Cricket’s pay dispute has gone up a notch

Glenn Mitchell Columnist

By Glenn Mitchell, Glenn Mitchell is a Roar Expert

 , , ,

141 Have your say

    Generations of cricketers have grown up in this country with the dream of playing in an Ashes series.

    The current crop is no different, despite the increased presence of myriad Twenty20 leagues.

    Yet, players yesterday took a step that may harm their prospects of being selected for this summer’s series against the old enemy by boycotting the Australia A tour of South Africa.

    CA initially set down today as the deadline for the players to confirm their standing for the tour but brought it forward 24 hours for what it said were logistical reasons.

    As one, the players elected to turn their back on the tour.

    The decision, made in unison by the playing group which was to be led by Usman Khawaja, has moved the current acrimonious pay dispute into even rougher waters.

    On Sunday, following an Australian Cricketers Association meeting in Sydney, the players resolved to abandon the tour if there was not material progress made this week on the MoU talks after having drafted 14 non-negotiable resolutions.

    Yesterday they deemed that there had not been sufficient progress towards ending the stand-off. Cricket Australia expressed a different view, believing there had been enough progress following discussions this week to see the tour proceed.

    Not for the first time, the battling parties are diametrically opposed in their view of proceedings.

    While the dispute appears a long way from being resolved, the abandonment of the Australia A tour will be of great concern to CA.

    Among the touring party, which was scheduled to play two four-day matches against South Africa A were Khawaja, Glenn Maxwell and Jackson Bird.

    The national selectors chose that trio, and others, as an audition for the Ashes series. It would be a way for them to enhance their prospects of selection come the summer.

    The fact they have opted out of the tour is the most potent signal to date that the players remain united.

    As is the case in all disputes of this nature there is a level of brinkmanship with both parties making threats.

    While CA would have foreseen the boycott of the South Africa tour as a real likelihood, the fact that it has occurred will cause some gnashing of teeth.

    Both parties remain at loggerheads over the revenue sharing agreement that has underpinned successive MoUs since 1997 but there is an equally large issue at play – CA’s desire to dilute the power of the ACA.

    It is a classic case of a business entity endeavouring to dull the strength of its constituent union.

    The genesis for the current dispute stems back to the 2012 Crawford Report into CA’s governance.

    The report recommended the most significant shake-up in the cricket board’s 112-year history with a reduction from 14 to six state-based directors and the introduction of three independent directors.

    The move away from the board being merely a collection of state bodies was the catalyst for the appointment of current chair, David Peever.

    As former managing director of Rio Tinto Australia, Peever has a history of taking on the unions.

    While at Rio he was an ardent fan of the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation and used it as a catalyst for many of the anti-union measures undertaken at the multinational miner.

    Peever is opposed to collective bargaining through third parties and believes workplace agreements should be negotiated with employees rather than unions.

    Steve Smith Usman Khawaja

    (AAP Image/Julian Smith)

    While the players see themselves as equal partners in the game, Peever views them as contract employees, believing the pair should negotiate directly without input from ACA.

    To date, the players have held firm in the belief that they are best served by ACA taking up the baton on their behalf at the negotiating table.

    Previous chairmen, Jack Clarke and Wally Edwards – both cricket administrators of long standing – and current CEO James Sutherland have previously questioned the revenue-sharing model.

    Peever is staunchly against it continuing, as are many on the current board.

    Clarke, Edwards and Sutherland all previously agreed to ACA being a representative of the players in the drafting of earlier MoUs. Peever does not and he is ardent in his desire to remove its power at the table.

    Those at the top of CA would have been hoping by now for fractures within player ranks.

    Yesterday’s decision to opt out of the South Africa tour is a clear indication that there is nothing but unity across the playing group.

    Yesterday’s announcement by ACA indicates the parties are still poles apart.

    Curiously, Sutherland is still having limited exposure in the negotiations.

    Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland and chairman Wally Edwards

    (AAP Image/Julian Smith)

    While he has been in talks this week with his ACA counterpart, Alistair Nicholson, CA’s chief negotiator remains Kevin Roberts.

    Should Roberts attain the goals set down by CA’s board for the next MoU, he may be the body’s next CEO when Sutherland, who has been in the role since 2001, departs.

    Despite ACA’s desire for mediation, CA refuses. Without it, it is hard to see how a resolution acceptable to both parties can be found.

    The players want to assure that all players – male and female – are remunerated fairly. They believe it can only happen with a revenue sharing model similar to the one in place for the past 20 years.

    They are also concerned that funds that could be directed to the grassroots level of the sport is being drained by a top-heavy bureaucracy.

    ACA has voiced its concerns that the number of CA employees has almost doubled in the past five years.

    With a line ruled through the South Africa series, the next hurdle for CA is next month’s two-Test tour of Bangladesh followed by a lucrative limited overs tour of India. And then, of course, the Ashes.

    Such is the standing of that series, federal sports minister Greg Hunt has stated that the government would be prepared to intervene in the dispute should things still not be resolved.

    At this rate, he may be needed come November.

    Glenn Mitchell
    Glenn Mitchell

    After 21 years as a sports broadcaster with the ABC, since mid-2011 Glenn Mitchell has been freelancing in the electronic and written media. He is an ambassador for mental health in Australia, and tweets from @mitchellglenn.

    There have been upsets aplenty in the World Cup so far, so be sure to check out our expert tips and predictions for South Korea vs Sweden, Belgium vs Panama and England vs Tunisia and get the good oil on who to tip tonight.

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (141)

    • July 7th 2017 @ 5:00am
      Ian Whitchurch said | July 7th 2017 @ 5:00am | ! Report

      As an Australian who likes cricket, I’m more concerned where the money not going to players is going.

      I don’t see investments in grounds, I dont see investment in coaching and I don’t see investments in the future of the game.

      Where is the ~81% of the money Cricket Australia doesnt want to give players going ?

      • July 7th 2017 @ 8:12am
        Chui said | July 7th 2017 @ 8:12am | ! Report

        Spot on

      • July 7th 2017 @ 10:28am
        Abigail said | July 7th 2017 @ 10:28am | ! Report

        Well said!

        Isn’t Cricket Australia registered as a “not for profit” organisation?
        Where is the money being spent or stashed?

        • July 7th 2017 @ 10:39am
          Bakkies said | July 7th 2017 @ 10:39am | ! Report

          Their alickadoo lifestyle. Lunches, fine wine, dinners and fat pay cheques.

        • July 7th 2017 @ 3:01pm
          johnnie said | July 7th 2017 @ 3:01pm | ! Report

          Cash reserves of $100mil plus… “Not For Profit” huh?

      • July 7th 2017 @ 11:25am
        rock said | July 7th 2017 @ 11:25am | ! Report

        I love people lambasting the players for all this, this is purely down to CA greed. CA do not spend anywhere near enough on grassroots, yet they’re trying to say that this is because players take too much of a proportion of revenue…..

        CA bank account currently stands (at last financial report) close to $200m, yes that’s $200,000,000.

        Player payments in FY16 was $57.5m (25% of total operating expenses), while administration costs was $32m (15% of total operating expenses). Sport is a product where the sole revenue earner comes from player performance, on that basis seems that admin costs v player payment seems very high.

        CA just see the increased revenue to be generated in the future coming from Big Bash, and they simply don’t want the players (whom provide the entertainment) getting the same slice from that bigger $$ pie.

        • July 7th 2017 @ 1:52pm
          jameswm said | July 7th 2017 @ 1:52pm | ! Report

          The CA Execs from private enterprise don’t get that:

          1. the players ARE the product; and

          2. they are not a profit making body.

          The reason for linking to revenue is this: what if that revenue goes up a LOT? For example, a 20% pay increase on last year’s earnings might sound good. But what if over the next 3 years the takings (TV, advertising etc) go up 150%? Shouldn’t the players (who are to thank for the increase) get their share?

          Of course they should.

          CA are being disingenuous the whole way through. Failing to release figures. Making it public that players get a chunk of junior rego fees. That’s a low blow that one, and unjustified. If they were really worried about that – why not reduce them? It’s not like CA need the money.

          Not disclosing other figures, withholding payments etc.

          • July 7th 2017 @ 5:59pm
            Bill said | July 7th 2017 @ 5:59pm | ! Report

            What happens the years (every non ashes or India year) when the sport looses money? They still pay the players so have to dip into reserves.people are forgetting how great CA are doing (big bash, night tests) and how crap the team is (always loosing)

            • July 7th 2017 @ 11:28pm
              Rock said | July 7th 2017 @ 11:28pm | ! Report

              They have not had a loss year sonce 2013 – and it was minor, and actually irregular.

              Additionally, Big Bash will be one of their major draw cards and cash cow for the next few years with it’s growing popularity. So it’s hard to see a loss from CA in the foreseeable future.

              And why is the Big Bash so successful, is it because of the players producing a good sporting product on the field or that the administration is so good – not to hard to answer that one is it…..

      • Roar Rookie

        July 7th 2017 @ 8:48pm
        Chancho said | July 7th 2017 @ 8:48pm | ! Report

        Well said Ian… they’re sitting on a solid cash reserve, but dragging their heels in getting this $4m academy completed in Queensland!

    • July 7th 2017 @ 5:45am
      BennO said | July 7th 2017 @ 5:45am | ! Report

      I get annoyed with anti union behaviour. I’m sure Peever supports the business council of Australia and mineral council of Australia in their efforts to negotiate conditions in which they operate (ie lobbying the government etc).

      While not a perfect analogy, if it’s good enough for business to be represented collectively it should be good enough for workers. And on that note, I think Peever should back down on his attitude and negotiate with them in good faith as a collective, as they have asked. Get in the room with a mediator and commit to working it out with them.

      • July 7th 2017 @ 8:56am
        Bob said | July 7th 2017 @ 8:56am | ! Report

        Peever seems like the only one switched on in this whole thing. Unions destroy and they destroy absolutely. That has been the case since at least the 1960s. There is no purpose to their existence other than to hold on to power and extort money. They are essentially organised crime organisations masquerading as a legitimate concern. They are quite willing to destroy the livelihoods of current and future potential members. This is just another example of that. Get them out of the game – they have no purpose. Let the players negotiate separate contracts themselves and everyone will be happy (except the ACA, who are greedily licking their lips at the money they want to extort from this agreement).

        • July 7th 2017 @ 9:11am
          Pope Paul VII said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:11am | ! Report

          You must go to the cricket to check out the exciting play in the corporate boxes.

        • July 7th 2017 @ 9:13am
          Bakkies said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:13am | ! Report

          Often that’s it true but in this instance the centrally contracted players are trying to protect the income of future test players and female Cricketers

          • Roar Guru

            July 7th 2017 @ 9:35am
            Rellum said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:35am | ! Report

            That is rarely true. That sort of extremist right wing, capitalist attitude of Bob is not useful in a sport. Neither is a hard line Union attitude for that matter but you do need to stand up for what you think is right and from all that I know of this issue the players are much more inline with an altruistic attitude. They clearly want to be paid a fair amount for what they bring to the game, as that is their lively hood, but they have shown over a number of years now they do have a genuine concern for the state of the game.

            • July 7th 2017 @ 9:54am
              Bob said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:54am | ! Report

              I am neither right wing nor an extremist and this sort of labeling helps no-one. I am a free market capitalist (which is not right wing, despite your ignorance), however, which is the moral position (given the free markets are the only thing known to lift people out of poverty. In fact, the alternatives (like statist redistribution) make everyone poorer, even the poor). Capitalism is the only system truly based on altruism, albeit forced (in capitalism you have to give someone something they want in order to feed yourself. You have to do something for someone else. Redistribution on the other hand is based on the premise that someone has more than me, so I should be entitled to steal that from them (but I’ll get the government to steal it for me, so I don’t feel bad about stealing).

              You clearly don’t understand the drivers in this case. The unions have no right to demand a share of the revenue when they are not willing to take on an equal obligation to any losses. The union’s only goal is to drive up prices for their players, so they can take more money for themselves (this happens in all industries – unions are mafia organisations – extortion is their stock in trade). The players bear no risk, do not need to consider the future and are not driven by anything other than their next contract. Even pushing the idea of revenue share for lower level players is based on a fear that they will one day be dropped. There is nothing altruistic in these views.

              • July 7th 2017 @ 10:37am
                Peter said | July 7th 2017 @ 10:37am | ! Report

                Don’t kid yourself. Labels are very helpful.

              • July 7th 2017 @ 11:11am
                Pope Paul VII said | July 7th 2017 @ 11:11am | ! Report

                The player’s bear no risk? Is Peever on a contract do you reckon?

              • July 7th 2017 @ 8:58pm
                Bee bee said | July 7th 2017 @ 8:58pm | ! Report

                Can Peever bat or bowl. Or is he an all rounder. Will he be fit in time for the Ashes. Might have to cut back on those corporate lunches for a while.

              • July 7th 2017 @ 4:09pm
                Burner said | July 7th 2017 @ 4:09pm | ! Report

                @Bob – did a union steal your lunch when you were a child?

                As with most things, the situation with regard to unions is far more complex than your stark good v evil viewpoint. In this instance, CA has a monopoly so it’s hardly a free market situation, is it? Given these facts, there seems little merit in anything you have said.

              • July 7th 2017 @ 4:11pm
                Birdy said | July 7th 2017 @ 4:11pm | ! Report

                Nah we don’t need unions.
                Good to see company CEO s on multi million $ salaries and employees struggling to pay their mortgage.
                We now have a class of working poor larger , much larger than anytime in our history and growing at a fast rate.
                We have our kids being exploited by the fast food industry.
                We have extreme safety issues with imported building materials, invluding steel of such poor quality that it’s hard to weld.asbestos products back in vogue. A propaganda campaign against workers rights that workers are actually believing.
                Workers in extremly unsafe environments who cant ealk off the job for fear of fines and jail terms and the loss of their homes.
                In my 45 years in the work force ive been on strike twice.infact ive seen shop stewards solve more problems before they became major issues.
                I’ll end my rant by saying i know a lawer who works for all these major companies, mining , construction the works, drafting up work place other words he works against the working man.
                His advice, anyone who works for a wage or salary who is not in a union is a bloody idiot.!!!!

              • Roar Guru

                July 7th 2017 @ 7:37pm
                Rellum said | July 7th 2017 @ 7:37pm | ! Report

                What rot.

                Having seen first hand capitalism in it’s purest form and the way it treats people who don’t have much power, I can tell you it is anything but altruistic.

                I have watched peoples mental and physical health decline because of the way the suits and managers treat them, and of the demands the ‘Job’ has on them. I have seen families destroyed all so a manager or executive could make a few minor changes to something not remotely important who then would disappear for a fun weekend. If those workers had just combined together they could have made they had a fair and just work place.

                I have seen people tricked into paying for the privilege of working on a project, just so a board could seem more profitable.

                I know enough about this dispute to know which side has the interests of the game at heart, and which has it’s own motives. Those motives by the way are still a mystery.

                And by the way, your first statement is straight form the neo-capitalist playbook, which in the modern political climate is a hard right stance whether you want to believe it to be or not.

              • July 8th 2017 @ 7:24am
                Birdy said | July 8th 2017 @ 7:24am | ! Report

                Totally agree Rellum.
                Construction sites now are run like concentration camps .
                Stealing workers penalty rates in service industries is just the beginning . It will spread.

            • July 7th 2017 @ 10:02am
              Bakkies said | July 7th 2017 @ 10:02am | ! Report

              Rellum I suggest you read in to the often illegal disputes that are caused by transport unions in Europe that grind cities and in terms of Ireland (bus strike) countries to a halt. The elderly and less well off can’t get from A to B or to their medical appointments. When was the last time a transport union pulled a similar stunt in Australia?

              • Roar Guru

                July 7th 2017 @ 7:38pm
                Rellum said | July 7th 2017 @ 7:38pm | ! Report

                I am sure there are many instances of dodgy unions, but in my industry, parts of the work force are covered by union work conditions protection and parts are not. I can tell you those with protection have a much fairer and safer job than those who don’t.

              • July 8th 2017 @ 7:41am
                Birdy said | July 8th 2017 @ 7:41am | ! Report

                The transport industry is the very industry that needs a strong union.
                How many interstate and long distance truckies are on stay awake pills?
                Answer, not much change from 100%.
                Why ? Because the industry needs impossible delivery times over the safety of their drivers and mum simply picking her kids up from school.

              • July 8th 2017 @ 11:06am
                Bakkies said | July 8th 2017 @ 11:06am | ! Report

                Birdy the truckies aren’t relevant to public buses and mass transit which the public rely on to get from A to B

                The bus drivers are arguing for more money when there isn’t enough there. The Irish bus service was down for nearly 12 weeks due to the unions so the average Joe had to fork out serious money on taxis each day to get work. For a lot of towns it was the only bus service so people were stranded

          • July 7th 2017 @ 9:55am
            Bob said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:55am | ! Report

            Actually female cricketers will be twice as well off under CA’s proposal as ACA’s, so that is not really a consideration.

            • July 7th 2017 @ 10:06am
              Bakkies said | July 7th 2017 @ 10:06am | ! Report

              Which female Cricketers? The international players only on central contracts or are the Base Ball League and domestic Cricketers included?

            • July 7th 2017 @ 1:53pm
              jameswm said | July 7th 2017 @ 1:53pm | ! Report

              Even that is inaccurate Bob, unless you have a crystal ball.

              Some female cricketers will go onto a higher contract than they were on. But what if CA revenue doubles? Then they have lost out by taking that pay rise.

        • July 7th 2017 @ 9:43am
          Birdy said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:43am | ! Report

          Bob you are a complete and utter goose.

          • July 7th 2017 @ 6:20pm
            davros said | July 7th 2017 @ 6:20pm | ! Report

            bobs a troll ..and possibly a paid stooge for CA

        • July 7th 2017 @ 9:49am
          BennO said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:49am | ! Report

          Hehe, ok Bob.

        • July 7th 2017 @ 10:15am
          qwetzen said | July 7th 2017 @ 10:15am | ! Report

          “Unions destroy and they destroy absolutely. That has been the case since at least the 1960s.”

          Really? Who ‘destroyed’ these entities, unions or government?

          Commonwealth Bank
          Australia Post
          The independance of the Public Service
          The Climate Commission

          • July 7th 2017 @ 12:20pm
            AGordon said | July 7th 2017 @ 12:20pm | ! Report

            These are the same Unions that created the Global Financial Crisis I guess?

        • July 7th 2017 @ 12:19pm
          AGordon said | July 7th 2017 @ 12:19pm | ! Report

          You’ve got this completely wrong and the purpose of union bashing is to allow people like Peever to make any decisions they want about any aspect of the game and get away with it. I can see a 19 year old cricketing prodigy getting a fair deal from a guy like Peever is they are forced to negotiate a contract on their own – NOT!!! I can also see CA deciding to create another level of bureaucracy if they have to negotiate and maintain contracts with 230 plus male and female cricketers.

          Tell me what agenda CA would run IF they were sole masters of the game. They were the cricketing power in Australia until the 1970s and thought it was reasonable for blokes like Chappell, Walters, Lillee, Thompson, etc to play for $200 a Test. That’s the sort of thing we’d go back to if CA was in control.

          It’s guys like Peever who might run businesses well and that’s debateable, but shouldn’t have anything to do with not for profit organisations. Their thinking just doesn’t fit into this type of business model and neither do yours

        • July 7th 2017 @ 2:04pm
          spruce moose said | July 7th 2017 @ 2:04pm | ! Report


          Your ridiculous rant would be more powerful if you understood that unions are the byproduct of a free-market capitalist society, and that no non-capitalist society has unions.

        • July 7th 2017 @ 6:04pm
          Simoc said | July 7th 2017 @ 6:04pm | ! Report

          Peever is a blowfly, unwanted in the corporate world. A caveman, like Tony Abbott, incompetent and now found out on the biggest stage. His legacy is that of a pedantic fool, useless in the modern world. . How hopeless is the CA position!

          Sutherland decides after 16 years that grassroots is underfunded. But he doesn’t possess the backbone to prevent the present circumstance. Conspicuous by his absence when the going gets tough.

          These CA incompetents take the money but are failures. Get rid of them!

        • July 7th 2017 @ 6:06pm
          loclasss said | July 7th 2017 @ 6:06pm | ! Report

          The only people supporting CA are the fat cats that want to keep all the cream for themselves and give some watered-down milk for the rest of us. That seems the way of the world at the moment. Strengh is in unity, dont let the fat cats weaken us one by one .

          • July 7th 2017 @ 6:23pm
            davros said | July 7th 2017 @ 6:23pm | ! Report

            and Bob the knob !

        • Roar Rookie

          July 7th 2017 @ 9:00pm
          Chancho said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:00pm | ! Report

          yep, always the Unions, never management… I mean, it wasn’t management but the Unions that bought down the likes of Enron

        • July 8th 2017 @ 6:29am
          Chris said | July 8th 2017 @ 6:29am | ! Report

          The SDA is probably the only union currently operating which is anything like as you say Bob and I doubt that was ever their business strategy, they got screwed trying to support 16 year olds working for Woolies and ended up being a sub-branch of management.

          Regarding your comments on wealth redistribution, which modern economies are you referring to? Seems to be working quite nicely for the Scandinavian countries

          “If nations want their citizens to be happy, they will have to accomplish the difficult task of ensuring that their income levels are balanced and fair” from the article review

          “These findings suggest that a more even distribution of growth in national wealth may be a precondition for raising nationwide happiness.”

          Let me guess, you’re someone who still believes that negative gearing is important because it allows people to “get ahead” and think coal is our only hope for the future?

      • July 7th 2017 @ 10:46am
        Mark said | July 7th 2017 @ 10:46am | ! Report

        Businesses don’t negotiate collectively.

        The organisations you mention don’t bargain on behalf of businesses and are not parties to any agreement.

    • July 7th 2017 @ 6:21am
      Kurt said | July 7th 2017 @ 6:21am | ! Report

      Peever sounds like a porkchop

      • July 7th 2017 @ 8:54pm
        Bee bee said | July 7th 2017 @ 8:54pm | ! Report

        Former Rio Tinto Boss.
        Sells Holes in the ground. Nothing as precious as that.
        Now wants to chuck cricket in a hole.
        Great move Peevs.
        Pork chop is too kind.
        Stuff the super mining profits tax. Let’s make a super CEO board tosspot tax.
        Oh. That’s right, the tosspots can’t pay tax. Their too rich for that. Squirrelling away money in the Caribbean while the great unwashed pay. Let Peevs open the batting for ?? in the Ashes. Let’s see how he goes against a Stuart Broad bouncer.

      • Roar Rookie

        July 7th 2017 @ 9:01pm
        Chancho said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:01pm | ! Report

        True… but it’s also the silence coming from Sutherland that’s most intriguing…. as the CA CEO, we’ve hardly heard a peep.

    • July 7th 2017 @ 8:01am
      Cleveland said | July 7th 2017 @ 8:01am | ! Report

      Thanks Glenn for the analysis. I have suspected for a while that The CA chairman was bringing an anti-union bias to the negotiations. While I think the current pay model should be tweaked, the CA attitude will be a disaster for cricket.
      With the problems in the ARU and the Australian Sports Commission, maybe it’s time to review the model of bringing business heavyweights and their large salaries into the management of national sporting bodies…there seems to be a distinct lack of governance.

    • July 7th 2017 @ 8:13am
      Christo the Daddyo said | July 7th 2017 @ 8:13am | ! Report

      Glenn, I’m curious as to why you thought it necessary to highlight your perception that there is an anti-union bias in CA (specifically in its Chairman), but you neglect to mention the ACA has brought in a highly experienced unionist in Greg Combet to assist them. Combet is someone with a long history of anti-business behaviour.

      Surely a balanced article would acknowledge both sides of the story?

      • July 7th 2017 @ 12:22pm
        AGordon said | July 7th 2017 @ 12:22pm | ! Report

        I’m guessing, but Combet might have been brought in to combat Peever?

        • July 7th 2017 @ 12:37pm
          Christo the Daddyo said | July 7th 2017 @ 12:37pm | ! Report

          Almost certainly. But that just shows the hypocrisy of the ACA. At the same time as they’re accusing CA of being stubborn, they’re employing someone who will behave in the same way.

          Most disputes are solved by compromise – but both sides here seem equally unwilling to shift their positions in the slightest.

          • Roar Guru

            July 7th 2017 @ 1:13pm
            The Bush said | July 7th 2017 @ 1:13pm | ! Report

            The difference being that the ACA and Players are willing to participate in mediation, whilst CA is not.

            There is only one party at the moment who is refusing to try and resolve the issue and it’s not the players/ACA.

            • July 7th 2017 @ 2:01pm
              Christo the Daddyo said | July 7th 2017 @ 2:01pm | ! Report

              Fair point on the mediation. Has CA given a reason as to why they’re refusing to go down that route?

              • July 7th 2017 @ 4:26pm
                matth said | July 7th 2017 @ 4:26pm | ! Report

                I believe they said that there is nothing to mediate if the players refused to give up the revenue sharing arrangement as a starting point.

          • July 7th 2017 @ 1:57pm
            jameswm said | July 7th 2017 @ 1:57pm | ! Report

            “Almost certainly. But that just shows the hypocrisy of the ACA. At the same time as they’re accusing CA of being stubborn, they’re employing someone who will behave in the same way”

            What’s the alternative Christo? Give in?

            The ACA have already compromised on percentages. But linked to revenue yes or no – there isn’t really a compromise on that. Either their pay IS linked to revenue or it isn’t.

            The ACA have already said to CA if you want to spend more on grassroots fine, let’s talk an adjustment of figures.

            But no, no movement from CA.

            • July 7th 2017 @ 2:15pm
              Christo the Daddyo said | July 7th 2017 @ 2:15pm | ! Report

              I guess that’s why if you can’t come to an agreement on a dispute you get mediation. I’d be curious as to CA’s reasoning for not going down that route.

              • July 7th 2017 @ 4:27pm
                matth said | July 7th 2017 @ 4:27pm | ! Report

                They believe that if they persist the lower paid cricketers will crack and jump ranks, which will reduce the power of the ACA. They are not looking just to ‘win’ this dispute, they are looking to reduce the players’ future power as well.

                They forget that the cricketers are the ones with the monopoly.

      • July 8th 2017 @ 9:15pm
        Zozza said | July 8th 2017 @ 9:15pm | ! Report

        Good. Im glad the ACA have bought in a Unionist.

    • July 7th 2017 @ 8:25am
      Chris Love said | July 7th 2017 @ 8:25am | ! Report

      I really hope the ACA wins this one handsomely.

      This is not the same as a mining company negotiating an EBA. CA doesn’t have “shareholders” or investors interest to look after. CA isn’t taking huge risks with the hope of a profit like a mining company.

      These players have a small window to set themselves up for life and shouldn’t be thought of as employees. We don’t go to and watch the cricket because of nearly anything CA does. It’s because of what the players do. I got to see smith, not Sutherland and the cronies he will hire on 7 figure sums once he has all the power.

      I say the players should set up their own governing body and ask to be recognised by the ICC and all the other nations boards if this gets anywhere near the cancellation of the India tour. If that’s not possible then I am willing to forgo an Ashes series to see these men and women, wipe the floor with CA.

      • July 7th 2017 @ 9:21am
        Bakkies said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:21am | ! Report

        ‘CA isn’t taking huge risks with the hope of a profit like a mining company.’

        They are actually as they are reliant on stakeholders, sponsors and broadcasters. Being in an international sport they risk getting sued by other boards particularly the BCCI if they can’t commit to their tour obligations.

        The Windies are a classic case of these matters not getting resolved so the players choose not to represent their board and to earn their living on the go playing for various franchises.

      • July 7th 2017 @ 9:23am
        Christo the Daddyo said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:23am | ! Report

        The trouble is that if the ACA ‘wins’, the following will almost certainly happen…

        The Ashes tour will be cancelled and this upcoming season of the BBL will be cancelled. I’m ot sure what CA’s cash reserves are, but they will be wiped out almost instantly from lost revenue and legal action from Ashes broadcasters (both domestic and international) and Ch 10 in regards to the BBL. So then you’re left with the body that is the legal ‘owner’ of cricket administration of cricket in Australia being bankrupt.

        Broadcasters will look for other content to show in place of the cricket. Maybe it will be a hell of a lot cheaper and and the ratings won’t drop that much. In which case when cricket eventually sorts itself out and comes back to the broadcasters, the money on offer (if there is even an offer at all – broadcasters do like reliability of supply of a product) will be vastly less.

        Is that really in anyone’s best interests?

        What happens then?

        • July 7th 2017 @ 10:08am
          Bakkies said | July 7th 2017 @ 10:08am | ! Report

          ‘The trouble is that if the ACA ‘wins’, the following will almost certainly happen…

          The Ashes tour will be cancelled and this upcoming season of the BBL will be cancelled. I’m ot sure what CA’s cash reserves are, but they will be wiped out almost instantly from lost revenue and legal action from Ashes broadcasters’

          Don’t you mean if the ACB win? They are only doing it now by not compromising and coming to the table.

          The governing money will lose more if they can’t commit to the one day tour to India as the BCCI will make them broker than Greece

          • July 7th 2017 @ 11:01am
            Christo the Daddyo said | July 7th 2017 @ 11:01am | ! Report

            Sorry, poor choice of words from me. To (hopefully) clarify what I meant…

            I can’t see CA budging from their position. And I can’t see the ACA budging either. Which means there will be no professional cricket played for the foreseeable future in Australia. The result of this would be the financial destruction of CA (for the reasons I outlined above).

            But is the game capable of surviving this scenario?

            • July 7th 2017 @ 4:31pm
              matth said | July 7th 2017 @ 4:31pm | ! Report

              Unless a Packer arrives on the scene. The ACA can still play cricket, it’s just that CA will refuse to re-hire them at the moment. But CA sure as heck can;t stage any cricket without the players.

              Fancy an organisation refusing to extend the contracts for 100% of its employees because of a pay disagreement, refusing to stockpile any backpay in the event of a agreement being reached, and then trying to bullying 100% of these employees into working for anyone else either?

      • Roar Guru

        July 7th 2017 @ 9:43am
        Rellum said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:43am | ! Report

        CA has actually done a lot to make the viewing experience of people who just want to go and watch the best players play, worse.

        To name just a few.

        Flat pitches to take away from a key element of the game, bowler v batsmen.

        High ticket prices

        Reducing the Shield to a comp that has little intensity, with a reduced quality of player, which results in a lower standard national team. And also which help take away a comp that many held as important.

        This fight has been brewing for awhile as the players have not been happy with how the game has been run for a long time.

        • July 7th 2017 @ 11:07am
          Christo the Daddyo said | July 7th 2017 @ 11:07am | ! Report

          Can you provide evidence that CA has directed the grounds staff to provide flat pitches?

          High ticket prices? Sure, but like any organisation involved in event management, you should always charge the most the market is willing to pay. I’m pretty sure the players wouldn’t be keen to see a significant reduction in spectator sourced revenue as that forms part of their income.

          Shield – I think everyone would agree the current setup of the Sheffield Shield is problematic. But I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone come up with a workable solution, particularly with the dramatic success of the BBL in recent years.

          Players being unhappy with how the game is being run? Perhaps, but that’s not what this dispute is about. This is simply about how to carve up the income the game gets.

          • July 7th 2017 @ 3:31pm
            John Erichsen said | July 7th 2017 @ 3:31pm | ! Report

            There is plenty of evidence regarding CA’s “flat pitch” directives. It started following the 2013 Shield season, where some lively pitches had our best domestic batsmen producing poor returns, coupled with our test trouncing in India, resulted in CA sent an edict that domestic pitches were to be less lively to give our batsmen more exposure to spin bowling. Now, if only that helped address our batting woes against the seaming ball… Bellerive 2016 v South Australia ring any bells? Ca’s intent may not have been to flatten out pitches, but that directive led to the flat pitches of recent summers.

            The success of the BBL has added a complexity to the summer of cricket, but CA’s existing Shield competition serves no purpose and does nothing to value the game at domestic level. Without a strong state competition, any finances invested in grass roots will be of little benefit.

            With the money offered in 20/20 leagues all over the world, perhaps CA need to understand that now, more than ever before, they need the players more than players need them. Perhaps that recognition is a big part of what the ACA are fighting for?

            • Roar Guru

              July 7th 2017 @ 7:39pm
              Rellum said | July 7th 2017 @ 7:39pm | ! Report

              Yes, it has been as clear as day. Last year was the first for a while that had pitches with a little juice in them.

          • Roar Guru

            July 7th 2017 @ 7:48pm
            Rellum said | July 7th 2017 @ 7:48pm | ! Report

            The players have complained about the running of the games for a few years now, subtly. Like I have mentioned before, they pledged millions of there own money to fixing those issues because they were so worried about the game and where it was heading.

            And the Shield could easily be fixed by making sure that each State has autonomy in team selections, players should always available to play for their states when internationals are not on. No players subs half way through a game or players being rested at the start of the season.No young players forced into state teams based on their perceived potential. Batsmen as specially should be playing 4-5 shield games a year.

            And they need to market it as a real competition, not see it as there own personal training series.

            CA has transformed the game here into a MLB franchise style setup. The top squad on contracts and the States are now farm teams for the top squad. Everybody can see this and not only does it not allow anyone to bother caring about results anymore, it also affects the quality of the players coming through as the games just don’t have the same intensity as games where players were representing their states with passion.

        • July 8th 2017 @ 9:16pm
          Zozza said | July 8th 2017 @ 9:16pm | ! Report

          Agree. Flat pitches are the biggest blight on the game.

      • July 7th 2017 @ 6:27pm
        davros said | July 7th 2017 @ 6:27pm | ! Report

        Chris we need a like button on here ..great comment mate …i hope the same …nothing less than peever roberts sutherland and howards head on a stick for mine …and whoever else is driving this ill conceived power ego trip corporate raid !

        • July 7th 2017 @ 7:12pm
          Larney said | July 7th 2017 @ 7:12pm | ! Report


          • July 7th 2017 @ 9:07pm
            Bee bee said | July 7th 2017 @ 9:07pm | ! Report


    , , ,