Australian Off Season 2017

[social]

Honestly, why is it grim? I'm all for gender equality, totally. But surely you need to be able to generate some revenue before you start wanting to draw a wage? If people are watching women's cricket, either thru the turnstiles or on TV and money is being generated thru advertising, then by all means women cricketer's can negotiate better pay.

I'm no economist but it's not complicated. You should generate revenue before you start asking for pay rises. WSC and the whole Packer thing happened because the players realised how big cricket had become because of them, how much money it was making, and how little they were getting.

If no one was turning up to men's cricket or watching it on TV, would we expect the men to be able to draw a wage?



What comments specifically? Don't try and paint me as something I'm not.

Very short-sighted

If people want women to play the game then it has to be a viable option or else the vast majority of elite athletes will turn to other sports

 

[Starfighter]

Put yourself in the players' position for a moment

Their share has been calculated in the same way for 20 years and there has rarely been a murmur of discontent from either side

All of a sudden, CA claims that the model is unsustainable and when asked to prove it, they refuse

To put it into figures, there are apparently roughly 300 pros in the country (seems a lot but that's what is being said)

The ACA estimates that CA's offer will see the players forego roughly $90 million over the next 5 years (and that's based on the latter's gross revenue estimates which are treated with some skepticism)

That's $300k per player or 60k p.a.

If someone wanted me to take a 60k p.a. haircut, I'd want a better response than "just because"

Add to this the fact that Sutherland has almost completely absented himself from any negotiations, and that CA has tried to bypass the ACA and wedge the players apart on multiple occasions.

CA haven't been able to give any firm indications as to what they'll do with the money they'll 'save' under the new scheme. To me it smacks of featherbedding.

In any case I din't think CA's attempts to force players to play or to punish players who aren't in contract and don't have an MoU would stand up to any legal scrutiny.

If the ACA do accept a deal close to the current offer I think it should be under the condition that both Sutherland and Peever depart immediately, without payout.

 

[Red]

Very short-sighted

If people want women to play the game then it has to be a viable option or else the vast majority of elite athletes will turn to other sports

In what way is it short-sighted to say that a player should be able to show that they earn their revenue before expecting to be paid?

If any sport can't generate revenue, then the players can't/shouldn't be paid. That's pretty obvious innit? Yet I'm being told I'm being short sighted and narrow minded!

If women's cricketer can't generate revenue, and the women's cricketers are in fact elite athletes, and they turn to other sports to get paid, good luck to them.

If women's cricket can generate good income, then the players should be paid everything they deserve, once again good luck to them.

If they're not generating money, why do they deserve a share of the money that's being generated by others?

 

[vic_orthdox]

If you are creating a new company, then you'd never employ anyone until the company turned a profit.

Which is tough to do without employees.

You need to invest to create.

 

[quincywagstaff]

The discussion on ABC's 'Offsiders' today was pretty interesting and worth listening to.

A good point was made that for all the talk from CA about this being all about 'grassroots' cricket, that the corportisation of CA in the past 5 years has been about marginalising club cricket; whereas previously a person could rise in admin from club to state to national level, now it's all about independent directors and the likes of David Peever coming in and becoming kingmaker.

As well a good point was made about the players maybe falling into the trap on social media of having the likes of David Warner & Glenn Maxwell being the social media face of being unemployed when they've earnt millions and could still do through IPL careers. It really should be focussed on the domestic cricketers who earn far less and the female cricketers who gave up other careers to become full-time pros and are now unemployed.

 

[Starfighter]

Breaking News on ABC: 'ACA gives CA until later in week to revise pay offer before it takes further action'

Later in week? Wednesday? Friday? Can't wait till the article actually appears.

 

[Starfighter]

A good point was made that for all the talk from CA about this being all about 'grassroots' cricket, that the corportisation of CA in the past 5 years has been about marginalising club cricket; whereas previously a person could rise in admin from club to state to national level, now it's all about independent directors and the likes of David Peever coming in and becoming kingmaker.

Yeah, not only does this alienate the clubs from CA, it also encourages the likes of Peever who think in a big corporate context without realising that cricket doesn't work that way, and who have no idea of what clubs actually need. Unfortunately this isn't something that it likely to be reversed.

 

[Spikey]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDsOfohUAAEmt3_.jpg

mad dog dressed disappointingly sensibly

 

[quincywagstaff]

Yeah, not only does this alienate the clubs from CA, it also encourages the likes of Peever who think in a big corporate context without realising that cricket doesn't work that way, and who have no idea of what clubs actually need. Unfortunately this isn't something that it likely to be reversed.

I was suspicious when the push for overhaul of Australian cricket admin was being made in 2011; quite covenient to suddenly hear cricket admin was outdated after a home Ashes defeat when it didn't seem to be much of an issue when Oz were dominating cricket in the 2000s.

As I recall the corportisation of Australian cricket admin was met with universal approval which brings to mind the old saying: be careful what you wish for.

 

[Spikey]

updating the board was absolutely right. Filling all the spots with business executives wasnt

 

[social]

The discussion on ABC's 'Offsiders' today was pretty interesting and worth listening to.

A good point was made that for all the talk from CA about this being all about 'grassroots' cricket, that the corportisation of CA in the past 5 years has been about marginalising club cricket; whereas previously a person could rise in admin from club to state to national level, now it's all about independent directors and the likes of David Peever coming in and becoming kingmaker.

As well a good point was made about the players maybe falling into the trap on social media of having the likes of David Warner & Glenn Maxwell being the social media face of being unemployed when they've earnt millions and could still do through IPL careers. It really should be focussed on the domestic cricketers who earn far less and the female cricketers who gave up other careers to become full-time pros and are now unemployed.

I always shake my head when they talk about grassroots cricket as I have never been involved with any club that has received a cent from any association, CA or state

Can only think that they are referring to pathways

 

[social]

updating the board was absolutely right. Filling all the spots with business executives wasnt

Well it is a big "business" so commercial experience should be a prerequisite for most but it only does any good if it is good fit from a cultural perspective

This pay debacle and the exploding job numbers at HQ indicate that they havent got it right in this case

 

[Starfighter]

Well it is a big "business" so commercial experience should be a prerequisite for most but it only does any good if it is good fit from a cultural perspective

And it clearly isn't a good cultural fit in this case.

This pay debacle and the exploding job numbers at HQ indicate that they havent got it right in this case

It's the nature of administration. Bureaucrats generate jobs for other bureaucrats. The claimed 'profit sharing', which is capped in any case, will never happen because the money will go the generating more unneeded resource consuming admin jobs, forming a positive feedback loop, so there'll never be any profits to share.

The players being paid from a percentage of revenue forces CA to keep at least some modicum of efficiency and size limits (although at the detriment of the in any case small amount of help for the grassroots). Moving to fixed salaries removes this limitation.

 

[Red]

If you are creating a new company, then you'd never employ anyone until the company turned a profit.

Which is tough to do without employees.

You need to invest to create.

Let's be honest though, they're not really "creating a new company". Cricket is an established brand. Cricket is like classic Coca-Cola. Women's cricket could be like New Coke, or like Diet Coke.

If people like it, they'll buy it. If people don't buy it, it wont generate profit and the employees will be sacked and the product discontinued.

And they've been given every chance to succeed....

 

[Spikey]

Well it is a big "business" so commercial experience should be a prerequisite for most but it only does any good if it is good fit from a cultural perspective

This pay debacle and the exploding job numbers at HQ indicate that they havent got it right in this case

Surely Cricket Australia, like all governing bodies, claim to be a not for profit?

 

[Spikey]

liking this article. Cricket Australia is running a game it no longer controls - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The most serious questions to be answered now are not to be asked of the players, but instead need to be directed to the governing body in which the players have lost trust.

Why has the CEO of Cricket Australia, James Sutherland, refused to sit at the negotiating table with the ACA despite numerous requests?
Why has the man charged by the Cricket Australia board to negotiate a new CBA with the players failed so spectacularly?
Was that man, Kevin Roberts, given any assurances that by stepping down from the board and taking on the negotiators role as the executive general manager he would then be appointed as the next CEO?
What is the current state of the relationship between board chairman, David Peever, and his CEO, James Sutherland, and chief negotiator, Mr Roberts?
Why, as chair of a not-for-profit organisation, is David Peever so adamant that the players not be regarded as partners with CA in a revenue-share structure but instead become salaried employees?

Industrial relations lawyer, Braham Dabscheck, from Melbourne Law School, told ABC News' The Ticket, Cricket Australia's shift in position was a power play.

"It's a union busting exercise," Mr Dabscheck said.

That one has been slept on. It's pretty dodgy that Roberts joined the board, and then just before he had to give up his seat, resigned to join the executive.

On the Bangladesh series, that tour was never happening we all know that. No tests in 11 years, the only ODer in the last 6 happened at an ICC tournament that CA couldn't cancel. It'll just be a useful PR thing for CA when they have to "regrettably inform" us that the tour can not take place.

 

[Shady Slim]

women's cricket is in the category to many of women's sports that simply can't do what a lot of people love about the men's sports

the demographic of people who watch t20 for 100m sixes literally get nothing they want out of it for example

women's tennis is so widely loved bc the demographic of people who watch tennis for BIG SERVES is smaller when compared to the demographic who watch it for the general game, powerful serves only a small part of that

the issue is that the cricket following portion of people who want HUGE MAXIMUMS or HEADSEEKING BOUNCERS AT 150K can't get that as easily in women's cricket where, unfortunately (because they are incredibly skilled athletes), boundaries do not go as far (generally) and half the express pace bowlers are slower than dwayne bravo

it's such a shame bc like i said they are top athletes but it's an inherent flaw in a lot of womens' "power sports" in that the large portion of fans who watch it for the RAW POWER aren't satisfied

 

[Starfighter]

Decent article (may be paywalled) by Gideon Haigh in The Australian, which actually mentions that the 200k figure for earnings is a gross overstatement.

The suspicion lurks that CA’s board is drawn on by the vision splendid of a sleek, shiny, top-down controlled, matrix-managed corporate machine in which obedient automata meet hurdle rates of cricket return while a *captive media yells rah-rah. Kevin Roberts apparently refers to cricketers as CA’s “internal customers”

 

[quincywagstaff]

That Haigh article did have some good points in it.

Got to say that the players can't complain how they've been treated by the media overall. When you think of The Australian and how pro-business it usually is yet the likes of Haigh & Lalor are highly symprathetic towards the players in this dispute. Even as someone as conservative as Alan Jones is totally behind the players.

And then there's the likes of Cricinfo's Dan Brettig who are clearly on the players side (and written some good articles about it over several months) as well as shows like Offsiders which have largely been player-sympathetic.

I really wonder whether someone like David Peever was prepared for this and how the support for his anti-union activities from the usual conservative outlets isn't even sympathetic to him on this topic. I really reckon that he and the admin thought the media would be far tougher on the player side than they have been, just on each of the many miscalculations they've made in this saga.

 

[Spikey]

I think it was Lalor who said just that, almost every cricket journalist who knows the details are siding towards the players.

It's not like CA was highly thought of by the australian public in the first place