Roar Rookie
Joined July 2017
4.3k
Views
1
Published
94
Comments
A self diagnosed cricket tragic. Dominic has worked for the ECB as a Development Manager and has been a regular on ABC Newcastle as a sport presenter and has been a regular on Radio Cambridge in the U.K. as a cricket expert.
Published
Comments
As a passionate cricket fan, I'm disappointed in the current drama unfolding between Cricket Australia and the Australian Cricketer's Association (ACA). As a lover…
Matth,
Put simply, it’s outdated because the game now has more demands administrationally. It costs CA more now than it cost the ACB when this system was established. Malcolm Speed, one of the architects of this system has come out and said that the environment has changed and that the system is outdated.
CA has tried to negotiate. They’ve made some changes, such as to the women’s payment schedule. CA accept that the players should share in the game and so have offered the profit share system in addition to the high wages that they would be paid. However the ACA refuse to even consider anything less than the current system.
I’m not aware of the finer details of the AFL’s system however I dare say that the players aren’t getting as big a share as the cricketer’s.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Matth,
Because it is the responsibility of CA to run the sport. They tabled a fair alternative that would ensure the players would continue to be well paid, including an increase of $100k for female players. They have tried to negotiate and the ACA point blank refuse. They’d like to go straight to mediation because in all likelihood they know they’ll get more out of mediation.
ACA has not once offered any alternative other than to say – “unless it’s the current model, we’re not interested”.
That is neither productive or professional. The players have put the sport in this position.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
AGordon,
As I’ve stated, CA is far from perfect.
They have done things that I don’t agree with. I trust them because they are responsible for running the game. If you don’t like it, then start making moves at board level.
Let me ask this – how can we trust that when / if these players come back that they’re really putting in. That they really care? Or do they only care once they’re being paid enough?
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Joey Johns,
Thanks for commenting on the article.
You make some very valid points. As I state in the original piece, CA aren’t perfect and they have made mistakes. I agree for example that they should make public their books and audits. I don’t agree with everything they do by any stretch.
However, that is what they do and it is their job. If people don’t like it they can ask questions and attack the board.
However, in my view, this has nothing to do with how ineffective CA may have been. This is about rich players wanting to keep their pockets full. The players, who already command ridiculous money, are jeopardising the game.
When and if Warner or Smith walk out to bat again can we really be sure they actually care? What ever happened to just wanting to beat the opposition. Win the Ashes for your country? That’s all gone now.
They’re happy to win games – so long as they’re paid enough.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Mango Jack – because as the administrators they understand that the Revenue sharing model created 20 years ago is outdated. As the board and body with the responsibility of managing the game in Australia they have every right to make changes.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Matth,
It is true that CA refuse to back pay for this current situation. But so they should. The players have chosen this course of action and put the game at risk.
CA haven’t told the players that they can’t seek sponsorships however they asked that they be mindful of their corporate sponsors and not to put themselves at risk should this debacle ever be sorted out.
Starc has completely ignored this advice.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
GJ – of course the administrators are still being paid… They’re not the ones striking.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Thanks for comment Nathan.
Agree 100%.
Just highlights how far removed the players actually are.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
It’s all opinion Davros. Just because people have a different opinion to you does not make them uninformed.
And the stats regarding this current team speak for themselves. Have you forgotten the horror run that these very players put us through last season, culminating in the debacle in Hobart v South Africa.
Yep, let’s pay them more.
Thanks Davros.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Paul D,
Yes that’s an interesting way of looking at it. I agree that so long as we are getting talented youngsters coming through, then that’s fine.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
GJ,
Thanks for the comment. Good to see some healthy debate.
Mate I agree in principal with your views – however, I believe that state players earn enough. These players receive more than twice on average than the average Australian. Let’s see how someone who busts a gut to earn $50k p/a feels about someone being paid $120k plus to play cricket feels.
Let’s also not forget that most the players do not actually contribute a hell of a lot to the overall revenue.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Christov,
Thanks for your response.
Totally agree.
I notice that Mitchell Starc signed an agreement with Audi yesterday for sponsorship. This deal will place certain strains upon CAs corporate sponsorships and could perhaps make Starc’s next contract more complicated. I’m sure he’s in desperate need for the money.
Yet it’s not about the money – it’s about the good of the game’s future – cough cough.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Perthite,
Interesting take – thanks for the comment.
The comment you refer to is a little deeper. The point was that the players are more than adequately compensated for their skills. However they want more – i.e it is in their interest only. It’s about more money. My point would be that they get enough already.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Hi Paul D,
Thanks for the response.
My point wasn’t that the public owned CA – rather that cricket in general is owned by the public – its supporters. I guess in other words, it’s not just about the players – it’s bigger than that.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Rock, state cricketers (as my article states) are paid on average more than double the average Australian wage – and many of them much more than that. In my opinion as the article suggests, that is more than enough for players who actually DO NOT contribute a great deal to the overall revenue.
The current admin costs incurred by CA are actually about half of what the payment costs to players are.
What people forget in all of this is that it costs to run the game. It costs to manage grass roots (whether you think CA do a good job at this or not), it costs for Development, it costs to market the game, it costs to provide coach education. This is the job of the administrators. Not of the players. Where do our next players come from? Smith and Co will be gone in 10 years and do you think for a moment that they will care about infrastructure in the game or will they just go off and enjoy their millions?
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Big Daddy, because it’s all about money. They’re professional players not sports administrators. That’s the point. As the article states – they can’t even get their stories straight as to why they’re striking.
Thanks for the input, it’s all about opinion.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Big Daddy, because it’s all about money. They’re professional players not sports administrators. That’s the point. As the article states – they can’t even get their stories straight as to why they’re striking.
Thanks for the input.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
A well articulated response there Davros. The facts are the worst Australian team in 25 years is holding the game to ransom – why? More money. They are well paid to play – not administer. Perhaps try and add something useful in future.
Cricket isn't owned by the players
Matth,
That’s semantics and also not entirely accurate.
The South African tour for the A squad was cancelled because players who were still contracted, such as Maxwell and Head, refused to play.
Cricket isn't owned by the players