Australian Off Season 2017

[quincywagstaff]

Glad someone in the media has finally brought up how nonsensical it is that the cricketers want significant influence on the amount and in what format money should be spent on ‘grass-roots cricket’.

What is their expertise and knowledge in how to run the programs and marketing and admin for such tasks? What is their level of knowledge in Human Resources as to who and how much such admin people will be paid?

And as Patrick Smith observes, how have they deemed $30 million as being the appropriate amount for grass-roots cricket? Why not $35m, or even $40? What if it’s deemed cricket is losing interest amongst children and substantially more money is needed. Will they cough up more out of their share of the revenue? It feels like in part a PR gesture.

Again, I’m no supporter of the arrogant and abrasive way CA has handled this entire negotiation process. But the ACA haven' been flawless themselves and they’ve gotten a very soft run from the media imo until now.

 

[howardj]

Glad someone in the media has finally brought up how nonsensical it is that the cricketers want significant influence on the amount and in what format money should be spent on ‘grass-roots cricket’.

What is their expertise and knowledge in how to run the programs and marketing and admin for such tasks? What is their level of knowledge in Human Resources as to who and how much such admin people will be paid?

And as Patrick Smith observes, how have they deemed $30 million as being the appropriate amount for grass-roots cricket? Why not $35m, or even $40? What if it’s deemed cricket is losing the battle with children and substantially more money is needed. Will they cough up more out of their share of the revenue? It feels like in part a PR gesture.

Again, I’m no supporter of the arrogant and abrasive way CA has handled this entire negotiation process. But the ACA haven' been flawless themselves and they’ve gotten a very soft run from the media imo until now.

Very well said...can just imagine Warner and Co sitting down in the down time to get their head around how to run the game at a local level

And the whole "partnership model", I am a bit skeptical about

What exactly do the big fish do to 'grow and promote the game'?

You can't get near any of these people for an autograph...unless it's a book signing

They only make public appearances when instructed to do so before a Test Match (e.g. a few of them appear in the Queen Street Mall...baracaded off from the public of course)

In the interviews they do give, they give nothing away (unlike a Patrick Dangerfield for instance who is genuinely open)

Partners? pfft

 

[stephen]

Grassroots had been the political football of this debate. Both sides have fallen over each other to try and show how much they care for the grass roots. The ACA by demanding revenue sharing for grass roots (which was obviously only in the MoU to be something CA could amend) and by CA to justify dropping the revenue sharing model.

Both sides have used this as a lever against their opposition because it sounds good and above the petty concerns of a pay dispute.

 

[stephen]

Oh and terrible pay walled news sites are terrible.

 

[howardj]

My Jollimont spies are whispering in my shell-like that this thing is off to arbitration (as distinct from mediation)

 

[howardj]

For those of you bogans who do not subscribe to The Australian

Nocookies | The Australian

Cricket Australia to call in industrial umpire to settle pay dispute
• Chip Le Grand
• The Australian
• 3:30PM July 27, 2017
• Save
•
The long running cricket pay dispute has come to a head, with Cricket Australia deciding to refer the bitter feud to an industrial umpire if agreement cannot be reached over the weekend.

Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland will today reveal his plan to submit the pay dispute to arbitration unless a period of intensive negotiations scheduled for the next few days produces a compromise on substantive issues and removes an impasse threatening Australia’s first Test tour of Bangladesh for 11 years.

The escalation of the divisive pay wrangle, which has cast uncertainly over this summer’s Ashes series, came after the Australian Cricketer’s Association rejected the latest, pay offer from the game’s administration.

It appears that several weeks of talks involving Mr Sutherland and his ACA counterpart Alistair Nicholson have moved the dispute no closure to resolution, with the ACA still adamant that players must receive a percentage of the game’s gross revenues and Cricket Australia insistent that the continuation of this model would come at an unreasonable cost to other, more pressing issues in the game.

Mr Sutherland has called a press conference for 3.30pm today to outline the next phase of the pay dispute, which is being carefully monitored by broadcasters, sponsors and the federal government.

A formal arbitration would require the involvement of Fair Work Australia and the consent of the ACA and dramatically raise the stakes in what has become an entrenched power struggle over who controls the game and its finances.
A move to arbitration would all-but guarantee next month’s tour of Bangladesh, with CA prepared to immediately recontract players on the basis that a new pay deal would be imposed by the industrial court.
CA believes there is no benefit in seeking to have the dispute mediated, given the failure of months of negotiations to make progress. Repeated calls by the players for the dispute to be mediated were previousl
y rejected by CA.
The ACA has proposed that the warring parties aim to secure a heads of agreement by August 8, on the condition that any players recontracted on the basis of such an agreement are back paid from July 1, the date on which more than 200 cricketers, including Australia’s Test stars, became unemployed.
The ACA has also set a mid-September deadline for a new collective bargaining agreement, known in cricket parlance as a memorandum of understanding, to be finalised. Such a document would run to hundreds of pages and set out the pay and conditions of all professional cricketers for the next five years.
Cricket Australia has rejected this on the basis that a mid-September deadline is unrealistic to fully resolve a dispute that has been raging all year. Under the ACA proposal, a failure to make deadline would result in players again falling out of contract and plunge an upcoming one-day tour of India and the Ashes into renewed doubt.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I can't believe it's been 11 years since Dizzy's double ton

time flies

 

[social]

My Jollimont spies are whispering in my shell-like that this thing is off to arbitration (as distinct from mediation)

Yep

Mismanagement 101

Sutherland made a complete fool of himself in today's presser IMO

CA are extremely fortunate that Kerry isn't around anymore as he would string them up

 

[social]

Btw, Sutherland said that CA had rejected the ACA proposal as their numbers are wrong

Given that the ACA is working from CA's numbers, they either have a rubbish accountant or CA is feeding them crap

 

[Prince EWS]

Arbitration seems like the best way to solve this to me, by far. Very good news if they're going that way.

 

[Burgey]

As soon as they involve FWA they have to throw open the books. Should be interesting.

 

[howardj]

It's my understanding that ACA have to agree to arbitration

Arbitration will mean that the Bangladesh tour - subject to safety clearances - will go ahead

I'm not sure the players want that

I'm of the view that they will reject arbitration, and call for mediation

A delaying tactic, if you will

 

[howardj]

From The Australian this morning:

The Australian can reveal that shortly before Mr Sutherland took his public stance against the union, CA received documents detailing an ACA cash grab.

Over the last, five-year cricket pay deal, the players received a 26.5 per cent share of $1.45 billion in revenue. A total of $377 million ended up in the pockets of our male cricketers, with about $7.25m reserved for women players.

The ACA is now demanding 28.9 per cent of a forecast $1.67bn in revenue, or $482m, for men and women players. They want a larger share of a larger pool than last time, with their pay packets to swell even further if, as the ACA expects, the game’s actual revenue exceeds forecasts.

In straight dollar terms, the parties are not miles apart.

CA’s offer to the players, which would see Test stars paid, on average, $1.45m by the end of the deal and the best women players an ave*rage of $210,000, guarantees a total payment pool of about $450m. Mr Sutherland said the devil was in the detail of the players’ demands.

 

[howardj]

And someone needs to tell Dave Warner to stop commenting on Twitter about this dispute

He as a spokesperson is a total fail on the PR front

 

[howardj]

From The Australian this morning:

The Australian can reveal that shortly before Mr Sutherland took his public stance against the union, CA received documents detailing an ACA cash grab.

Over the last, five-year cricket pay deal, the players received a 26.5 per cent share of $1.45 billion in revenue. A total of $377 million ended up in the pockets of our male cricketers, with about $7.25m reserved for women players.

The ACA is now demanding 28.9 per cent of a forecast $1.67bn in revenue, or $482m, for men and women players. They want a larger share of a larger pool than last time, with their pay packets to swell even further if, as the ACA expects, the game’s actual revenue exceeds forecasts.

In straight dollar terms, the parties are not miles apart.

CA’s offer to the players, which would see Test stars paid, on average, $1.45m by the end of the deal and the best women players an ave*rage of $210,000, guarantees a total payment pool of about $450m. Mr Sutherland said the devil was in the detail of the players’ demands.

I work in an accounting firm...and applying my highly trained eye haha to these figures, it's easy to see where the recent $30 million "gift" from the players to grassroots has come from.

Rather than accepting the same 26.5% share of revenue as under the previous agreement (which would give them $442 million in revenue i.e. 26.5% of the forecast $1.67 billion)…..they want to up the percentage to 28.9% and receive $482 million)

So that’s where the $30 million “gift” is being funded from, namely a lift in the percentage from the previous agreement

To be a “gift” it would be coming from the same 26.5% pot as last time (from the $442 million).

As it is, they’ve just up the percentage and rebadged the excess as “a gift”

But, as Davey Warner assures us, it’s not about the money

 

[social]

I work in an accounting firm...and applying my highly trained eye haha to these figures, it's easy to see where the recent $30 million "gift" from the players to grassroots has come from.

Rather than accepting the same 26.5% share of revenue as under the previous agreement (which would give them $442 million in revenue i.e. 26.5% of the forecast $1.67 billion)…..they want to up the percentage to 28.9% and receive $482 million)

So that’s where the $30 million “gift” is being funded from, namely a lift in the percentage from the previous agreement

To be a “gift” it would be coming from the same 26.5% pot as last time (from the $442 million).

As it is, they’ve just up the percentage and rebadged the excess as “a gift”

But, as Davey Warner assures us, it’s not about the money

Tbh, does it really matter?

CA is swimming in cash and from a relative perspective, gives sfa to grassroots whilst building an empire staffed by hundreds of minions (**** knows what they do)

At least the players are trying to guarantee that a reasonable amount is directed towards those that need it most

For their part, CA is simply saying "Trust Us" whilst burning every ounce of credibility it might have in the meantime

 

[howardj]

It does matter.

The whole revenue share model has no regard to costs, restricts CA's ability to invest, and makes them less agile.

No other sport in Australia has revenue share, including the best administered sport (AFL).

 

[social]

It does matter.

The whole revenue share model has no regard to costs, restricts CA's ability to invest, and makes them less agile.

No other sport in Australia has revenue share, including the best administered sport (AFL).

NFL, NBA and MLB say hi

Fact is that there is no wrong or right way and CA have made a terrible (some would say non existent) attempt at explaining why the current model is unsustainable e.g. I listened to Tubby's attempt and it was clear that he literally had no idea what he was talking about

Anyway, have a look at CA's financial statements

It has to be a real worry when, for example, they spend more on salary & wages for the admin staff than they do on cricketers

I have no doubt that if you gave me 2 months, I could rip out tens of millions of $ in waste and the cricket watching public would be none the wiser

Given that, the less money that remains in their less than capable hands, the better

 

[howardj]

I'm not for the whole "CA have done a terrible job" argument

They've revived the game of cricket in Australia by making a huge success of the Big Bash...a simply phenomenal revival of a sport

And they're also the trail-blazers for what I believe will be the future of Test cricket, namely night Tests

 

[howardj]

And with the NFL (not sure about MLB on NBA), they don't have the responsibility of running an entire sport at all levels