The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
All but confirmed that players will be out of contract at midnight. 230 male and female cricketers affected: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/australian-cricket-pay-deal-mou-expires/8666232
Pay dispute
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I think it is incredibly stupid by CA. They have completely underestimated the solidarity shown by the players.
It seems to be largely driven by the CA Chairman David Peever who was formerly the head of Rio Tinto and is staunchly anti-union. He has seemed intent on taking power away from the players and has failed dismally in doing so. It's now causing very real damage to cricket in Australia.
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
England now saying they won't tour until the dispute is resolved:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/1109587.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/1109587.html
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I'm with the players on this one. Hold the line boys! I say that knowing that my tickets for the Adelaide test will be worthless if the dispute isn't resolved.
I don't see any solution other than CA rolling over and accepting a deal that the players are happy with.
The time frame is getting shorter and shorter and the biggest inbound tour they have is now in jeopardy.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
The time frame is getting shorter and shorter and the biggest inbound tour they have is now in jeopardy.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Greedy players v greedy administrators, hard to get passionate either way about it.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
If the Aussie cricketers were truly part of the downtrodden masses, I'd be the first to support their cause.
They're very wealthy men in a dispute with other very wealthy men. No sympathy to either side.
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
Less, downtrodden masses, more, it's always nice to see a Union do its job properly: in so much that they're turning down straight pay increases for the most influential people (see, internationals and Big Bash Guns) and pushing for the pay distribution/model they think is best for everyone in the long term.
Wealthy v Wealthy I don't really care too much.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
As regular followers of these threads would know, I'm the first to criticise boards or CEOs when they're not doing their job properly. However, I'm yet to be convinced that CA are doing anything other than trying to look after the game in this instance. I'm sure that there is right and wrong on both sides of this one though - noting that the players want a share of "revenue" rather than "profit" (a very important distinction). I'd imagine the CA incur significant expenses in relation to earning the revenue.
I've no problem with unions standing up for their members, I would observe though that they are being every bit as intransigent as the board.
It seems that CA wants to spend less overall as a percentage of revenue on salaries and feel like they can do that because revenue is going up.
I think the chief reason that ACA wants to keep the % of revenue share is that is the method that has been used for a long time and they don't see a reason for changing. Whilst the current offer to the players is pretty good, changing the way that the players get remunerated is likely to be a permanent change and could be detrimental to future players when the next pay deal is negotiated.
I am firmly on the side of the ACA and the players here. They want to keep their remuneration method the same as previous agreements.
The CA have tried to change that and haven't managed to present a compelling argument as to why that should be the case.
Why should the players give ground when they are not the ones seeking change? They are the game in this country at a professional level after all.
I think the chief reason that ACA wants to keep the % of revenue share is that is the method that has been used for a long time and they don't see a reason for changing. Whilst the current offer to the players is pretty good, changing the way that the players get remunerated is likely to be a permanent change and could be detrimental to future players when the next pay deal is negotiated.
I am firmly on the side of the ACA and the players here. They want to keep their remuneration method the same as previous agreements.
The CA have tried to change that and haven't managed to present a compelling argument as to why that should be the case.
Why should the players give ground when they are not the ones seeking change? They are the game in this country at a professional level after all.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
^^^^Now we've just got to get you to show that same anti-administration attitude over on the rugby threads.
I reckon CA may have the ARU shaded when it comes to murky administration figures on undisclosed salaries.
Gideon Haigh summed it up pretty well in his scathing article last week - there is merit in what CA is proposing but the way they have gone about selling it is ridiculous.
I am with the players - at least their arguments make sense. The idea floated by CA that essentially the current model sees greedy players taking food from the plates of grassroots battlers is insulting and neglects how those two tiers are interrelated.
.
Gideon Haigh summed it up pretty well in his scathing article last week - there is merit in what CA is proposing but the way they have gone about selling it is ridiculous.
I am with the players - at least their arguments make sense. The idea floated by CA that essentially the current model sees greedy players taking food from the plates of grassroots battlers is insulting and neglects how those two tiers are interrelated.
.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^I don't think either side has made a case. I think that they are both at fault to some extent.
Emotionally it's easy to support the players, but I'm not so sure that things are as cut and dried as you suggest.
Emotionally it's easy to support the players, but I'm not so sure that things are as cut and dried as you suggest.
But the onus is on CA here, as they are the ones trying to change the system.
The players case is simple - keep the same agreement. And they don't really have to argue it, merely point to the years of fruitful relations between all parties.
I agree that neither side is blameless in this saga, though.
.
The players case is simple - keep the same agreement. And they don't really have to argue it, merely point to the years of fruitful relations between all parties.
I agree that neither side is blameless in this saga, though.
.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Why don't the players have to argue their case? The agreement is decades old and has been rolled over again and again - surely the employer has some right to alter arrangements. (And I agree that CA haven't handled it particularly well)
In principle that's correct, but this isn't like any other workplace agreement. The employees are also the product. While they have a right to alter arrangements, they risk losing their product completely in the process.
And I suppose I meant the players didn't have to really set out there case as CA has to, because their case is fairly evident - years of cricketing success under the revenue share model.
.
And I suppose I meant the players didn't have to really set out there case as CA has to, because their case is fairly evident - years of cricketing success under the revenue share model.
.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I better get off this thread, I'm starting to get head spins siding with management.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
CA want to change their agreement, so it's up to them to state the reasons why the new arrangement is better, and why the existing agreement is no longer fair.
Had they done that, Im sure the players would have rebutted.
i think there is a good reason why CA have neglected to debate the issue on facts.
So fuck em
- Status