state of university education? :lol:

In reply to anandgb

I agree with you (have not said that in a while :D ). Sadly, KG is more a corporate man who is unable (due to age and experience) to understand the important role that the player representative has to play in the advancement of our game.

Too bad.

In reply to anandgb

"a good faith move to create a more trusted relationship."

Good faith? Trust?

You talking bout WICB here bro. Dem don't know the meaning of such words.

Why you think WIPA have to go to arbitration so often? Cause them want to?

good faith can go out the door. The WICB have a responsibility to develop WI cricket, so they shouldn't be doing ANY of the following with the additional revenue:
A) lining their pockets
B) "sharing" it with already well paid players unless it's part of a negotiated agreement
or
C) wasting it on hare-brained/ill-fated schemes like the useless Grenada academy.

In reply to faada

"good faith can go out the door."

Ever think that maybe this lack of trust in the WICB is one reason the players never seem fully focused?

A lot of people in the know are very much of this opinion.

That statement makes it clear that this England tour is "over and above"...i.e., not part of the FTP. However, since the WICBandits and the ECB agreed on the tour - over and above the FTP - and before the revision of the FTP in 2006 when it was not FTP, it has been included as an "additional" tour - not an FTP series.

When this tour was arranged it was not FTP and the Bandits knew that. That's why they told WIPA that it was not FTP in the initial discussions. The cannot now come to claim it is FTP retroactively.

I expect an arbitration ruling that it's not FTP.

If the fools had included WIPA in the discussions to decide upon this tour, this dispute would not be taking place now.

In reply to redbaron

Dat simple but they see their job as pulling a fast one on cricketers and fans. They've been getting away with it for decades. The game's up now.

Can anyone say if the recent ODI series in India was FTP? Cause it's listed on the "FTP" schedule as "additional".

The treatment of that tour as FTP (or not) should apply to this tour as well.

In reply to ends

didn't the players tour india "under protest", just so it would not be used as precedent?

I hate to burst the bubble of some, but the description of the overseas programme as a ' forward programme" and talk of the program "as of the current date" seem to indicate that the parties to the MOU contemplated that :

1.the overseas programme was the same as the FTP
2. that the FTP was subject to change.

If it was not subject to change, then they would not need to talk about the "current" version.
Those are reasonable arguments based on that language, and are the core of WICB arguments, I'm sure.
How would WIPA counter those arguments?
They would try to read"current" out of the provision, but I doubt the judge would go for that.

Can all the armchair arbitrators (including me!) just wait for the Simmons ruling? Please?

_r

In reply to carib

So you saying that the FTP could change any time the Bandits decide to add another tour....so essentially that would mean that NO TOURS would fall outside FTP, because all the Bandits would have to do is "add" it to "change" FTP?

That make sense to you? Wouldn't that mean that the FTP serves no purpose?

In reply to Admin

How bout a betting pool?

My money is on WIPA to go 5 and 0.

In reply to Chrissy

Remember Sis -- there is justice ... and there is justice
:lol: :lol:

Yuh don't need to be nuh lawyer to see that WICB not dealing wid di issue in good faith ... and trying to stiff dem boys!!

In reply to np
That was my point bro - all dem looking for is 'how to 'stiff players and fans'? Remember not one of them has invested a dollar in cricket.

In reply to Chrissy

Saw my post bout why so many supposed 'West Indies fans' on this MB are cheering for the WICb to stiff the players again and will be disappointed if WIPA win the arbitration?

I mean what explains this stange phenomenon? It's worthy of a UWI study IMHO.

In reply to sabina

Red 'yeye' :lol:

In reply to Chrissy

But why? These re West Indian fans aren't they? Why they grudging the players they spend so much time cheering on?

I mean why would those who hate cricketers and cricket spend so much time on a cricket MB?

In reply to Admin

What do you have against discussion?

I mean, you of all people, owner of the forum which we use to discuss it.

No wonder mudland in the state it's in :roll:

In reply to faada You had to get that mudland dig in huh?

In reply to anandgb

i spend more time there than u and ryan put together, I have every right :lol:

In reply to faada

The reality of this discussion got Ryan feeling a little antsy. He not too sure about his position now so he don't want to hear no more. :D

Boy Chrissy is one that really disappoint me with her gross inability to engage in a reasoned discussion.

All her little Chrissyisms so old now.

In reply to primedog

I still can't fathom how anybody but a newbie could be disappointed by chrissy, disappointment implies expectation. :roll:

I will like to tell the WIPA that the players he represent was working for a wall street firm they all will be fired for not doing their job he want the players to be paid like the Aussies and they cant even beat up on a bad team

What should happen is that they go back to the initial discussions which brought the tour about anyway. that was sometime in 2005.

In reply to faada

Funny that like WIPA I have been correct on the legal aspects of all these matters arbitration to date.

You and Primedog can play all the legalize games you like. I passed on studying law decades ago - I prefer justice. It's not like being a lawyer is some big deal - they're a dime a dozen in my own family.

I am not engaging anyone in a discussion when matters are tres simple.

In reply to Chrissy

legalese

In reply to faada

You biting teh hand that feeds you then?

Can one of our resident lawyers help me understand this clause which is part of the ICC member agreement (signed by all boards that make up the ICC)

If everything in the FTP document is included in the FTP, then what do they mean by this "outside the Future Tours Programme".

This is not an attempt at an opinion or drawing a line in the sand. It's a genuine question.

_r

In reply to Chrissy

I passed on running for the President of the USA a decade ago - i prefer to post on a message board.

FTP nostopfretting.member www.caribbeancricket.com

In reply to Admin

Please give the location of the entire document. Some of the terms in the snip that you provided would be defined, and the entire document would help to give the entire context.

I'll be glad to help out.

In reply to primedog

I don't have the entire document, unfortunately. Thanks anyway.

_r

In reply to Admin

At least give me the section that this is from... i.e. like part A) and B). If you give me A and B and detail for Section 4.1 that would be good enough.

Based on incomplete information, the piece that you posted above seems to address the situation where a country schedules a tour or a match which conflicts with the original minimum scheduling requirements and causes the party who was entitled to play a match to lose revenue because of the scheduling conflict.

Ryan - be clear what I and a few others are saying here. We are not saying that the players should pay for free or for a reduced fee for tours that aren't part of the minimum requirement to maintain test status - because let's be frank that's what the FTP is about - the 10 or so tours in 5/6 years is what's required to maintain your status.

If the players can negotiate a higher rate then God bless them all the same. My point is the whole spin as if the players are being advantaged, overworked, and not being compensated is just not the truth.

My opinion, from the little I know, is that if you look at the definition of the FTP only, then the WICb have a case that can be made. If, however, you look at the larger document it becomes clear that the FTP was being used to define the minimum matches mandated by the ICC based on the 5/6 year cycle.

If the arbitrator uses just the narrow definition, the WICB could conceivably win. If however, he attempts to understand the spirit of the agreement in addition to the terms actually used, then WIPA win. I believe the latter is much more probable.

I actually think the WICB expects to lose in arbitration. However, by delaying arbitration and by their other stalling tactics they have already accomplished their goal which was to delay the negotiation over tour payments until after the tour. In so doing they have removed WIPA's major weapon in negotiation which is to instruct their members not to sign the tour contracts (i.e. a strike). With them being unable to even threaten the use of that weapon they will end up with a less advantageous agreement than they would otherwise have been able to reach.

Regardless of the eventual outcome one matter is quite clear: The WICB had trampled all over the good faith behind the MOU.

In reply to Kurt

Exactly.

Now say it again with smaller words so Chrissy can understand it too.

Arawak

In reply to nevavex

whatever.

In reply to Arawak

Stop prevaricating and go make your call on the arbitration prediction thread.

In reply to Arawak

Huh?

In reply to Chrissy

Indeed. :roll:

Arawak

In reply to sabina

Why should I bother guessing what the arbitrator will decide? How the fact would I know whether he will choose to rule on the spirit or the letter of the agreement?

Arawak

In reply to primedog and Admin

Entire document here

The Future Tours Programme is an attached schedule to the agreement (and is referenced in the agreement too).

Here's the problems I have with this document:

All the members signed off on an initial FTP programme, yet it is updated with "additional tours", presumably by notification from concerned members. Now if this document was not a schedule to the agreement, fine. But it is actually attached to the formal agreement.

And if, as faada suggests, it's just to update a schedule for ease of reference, it's extremely sloppy to say the least.

Also, for it to form part of the FTP as an updated document, I imagine it would have to be ratified by the other members too?

Please note that there are several other "additional tours" listed...e.g. SA hosting India last year.

As things become clearer to I&I, (and I have been negligent in not reading some of the info pertaining to this issue) It is very obvious that there is much confusion regarding what comes under FTP and what is not. I think both the WICB and WIPA are big dunces as they each trying their best to destroy WI cricket.

FTP was designed to set up a future schedule for all the teams under the ICC banner. The schedule changes from time to time and as such the FTP has to be adjusted to reflect that. The FTP is guided by teams playing a home and away series among each other. Teams have to work out their own definite schedules and logistics to satisfy the FTP. Where changes are made to in a series it’s up to the teams involved to work out how to address these changes, which may include financial ramifications.

Now, apparently this tour to England was never on the FTP in 2005 when the MOU was drawn up between WIPA and the WICB. But it is now on the FTP because the ICC puts it there as a convenient listing of all future matches. It is usually listed as additional, meaning additional to the original schedule that covers the home and away series under the FTP. This is WIPA’s gripe and it has good reasons to want to class it as outside the FTP. WIPA wants more money for players to play these matches not on the original FTP.

Series covered under the original FTP involves no compensation from the host team to the visiting team. Host teams would just take care of expenses for hosting a series. Because it is a home and away arrangement it seems logical and fair (and I have a problem with this arrangement) as each team would just take turns in doing the same thing for each other.

The WICB tried to pull a fast one on WIPA by saying it’s on the FTP so there is no need to treat this series any differently. Not so fast!!! What happens to the payment the ECB is paying the WICB for this series. WIPA wants a cut out of that, in addition to the sponsor’s money they would be getting otherwise. Ok, that is fine and dandy. But this is where things get messy, I think. Why should the WICB pay additional money to players on retainer???

Well, this is where the WICB and WIPA are at fault. There should have been an agreement as to the range of number of hours of play (scheduled hours instead of actual hours) to which the team must commit to for a given cricket period. Say, the hours equivalent to 10-12 tests, 16- 20 ODIs and 10-15 20/20s are considered full requirement. Anything above that must be additional and require additional pay at an agreed upon % scale based on the amount the board intakes.

So, for example, if 200 hours of play are scheduled on the FTP and the standard amount of play is 250 to 275, the WICB can schedule 50 to 75 more hours without having to pay extra to the players. But once those 75 hours are exceeded then the board must compensate WIPA at a given % of the sum it gets.

I think WIPA is arguing that this England tour is additional. Is it??? Does the board get value for its money it’s paying to retain players??? What is the deal on this retainer agreement between players and the board??? Why would the board try to not give any of this extra money to the players??? Does the board feel the players got paid too much in recent times and want to stiff them any which way they can??? I suspect that the board is not happy with the amount of money it is paying out to players in light of the return it is getting. In other words, the board is not getting value for money from players. Just look at the recent showing of the WI team in World Cup 2007. That is the driving force behind all this. If the board was happy with returns there would be no need to resort to these tactics.

On the other hand, WIPA is just there to grab as much money it can. But there has to be some concern for that. Are the fans getting value for money??? Would the fans prefer to see much of these moneys that WIPA is craving for to give players go into development so that better players can be developed and a better WI cricket product be placed in front of fans to enjoy. What say the fans???

In reply to ends

I also just found the FTP Agreement. I will review it and provide my usual adroit legal analysis.

In reply to Rastaman

Do you mind if I reproduce that on a thread I started?

It seems there's two issues being discussed on this thread: the legal interpretation of FTP and how it relates to arbitration, as well as the "moral"(?) argument as to whether these additional tours are fair to the players.

in reply to Rasta

The 2 sides basically do have an agreement on the amount of cricket to be played each year. That agreement is predicated on the requirements of the ICC that each Test team must play every other Test team, home and away, once every 5 (now 6) years. The term FTP was supposed to capture that ICC requirement.

In reply to primedog

Thank you. I'm just curious as to why they would discuss fines and non-compliance for tours "outside the FTP" if such a thing doesn't exist? If this FTP is a "moving target" where everything is included, why are they discussing offending parties, etc?

_r

In reply to Rastaman

Rasta,

I'm with you on most of your analysis. I said to Admin and the others who are actually trying to reason through this that the FTP Agreement sets out the bare minimim for what teams are required to do.

But check it out Iya. You make a good point on the retainer contract. When you got a retainer that means you getting paid to be on call and ready to go. You generally aren't on call for specific engagements. Its something TBD.

Anyway, but to be clear, anyone going on one of these tours aren't going for free or playing for per diem. They get match fees, sponsors payments all the good stuff.

The WICB is arguing that the fees should be the scales they have in place for regular tours. That's where the issue is. WIPA is framing this as if the players wouldn't be getting paid for the tours or that they are doing extra work for the same pay, but they would be getting incrementally more per match so that's hogwash.

WICB and WIPA have an MOU in place which provides a scale for the fees etc for matches and tours in the FTP. WICB is really pushing the limits of what most lawyers would be willing to do with a straight face. They are saying that any match they schedule becomes a part of the FTP because ICC updates the schedule. Technically they could be right, but it is somewhat counter intuitive.

WIPA comes in one the other hand like a bull in a China closet - very bombastic for something that should be so easy for them to handle. Simply say why you think you deserve more money for this tour. Instead they talk about being treated like slaves and cane cutters.

Both organizations need to agree on a framework to handle such tours that WIPA feels fall outside the FTP. Agree on a pay scale ahead of time.

I made the point, that was avoided like the plague - which player would be willing to sit down in a 'im yard for 3 weeks instead of going to England and coming home with $25K U.S. after 3 weeks.

Only Ramnarine has anything to gain from this thing being drawn out.

In reply to Admin

Ryan - Non-compliance in the context of the FTP Agreement refers to one team not meeting the minimum requirements of hosting or appearing for tour matches. Nothing to do with matches scheduled above and beyond the minimum schedule outlined.

See definition below (from page 22.1):

“Non-Compliance” means, in respect of any Tour, failure by any party to fulfil such commitments
as it has to compete in such Tour fully in accordance with the Future Tour Programme and any
relevant Tour Format Agreement and “Non-Compliant” shall be construed accordingly.

Each team is required in hosting one of the mandatory tours to have at least 2 test matches and 3 odis.

In reply to primedog

The section I'm asking about pertains to tours "outside" the FTP.

_r

See the section where the "Future Tour Programme" is defined.

Arawak

In reply to Arawak

“Future Tours Programme” means the programme of Test Match and ODI Match tours to take
place between ICC full members during the period from May 2001 to April 2011 adopted by ICC at
its board meeting in Kuala Lumpur in October 2001, and as the same may be revised and updated from time to time as provided herein.

In reply to primedog

You're still not addressing my original question. If it may be revised and updated from time to time and every revision becomes part of the FTP, why is there a provision for non-compliance when something falls "outside the FTP"?

That's the one that's throwing me off.

_r

In reply to Admin

Sorry for the long quote but it is necessary to get the full context.

From the context below it can be determined that when they are referring to "outside of the FTP" they are referring to situations where a country has an obligation to play a tour against another country, but they blow off the country to play someone else or do something else. Say for example if West Indies were scheduled to play Bangladesh, but instead they blew them off to play Australia in some Stanford sponsored 20/20 or something.


7. Non-Compliance

7.1 The parties recognise that if an event of Non-Compliance by a party to this Agreement
occurs, the Compliant party in relation to the affected Tour will suffer loss and damage.
Whilst recognising that (having regard to the nature of such loss) it is impossible to
quantify such loss comprehensively in financial terms at the date of this Agreement, the
parties to this Agreement agree that subject to clause 9 (Acceptable Non-Compliance),
the provisions of this clause 7.1 constitute the best attempt by the parties to provide a
formula for calculation of the Compliant Party’s loss in the following circumstances:-
a. in respect of any Tour for which the Host is the Non-Compliant party and irrespective of
whether the whole Tour or only a portion thereof is affected, the Non-Compliant party
shall pay to the Visitor in respect of such Tour or portion of such tour the sum of US
$2,000,000 (two million US dollars) (“Visitor’s Loss”);
INTERNATIONAL CRICKET COUNCIL (ICC) 22.1
Operating Manual
Created by Clive Hitchcock Last Updated 07/03/2007

b. in respect of any Tour for which the Visitor is the Non-Compliant party, the Non-
Compliant party shall pay to the Host for such Tour, an amount equal to the Host’s
Budgeted Net-Profit for such Tour or, where only a portion of such Tour is affected, the
proportion of such Budgeted Net Profit as relates (pro-rata) to the affected portion of
the Tour and subject in either case to a minimum amount payable of US$2,000,000
(two million dollars) (“Host’s Loss”); and

c. in respect of any Tour which is affected by Non-Compliance as referred to in clause b
above, the Non-Compliant party and the party or parties with whom it arranges or
competes in the Test, ODI Match or tour which is outside the Future Tours Programme
(leading to Non-Compliance in respect of the Tour concerned) (‘the Offending Party’)
shall each pay to the Compliant party, in respect of the affected Tour, the amounts set
out in (a) or (b) above (dependent upon whether the Non-Compliant party is Host or
Visitor in respect of that Tour).

In reply to primedog

Gotcha. Thanks for the opinion. Of course, I'm still confused but that's more likely my fault (not yours!).

EDIT: Got it, got it. Thanks.

_r

In reply to Admin

Um... for the stuff that falls outside of the FTP?

Even Chrissy couldn't be confused by this.

Could she?

You a UWI grad, Ryan?

Arawak

In reply to Admin

I think your intuition leads to as good a legal conclusion as can be drawn from the bits and pieces that we have.

Although WICB can make a very sketchy argument for this tour being within the FTP, because the Agreement suggests that anything that does not directly conflict with performance under the FTP becomes a part of the FTP, that does not to me absolve them from their responsibility to negotiate fees for the players.

The MOU between WIPA and WICB attempts to address fees and tour contracts but by tieing their MOU to the FTP or referencing the FTP it causes a lot of confusion.

My suggestion to clarify this whole situation is a three tiered system of compensation:

(1) A retainer contract for a base group of say 24 players. Retainer runs from Jan 1 - December 31 and the prior year agreement for retainer is negotiated and finalized by 9/30 of the prior year. WIPA negotiates the overall retainer structure with WICB, and players along with their individual agents negotiate the terms of the individual agreements. Retainers range from $25K to $50K annually based on experience, and performance measures fromt he prior year.

(2)Fixed fee per match for selected player, plus individual incentive payments for performance. e.g. $1K for each 1-day with economy rate under 2.5. $5K for each test match with more than 6 wickets.

(3) If a player not under retainer gets selected for a tour he receives the prorated retainer for the rest of that year.

In reply to ends
Not withstanding the problems you mentioned with said document, it serves the purpose for which it was intended. The scope of this document was simply a schedule of all the cricket being played under the ICC programme so that umpires can be scheduled etc. For that it served its purpose. The problem now arises when the document is used beyound its scope. This document was never intended to be used as a term of reference between a players union and a Cricket Board.

Based on the document that primedog reviewed, we can now argue the merits of who tried to pull a fast one on who. If the WICB knew fully well that any tours agreed to will be part of the FTP programme and as such, negotiated an agreement with its union for tours outside of said FTP, knowing fully well that technically such tours does not exist over the long term. What has WIPA really negotiated?

In this case WIPA's only hope is whether the judge rules on the letter of the law or on the spirit of the law, cuz bith sides were negligent in carrying out due diligence.

But on the other hand, not even the WICB smart enough to be this shrewed.

This thread is a great example of what can be accomplished on this message board when there's no way LPA/LBL can get involved.

Thanks all for a great open discussion. Even Faada.

_r

Tony Deyal also released this document (which I'm reposting here to maybe add some clarity to the discussion). It's notes from a teleconference held with former WICB CEO Roger Brathwaite, the man who did most of the negotiations on the MOU, FTP, etc.



Overseas Program of Matches ( extract from MOU between WICB and WIPA)

Notes from Teleconference held on 9 January 2007

Present: D Murray, D Ramnarine, R Brathwaite

Article VI – Scheduling

Overseas Programme of Matches

(a) The WIPA acknowledges that the ICC has determined a forward program of international cricket, which contemplates the WICB sending the West Indies Cricket Team overseas to play in certain matches and series. A copy of the Overseas Program as at the date of this MOU is set out in Schedule D.

RB Comment: The programme of Intl cricket is made up of four components:

1) ICC events – CWC, Champions Trophy etc

2) FTP requirements between member countries ( min 2 tests and 3 ODI’s)

3) Additional matches as agreed to by member countries based on gaps in the FTP schedule

4) Development matches against Associate countries



In agreeing the forward programme the ICC, FICA and the Member countries have agreed to be guided by an annual playing calendar of a maximum of 15 test matches and 20-25 ODI’s. This annual limit needs to be viewed over the entire period of the FTP to allow for scheduling variations from year to year.

The WICB should consult in good faith with WIPA during the term and prior to finalising arrangements for the international programme. These discussions should address any additional matches which are going to be played as part of the International programme and player compensation, if any, for these additional matches over and above previously agreed match fees.

(b) The parties acknowledge and agree that the ICC and/or ICC member countries are entitled to vary the Overseas Program during the Term in accordance with their respective powers. The WICB agrees to consult with the WIPA in relation to any proposed variations to the Overseas Program.

RB Comment: Consultation between the WICB and WIPA must be conducted in good faith and needs to occur prior to agreement being reached with the respective Member Country and the WICB on any variation to the Overseas programme


(c) The WIPA acknowledges that WICB is required to comply with the overseas program (as amended from time to time) by selecting and sending teams to participate in the relevant matches/series.

RB Comment: Self explanatory


(d) The WICB will not agree to increase the number of matches scheduled to be played under the overseas program during the Term without reaching prior agreement with the WIPA.

RB Comment: An example of this would be the matches played in the DLF Cup which did not form part of the International programme.



Additional Comments from RB:

1. Was WIPA consulted and agreement reached on the International programme to be played during the term?

2. Tthe baseline workload for the players is 15 tests and 20-25 ODI’s. It must be remembered that with the CWC being held in the West Indies in 2007, the hosting of the annual Digicel Home Series comprising of 7 tests and 8 ODI’s will not occur.

Consultation with WIPA should be had on the reduced workload during the period Oct 1st 2006- 31st September 2007 and the WICB plan to address the shortfall ( i.e an additional 4 ODI’s in India; 4 tests,3 ODI’s and 2*20/20’s in England). The player workload for the period will therefore be made up of a total of 7 tests ( 3*Pak, 4 *England) and 12 ODI’s ( 5*Pak, 4*India, 3*Eng ) and 2* 20/20’s ( Eng) . It should be noted that this player workload falls well within the established guidelines.

3. Without the scheduling of the additional matches the player workload for the period would consist solely of the series against Pakistan i.e 3 Tests and 5 ODI’s. This is unacceptable given that a number of players are now on annual retainers. The WICB needs to consider if it thinks it appropriate to pay sponsorship fees for these additional matches, when in effect the playing of these addditional matches only brings the player workload back in line with the established guidelines.

Signed:

R Brathwaite
9th January 2007

In reply to carl0002

Right on!!!!!! Still, they have to use it as a guide to develop an agreement as to the structure of the players committment to the WICB and in regards to a retainer.

The other thing is, WIPA must start to look beyond just the immediate players. To have a sustainable strong position from which it can defend and fight for the general concerns of the players, it must have strong players that are delivering the goods for the fans. When the players become weak and their performance is not up to par, then it's hard for WIPA to come and ask for more money. The players would appear greedy and hence WIPA's positioned would be weakened. It is of utmost importance that WIPA bats for more money to be placed in development. WIth strong players WIPA becomes strong, WI cricket gets better, the board gts better as it can ask for more money and the fans get what they paying for.

In reply to Admin Thanks for posting that, Admin. Very instructive indeed. Well, it seems the board has a reasonable expectation as it relates to what it gets from players. But all they need to do is sit down and work thru these things. it cannot be that hard!!!!!!!

In reply to Kurt

I agree here!!
But I hoping that the west indian peoples, and WICB lovers pay keen attention to that ... the propensity of WICB to go against "good faith".

AS well the players know it because of the history of it happening, hence WIPA has to be a lil more vigilant in "calling them out" early and often and seek backing from cricket loving West Indians and not WICB-lickers!!

In reply to Rastaman
But this is what we have been saying. WIPA has a habit of drawing percentages from other players agreement anywhere in the world. Thats fine. However when you look at the percentages you notice it represents all the players that play first class cricket. Not just Test cricket and ODI's. So when WIPA say it want 25% of revenues, thats fine, but that 25 percent should be for all 1st class players.

There is no way we should have in the Caribbean test cricketers earning millions while the 1st class players earn zilch. Especially when the Test and ODI players are only marginally better and in some case worse than the 1st class compatriots. The gap in their abilty is narrow, whie the gap in their earnings is lightyears. Why should they continue to overpay mediocrity. Some getting fat while others starving.

The other 1st class players too busy trying to get on the gravy train rather than demand what they should from the players union. The players union negotiate on their behalf, and only give the booty to 16 or 17 players.

In reply to Rastaman

Correct. I suspect this bit of advice from Brathwaite led to WIPA foregoing sponsorship fees and playing the DLF Cup under protest:

I'm in agreement with the WICB that the workload (especially for players taking an annual retainer salary) has to be brought up to the minimum every year.

This could/might weigh heavily in the WICB's favour in the arbitration proceedings where the panel may want to give some/take some.

I believe this is what we'll see: A ruling that the tour falls outside the FTP but a proposal that the retained players get a very small cut of the $1.2 million while hte non-retained get a bigger cut.

_ryan

In reply to carl0002 To add to what you are saying, look at it his way: If there are no FC players then there are no test and ODI teams. The FC system helps to make the test and ODI players and those players who do not make it to the next level are very important to the system. FC players should be looked after better than they have been in the past. This is where WIPA must step up IMHO.

This may sound naive, but why don't the WICB just offer a "good faith" solution? Why not guarantee treatment of the initially scheduled July 2010 tour to England as a tour outside the FTP, should it actually go ahead?

It seems a simple enough case to make that settlement of their FTP obligations is their first priority so that matches scheduled AFTER meeting the two-tour minimum in the five year cycles be considered "additional".

Regarding the remuneration, tour expenses, does the FTP agreement preclude members from paying more than the amounts stipulated in the agreement? Schedule 2(g) mentions payment of tour guarantee.

In reply to Admin
So Ryan what you are saying here or what the document is saying is that because of the WC the basline amount or minimum amount of test and ODI's have not been met so this series will top up the numebr of games to bring it up to the minimum. So the so called "Outside the FTP" would not be relevant cause they have not met the baseline requirements. How do you know that this arguement is even presented to the judge.

In reply to carl0002

I feel bad knocking WIPA sometimes, but their whole premise is so disingenuous that it ticks me off.

That's why the first question I ask is who does WIPA represent? WIPA can't possibly represent test players because that changes from series to series. So it makes sense to me that they represent the first class players in the region.

How many of these players are invited to the player's retreat?

In reply to carl0002

Good point Carl ....

And so for all future MOUs and agreements ... both WICB and WIPA negotiating teams must take the memories of this "piss-poor planning" into consideration in order to DO BETTER for our cricket.

One would think that the legals, and the chief discussants would have covered ALL the angles .... RASS bwaaayyy -- is ti too much to expect!!

In reply to primedog

There's only one constant in WIPA....well two if you count turmoil.

I will be like John the Baptist to rass until they put a common sense system like this in place or at least until WIPA fight for it.

My suggestion to clarify this whole situation is a three tiered system of compensation:

(1) A retainer contract for a base group of say 24 players. Retainer runs from Jan 1 - December 31 and the prior year agreement for retainer is negotiated and finalized by 9/30 of the prior year. WIPA negotiates the overall retainer structure with WICB, and players along with their individual agents negotiate the terms of the individual agreements. Retainers range from $25K to $50K annually based on experience, and performance measures fromt he prior year.

(2)Fixed fee per match for selected player, plus individual incentive payments for performance. e.g. $1K for each 1-day with economy rate under 2.5. $5K for each test match with more than 6 wickets.

(3) If a player not under retainer gets selected for a tour he receives the prorated retainer for the rest of that year.

In reply to Admin

Ryan .. in the light of how things are, and performance matters in the past ... that could be a workable solution to this impasse ...

Rastaman

Yes indeed to the last comment ... al players need to be addressed not just the ones who make the TEST/ODI teams while negotiations are taking place .. since they are essentially the next step down/up ... and crucial to our products continuance.

In reply to np

Welcome aboard. Boy I do declare when my mother told me that common sense always prevailed I didn't believe her. Now yu, Admin and a host of others walking into the light.

Did WIPA offer to make up the minimum number of matches played for the year before it comes asking for more money for "additional" matches that fall outside the FTP??? Ramnarine want too rass thump in his nose!!!!!! :lol:

In reply to Arawak

So what is your prediction? Arbitrator rules for WIPA or WICB?

In reply to primedog
I have said in the past that the actions of WIPA is more like a player agent than a union. WIPA represents all 1st class cricketers across the region. Yet still at the annual meeting the president was selected by a handfull of players that play tests and ODI's. Dinas took the players into a likkle back roon, then walked out the president.

To be fair, the WICB president selection not election not much better.

In reply to Rastaman But is there any "agrred upon" number of matches that were not played??
That is the question ...

You cannot blame WIPA for its attempts at seeking justice .. my view it must spread NOT only to the TEST/ODI players that are already under retainers ...but to all players.

Okay, seems there's consensus among all that the remuneration of players extend to beyond the selected ones only....this may get resistance cause it would mean the shortsighted view of the existing players of not wanting to slice the pie thinner.

(ironic that they'd use the same shortsighted argument to hate on "scabs")

Anyway, building on Prime's suggestion:

- Max 30 players must be selected each year for retainer contracts.
- This 30 should be selected at the end of the Regional season.
- All eligible players must play in the regional, thus the regional schedule must not run conflicting to any tour commitments.
- Benchmark selection criteria are devised and used for team selection, with adjustments made for players with test experience (just so we don't discard good test players who may have had an off tournament)
- Players who make the squad two years in a row are eligible to sign a senior player contract with a higher remuneration, comensurate with duties which involve mentoring younger players, e.g. minimum number of hours spent attending youth camps, assisting coaches and so forth.
- Establishment of a separate provident fund to be be distributed at end of contract year. Fund to be topped up with performance bonuses correlated to team wins.

In reply to carl0002

But yes spot on!

It is funny how LBLs like Zik and Chrissy will rail against religion, and fight down anyone who points out that WIPA operates like a cult.

We all acknowledge that WICB is Fcuked, but to be truthful they are more transparent than WIPA. WICB might be pissing the money that comes in down the drain, in old ideas and business models that don't work.

What does WIPA do?

WICB are supposed to represent the territorial boards and and facilitate the operations matches etc. At the very least they are accountable to the territories. WICB is quite loose and move like an ungreased engine.

If this were TV WICB would be the Stooges (Larry, Curly and Moe) - incompetent and funny because if you don't laugh you cry. WIPA would be the Sopranos. Ruthless, a lot of feigned loyalty, but in the end on the Sopranos anybody is dispensible.

Who is WIPA accountable to?
How is dissent among members handled within WIPA? Oh yeah there is no dissent, because players who disagree are cut off. Don't communicate with them.

In reply to np no, but the number of matches that they normally play is well below the Standard number. So, Sponsors and the WICB do not get equitable value for sponsorship money and retainer, respectively.

In reply to carl0002

Thee is indeed mucht to do in terms of WIPA becoming a totality of reprsentation for all players ... I would love t osee that eventuality ... BUT please don't cry down the elements of progress that opur players have gained/benefited from as a result of a 'militiant' WIPA.

If it were not for some of the stances/positions taken .. our players would be still broke, very underpaid, and I think we would be worse off as a cricketing region!!

In reply to np

I do not cry down the elements of progress that the players have gained. I resent the fact that their gains are not commensurate with the progress of their outputs.

In reply to sabina

As I said before, I have no idea what the arbitrator will decide.

Arawak

In reply to ends

I can understand that!! However .. let us not try to change it, or devalue it ... let's encourage them to earn what they make .. .by our support of all players and encourage their union with our very suggestions here, and more ... so that the PROGRESS will be even greater in 3, 5, 10 years.

REMEMBER WIPA is how old really ... AND is just now our cricketers seeing a lil more of what they HAVE EARNED for WI cricket ... it is a sad reflection of where we are as a people, how we see worker/management relations ... and see the relevant strengths of who doing the real producing, but yet another group gets pompous and fat off it!!
That not right ... the pie no matter how small can be better divided!!