Australian Off Season 2017

[social]

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

CA doesn't have this responsibility either

Other than the pro game and pathways, its input into the club scene and below is 2/3 of bugger all as that is handled by state associations, districts, schools, etc

 

[stephen]

I'd even argue that the pathways programs aren't all that great because they end up becoming empires that seek to self-justify. People who go through them are more likely to be picked not because they're better but because there is pressure from within CA to pick them.

Still, a revenue sharing model has no real downside to CA unless the revenue swells. In which case they don't really have a problem, they just have more cash.

 

[Midwinter]

NFL, NBA and MLB say hi

The NFL is a furphy in this context

It is a privately run franchise operation. There is a salary cap to contain players wages. .


Thanks howarddj for providing some background on CA's position in this.

 

[Dan]

For what it's worth, CA has taken more money away from our local club this season. So much for this whole 'we need money for grassroots' rubbish.

They've forced our U8s competition to switch over to their T20 Blast model, which:

• Doubled playing fees ($50 to $99)
• Halved playing time (though eventually we got them to budge on that)
• Ruins our ability to retain kids through the in2cricket process into junior cricket
• Charges us processing fees for every kid

So the club loses playing numbers and fees, the parents are further out of pocket, we still get charged for processing and there's no guarantee than any of these kids actually end up playing for us. And it's a skills program that initially was only running for 8 weeks out of a full season. What's the ****ing point?

Plus they're now taking a cut of our registration fees as they all get processed through mycricket, and we're getting SFA back from them.

 

[quincywagstaff]

The ACA says they're concerned about arbitration because hundreds of thousands of dollars could be spent on it instead of - you guessed it - 'grass-roots cricket'.

Both sides are absolutely insufferable in their virtue-signalling and acting like they're Joan Of Arc sacrificing themselves at the stake for the game.

Was a smart move by Sutherland to push for arbitration because the ACA are going to look pretty ordinary PR-wise if they turn it down.

If they do turn down arbitration it's just going to validate Sutherland's claims they're trying to slow down negotiations and Mandy's suspicions they don't want to tour Bangladesh.

I reckon in terms of media some of the News Ltd. coverage has started to turn against the wiry stories popping up about the top cricketers going on lavish holidays and how much Oz cricketers are paid compared to their Bangladesh counterparts.

Really challenging time for the ACA over the next few days.

 

[Burgey]

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).

Lol invest in what?

Revenue sharing has worked fine for cricket for 20 years. The same spuds who now speak against it such as the likes of Fat **** Tory Tubby and Half a Brain Slater are the same blokes who became millionaires from it.

 

[Dan]

Has anybody actually articulated a decent argument in favour of CA yet?

 

[Shri]

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.

I don't care about any of that but I don't want top athletes in the world to be employees in an organization taking what men in suits want them to take, while the execs siphon money away for themselves off the players' efforts. One has to have been a corporate slave in the past to know that no one who has rare talents deserves that bullshit where other people decide what you make.

 

[social]

Lol invest in what?

Revenue sharing has worked fine for cricket for 20 years. The same spuds who now speak against it such as the likes of Fat **** Tory Tubby and Half a Brain Slater are the same blokes who became millionaires from it.

Yeah mate, it's absolute ****

Last week, our little club did what countless clubs are doing all over the country and had a working bee/sausage sizzle/pissup where a group of parents repaired the nets with stuff from Bunnings

Everyone finished out of pocket but nobody cared as that is how it has always been

In the meantime, CA invests in publicly traded shares

 

[Spikey]

I would like an actual piece on "Grassroots". Haigh has hinted towards one but on both sides it's come across as a rubbish term, the same as when your footy team loses a game you'd expect them to win, so you blame their "effort" and "hardness" and ****.

what's the "grassroots" plan anyway? Are Davey Warner and co gonna jump the fence to the ground after council locks the gates for the night and build a new pavilion?

 

[Spikey]

From my perspective, I think the ACA really should do at least one money based argument, which is as follows:
CA has had to, per Paul Marsh, 'project' what 26% actually equals in cash for the last 20 years, and they've got it wrong every single time. Undershot it each time. So what Union/Players Association on earth, apart from the one run by Joe de Bruyn, would actually willingly change to a model where the cash projection is final for most of their members? It's common sense to not do it! simple as. **** your grassroots.

 

[Tangles]

I would like an actual piece on "Grassroots". Haigh has hinted towards one but on both sides it's come across as a rubbish term, the same as when your footy team loses a game you'd expect them to win, so you blame their "effort" and "hardness" and ****.

what's the "grassroots" plan anyway? Are Davey Warner and co gonna jump the fence to the ground after council locks the gates for the night and build a new pavilion?

Actually think Warner and a bunch of the players turning up at junior clubs to cook snags and fix nets would be a brilliant PR move right now. "Aus cricketers unemployed but turn out to help the kids" would be good for them.

 

[Howe_zat]

Dollar signs blind Australian cricket to Bangladesh

smackdown.

 

[Gnske]

Dollar signs blind Australian cricket to Bangladesh

smackdown.

Anything he writes after the Chris Gayle article is meaningless tbh compared to his magnum opus. He's on borrowed time.

 

[howardj]

Actually think Warner and a bunch of the players turning up at junior clubs to cook snags and fix nets would be a brilliant PR move right now. "Aus cricketers unemployed but turn out to help the kids" would be good for them.

No chance of that. These guys are the most inaccessible sportsmen in the country.

Yet apparently they want to be 'partners' in the game.

 

[howardj]

Anyway, peace is at hand apparently

The Australian believes the deal, while a compromise on some points, is a win for the players who retain revenue share of up to 30 per cent.

It was never about the money though lol

 

[Gnske]

It was about the money

 

[morgieb]

Still waiting for official confirmation. Wouldn't be surprised if they waited another few weeks to fully finalise it, just to nuke the Bangladesh tour.

 

[Spikey]

I'd be shocked if it turned out the CBA was about the money

 

[Spikey]

for real, I'd guess it goes up to 30% but CA will get some stuff excluded from the revenue sharing, so of course both come out winners