• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

West Indies player dispute takes another turn

Craig

World Traveller
It seems the West Indies tour has faced another jolt with players demanding US $500,000 for appearance fees and not surprising the board rejected it.

This is boarding onto a farce.
 
Last edited:

Buddhmaster

International Captain
The West Indies really need to sort their cricket out. It's rapidly losing popularity there, and the players certainly aren't helping.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
For the while that $500,000 is just a rumour. Ramnarine has denied it thus far, so I don't any reason to get upset yet.
 

Buddhmaster

International Captain
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
For the while that $500,000 is just a rumour. Ramnarine has denied it thus far, so I don't any reason to get upset yet.
In your opinion, do you think they'll be coming here?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
How often have cricket tours actually been called-off because of these sort of problems?
It must have happened sometime, but I can't think of anything.
It almost invariably sorts itself out - even if there is the possibility of any leftovers from the disputes distracting players.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
I'm sure they will go. Like Richie says, there have been myriad disputes along these lines, but how often (forgetting Zimbabwe) do teams get broken up over contractual issues?
 

Josh

International Regular
I say kick all these test nations where the players are "rebelling" out for punishment and focus on the newer cricketing nations, such as Namibia, Scotland, Holland (not seemingly "new", they've been around forever), Canada and Nepal.
 

garage flower

State Vice-Captain
Josh said:
I say kick all these test nations where the players are "rebelling" out for punishment and focus on the newer cricketing nations, such as Namibia, Scotland, Holland (not seemingly "new", they've been around forever), Canada and Nepal.
Good thinking Josh. Now what are your thoughts on the Middle East crisis?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Josh said:
I say kick all these test nations where the players are "rebelling" out for punishment and focus on the newer cricketing nations, such as Namibia, Scotland, Holland (not seemingly "new", they've been around forever), Canada and Nepal.
And lower the standard still further. 8-)
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Josh said:
I say kick all these test nations where the players are "rebelling" out for punishment and focus on the newer cricketing nations, such as Namibia, Scotland, Holland (not seemingly "new", they've been around forever), Canada and Nepal.
The West Indies players are fully justified in "rebelling" as far as I can see. Kick the WICB out if you wish.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
I don't really know how to process this "appearance fees". thing. From what I read in the article at cricinfo, it sounds like it's an increase from $390,000 to $500,000 this year, rather than $500,000 in new money, as some might be assuming.

Divvied up between the players, this would come to a maximum of $10,000 extra for each player for the year - if I understand correctly. Which doesn't seem like a whole lot. I'm confused by the whole idea though - why are we talking about "appearance fees" rather than just additional match fees / wages? Can somebody more familiar with how this works in WI cricket (Mr Mxyzptlk maybe) clear this up?

On a more "good news" front, it's apparently suspected that the mediator in the contractual dispute between the players and the WICB is expected to rule in favor of the players:

"It is expected that he will agree that there is a distinction between endorsements they can sign in their private capacity and as a member of the West Indies team."

Among other things, this essentially means that the WI board can't prevent players taking up private endorsement deals before being selected or after they are dropped.

This would be somewhat of an important victory, because it means that the WICB can't just override endorsement contracts you've already signed retroactively with their own sponsorship deals made after the fact. Although, it seems a little more hazy should your personal endorsement contract lapse while you're still in the team.

This should clear the players involved in that particular dispute to be able to tour Australia, anyway, the appearance fee affair notwithstanding.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I've never understood how sponsors have a legal right to clauses in contracts with Boards that say "individual players will not be allowed to take-up contracts with whoever we say they're not".
It's never made any sense.
 

telsor

U19 12th Man
Richard said:
I've never understood how sponsors have a legal right to clauses in contracts with Boards that say "individual players will not be allowed to take-up contracts with whoever we say they're not".
It's never made any sense.
When you write/sign a contract, you can agree to anything that does not compel either party to break the law ( well, you probably could agree to that, but enforcement could be tough :) )

I don't see it being so different from a recent contract I had which said I could work for a direct competitor for 12 months after leaving that companies employ.

The fact remains that both the boards and players have the capacity to sell sponsorships, and both are diminished if they conflict. Both parties need to be successful finacially and if the board does well financially, some of it is ( or at least should be ) passed on to the players, the reverse is not necessarily true.
 

Gangster

U19 12th Man
$500,000 is nothing. The minimum salary for a Major League baseball player is right around half that, just for a crude comparison. The average salary is north of $2,000,000. What we need is revenue sharing among all the cricket playing nations so the West Indies can afford to pay this pittance.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Gangster said:
$500,000 is nothing. The minimum salary for a Major League baseball player is right around half that, just for a crude comparison. The average salary is north of $2,000,000. What we need is revenue sharing among all the cricket playing nations so the West Indies can afford to pay this pittance.
Baseball is a far more commercial game with so much more invested in it. It can also be argued that it's more physically demanding, considering that 162 games are played in around 180-190 days.

Cricket isn't near as prosperous as American sports. TBH I think American sports are ridiculous in the way they pay players. Athletes don't deserve that much.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Slow Love™ said:
I'm confused by the whole idea though - why are we talking about "appearance fees" rather than just additional match fees / wages? Can somebody more familiar with how this works in WI cricket (Mr Mxyzptlk maybe) clear this up?
At 11:01pm I'm having problems processing that atm. Will give it a shot tomorrow morning though.
:sleep:
 

brockley

International Captain
Tri-series will be bi-series without Lara's Windies
By Alex Brown
December 23, 2004

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
India are unavailable and the Australia A experiment is unappealing. So, with those options effectively ruled out, the fate of this season's limited-overs tri-series will be determined at a mediation meeting between the West Indies Cricket Board and the players' association in Grenada on Thursday.

As the West Indian contract dispute rumbled on, Cricket Australia officials conceded they could only hope that the feuding parties in the Caribbean resolved their differences before the team's scheduled departure for Australia on December 29.

Certainly, the prospect of a minimum fine of $US2 million ($2.6m) should dissuade the cash-strapped board from abandoning from the tour.

But should mediation fail to resolve the dispute - centred on the players' entitlement to sign personal endorsement deals with companies in competition with team sponsors - the board could potentially avoid a fine by sending an under-strength team to compete against Australia and Pakistan from next month.

Advertisement
AdvertisementOriginally, CA chief executive James Sutherland floated the possibility of replacing the West Indies if the WICB fielded an inferior team. But that option has been eliminated because India, the only team without international commitments in January, have ruled themselves out.

The chief executive of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, SK Nair, said there was "absolutely no chance" his side would be in Australia in 2005.

"We have played a lot of cricket and we are receiving Pakistan in February," he said. "Playing that series in Australia isn't an option."

Similarly, the prospect of fielding an Australia A team against Australia and Pakistan appears remote. Australian vice-captain Adam Gilchrist said the lessons from 1994-95 - when Australia A competed against Australia, England and Zimbabwe in a quadrangular one-day tournament - should be heeded.

"Nothing has been said to us about the possibility of playing Australia A this season, and from what I've been led to believe about the last time it happened, it was a pretty awkward situation," Gilchrist said.

"I remember the Australian players that year saying how odd it was to be playing in front of a home crowd where your team wasn't being supported, because everyone wanted to see Australia A win."

Meanwhile, CA is waiting and hoping that the WICB delivers on its promise - issued in an official communique yesterday - that the contract dispute was unlikely to affect either the Windies' participation in the tri-series or the strength of their squad.

That statement came a day after the troubling claims of WICB board member Chetram Singh, who reportedly said a decision to ignore players' demands for $US500,000 in appearance money for the VB Series "puts the tour in jeopardy".

Separate reports from the Caribbean suggest the WICB's new major sponsor is pushing for Brian Lara - supposedly heading the band of disgruntled players - to be axed as captain.

When contacted yesterday, Lara would not comment on those reports. His brother and manager, Richard Lara, was also guarded when asked if Brian's captaincy was under threat.

Although the captaincy issue remains unresolved, officials from the WICB have contacted Sutherland this week, expressing their confidence that the tour would proceed.

"At the moment, our plan is that everything is going ahead, and going ahead on schedule," said CA communications manager Peter Young. "There are no fallback plans that are being discussed and none are in place."
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Then there is talk of getting the Indian team into the series, as a report said in the Times of India, Mumbai. The same article can be read here.
 

Top