Australian Off Season 2017

[howardj]

And are the players genuine "partners" in the game anyway?

Cricketers are the most inaccessible sportsmen in this country, and very heavily media trained with very little interesting to say

Other than lending their image to CA, they do very little to promote the game - and you can't get anywhere near them to get an autograph unless it's for a book signing of theirs

 

[Spikey]

Careful, Vic's gonna come for you.

I think there's probably something to that in regards to the Australia players, but the domestic players are constantly going to junior clubs, and CA's proposed changers only affect that group, not the Australia players

 

[Spikey]

Delete all my posts and replace them with Vic's

Anyone who's been involved in junior cricket would have seen how much the domestic players have done promotionally in the past five years for the Big Bash - both male and female. Under the guise of the Stars and the Renegades, I reckon every junior (metro, at least) club has had access to a clinic of some sort where you see these players.

You talk about partnerships, that's what these guys (and girls) have done to help the BBL get going. To then cut out the majority of these players from the revenue sharing is pretty offensive to my thoughts - the CA players don't do this (obviously because they are away a lot!).

Hehe.

CA certainly not quashing the idea that money from junior registrations are part of what the players are considering CA revenue...

He had a couple of other good ones too but cbf finding everything

 

[social]

IMO, the PR battle has really been a case of both parties talking to themselves whilst casuals sit here and say "WTF is going on?"

I really dont see why it's so hard for say the ACA to spell it out clearly

Steve Smith is on X but he is one out of 1.3 million players

Average domestic player who plays every match in every format can potentially make Y and they make up Q% of players

Most domestic players are not in that situation so make Z on average which is waaaaay short of CA claims

Meanwhile, poor Joe Bloggs who is on a rookie contract and has to be available 24/7 whilst acting like a full-time pro and waiting his chance is on 2/3 of **** all

Then compare that to other sports like AFL or NRL and I reckon Joe Public will get it

 

[howardj]

the players will never win this PR battle

The $2 million that Smith is on, and the $235K average that the domestic player is being offered...will leave people cold

Anyway, here is CA's offer so we all have accurate figures to work off of CA's Memorandum of Understanding proposal | Cricket Australia

 

[quincywagstaff]

IMO, the PR battle has really been a case of both parties talking to themselves whilst casuals sit here and say "WTF is going on?"

I really dont see why it's so hard for say the ACA to spell it out clearly

Steve Smith is on X but he is one out of 1.3 million players

Average domestic player who plays every match in every format can potentially make Y and they make up Q% of players

Most domestic players are not in that situation so make Z on average which is waaaaay short of CA claims

Meanwhile, poor Joe Bloggs who is on a rookie contract and has to be available 24/7 whilst acting like a full-time pro and waiting his chance is on 2/3 of **** all

Then compare that to other sports like AFL or NRL and I reckon Joe Public will get it

That’s because it’s all about revenue-sharing and whether the players should be ‘partners’ in the game; so it’s really a battle of ideology and ego that makes it hard for the public to get behind either side of the debate. If it was about a specific pay and conditions battle than I think it would be different.

 

[TheJediBrah]

the players will never win this PR battle

The $2 million that Smith is on, and the $235K average that the domestic player is being offered...will leave people cold

Anyway, here is CA's offer so we all have accurate figures to work off of CA's Memorandum of Understanding proposal | Cricket Australia

Of course they won't, which makes it even more confusing why anyone's going for this "feel sorry for the domestic players" angle. People are simply not going go to feel sorry for guys making 100K+ easily playing a game for a living. It's not going to happen.

The issue with the pay is that you need to be able to pay these domestic players that much because if you don't the quality of Australian cricket will plummet. That's the issue. It's not about what the players "deserve", it's about what needs to be done economically to maintain playing standards. Supply and demand.

 

[howardj]

The issue with the pay is that you need to be able to pay these domestic players that much because if you don't the quality of Australian cricket will plummet. That's the issue. It's not about what the players "deserve", it's about what needs to be done economically to maintain playing standards. Supply and demand.

Yes, that's right. It has to be broadly competitive with other sports that young teenagers and boys may be attracted to such as AFL and league - and it has to enable them to be full-time.

And, under the current offer, it is broadly competitive with those sports and allows them to focus solely on cricket

 

[howardj]

If anything, the thing that attracts teenagers to AFL is that you can play straight away at the highest level as an 18 year old

On the other hand, not too many State or International cricket players play at that age

 

[howardj]

And the other thing that attracts teenagers to NRL and AFL is that there's 16 x 25 (NRL) and 40 x 18 (AFL) spots avaliable

Whereas in cricket there's 11 x 6 (domestic) and 20 CA contracts

All told, I don't think it's the average wage of a cricketer ($235K in the current offer) versus average wage of an AFL player ($350K) that's necessarily decisive when talented kids choose their preferred sport.

 

[social]

Read somewhere recently that the MINIMUM NRL salary will be 100k p.a. from next year when the new salary cap comes in

That's a hell of a lot better than a rookie contract

 

[Prince EWS]

Read somewhere recently that the MINIMUM NRL salary will be 100k p.a. from next year when the new salary cap comes in

That's a hell of a lot better than a rookie contract

Even if it doesn't rise it's already 80k, and you only have to be one of the best 400 players from a sport only played in two states and a bit in New Zealand. Not to mention the option of pissing off the UK and earning decent money if you play a first grade games but end up adjudged outside the best 400.

If you make it big then cricket pays great, but there's so much more opportunity to be a middling pro athlete and still earn decent money in the football codes. Cricket is a far bigger gamble as it stands.

 

[howardj]

Even if it doesn't rise it's already 80k, and you only have to be one of the best 400 players from a sport only played in two states and a bit in New Zealand. Not to mention the option of pissing off the UK and earning decent money if you play a first grade games but end up adjudged outside the best 400.

If you make it big then cricket pays great, but there's so much more opportunity to be a middling pro athlete and still earn decent money in the football codes. Cricket is a far bigger gamble as it stands.

That's right, and that's what attracts players to footy rather than the entry pay

 

[social]

Even if it doesn't rise it's already 80k, and you only have to be one of the best 400 players from a sport only played in two states and a bit in New Zealand. Not to mention the option of pissing off the UK and earning decent money if you play a first grade games but end up adjudged outside the best 400.

If you make it big then cricket pays great, but there's so much more opportunity to be a middling pro athlete and still earn decent money in the football codes. Cricket is a far bigger gamble as it stands.

There's also the stuff that the public doesn't see

Social Jnr is a pretty good junior sportsman and has been offered 2 full scholarships to different private schools based on 2 different sports

Problem is that the programs basically force him to commit to a particular sport full time to retain the scholarship

Most parents are not in a position to knock that back and as a result, kids like him would be virtually lost to other sports before they started

Aussie Rules, league, tennis, basketball, swimming, etc all do this but cricket doesn't

 

[social]

NRL players looking for a "genuine partnership" in new salary deal

Wash, rinse repeat

 

[GotSpin]

Is there no pull factor from the potential of a 20yr long career, rather than the real possibility of only 5 years...Or do juniors just not think of that

 

[vic_orthdox]

Is there no pull factor from the potential of a 20yr long career, rather than the real possibility of only 5 years...Or do juniors just not think of that

Nope. If anything it works the other way around - have a crack at footy, and if I don't make it then I can always play cricket afterwards.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Weird one is how it hasn't come to mediation at all - would have thought it would end up at FWC at some stage? Any employment lawyers here?

 

[vic_orthdox]

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.

That's the point though - ACA are prepared to discuss what revenue streams are included and what are not.

CA just want it out.

 

[stephen]

Yeah the actual pay level is IMO a complete non-issue. Because under the ACA model the players get paid based on how well the sport performs. Under the CA model the players get paid based on what the board thinks they can get away with paying.

The first model encourages the players to outreach to the community and grow the sport. The second model offers no such encouragement.

CA have come across as bullies and are looking like they're trying to split the players over this (which they are). If they were successful in splitting the players (let's say they got Cummins, Warner and Smith all to sign contracts) they would create a very disharmonious dressing room environment for a good while. That cannot be good for the game.

Both sides are being ideological in this debate and for good reason. CA wants to decouple their player payments from their revenue because they expect revenue from TV rights (particularly from the Big Bash) to go up dramatically over the next five years. The ACA wants to keep the revenue sharing model because they feel the players are entitled to that future revenue too.

Ultimately with what's happening in the cricketing world right now I can see the international game dramatically shrinking over the next two decades and the cricketing world mirroring the soccer world where players are mercenaries, playing in leagues across the world while international games are few and far between and often don't showcase the best players from each nation. In such a scenario it's even more important for the players to secure revenue sharing so that the fringe players can rightly share in the rewards from the league format.

I really feel like we'll see a 50 over World Cup/Champion's Trophy every 4 years, a few friendlies in the leadup to the WC/CT and other than that the 50 over game being basically ignored in favour of T20 cricket, which will have a WC/CT equivalent in the other years. Outside the big tournaments we might get half a dozen tests in the big countries each year and then a token two test series every now and then between the smaller countries. Most cricket will be T20 with the IPL and BBL expanding to full 3 month leagues and the lesser leagues slotting in around these two tournaments to grab some marquee players at discounted rates (shorter tournaments and not overlapping with the big money tournament). With Ireland gaining test status we might see the ECB run a T20 tournament with teams from all areas of the UK. The BBL will hopefully expand to include an Auckland, Christchurch and Queenstown teams as well as Townsville, Newcastle, Canberra, Geelong and Gold Coast team. This would do wonders for the game in New Zealand and our regional centres.

In any case this current pay dispute is damaging the game and is sadly distracting the public from the WWC which is running right now.