Australian Off Season 2017

[Tangles]

Yes, this is one thing that's being missed. They're basically trying to retroactively retract the old deal as well.

You mean they haven't fulfilled the requirements of the previous contract? If they haven't paid what's owed that's a contract breach and a lawsuit.

 

[Burgey]

Healy talking with Slats this morning on the dispute. Healy making some pretty reasonable points on the players' behalf. Slats unsurprisingly far more tolerant towards him.

Healy noting the lack of transparency from CA underpinning the dispute.

Am so pissed off at Healy here. Displaying a hell of a lot of common sense and good analysis which is always lacking from his commentary save when he analyses wicket keeping.

 

[stephen]

Most of the C9 commentary team can be good when they're talking cricket though. It's just that most of the time they just want to share their buddy-buddy in jokes instead of watching the game.

 

[Starfighter]

You mean they haven't fulfilled the requirements of the previous contract? If they haven't paid what's owed that's a contract breach and a lawsuit.

Firstly it seems that CA have not paid the percentage that they were supposed to.

Secondly they want to take money that hasn't yet been paid as part of the old MoU and use it to pay for the new one.

I don't know whether that's grounds for a lawsuit, the lawyers on the board might be able to tell you, but to me it doesn't seem like fulfilling the contract.

 

[social]

Firstly it seems that CA have not paid the percentage that they were supposed to.

Secondly they want to take money that hasn't yet been paid as part of the old MoU and use it to pay for the new one.

I don't know whether that's grounds for a lawsuit, the lawyers on the board might be able to tell you, but to me it doesn't seem like fulfilling the contract.

When drafting the last MOU, a forecast for gross revenue needed to be made

Actual gross revenue for the 5 years exceeded that forecast and past & present players are owed a % of that

The reason for the delay in payment is that a final figure can only be arrived at upon completion of the timeframe in question

CA tried to pull a swifty and retain those funds for use in the new MOU but have since backed down on that

 

[howardj]

The process has been appallingly handled, but in the end, $279 000 for the average domestic player under the new deal seems about right to me

Enough to be competitive with the AFL for budding young sportsmen, but not too much given that all three domestic comps currently run at a loss

With the promise of much, much more if you make the CA contract list

The $279 000 figure - once that's widely known - will kill off any public support for the cricketers in this dispute

 

[howardj]

I think both sides have been terrible and totally failed to recognise the key distinction between “positions” and :”interests” when negotiating

ACA’s “position” is revenue share, however their “interest” is in ensuring great pay and conditions for their members

So therefore, they have to at least be flexible enough to arrive at such a pay rate even if it’s not a percentage model

That way, their interests are taken care of…even if their position is not

On the other hand, CA’s “position” is no revenue share, but their “interest” is in capping payments and being able to budget

So therefore, they have to at least be flexible enough to arrive at a percentage that ensures payments are not excessive

That way, their interests are taken care of…even if their position is not

 

[social]

Pretty sensible hj

Shame the 2 parties arent

I mentioned earlier that I thought 250k was a pretty big chunk of change for a domestic cricketer and I stand by that but I suppose it comes down to how they arrive at that figure

After all, a low base contract supplemented by high match fees is a riskier proposition than the reverse

 

[howardj]

Pretty sensible hj

Shame the 2 parties arent

I mentioned earlier that I thought 250k was a pretty big chunk of change for a domestic cricketer and I stand by that but I suppose it comes down to how they arrive at that figure

After all, a low base contract supplemented by high match fees is a riskier proposition than the reverse

I agree, $250 000 is good

I fear that there’s so much hostility/distrust between the two parties now that it’s all about positions rather than interests

And I do hope that the domestic players are willing to stand up to Warner etc. when the heat comes on their lifestyles (with no income) over the coming weeks and months

Cricket is a very hierarchical sport where the ‘planktons’ are meant to know their place on the food chain

 

[social]

One thing that I definitely disagree with is that a % of a cricketer's club fees goes to CA/players

That is an insult when most clubs run on the sniff of an oily rag and couldn't survive without volunteers

It would be different if CA was subsidizing the clubs' running costs or employing development officers to encourage kids to play the game or coaches to help the parents out at the club but I have never seen this happen

Let the clubs keep the cash that they are actually earning if they want to do something meaningful for true grassroots IMO

 

[howardj]

Wow that's outrageous that a percentage goes to CA/players

As you say, local cricket would collapse without selfless volunteers

What would happen to the system if they put their hand out for the valuable work that they do?

 

[social]

Wow that's outrageous that a percentage goes to CA/players

As you say, local cricket would collapse without selfless volunteers

What would happen to the system if they put their hand out for the valuable work that they do?

It's definitely what Sutherland is claiming here Pay model shift benefits grassroots: Sutherland | cricket.com.au

I think that Vic might be a club treasurer so he would know how it works in practice

 

[stephen]

That's a detail which can be worked out once a model has been agreed on.

The thing is that the majority of domestic players, particularly those that don't get a BBL contract, don't have a hope of getting $250k. They're mostly on around $100k with match fees.

It's not bad pay but it's not exceptional either.

And this is not even really a pay issue. It's a payment model issue. Directors of companies expect options as a part of their salary package (which isn't revenue sharing but it's analogous since ultimately they get remunerated at least in part based on the success of the company). The players here are basically directors. Without then the game would not succeed.

The players are thinking long term, CA are thinking short term.

 

[Burgey]

As Healy noted this morning, you can be a member of a State squad, be in training from July or August until May, have to attend everything and do a lot of traveling but not play any more than a handful of games. If you're playing every Shield game you'll likely make some good coin, but not if you're a fringe player, and you're having to put what would otherwise be your career on hold while you pursue cricket.

 

[howardj]

As Healy noted this morning, you can be a member of a State squad, be in training from July or August until May, have to attend everything and do a lot of traveling but not play any more than a handful of games. If you're playing every Shield game you'll likely make some good coin, but not if you're a fringe player, and you're having to put what would otherwise be your career on hold while you pursue cricket.

That would be similar to a rookie-listed player at an AFL club - you must do all the training, stay off the grog, train full-time...but on a lesser salary

 

[howardj]

That's a detail which can be worked out once a model has been agreed on.

The thing is that the majority of domestic players, particularly those that don't get a BBL contract, don't have a hope of getting $250k. They're mostly on around $100k with match fees.

It's not bad pay but it's not exceptional either.

And this is not even really a pay issue. It's a payment model issue. Directors of companies expect options as a part of their salary package (which isn't revenue sharing but it's analogous since ultimately they get remunerated at least in part based on the success of the company). The players here are basically directors. Without then the game would not succeed.

The players are thinking long term, CA are thinking short term.

I guess that's similar though to other sports when they wheel out what the 'average' wage is

In AFL, it's $350 000 or thereabouts...with many guys on the list not earning that...with the figure being distorted in each club by guys like Franklin, Ablett, Fyfe, Pendlebury

 

[howardj]

And this is not even really a pay issue. It's a payment model issue. Directors of companies expect options as a part of their salary package (which isn't revenue sharing but it's analogous since ultimately they get remunerated at least in part based on the success of the company). The players here are basically directors. Without then the game would not succeed.

.

As I say, that's more of a position than an interest.

Fixated on a particular model that really has no regard for the burgeoning costs that the game is currently experiencing such as the real threat from the AFL at a junior level, the new women's comps, and the cost of putting on the Big Bash etc.

Percentage of revenue, that's fine. But some consideration must be given to burgeoning costs.

 

[Spikey]

Healy talking with Slats this morning on the dispute. Healy making some pretty reasonable points on the players' behalf. Slats unsurprisingly far more tolerant towards him.

Healy noting the lack of transparency from CA underpinning the dispute.

Am so pissed off at Healy here. Displaying a hell of a lot of common sense and good analysis which is always lacking from his commentary save when he analyses wicket keeping.

Please, that's Dr Ian Healy

 

[Spikey]

One thing that I definitely disagree with is that a % of a cricketer's club fees goes to CA/players

That is an insult when most clubs run on the sniff of an oily rag and couldn't survive without volunteers

I'm pretty sure this was proven to be a false statement but I can't check it right now. It certainly doesn't make sense because it's not the players get (x%) of all revenue but revenue that's agreed upon by both sides (this is a common issue in the NHL)

 

[Spikey]

I'm pretty sure this was proven to be a false statement but I can't check it right now. It certainly doesn't make sense because it's not the players get (x%) of all revenue but revenue that's agreed upon by both sides (this is a common issue in the NHL)

ie CA, ACA unite to hail new AFL pay deal | cricket.com.au

To achieve that outcome, the ACA want to expand the current definition and scope of what is understood to be revenue to remove "loopholes and exclusions of revenue streams in the current definition".

According to the ACA's proposal, that broadened definition includes all revenue from CA, the state associations, the KFC Big Bash League (men's and women's) and income from the scheduled ICC World T20 tournament in 2020 (but does not extend to government grants and sales of CA-owned real estate).

I don't see how Burginho's rego fees get included here