After months of posturing, claims and counterclaims, Cricket Australia is looking to bring the current pay dispute to a head.
In a break from its previous policy of containing the dispute as best as possible behind closed doors, CA went public yesterday. Very public.
CEO James Sutherland held a hastily convened al fresco media conference at which he laid out CA’s plan to resolve the stand-off.
He was blunt and to the point: “What we’re proposing out of this is that we do go into some intensive discussions over the next few days that will hopefully see the matter come to resolution. Failing that, we believe that the best course of action is to get the matter resolved through arbitration, get the show on the road and move on.”
Sadly, the show has been on the road for many months now – a rocky, potholed and poorly signposted one.
The ACA’s response last night to Sutherland’s plan was to say arbitration was “adversarial” – hardly a glowing endorsement.
For CA, time is now an imperative with potentially crippling financial issues on the horizon.
Doubtless, CA believed it would have won this battle a fair while ago but the players have held firm and refused to buckle.
But, on the cusp of August, CA can no longer risk this dragging out any longer.
Cricket’s two free-to-air rights holders need to go the marketplace to secure advertisers for the international fixtures and Big Bash.
The Nine and Ten networks need certainty. Time is now of the essence.
And on the horizon before the Australian summer is next month’s Test tour of Bangladesh and a one-day series in India in October – both of which hold significant ramifications for CA should they not go ahead.
Australia has not played a Test in Bangladesh since Jason Gillespie’s famed double century in April 2006.
Australia was programmed to play two Tests in Bangladesh in October 2015 however the series was postponed.
In June, CA announced it was prepared to go next month.
Another no-show would be a major slap in the face to Bangladeshi cricket and the country in general.
Social media on the sub-continent has been rife with suggestions that the pay deal would be finalised after the proposed tour as the players do not wish to travel to Bangladesh and they are holding out because of that.
The reasoning is fanciful but it is another indicator of how the Australian team is viewed in that part of the world.
Of greater concern is the financial maelstrom that would be predicated on a cancellation of the ODI tour to India.
If there is one bear that you do not want to poke in the cricketing world, it is the BCCI.
When West Indies cut short its tour of India in October 2014 over an internal pay dispute, leaving several fixtures abandoned, the BCCI did not take kindly to the snub.
It sent the WICB a bill for US$42m, stating it was liable for the cancellation of the tour and the associated financial damage the decision had wrought.
At the time of India all but suing the WICB it had just declared a US$5m loss and was on the cusp of bankruptcy. India withdrew its claim.
CA faces no such financial pressures, and as such, the BCCI would likely be far less tolerant should Australia be a no-show.
To get the sport back on the park and avert potential series cancellations, CA has effectively offered to roll over contracts under the previous MoU as it entered arbitration should it get to that point.
Male players would be offered short-term contracts under the recently lapsed pay model while women would be paid under CA’s recently proposed model.
While those contracts are running, a new MoU would be designed and signed.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
This would clear the way for the tours to Bangladesh and India to go ahead and save the Ashes series.
While the ACA sought mediation two months ago, arbitration is a different process.
Where the ACA had hoped to have a neutral third-party assist talks in the hope of finding an agreed resolution, CA’s arbitration suggestion would see both parties present testimony and give evidence to an arbitrator, in a manner similar to a court, but in a less formal fashion.
Given the gulf that has existed between the warring parties, Sutherland’s planned “intensive discussions over the next few days” are unlikely to bear fruit.
It will then be up to the ACA to decide whether to accept the offer of arbitration.
Sutherland indicated that CA’s preferred arbitrator is “someone like a retired Supreme Court judge” rather than the Fair Work Commission, the country’s official industrial relations arbiter.
The ACA would need to agree to such an umpire.
Some of Sutherland’s comments yesterday are likely to draw ire from the ACA.
His assertion that “we seem to be bogged down at times in process and strategies that are perhaps designed to slow things down” will be seen as a red rag by the ACA.
As too, will his comment, “I have had increasing concerns just about whether everyone is going at the same pace and is dealing with this issue with the same level of urgency.”
Given 230 players have been unemployed since 1 July, the ACA may disagree.
Sutherland reiterated several times yesterday that CA would accept the arbitrator’s decision.
Firstly, we have to wait and see whether he will actually be called into play.
CA has taken the ACA by surprise with this latest proposal.
The ball, to a large degree, is now in its court.
The Fatman
Guest
•Although life is meaningless and pointless when viewed from eternity, there is great meaning when viewed up close. It is the meaning that we each invent for our lives that is consistent with our deepest values.
Andrew Hunt
Guest
Open Letter to Cricket Australia. The New Over 60s team currently 853rd in line, are ready and wiling to defend the Ashes if necessary. Ps will play for beer money and a good massage.
Don Freo
Guest
There is a lot more to be made by independently arranged games. Don't expect Channel 9 and Channel 10 to fund CA without a product. They will fund cricket, not administration. The ACA can become a cricket promoter. A great way...across the countries to break the BCCI power too. The players are holding every card. I love it.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
It is only Mickey Mouse teams from tinpot countries that renege on commitments to tour because of pay disputes. I'm not sure this is doing the image of Australian cricket, or Australia generally, much good.
Whiteline
Guest
Fatman, did you lose?
Pammy
Guest
Johnnie, Davros doesn't know what an auditor does...wasting your breath with this one.
Pammy
Guest
Craig, some of these ACA trolls (to use their terms) are not real smart. I'm sure they have big bats though.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Not sure why people think CA will be the only ones in difficulty if the India tour doesn't go ahead; get the BCCI off side and the players risk the enormous pot of revenue that is future Indian tours of Australia -- nobody wins in that situation.
Craig
Guest
Sports Execs get paid big money to administer the game. Players get paid big money to play the game. You don't see the execs trotting out to play in the ashes, so how about the players stay out of administrative matters and do their damn job.
Craig
Guest
That's wrong. They haven't put "20 million of their own money" into the game. They aren't digging out of their own pockets. Smithy isn't going "hang on fella's, I'll get the cheque for the ground rental for kids comps in NSW". If you believe that then you're a fool.
The Fatman
Guest
Australian Cricket is DEAD as of today. James Sutherland and his merry men have killed it off for everybody. There is NO PULSE and the body I starting to stiffen.
johnnie
Guest
Good post - this is CA's main problem throughout - they simply haven't prosecuted their case. They're sitting on cash reserves will in excess of $100mil, which they've accumulated in the last decade - so that would represent a significant percentage of the revenues - that is, CA simply haven't spent it, instead putting it in a rainy day fund.
johnnie
Guest
You can't be serious? Not only have you not commented on MLB, NBA and NHL (which I will infer as conceding I'm correct), but "junior development" is purely pathway high performance spend. NFL Rush is just a website targeted at kids! Grass roots means facility maintenance and upgrades, officials, national insurance coverage for all players, in2cricket, school & university sports, and the list goes on. NONE of those Yankee sports fund any of that. Hence my argument that the lazy ACA Keeping up with the Jones mentality of copying the American sports' rev share model is simply ill-considered and nonsensical in the context of Australian cricket.
johnnie
Guest
"Or is it true there is actually way more money …and that its being hidden from the cricketers ?" Well if that's the case, the ACA should sack its auditors (BDO) who are in charge of checking the CA books.
johnnie
Guest
Cede control to the players? Well that will be the hundreds of thousands across the country, and not just the 80 odd men at the top end of the pyramid
johnnie
Guest
If individual Player salaries aren't published, then why should CA admin salaries be published? All that matters is total spend, head count & the average spend per head (which is published for both CA & Players)
johnnie
Guest
Name a single stadium? CA tied them all up when Essel Group threat came about. Perth Stadium & WACA are both CA contracted SCG & Allianz & Spotless all CA contracted MCG, Etihad Stadium, Junction Oval & Kardinia Park all CA contracted Gabba CA contracted Adelaide Oval half owned by SACA and CA contracted Bellerive owned by TCA and CA contracted So, tell me which remaining stadiums there are in each major city?
johnnie
Guest
CA is the employer of the centrally contracted players, and the States are the employees under the State Player Contracts. That was the situation under the old MOU, so the current alignment is that you (and I say you because you're a professional player) are employees already, and you've claimed the superannuation, leave entitlements and insurance coverage as a result. I presume you don't want to hand it back because it doesn't suit your argument now? You say you want what you currently have - that's employment entitlements as employees, with a pay scale pegged to rev share (which CA wants to vary now, and have done a terrible job of explaining why it wants to). ATP is a league - players opt in or out, and are subject to a qualification process. There is no guaranteed process, there is no "partnership" at all, or employment relationship. Each ATP tournament runs as a standalone business, and has separate prize pools etc. It is simply not analogous to cricket in Australia at all. Re circus - ownership is irrelevant - administration/management is. Both circuses and CA have a central management, both of which employ entertainers.
johnnie
Guest
My comments what in reply to a statement that there are no laws or applicable standards - which is incorrect as the players were classed as employees under the existing MoU
Don Freo
Guest
Of course the players take a share of the risk. If the paying public don't like the product, the players and CA get less...according to ACA proposal. No risk if it's just a wage and they are just employees. I'm happy with no cricket...no Ashes even...this summer if it takes a massive financial loss for CA to be dissolved. It would be great to re-structure both elite and grass roots with no administrators trying to grease the gravy train. Just leaders with integrity. Pay them by their ethics. An independent state competition would be a runaway success. No one is contracted any more. Each team could have access to 2 Poms.