That's why their identities are protected tbf.I don't think anything positive is going to come out of this for the ICL. The players who played ICL should support this move for it to be effective. All players have been given an opportunity to play domestic cricket and possibly even the IPL now and I doubt any player is going to jeopardize his chance of earning money by being involved in this.
I think, if I understand right, both the ICL and the players are sueing. It's just that the players aren't named individually to protect them.No expert obviously but I don't quite understand how those behind the ICL are suing for restraint of trade; I'd have thought it was the players that would do that. I'd have though those behind the ICL would sue for indictment to break contract.
It will be a very long and complicated claim. There will be various allegations of interference with the ICL's contractual rights. The ICL may not itself have a claim based directly on restraint of trade, but the fact that there has been unlawful activity of that sort may well be a component of various of the other claims made by the ICL. The players themselves (whose anonymity will not be able to be safeguarded, I'm sure) will have claims more directly based on restraint of trade.No expert obviously but I don't quite understand how those behind the ICL are suing for restraint of trade; I'd have thought it was the players that would do that. I'd have though those behind the ICL would sue for indictment to break contract.
Yup, each of those thoughts had gone through my less-legally-educated-than-yours head.It will be a very long and complicated claim. There will be various allegations of interference with the ICL's contractual rights. The ICL may not itself have a claim based directly on restraint of trade, but the fact that there has been unlawful activity of that sort may well be a component of various of the other claims made by the ICL. The players themselves (whose anonymity will not be able to be safeguarded, I'm sure) will have claims more directly based on restraint of trade.
I wouldn't want to predict with confidence who'll win this. I suppose the likeliest outcome is some kind of out of court settlement. But I'm surprised it's taken this long for the ICL and the players to sue - it was a claim waiting to happen.
UIMM, the ICL is suing on behalf of the players.No expert obviously but I don't quite understand how those behind the ICL are suing for restraint of trade; I'd have thought it was the players that would do that. I'd have though those behind the ICL would sue for indictment to break contract.
The ICL wouldn't be able to sue on behalf of anyone else. The claim brought by the ICL can only be a claim brought in its own right.UIMM, the ICL is suing on behalf of the players.