• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Pay dispute

Status
Not open for further replies.

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
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.


In theory that was the case. I don't think there was ever any likelihood that the ability to spend that much was anywhere close to being possible.

It certainly wasn't something that the ACA held firm on.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
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.

Money for the grass roots was what the board (CA) were holding out for.

The only money that the players were interested in was their own. Let's not pretend that this was anything other than a pay dispute in which the players wanted more money.

You'll convince me otherwise when they take a10% pay cut and ensure that the 10% is paid to local cricket clubs.

Personally I didn't find the position of either side very attractive, two groups of rich, greedy people arguing about how the pie is carved up.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Money for the grass roots was what the board (CA) were holding out for.

The only money that the players were interested in was their own. Let's not pretend that this was anything other than a pay dispute in which the players wanted more money.

You'll convince me otherwise when they take a10% pay cut and ensure that the 10% is paid to local cricket clubs.

Personally I didn't find the position of either side very attractive, two groups of rich, greedy people arguing about how the pie is carved up.


Just going from what I read regarding the early positions of both groups. The ACA wanted to have the fund come from the revenue sharing agreement while CA wanted to essentially end it but fund grassroots using a different model.

Regarding taking a pay cut. Well, it wasn't a pay cut but in 2015 the ACA membership pledged $20m for grassroots, player welfare, and women's cricket.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top