Australian Off Season 2017

[quincywagstaff]

The total indifference Australia have treated Bangladesh since their inception is deplorable and seems to be getting worse if anything. There’s been open admissions in the media here that the Bangladesh tour is basically disposable but the India ODI tour is more significant in this dispute.

Even Zimbabwe have played Tests in Australia more recently than Bangladesh have. When Australia and Bangladesh last played a Test Mitchell Johnson hadn’t even made his Test debut.

 

[quincywagstaff]

As for the dispute itself, as obnoxious as Cricket Australia have been in their anti-union crusade I’m finding the ACA’s tactics increasingly irritating and tedious.

This week they’re making a big thing of James Sutherland being overseas and unavailable to negotiate until today. Spare me. This dispute has been going on for months and months and their members are going to be unemployed in less than 48 hours and they’re grandstanding about nonsense like this.

Have the ACA ever come up with any viable proposals without the revenue sharing arrangement? Perhaps by negotiating better pay and conditions for those who play Sheffield Shield/domestic one-dayers (who seem to be cast aside in the initial proposal) in exchange for reduced pay for the top players? As I recall that was a key compromise in the last major dispute in the late 1990s.

I just get the sense what really seems to irk the players is that CA doesn’t consider them as ‘partners’ in growing the game and instead wants to treat them as employees, which is what in fact they are. And this will be borne out at midnight Friday when they’ll be unemployed unless a miracle occurs.

I reckon this could’ve easily been solvable but there’s been a lot of egotism from both sides (mainly CA) that has turned this into the likely disaster it will be.

 

[Starfighter]

Even Zimbabwe have played Tests in Australia more recently than Bangladesh have.

July vs October 2003 is not that significant a difference.

 

[morgieb]

July vs October 2003 is not that significant a difference.

It still is kinda pathetic for a side to go 14 years without hosting a team that's been playing Tests consistently in the interim.

Apparently we're supposed to host them next year. Whether it actually happens though is another question altogether.....

 

[howardj]

Hopefully they reach agreement soon. It's admirable that Warner etc. are going into bat (pun intended) for the domestic players. However, as I understand it, the average domestic player in the offer put forward will earn $240 000.

How much is enough? $240 000 when the Shield, Matador and Big Bash make a collective loss....is sufficient in my opinion.

Importantly, it's enough to make cricket a viable career choice for a multi-talented Australian teenager.

Even if they don't play for Australia, they pocket $240 000 per year...but if they do, then the remuneration far out strips what a football player of any code in this country will earn.

 

[Starfighter]

Not sure about that. From all the news articles I've read $240k odd is how much domestic players supposedly earn on average. AFAIK this also seems to be a fantasy number and the real number is more like $100-120k. I haven't seen any suggestion as to how much domestic players would stand to earn under CA's proposed scheme.

 

[social]

As for the dispute itself, as obnoxious as Cricket Australia have been in their anti-union crusade I’m finding the ACA’s tactics increasingly irritating and tedious.

This week they’re making a big thing of James Sutherland being overseas and unavailable to negotiate until today. Spare me. This dispute has been going on for months and months and their members are going to be unemployed in less than 48 hours and they’re grandstanding about nonsense like this.

Have the ACA ever come up with any viable proposals without the revenue sharing arrangement? Perhaps by negotiating better pay and conditions for those who play Sheffield Shield/domestic one-dayers (who seem to be cast aside in the initial proposal) in exchange for reduced pay for the top players? As I recall that was a key compromise in the last major dispute in the late 1990s.

I just get the sense what really seems to irk the players is that CA doesn’t consider them as ‘partners’ in growing the game and instead wants to treat them as employees, which is what in fact they are. And this will be borne out at midnight Friday when they’ll be unemployed unless a miracle occurs.

I reckon this could’ve easily been solvable but there’s been a lot of egotism from both sides (mainly CA) that has turned this into the likely disaster it will be.

Unfortunately for CA, the "bosses" can be replaced in a week whilst the "employees" would take half a generation or more and the game would go into a financial tail-spin if we started fielding 6th XIs in test matches

 

[Starfighter]

Yes, while the players are technically employees they are in a significantly more powerful position with respect to the administrators than your ordinary worker. Another WSC situation (or worse) is quite possible, and like then the board would have to cave. I don't think that CA realises that they are nothing without the players agreeing to be under their auspices.

 

[quincywagstaff]

I think the scary thing is that CA seem to realise how destructive sticking to their guns on this is but they are determined to do it for ‘the greater good’ even if it damages Oz cricket in the short term.

 

[Starfighter]

I think the scary thing is that CA seem to realise how destructive sticking to their guns on this is but they are determined to do it for ‘the greater good’ even if it damages Oz cricket in the short term.

It'll damage it in the long term too, especially with the rise of T20 leagues and so on. I don't see how it's for the greater good either, more like feathering their nests.

 

[social]

Yes, while the players are technically employees they are in a significantly more powerful position with respect to the administrators than your ordinary worker. Another WSC situation (or worse) is quite possible, and like then the board would have to cave. I don't think that CA realises that they are nothing without the players agreeing to be under their auspices.

The world is a very different place to what it was in the 70s as very few players "made a living" out of the game back then so it wasnt hard to attract players to the WSC by offering them a reasonable amount of money

Nowadays, cricketing millionaires are commonplace so it wouldnt be anywhere near as easy (or cheap) to attract the marquee players

 

[Starfighter]

The world is a very different place to what it was in the 70s as very few players "made a living" out of the game back then so it wasnt hard to attract players to the WSC by offering them a reasonable amount of money

Nowadays, cricketing millionaires are commonplace so it wouldnt be anywhere near as easy (or cheap) to attract the marquee players

The elephant in the room there is T20 money, the benefits of which would probably flow even more disproportionately to marquee players than ordinary Sheffield Shield type players.

CA's proposed pay scheme leads to domestic players getting screwed, striking leads to domestic players being screwed, marquee players can win either way.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not sure about that. From all the news articles I've read $240k odd is how much domestic players supposedly earn on average. AFAIK this also seems to be a fantasy number and the real number is more like $100-120k. I haven't seen any suggestion as to how much domestic players would stand to earn under CA's proposed scheme.

Am I being harsh in thinking that $100-120K is actually pretty fair, even generous, for your average domestic cricketer?

 

[Spark]

Am I being harsh in thinking that $100-120K is actually pretty fair, even generous, for your average domestic cricketer?

Given that they are generally taking out the most productive time of their lives to pursue a career that will probably be over by the time most people aren't even 1/3rd of the way through theirs, yes.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Given that they are generally taking out the most productive time of their lives to pursue a career that will probably be over by the time most people aren't even 1/3rd of the way through theirs, yes.

No one's stopping them from getting another job afterwards. It's not like you can't play First-class cricket and cultivate a skill at the same time.

Besides there are plenty of people in Australia who work pretty hard and solid hours for $50-60k a year

 

[Dan]

Yeah, but when you're 38 and rocking up for an entry level position against 22-year-olds...and you've got 16 less years to climb up the pay grades...

 

[Red]

Spare me. Cricket doesn't owe these guys a lifelong commitment to ensure they have financial stability.

100-120 grand per year a year is plenty for a domestic player.

Opportunities abound for these guys anyway, all the businesses want an ex-cricketer. They wont be starting in entry level at 38 as an ex-cricketer. They'll have business connections if they're smart. Jesus, do a trade or something if they're not academically inclined.

 

[GotSpin]

Good idea guys. Just watch all the junior talent continue to flow to AFL

 

[Shady Slim]

is cricket to afl talent flow really a huge issue due to just pay though?

think auskick has comprehensively beaten milo have a go for schools

 

[GotSpin]

That's grassroots though. Im referring to the issue of high junior levels where talent has to make a decision between the two