Pay dispute
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Thank fuck that's over. Now get on with giving the Poms a touch up boys (though first Bangladesh). I actually think the Ashes is going to be hotly contested. This English side are no mugs.
In the end the players got pretty much everything they wanted from the start (which was in line with the previous arrangements).
What a waste of time by CA.
Interesting that once James Sutherland was brought in after being strangely sidelined through most of the process, it was quickly resolved.
What a waste of time by CA.
Interesting that once James Sutherland was brought in after being strangely sidelined through most of the process, it was quickly resolved.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Interesting that for 10 months he has told his negotiators to hold the line, then once he got involved, he folded like a cheap tent?
I hope the players get their back pay!
I hope the players get their back pay!
I believe the players are getting back pay from 1 July.
My understanding was that the board were the ones who kept Sutherland out of the negotiations for most of it as there is an expectation that his tenure is close to ending.
It seemed that the chairman, Peever was dictating CA's stance throughout proceedings until it became clear they were getting nowhere.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
^^^yeah true, it seems the chairman has been dictating the strategy.
What's his tenure? How are they elected?
What's his tenure? How are they elected?
I think they are on three year terms. I am not really sure who decides whether or not they are re-elected.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
Happy for the resolution and glad the players got most of what they wanted. Mainly due to what they wanted among other things was more resources for grassroots Cricket and fairer compensation for our elite women's players. Still not perfect but certainly a major step forward for the latter.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
They weren't hanging out for grassroots funding.
They were refusing to give up their guaranteed share of revenue.
They were refusing to give up their guaranteed share of revenue.
Exactly. Hard to see the players as "white knights" in all of this. Yes, the union negotiated a good deal (rightly so) for womens' cricket. I don't think the guys on megabucks were hanging out for that part of the deal per se.
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
I thought the revenue sharing model was part of guaranteeing payments for paying State Cricketers as they had been for many years previous: as part of countering CAs attempt to shift effectively all payments of any substance to International cricket and Big Bash: which would have seen significantly more money end up in the coffers of foreigners and those who are on big bucks anyway: as well as remove an incentive for elder Cricketers to stick around and improve the Domestic standard, and instead be encouraging them to go overseas and just make as much money as they can from mid 20s onwards, rather than the early-mid 30s as they are currently doing.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
As part of the agreement extra funding for grassroots programs was secured. While it wasn't the primary reason for their holding out it was part of their overall stance.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
So you don't think someone like Mitchell Starc who's wife is also the Aus. Women's keeper Alyssa Healy, had an opinion on whether women's Cricket saw a greater share?
There's plenty of blood in the water over the whole ordeal but the ACA went to the table looking to secure a much better deal for women in the game. Sure, the elite men won out big time but considering according to the article the funding for the women's side of the game is set to jump from $7.5 to $55m over the next 5 years. I think that's a pretty big win toward some kind of fairness in levels of pay.
Also, they've secured as part of the deal between $10-$20m per year in funding for grassroots.
Did I actually say that?
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
You suggested that the men weren't holding out for that part of the deal. Per se. Considering the ACA represents all the elite cricketers in the country regardless of gender and as their representative would have taken instruction from their membership I suggest that that was one of the reasons they were holding out.
Maybe for him. I'm not convinced the bulk of our very highly paid male elite cricketers had the same level of egalitarian concern. I appreciate your opinion is otherwise.
In my opinion the announcement of extra funding for grassroots cricket was made as part of the deal because it is the only thing that can be considered a win for CA in the negotiations. The ACA got everything they wanted. CA were arguing for the changes so they could keep a cap on state player salaries and put more money towards grassroots.
I think there was a reasonable amount of solidarity from the top players but probably primarily towards the state players who CA wanted to be able to cap the earnings of and separate them from the revenue sharing model.
CA's primary tactic was to offer massive individual contracts to the top players in the hope that they would accept those and then leave the state players with no bargaining chips. To their credit, the top players rejected those for the good of everyone.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
Didn't the ACA go into the negotiations with planned a $600m grassroots development fund as part of their position. Pretty sure I read that some time not too long ago.
- Status