Home / Volley / Cricket / Exclusive: West Indies cricketers and WICB clash over World Cup match fees

Exclusive: West Indies cricketers and WICB clash over World Cup match fees

The following letters, allegedly sent by West Indies T20 cricket captain Darren Sammy to the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) and from WICB CEO Michael Muirhead to Sammy, were shared with Wired868 by I95.5 FM sport journalist, Andre Baptiste:

Photo: West Indies T20 captain Darren Sammy makes a point.
Photo: West Indies T20 captain Darren Sammy makes a point.

To all concerned at WICB,

I am sending this as captain of the West Indies T20 side and as a collective representative of the 15 man squad selected for the upcoming T20 World Cup.

We have collectively discussed the remuneration on offer to participate in the T20 World Cup. Considering that 14 out of the 15 man squad are not part of WIPA—and hence have not given authorisation to WIPA to negotiate on our behalf—and a large number do not receive any significant remuneration from WICB at all, we want the opportunity to negotiate fairly the financial terms within the contract.

The 2015 World Cup took place with the WI squad remunerated under the terms and conditions that had been in place for the World Cups previous, which is that 25% of income received by the WICB for participating in the tournament was distributed to the squad.

We do not understand—nor accept—just one year later being offered contracts to participate in a major ICC World Cup that show such huge financial reductions.

We want to represent the West Indies but the financials on offer we can’t accept.

Photo: WIPA president Wavell Hinds (right) and WICB president Dave Cameron exchange pleasantries at the opening of WIPA's new office in Jamaica in 2014. (Courtesy WIPA)
Photo: WIPA president Wavell Hinds (right) and WICB president Dave Cameron exchange pleasantries at the opening of WIPA’s new office in Jamaica in 2014.
(Courtesy WIPA)

Obviously I am not privy to exact numbers paid to the WICB from the ICC, but I understand US$8m will be paid to the Board.

Traditionally 25% has been paid to the squad. That would equate to US$2m / 15 therefore approximately US$133,000 per player.

Worse case scenario the squad would earn US$414,000 collectively under the terms of the contract offered by WICB to participate in the T20 World Cup 2016.

That is just over 5%. A staggering difference, a near 80% reduction.

We want to propose we participate in the T20 World Cup 2016 under the same terms we have represented the West Indies in previous tournaments.

Please can you address this urgently. The T20 World Cup is just a matter of weeks away.

Darren Sammy

Photo: The West Indies cricket team during happier times.
Photo: The West Indies cricket team during happier times.

The following letter was sent by WICB CEO Michael Muirhead:

Dear Mr Sammy,
The West Indies Players’ Association is the recognised collective bargaining representative of West Indies Cricketers and therefore negotiates the remuneration between WICB and each West Indian player, whether such player is or is not a member of WIPA.

In recognition of the MOU between WICB and WIPA, the WICB will not engage in negotiations on the terms of compensation under the contract with any player or group of players, without the involvement or endorsement of WIPA.

However, we note that you have raised some queries in your mail, and respond as follows:
(i) “we understand USD $8M will be paid to the Board”

We are not sure where you obtained this information, but assure you it is totally incorrect. As a result of the ICC revamp which was agreed on February 2014, the ICC has changed the manner in which distributions to Full Members in relation to ICC Events are paid—starting from the ICC WT20 2016.

Photo: The West Indies cricket team.
Photo: The West Indies cricket team.

 

These payments are now spread out and distributed over an eight year cycle, rather than being paid out in a lump sum and attributed to any one event. It is therefore not possible to identify a particular sum which will be paid to the WICB by the ICC in respect of the WT20 2016.

In fact, it was postulated that India accounted for at least 80% of the global cricket viewership and as such are entitled to the lion’s share of the cumulative ICC revenues.

(ii) “traditionally 25% has been paid to the squad”

While it is true that WICB has previously calculated compensation to the ICC Event squad members as a percentage of the ICC distribution received in relation to the particular Event; because of the reason outlined above, it is not possible to calculate a percentage to be paid to the Squad, as the ICC distribution is no longer being made in the traditional manner.

The WICB, in recognition of this, and in an effort at fairness and transparency, allocates 25% of WICB revenues estimated over a four year period—including ICC distributions—to players, through a guaranteed minimum revenue pool, out of which player payments are made.

Photo: West Indies Players Association (WIPA) president Wavell Hinds (right) and West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) president Dave Cameron shake hands over the players'  controversial CBA/MOU in September 2014. (Courtesy WIPA)
Photo: West Indies Players Association (WIPA) president Wavell Hinds (right) and West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) president Dave Cameron shake hands over the players’ controversial CBA/MOU in September 2014.
(Courtesy WIPA)

 

Anything in excess of this minimum over the relevant 4 year cycle, will be divided solely among the international players, as agreed with WIPA.

Additionally, I would remind you that the structure for player compensation in relation to ICC Events was communicated in a letter from the CEOs of WIPA and WICB, distributed to players in May 2015.

The contracts which have been issued reflect the arrangements which were set out in that letter, and which are contained in the MOU between WICB and WIPA.

The remuneration to the players for the WT20 comprises an agreed match fee of three times the usual fee, plus 50% of any the net proceeds of any sponsorship for the event, and 80% of any prize money earned by the Team.

Note that for this tournament, the prize money has increased substantially from the previous WT20, moving from a gross total of US$3million to US$5.6million, of which the winner will receive US$1.6million.

Photo: West Indies T20 all-rounder Dwayne Bravo.
Photo: West Indies T20 all-rounder Dwayne Bravo.

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me. Do note however, that we are unable to move the deadline of 2pm ECT on 14 February 2016 for receipt of the signed player contracts for the WT20 2016.

We hope that this clarifies the position and anticipate a favourable response.

Regards,

Michael Muirhead

 

Editor’s Note: Click HERE to read subsequent letters from both parties as West Indies captain Darren Sammy asks for doubled match fees for T20 World Cup; and WICB CEO Michael Muirhead retorts “ask WIPA.”

About Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor
Want to share your thoughts with Wired868? Email us at editor@wired868.com. Please keep your blog between 300 to 800 words and be sure to read it over first for typos and punctuation.

Check Also

WI retooling? Holder finds only Allen key in bid to put spanner in Bangladesh works

“A man who took a wicket,” Richie asked, as West Indies captain Jason Holder summoned …

262 comments

  1. Well how have payments in other countries been affected by the new ICC distribution policy?

  2. I can’t figure out from this thread whether WIPA has the right to negotiate for these 15 players or not. But even if they do, I hope moves are made to decertify them because any union negotiating a 75 or 80% PAY CUT just isn’t doing its job.
    I don’t even understand why the players were only getting 25% of the money to begin with…

    • WIPA is the properly constituted body. But the elite players do not use them.
      Some say it is the players who have to get their paperwork in order to bypass WIPA.
      I say it is clearly a WICB issue otherwise they would already have a 15-man squad made up of WIPA members.
      So why is the onus on the players to sort out paperwork? Sounds like they are being punished twice for the treachery of the union.

    • Uh… I’d say the onus is on people to secure their own freedom. If a signature on a document is what is required to get you what you want, then I think it’s your responsibility to sign. Is it a complicated process to get this paperwork to bypass WIPA?

    • I have no idea about the process. We have two groups here. One is players. The other is the group of administrators entrusted in seeing about the product that is West Indies cricket.
      No good manager would let it get here and say its the employees’ fault.

    • I’m talking specifically about the WIPA representation issue. It would be wrong of the WICB to get involved in WIPA/player relations. If the process to decertify WIPA hasn’t been followed, then that’s on the players. I can’t see who else it could possibly be on…
      This situation is an issue because these 14 players are saying that WIPA can’t negotiate for them and they’re trying to negotiate independently of WIPA and the WICB is saying WIPA can negotiate for you and that’s who we negotiated with.

    • What I can tell you is the BCCI didn’t sue WIPA or the West Indies players. They sued the WICB. And that lawsuit can still close down West Indies cricket.
      So let the WICB or anyone else twiddle their thumbs and wait on WIPA and the players.
      That is nothing short of a dereliction of duty which is doubly absurd because the board went down this road already and lost.

    • Can’t imagine you’re suggesting that an employer should get involved in the relationship of its employees and the employees’ union so I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing but ok…

    • I’m suggesting that it would be irresponsible for that employer not to. Ask Rupert Murdoch for instance.
      It is your company not the union’s.

    • You’re saying Petrotrin should get involved in the relationship between its workers and the OWTU?

    • Chabeth, the WICB took same stance in India and watched tour evaporate and subsequently received multi million lawsuit.
      Are you suggesting the board did the right thing?
      I have a responsibility to deliver goods and my workers say they can’t come to agreement with Union and I should sit and wait to see if they solve it in time?

    • Petrotrin has orders to fulfill and its workers say they refuse to recognize Union as its negotiating body?
      That’s the easiest question you’ve ever asked me Chabeth.

    • Lol, easiest question I’ve ever asked you? Probably think it’s easy cause it went over your head. Lol. ?

    • Idk that an employer should get involved in worker/union relations. But to be fair to the WICB, this issue is coming up today so idk that they haven’t talked to WIPA and the last WICB letter said they would only be prepared to negotiate with WIPA. So I think at this point it’s up to WIPA…

    • I must be very slow indeed. And yet the BCCI clearly doesn’t get it either because it is suing the WICB for negligence.
      Cameron needs to send you as emissary post haste.

    • Probably just a different idea of what company involvement looks like…

    • The WICB has been down this road before. Eventually they will learn. For now, let them continue to claim they are bound by their wonderful professionalism and love for best case industrial practices.

    • This came up today eh…
      Even though it was negotiated months ago. And they said they won’t negotiate without WIPA. Not sure what they’re supposed to do more than that.

    • The West Indies elite players haven’t recognized WIPA since 2014. We are in 2016.
      This didn’t come up today. It is the continuation of a rift that is almost two years old.

    • That makes it even worse that the players haven’t officially decertified WIPA as their representative body.
      Are there legal ramifications for the WICB for negotiating outside of WIPA? No need to mention BCCI ramifications…
      In any case, I really don’t know how an employer goes around a union and decides to negotiate directly with employees. I can’t imagine any trade unionist or industrial relations lawyer or expert approving of that. But maybe I’m wrong…
      I suppose the WICB could have encouraged or guided the elite players on how they could have gotten their own representation but I’d guess that trade unionists would also frown upon that…
      In any case I really am more of a believer in personal responsibility for one’s reality. These are grown men not little boys. I think they should have taken whatever necessary steps since 2014 to get themselves in a position of representation with which they are comfortable.
      In any case, asking a company to go around a union and negotiate directly with employees really isn’t a precedent that a company wants to establish or one of which unions in general would approve. I don’t think.

    • And I meant this particular incident came up today and the WICB has said they won’t renegotiate without WIPA’s approval/blessing etc etc

    • And yet here we are… With the WICB as governing body for regional cricket happy to wash hands like Pilate.
      Real managers find solutions.

  3. Democracy sounds wonderful when it is the WICB’s favour. Not so much when it is CARICOM exercising it or Phil Simmons trying to pick his team.
    A cricket match needs 11 players. I suggest the administrators get over themselves and try to work out a deal that satisfies the best 11 players they have.

  4. Democracy is not always easy, is it? But I agree with Bruce that dialogue rather than the issuing of demands is necessary.

  5. Lasana, if they gave WIPA the authority to negotiate on their behalf, and they have not gone through the process to decertify WIPA and remove their authority, then they have to accept what was agreed by WIPA. May not sound fair in the present circumstances but that is the law. We cannot support lawlessness.
    A round table discussion with all parties is essential to let good sense prevail, and find common ground.
    Our cricket is too important to Regional unity to have this remain a conflict.

  6. As i said above if that’s the current case & 14 of the players who have totally abandoned WIPA, do not pay them dues anymore and do all their negotiations with WICB via their agents or other means – its just another example why the new MOU/CBA ridiculous.

    Lets go back to court

  7. Team – come homeeeee! Let the WICB make their $8 M with a substandard team and then also let them deal with the fallout. wI cricket just got flushed – again.

  8. But the West Indies players are under no obligation to accept whatever was negotiated without their consent.
    So I think the WICB has just as much incentive to get this right as the players do. But they always assume that because a player’s career is short they will have the upper hand. Let’s see.

  9. Exactly – there is a process for recognition as a bargaining unit and WIPA can be replaced both in its entirety or for a subsection of the players if they don’t get their act together.

    • Kendall, a recognized majority Union cannot simply be replaced “for a subsection of the players” as you suggest. Of course WIPA can be decertified/derecognized if that is the will of the body of players, so it remains to be seen what will develop. Folks would be well advised to be careful what they wish for…they just might get it.

    • Gerard what i think it boils down to: How important are these 15 Players to WICB, cause if they refuse to accept their selection (and im sure there is no contract that can prevent that) then the board either sends happy players or ups the stakes, not?

    • Andreas, at some point the tail is going to have to stop wagging the dog. If not, the future is bleak.

    • Gerard i agree with you and this maybe a case of spoiled brats, i think all three parties involved have to realize they going down a slippery slope. If this is so important to Sammy and the other 14 then they better be ready to walk away, because as you and Lyndon have pointed out the CBA takes precedence, the only bargaining chip they really have is their importance to the WI success. On the other hand WIPA have to ask themselves what they agreed on, if some of the biggest guys that they supposed to represent do not feel represented…. WICB can just lean back and laugh… unless it is important to them that they want to look good at the WC… and that it seems not or Cameron or someone would pick up the phone and call his counterpart at WIPA and tell him: we need to talk…..

    • Trust me, Andreas, that conversation has been ongoing for some time. The issue as you say needs to be resolved through open and constructive dialogue, perhaps with the external assistance of the relevant world bodies. Some folks seem to conveniently forget that the ICC and FICA were both involved in the mediation process that resulted in the new CBA/ MOU in May last year.

  10. Gentlemen, Gerard is quite correct. The players chose at some time to have WIPA represent them. If they wish to change that, there is a process. Sammy cannot simply say that 14 members of the team are not WIPA members, and expect the WICB to negotiate with them. It does not work like that. Players need to get this right, and WIPA and the WICB MUST facilitate the process.
    There can be no winner otherwise.
    We need to have our best team represent us, and in the right frame of mind also.

  11. Someone else verse in the world of industrial relations needs to state their POV

  12. At stake here is the much wider issue of the legitimacy of WIPA’s status as the exclusive bargaining agent for West Indies Players (as Lyndon pointed out, it’s much more than the 15 team members) and its authority to bind the players in collective bargaining negotiations to agreed terms and conditions. It would be a rather amazing turn of events for an employer to negotiate directly with individual employees when a recognized majority union is in place, to say the least. In industrial relations parlance that would be an act of extreme bad faith and, under local legislation, actually an industrial relations offense. More so when there already exists a negotiated CBA/MOU between the employer and the union. These are interesting times….

  13. Lasana they are saying that Wipa does not represent them ,which is debatable. If that’s the case then its in there interest to discuss the issues of remuneration with WICB .

    • It is not debatable. They are not WIPA members.

    • Lasana, the fact that a group of workers in a recognized bargaining unit are not members of the recognized majority Union does not alter the fact that the RMU is authorized to negotiate on their behalf. It’s like saying that the employees in Petrotrin’s Refining Division could decide that they are not members of the OWTU and wish to negotiate directly with management even where their jobs fall within the bargaining unit.

    • Lasana at this Gerard is correct, once the acknowledge bargaining Unit they will bargain for ALL employees. The employer will have to follow that template. While your boss may call you into the office to talk salary, he will tell you that this is your salary because it has agreed upon with the Union for your type of work. You can either accept that or find another job that pays better. If you have enough colleagues that will stick it out together, you of course can try to threaten to leave together and the result may be that the boss goes to the Union and tells them: Listen i have to pay this type of work so much cause those workers are not happy with their pay and i don’t want them to leave…. that would be rather embarrassing for the Union as it is a testament that they did not negotiate well enough for their Members in the first place…. it usually also means they soon will slip into unimportant and being replaced by another (Shadow) bargaining Unit….

    • Well, that doesn’t make them WIPA members. Yes, I concede that WIPA is authorised to negotiate contracts on behalf of the West Indies cricketers.
      However, for the past year and a half, the elite West Indies players have refused to recognise the authority of the union.
      True, this discontent has not been formalised. But it is well publicised and I doubt the WICB has forgotten the BCCI lawsuit in its inbox.
      So if the WICB directors feel justified in twiddling thumbs because the players didn’t decertify their union, then they are again poster boys for negligent and visionless management.

    • Lasana, what makes you think that the WICB is “twiddling thumbs”? Remember that the CBA/MOU was finalised last year with the assistance of the ICC and FICA and the players were all informed since May 2015 of the new terms and conditions. It is not as simplistic a matter as some would have us believe – the new arrangements call for significant performance (team, player and WICB profitability) based rewards rather than guaranteed pay regardless of performance, as previously was the case. WICB and WIPA both appreciate the need for the change in the long term interest of our cricket, but some players obviously feel differently. Perhaps there is a need for more alignment of objectives here, and I agree that more open and honest dialogue is required rather than brinksmanship on either side.

    • Well, I can only rely on journalists and stakeholders to tell me whether the T20 players were privy to or properly represented in those talks Gerard.
      The current stance would suggest the answer is no.
      But I would await confirmation of that.
      If the players were properly advised, then the WICB is being blindsided.
      If not, the WICB was negotiating without their prime assets. And it is to the benefit of the board that the players are properly advised.

    • Lasana, according to this letter from the CEO, the information was shared with all players after the conclusion of the ICC/FICA assisted mediation in May of last year. If this is true, then it raises many questions about the timing of the current impasse. I guess we will have to wait and see….http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/971165.html

    • All four letters are published on Wired868 thanks to Andre Baptiste.
      Muirhead said: “As mentioned in my previous email to you, this information was shared with all players following that process in May last year. Players were given an opportunity to discuss the new structure and no concerns were raised at that time. It is disappointing that you would choose to question the terms now, on the eve of the WT20 in India.”
      Which players received the information? There was no T20 World Cup team at the time.
      The key is that Muirhead said “no concerns were raised.”
      Not one?! Really sir?! Not a peep from Bravo? Pollard? Gayle?
      Not one of the supposedly money grubbing West Indies players uttered a peep at a 75 percent pay cut?!
      Don’t you find that hard to believe Gerard?
      Find any office in Trinidad where a boss can say: “75 percent pay cuts all around… Any questions?” And nobody raises a hand.
      That strains credibility. The WICB leadership were found to be strangers to the truth before. So I would need independent confirmation on that.

    • Why didn’t Muirhead ask all the players who agreed without a peep to sign to that effect? Wouldn’t that make sense considering the India debacle?

    • Lasana Liburd on this one I believe the onus is on the players to state whether or not they did receive the information in May of last year and if so why weren’t their any official or unofficial objection to it .

    • Just saw this and am placing it here. I don’t know if it is corroborated.

    • “All international players were communicated to by the Secretariat. All territorial boards and franchises were sent the information to be disseminated to all first class players.”

    • Thanks Gerard. One sentence says players “were communicated to”. The other says the boards were “sent the information to be disseminated to all first class players.”
      Now as a journalist, if I tried to justify the first sentence based on the second, I would be in court for libel.
      The fact is the info was sent to the regional boards. After that, the WICB is speculating.
      But I agree with Lyndon that the players should be the ones to refute as that saves time.
      At that point though, we would probably hear from the regional boards themselves.
      And I wonder how the WICB gauged the success of the dissemination of such vital information.
      I warn here that the WICB will look like fools if they did not ensure the info got to the players and are now slandering them.
      But I will try not to get ahead of myself.

    • I have read the entire summary which included a retreat with several west indies players including some current team members.
      If that release is accurate, then the T20 players should explain why the fuss now. What was discussed in that retreat? Did they have the necessary information?
      I agree with Lyndon that the onus now definitely shifts to the players.

    • Lasana, the release clearly stated that “All international players were communicated to by the Secretariat. All territorial boards and franchises were sent the information to be disseminated to all first class players.” I take that to mean that the Secretariat communicated directly to “all international players”, which I would expect to have included the selected 15. The territorial boards and franchises were responsible for dissemination of the information to “all first class players”. If accurate, there are many questions to be answered by Sammy et al.

    • I take that to mean the territorial boards should have done so, rather than confirmation that they actually did it.
      But let’s see if that is confirmed. And also what Sammy et al have to say about the timeline.

    • Lasana, it seems to me that a clear distinction was made between the “international players”, to whom the WICB Secretariat communicated the information. As opposed to the “first class players”.

    • Indeed you are right Gerard. It is up to Sammy and company to respond now then.

  14. The players cannot make a collective stance before they are selected Lyndon. Only WIPA could make such a stance on their behalf.

  15. My question is if this information on remuneration was known to all West Indian players since May of 2015 ,why wait till now to seek to “rectify” it. The players must have known in the main that they would be selected for the t20 world cup.

  16. ..this is BIG trouble..reports suggest a 75% pay cut…??

  17. Colin – as you know, I predicted the behaviour that has followed the release of the report, both from the Board and CARICOM. I had said that the Heads of Government (HOGs) – see the behaviour in the picture above – are split and what will happen is that the WICB will be allowed a year ostensibly to “deal with the issues identified in the Report”. In other words they will buy time. At the end of the year, nothing would have changed or will change.

  18. CARICOM wasting time long now – as i always say there is clear template example to follow from how Sri Lanka & Pakistan governments dissolved their cricket boards and the ICC based on its weak stature as a governing body and historical evidence would can’t do anything to save WICB in its current format and stop CARICOM

  19. Chabeth, you missed out… “and collect gift bags”

  20. The CARICOM heads of government need to do more than talk and order reports at this point…
    Good opportunity for Rowley to show some leadership skills…

  21. The WICB is “bound upon a wheel of fire” and will prefer to continue to make an ash of itself than to work with the players. There is a sad lesson in this. He who rides a tiger, cannot dismount. There is an interesting side issue. Tony Cozier said that the Chairman is paid so it means that he is an Executive Chairman, something never contemplated by the Articles of the WICB. If you have an Exec. Chairman, why do you also have a CEO? The outcome is that the more head they push the less brains they demonstrate.

  22. WICB responded, and to summarize they told Sammy and his troops to HYMC.

  23. The WICB playing smart with stupidness. A union is recognised as the bargaining unit based on representing a certain percentage of the workers. If it is true that only 1 player is a member, then if the others engage a separate bargaining representative, how could WIPA defend its status without the workers’ support?

  24. How can a union be the final bargainers for people it doesn’t represent? And if a union isn’t legally recognised by a country, how can citizens of said country be told they are expected to follow the lead of the union? Especially if they aren’t members of the union? That sounds completely farcical. Am I misunderstanding the situation? Lol.

  25. http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-world-twenty20-2016/content/story/971003.html

    But the premise of Sammy’s argument was quickly dismissed by Michael Muirhead, the CEO of the WICB. He insisted that the sums mentioned in Sammy’s statement were “totally incorrect” and reminded the team that WIPA remains the “recognised collective bargaining representative of West Indies Cricketers and therefore negotiates the remuneration between WICB and each West Indian player, whether such player is or is not a member of WIPA.”

    “We are not sure where you obtained this information, but assure you it is totally incorrect,” Muirhead stated in connection with the $8m figure.

    “As a result of the ICC revamp which was agreed on 8 February 2014, the ICC has changed the manner in which distributions to Full Members in relation to ICC Events are paid – starting from the ICC WT20 2016. These payments are now spread out and distributed over an eight year cycle, rather than being paid out in a lump sum and attributed to any one event.

    “It is therefore not possible to identify a particular sum which will be paid to the WICB by the ICC in respect of the WT20 2016.

    “While it is true that WICB has previously calculated compensation to the ICC Event squad members as a percentage of the ICC distribution received in relation to the particular Event; because of the reason outlined above, it is not possible to calculate a percentage to be paid to the Squad, as the ICC distribution is no longer being made in the traditional manner.

    “The WICB, in recognition of this, and in an effort at fairness and transparency, allocates 25% of WICB revenues estimated over a four year period – including ICC distributions – to players, through a guaranteed minimum revenue pool, out of which player payments are made.

    “Anything in excess of this minimum over the relevant 4 year cycle, will be divided solely among the international players, as agreed with WIPA.

    “The remuneration to the players for the WT20 comprises an agreed match fee of three times the usual fee, plus 50% of the net proceeds of any sponsorship for the event, and 80% of any prize money earned by the Team. Note that for this tournament, the prize money has increased substantially from the previous WT20, moving from a gross total of US$3million to US$5.6million, of which the winner will receive US$1.6million.”

    Muirhead signed off his reply by making it quite clear the WICB was not prepared to compromise.

    “We are unable to move the deadline of 2pm ECT on 14 February 2016 for receipt of the signed player contracts for the WT20 2016.”

    • I wonder how many folks will read this full article before commenting further. I won’t hold my breath!

    • Well I know you will defend the board’s position

    • So we now need to track back to the ICC to verify if what he says is true. There’s no fixed formula? What if the same players are not allowednto play international cricket over the four years?

    • And I know you will be among those to condemn the Board regardless of the facts or merits of the Players’ case.

    • Haha oh you want talk about facts – well tell me this Gerard Emile Zatopek Pinard if Andre Baptiste or George Dobell didn’t break these two stories today – did anybody involved in the higher levels of West Indies cricket whether administrators or players (which you should know based on your task force work) – feeding you any “facts” that this situation was going to blow today?

    • I really don’t see what relevance my “task force work” has as far as this matter is concerned, and my life does not depend on anybody “feeding” me facts or anything else, thank God. Until there are indeed some facts available though, I would rather not pass judgement on the merits of either side of the debate, but don’t let a little thing like that stop you eh. Lol

    • First off, this quote here: “As a result of the ICC revamp which was agreed on 8 February 2014, the ICC has changed the manner in which distributions to Full Members in relation to ICC Events are paid – starting from the ICC WT20 2016. These payments are now spread out and distributed over an eight year cycle, rather than being paid out in a lump sum and attributed to any one event.

      “It is therefore not possible to identify a particular sum which will be paid to the WICB by the ICC in respect of the WT20 2016.”

      That is straight out of the Jack Warner skullduggery manual. Probably page one.
      So the WICB CEO doesn’t know what we will get from participating in an international event?!
      That statement should come with a resignation letter.

    • But, in any case, of course I can understand if Sammy and company have some errors in there. They are not investigators, union men or HR specialists.
      It is shortsighted for the WICB to guffaw at supposed errors in their grouse.
      The fact is their unhappiness affects the entire West Indies product. And it is a good reason why the WICB also needs a competent WIPA.
      Wavell Hinds should go. Probably along with Michael Muirhead.

    • Gerard Emile Zatopek Pinard unlike all the general wired868 or fans from anywhere in the world who take interest in West Indies cricket – in my role in media and yours as somebody who is close to WICB due to your involvement in task force – we suppose to know more (“the facts as you call it) b4 most people

      The players and people close to board fed me this information b4 it dropped today like they do with many matters which either become public or stay under the surface

      If the people you know did give you the “facts” or this latest drama b4 hand – then my elder you’re not in the best position to lecture me about “facts” relating to what goes on in the crazy world of West Indies cricket

    • Colin Benjamin, who is lecturing you, fella? Certainly not me. As far as I am concerned you could continue to write whatever you want – if enough folks are breaking down the doors to buy your Newspaper then I suppose it is justified. As I said, though, I will await the facts before jumping to conclusions on this dispute. But that’s just me.

  26. Clearly there needs to be some research done by some commentors on the meaning and significance of a ‘recognized majority union’. In the local context anyway, this does not provide for (and, in fact, specifically prohibits) an employer negotiating individually with its workers where there is such a RMU. Of course, though, WIPA (as far as I know) is not a registered trade union in T&T and therefore is not afforded the protection given to such unions by the Industrial Relations Act and other labour legislation. Also, the CBA/MOU is, as far as I know, not registered as a Collective Agreement here either.

  27. I ent no expert on cricket but after all these years with West Indies standing and standards getting lower and lower I say let’s start fielding individual teams. Trying to keep this thing together and viable seems like spiining top in mud. If is not insularity it’s downright incompetence. We go alone to Olympics and World Cup. Rallying round the West Indies has become downright exhausting! I rather expend my energy backing Team Trinidad and Tobago.

  28. The senior stars which make up the majority of T20 world cup team don’t want nothing to do with WIPA – so its illogical that they can negotiate for them.

    Only player that is a WIPA member i think is Fletcher

    If thats really part of the new MOU/CBA set up thats another further example of why its failure

  29. But only Hinds seems to think so…

  30. I ask again, is WIPA. Not still the bargaining body for ALL PLAYERS???

  31. In 2007 I was the corporate Secretary of the WICB. Sammy and the players are right.

  32. There is also a strong influence of the IPL and the enormous sums of money that accrue to the WICB for players contracted to play in the IPL, there is a conflict of interest in selecting the best team when the WICB wants to leave its marquis players available for selection to the IPL and other similar leagues and tournaments. Players in demand for these leagues should be identified for individual contract negotiations that are linked to them rotating in and out of lucrative leagues.

  33. its been hopeless since the india tour pull out – everything has just been running on autopilot since then

    star players dont trust board and are happy to just make their millions in T20 leagues

    WICB idiot triumvirate of cameron/muirhead/pybus continue to talk bullshit and make bullshit decisions like a law on to themselves despite all the public and caribbean government backlash.

    Frank Worrell might turn in his grave – but the WICB institution is totally broken, no middle ground can conceivably be found at this stage and this situation is perfect example of it

  34. It is inevitable now Lasana. No one seems to have the interest of cricket at heart.

  35. Personally, I still feel it is important for the region that we stay together. But we just can’t wait for this problem to fix itself. CARICOM has to turn the screws. Instead, they are accepting gift bags!

  36. At this stage I’m just waiting for the West Indies team to be officially broken up as I always say like the old USSR and Yugoslavia football teams

  37. When is their enough proof that Cameron isn’t the answer though??

  38. There will come a time when player contracts should be individually negotiated, and the Union and the WICB regulations SHOULD allow for this

    • I agree but not sure how an effective administration didn’t handle this prior to team selection

    • That would be a backward step in collective bargaining and industrial relations history, in my view.

    • Gerard, individual contract negotiation has already begun, as it relates to the dates on the contracts, to facilitate players being both available for the West Indies and other employment oportunities. If facilitating a marquis player signing for an international tournament or league provides revenue streams for both the WICB and WIPA, then a precedent has already been set in individually negotiated terms of the contract (ie dates) therefore it is not too far of a stretch to individually negotiate salaries, especially for those players capable of contributing to the coffers of both WIPA and the WICB.

    • Eko, in my opinion though any such renegotiation must be done in conjunction with the recognized exclusive bargaining agent, i.e. WIPA.

  39. Well it looks like they chose non-WIPA members hoping to appease them

  40. Clearly WIPA isn’t Brian. Chickens coming home to roost. The WICB neutered WIPA and now they are facing the backlash for it.
    It means that it is much much more difficult to have such important discussions in a dignified and appropriate setting.

  41. Incredible that this is just being ventilated. Is WIPA even viable any more??

  42. Scotty Ranking

    More things change, the more they remain the same. Why does the WICB seem bent on oppressing their players financially? At least pay them their just due …