Bracken, Where was this solidarity show of FICA and Ponting when Cricket Australia and Pointing joined hands with IPL to crush ICL and the hopes and future of many retired/budding cricketers. Was Jason Gillespie not a member of FICA ?
Well, I would assume that Gillespie was a member of a FICA member association, that being the ACA.
I have no idea why FICA and the ACA didn't intervene in the ICL issue. Maybe the majority of the membership decided that it was detrimental to their interests. Maybe the membership was in fear of their own livelihoods, and figured that it wasn't a fight worth picking. Who knows?
Of course, all you're doing here is engaging in a little misdirection. Gillespie's experiences have absolutely no relevance to what is happening in this case. The point is that the ACA (or FICA) isn't some boogeyman who is manipulating the players or forcing them to shun the IPL. The players' unions represent the will of the majority of their members- no more, no less.
Again, you single out Ponting. Exactly what is it that Ponting has done wrong here? All he did was voice an opinion as a union member during a union meeting- an opinion that, from the reports published, was held by many others within the union.
I know that Ponting's history of douchebaggery makes him a convenient focal point for a master politician looking to counter-attack, but surely he has the right to express an opinion within his own union?
Ofcourse he is gifted for he created an avenue where Cricketers could earn millions in a matter of weeks. I don't even understand the point of all this FICA talk. If there is unity among Players about the safety then the FICA and Pontng do not really need to worry.
Eh? FICA's job is to determine the majority position of the players. As is the case within many unions, that involves the membership- who often have wildly varying views and opinions- discussing the issue amongst themselves, voting, and presenting a united position.
How are the FICA members associations supposed to determine the will of their players if they don't canvass their opinions?
You are way out of touch I must say.
Super. What have I said that is incorrect or inaccurate?
There is obvious discomfort among the Aussie players about the way things are being handled by FICA. Damien Martyn has already spoken out on the hypocrisy of such stand. Modi didn't get a dream, the report of the clash between the players were out before the tweet.
From the reports that I've seen, the "clash" involved a few retired players who disagreed with the consensus.
Four retired players (Warne, Gilchrist, Hayden and Martyn) have been mentioned publicly.
There are well over a hundred members of the ACA, so those four players would represent no more than a couple of percent of the membership. How does four people disagreeing with the rest of the membership body (according to published reports) represent an "obvious discomfort among the Australian players"?
I couldn't care less about IPL, for me personally I would be happy if it is dead today. If ACA is not militant then neither is Modi. Both are working to protect their own interest. Modi wants IPL to succeed, ACA wants to have major say in IPL, To claim that they care about Players's rights is laughable.
I don't know how else to say this: The ACA isn't some faceless organisation that controls players like they're marionettes. The ACA's goals are the goals of the majority of the members. The ACA's opinions are the opinions of the majority of the members.
I agree- I have no doubt that the players, through their representative body (which would be FICA in this case, not the ACA), want to have a say in the running of the IPL. Modi has every right to resist this, of course.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. The players can want a seat at the table AND want to ensure their own security. The idea that the player union has no concern for the welfare of their members is what is laughable.
) from the IPL