Twenty20 Champions League confirmed

[Richard]

I really hope the counties tell Modi to go jump off a bridge.

Not really a case of that. They can either decide they want to take part in the Champions League or they don't. They have a fairly straightforward choice.

 

[honestbharani]

There is a difference between protecting your turf and just being plain unreasonable.


Of course, one cannot expect anything better from the idiots who refuse to give former Indian International and Domestic cricketers their pensions just because they are now associated with something else. Refusing to recognize what they have already done because of what they are doing now is just laughable, to say the least. These buffoons tried to wash their hands away off celebrating the 25 years of our World Cup win because the then captain is now leading the ICL.

I hope to God that this is taken to the courts and Modi loses.

 

[Richard]

http://content-gulf.cricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/354643.html

See you in court, boys!

Well, it'd depend. I wouldn't know whether the counties would have any legal grounds to drop players - you'd imagine they'd consult someone and find-out whether they did.

Obviously, the wise course of action would be to find-out if they had a case, ASAP. I wouldn't have a clue whether they could justify the prospect of the Champions League as being good enough reason to leave-out players.

Also don't really see how any player could sue for being dropped from a team. There is no legal regulation govorning the selection of cricket teams, merely employment. And players aren't on pay-per-game deals, so I don't see what there would be to sue about.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, it'd depend. I wouldn't know whether the counties would have any legal grounds to drop players - you'd imagine they'd consult someone and find-out whether they did.

Obviously, the wise course of action would be to find-out if they had a case, ASAP. I wouldn't have a clue whether they could justify the prospect of the Champions League as being good enough reason to leave-out players.

Also don't really see how any player could sue for being dropped from a team. There is no legal regulation govorning the selection of cricket teams, merely employment. And players aren't on pay-per-game deals, so I don't see what there would be to sue about.

Modi did say "ties to the ICL players".


And since counties get players on contracts, I assume they can be treated as employees of the county. So, if these guys get dropped from the whole squad or anything because they are playing in the IPL, it can be considered "unfair dismissal" from work or something of that sort. I assume they would have a more than decent case, in that case.

 

[Richard]

Being dropped and being dismissed are totally different things. If counties attempted to dock them wages or terminate their contracts, then yes, that'd be legally indefensible. But everyone knows that, and no-one is going to try.

Dropping players from the team isn't dismissal.

 

[chris.hinton]

A lot of teams will not playing in the champion league becasue of this stupid ruling,

Worcester and Warwick skippers have played in ICL for a start

 

[Goughy]

Richard, did you study Emplyment Law?

I did and whilst Im nothing close to an expert and Im not sure what would be the ultimate decision, I can tell you with employment law you can make pretty much anything fly.

If there is money for playing, all it would take (IM simple O) is the question

"Is Player X one of your best 11 player?"

If the answer is "Yes" then it could be a simple case of discrimination (as player is excluded for reasons other than ability) and as denying someone the reasonable chance to earn their living.

One would omagine the rights of the player are guaranteed in his Contract of employment

 

[GGG]

Yeah, but four_or_six said "from the games that had been played yet", and Notts haven't played yet.

Though both Adams & Cairns are due to play later this evening, if Notts don't change their mind based on Modi's outburst.

Both Cairns and Adams are playing. Any Aussie ICL players playing in their domestic 20/20?

 

[Richard]

Richard, did you study Emplyment Law?

I did and whilst Im nothing close to an expert and Im not sure what would be the ultimate decision, I can tell you with employment law you can make pretty much anything fly.

If there is money for playing, all it would take (IM simple O) is the question

"Is Player X one of your best 11 player?"

If the answer is "Yes" then it could be a simple case of discrimination (as player is excluded for reasons other than ability) and as denying someone the reasonable chance to earn their living.

One would omagine the rights of the player are guaranteed in his Contract of employment

Can you tell me a way to define in a foolproof, certifiable way "one of your best 11 players"?

Players have been dropped for very dubious reasons on countless occasions, and never do you see them even considering legal-action.

If players could sue every time there was some dodgy selection, the game would have been destroyed by itself more times than can be imagined.

And there is no legal way that it can be ascertained why someone has been dropped. Selectors are not obliged to release such details.

 

[Goughy]

Can you tell me a way to define in a foolproof, certifiable way "one of your best 11 players"?

Players have been dropped for very dubious reasons on countless occasions, and never do you see them even considering legal-action.

If players could sue every time there was some dodgy selection, the game would have been destroyed by itself more times than can be imagined.

And there is no legal way that it can be ascertained why someone has been dropped. Selectors are not obliged to release such details.

Oh come on.

This isnt dodgy selection. This is systematic exclusion. Easily proven and the selection history and sentiments expressed would show it.

If Stuart Law was dropped, given his history and position in the team, you think that can be brushed off as a strange selection?

Players have contracts that protect them.

On what experience or education do you base the strong statement "there is no legal way "?

 

[Richard]

Are you telling me that you can prove beyond doubt why a decision has been made?

If you think you can, then yes, there is an obvious case for discrimination on the bounds of such-and-such. But how is this possible? Otherwise, as I say, players would be sueing for being dropped left right and centre.

I'm also somewhat surprised, as I say, that legal considerations could impact upon team selections when earnings are not impacted upon on a match-by-match basis.

 

[silentstriker]

Richard, did you study Emplyment Law?

I did and whilst Im nothing close to an expert and Im not sure what would be the ultimate decision, I can tell you with employment law you can make pretty much anything fly.

If there is money for playing, all it would take (IM simple O) is the question

"Is Player X one of your best 11 player?"

If the answer is "Yes" then it could be a simple case of discrimination (as player is excluded for reasons other than ability) and as denying someone the reasonable chance to earn their living.

One would omagine the rights of the player are guaranteed in his Contract of employment

They aren't talking about excluding the players, they are talking about excluding the teams themselves. Modi is saying a team will not be allowed to take part in the IPL if they have an ICL player under contract, regardless of whether they pick him or not.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but if the teams then had a legal case, they could exclude ICL-contracted players and would hence still be available for Champions League participation.

It's possible, though, that they would have no legal right to drop the players, and hence would be legally obliged to exclude themselves from Champions League participation.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, but if the teams then had a legal case, they could exclude ICL-contracted players and would hence still be available for Champions League participation.

It's possible, though, that they would have no legal right to drop the players, and hence would be legally obliged to exclude themselves from Champions League participation.

No, this is Modi:

"We are very clear on that," Modi, who is a major force behind the Champions League, told Cricinfo. Asked if counties with ICL players would be invited if they drop these players for the event, Modi said, "No, even that is not possible. Only teams that have no ties at all with ICL players will be invited... others are automatically disqualified."

 

[Goughy]

Are you telling me that you can prove beyond doubt why a decision has been made?

But straight away you show a lack of knowledge in emplyment law. Mine is very rusty with holes in it, but much of emplyment law has a reverse burden of proof where the employer has to prove an alternative reason for the dismissal etc. The emplyer has to prove they are innocent (ie there is another very good reason) rather than the complainer prove that the employer is guilty.

As for what you state. If there is a statement that says all players that play ICL cannnot play Champions League and then Counties that qualify proceed to drop their ICL players, then its pretty clear cut.

 

[Goughy]

They aren't talking about excluding the players, they are talking about excluding the teams themselves. Modi is saying a team will not be allowed to take part in the IPL if they have an ICL player under contract, regardless of whether they pick him or not.

If it means links in the loosest terms then in all liklihood there will be no Counties involved as the vast majority of them fall under this umbrella.

If they want County involvement then 'links' will have to mean players selected for the event and that has potential legal implications.

 

[Richard]

No, this is Modi:

"We are very clear on that," Modi, who is a major force behind the Champions League, told Cricinfo. Asked if counties with ICL players would be invited if they drop these players for the event, Modi said, "No, even that is not possible. Only teams that have no ties at all with ICL players will be invited... others are automatically disqualified."

I'd previously taken "the event" to mean the Champions League exclusively - the presumption being if they did not field the players in the Twenty20 Cup, they could play in the Champions League. Now, re-reading it, it's possible to read it very differently.

If that means any team which has an ICL cricketer on their books is ineligable, then there is no problem there. Does seem a tadge unfair, though, as said counties have no way of stopping their players signing for the ICL, and have no legal powers to dissociate them from themselves either as pre-existing contracts remain.

Looks like from now on all contracts will have to stipulate something about barring players from signing from any form of "rebel" league.

 

[Goughy]

Looks like from now on all contracts will have to stipulate something about barring players from signing from any form of "rebel" league.

How would they legally be able to do that without offering full 12 month contracts? You cant stipulate what a player can and cant do when you are not paying them

 

[silentstriker]

If it means links in the loosest terms then in all liklihood there will be no Counties involved as the vast majority of them fall under this umbrella.

If they want County involvement then 'links' will have to mean players selected for the event and that has potential legal implications.

It's the former, based on what Modi said. He mentioned in the earlier that it was agreed that most counties will be disqualified.

 

[Richard]

But straight away you show a lack of knowledge in emplyment law. Mine is very rusty with holes in it, but much of emplyment law has a reverse burden of proof where the employer has to prove an alternative reason for the dismissal etc. The emplyer has to prove they are innocent (ie there is another very good reason) rather than the complainer prove that the employer is guilty.

I see. Seems rather irregular, and I'm not sure I like that (the "guilty until proven innocent") at all, but I've no truck with accepting that's the way it is as I've never studied it.

As for what you state. If there is a statement that says all players that play ICL cannnot play Champions League and then Counties that qualify proceed to drop their ICL players, then its pretty clear cut.

As I say, it now seems likely that even if ICL-contracted players were dropped right now that counties would remain ineligable.

If the IPL and CL fell under British law I presume this would be a completely indefensible position, as counties had no power to prevent their players playing in the ICL. But given it's an international event, I suppose the lucky counties who had no players betray them will end-up the winners.

Basically, it seems those involved in the BCCI are trying to encourage counties to allow the contracts of ICL-contracted players to run-out, then discourage anyone to re-sign or sign-up them.