Re: Ashes lockout with Aussie players on the front foot

by Red Fri 30 Jun 2017, 12:17

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/pay-fight-australian-cricketers-ready-to-wake-up-unemployed-josh-hazlewood-says-20170630-gx21b5.html

Players expect to wake up unemployed.

CA will direct savings on wages to grassroots cricket.

by taipan Fri 30 Jun 2017, 12:45

Red wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/pay-fight-australian-cricketers-ready-to-wake-up-unemployed-josh-hazlewood-says-20170630-gx21b5.html

Players expect to wake up unemployed.

CA will direct savings on wages to grassroots cricket.

horace wrote: Reeks is still overpaid.

by lardbucket Sat 01 Jul 2017, 02:26

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/1107576.html

Sutherland and Roberts emerge from this debacle as complete qunts.

by Bradman Sat 01 Jul 2017, 02:39

The players should start cutting deals very publicly with rival sponsors now.

by taipan Sat 01 Jul 2017, 06:26

lardbucket wrote:http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/1107576.html

Sutherland and Roberts emerge from this debacle as complete qunts.

It's very hard to judge exactly what is going on with no actually offers being made public. There seem to be selective leaks from both sides. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

by skully Sun 02 Jul 2017, 02:13

It's time for Sutherland to earn his money and step in and sort this debacle.

by skully Mon 03 Jul 2017, 03:41

So, it looks like we won't get the Aus A tour to SAf nor probably the Banger tour.

CA are qunts.

by Red Mon 03 Jul 2017, 04:14

It looks like the Ashes will be salvaged though, even if the Aussies are playing as sub-contracted merchants.

by taipan Mon 03 Jul 2017, 06:47

Will CA be responsible for damages if tours are cancelled

by horace Mon 03 Jul 2017, 06:58

Hahahaha...given the dire Boer attendance figures I doubt whether you'd have any claim.

by horace Mon 03 Jul 2017, 07:02

Just saw vision of Schoolgirl leaving one of the meetings. WTF is that jerk doing there?

by WideWally Mon 03 Jul 2017, 07:10

The previous scheduled tour of Bangladesh was also cancelled. They must also be quite angry about the situation.

by taipan Mon 03 Jul 2017, 07:11

horace wrote:Hahahaha...given the dire Boer attendance figures I doubt whether you'd have any claim.

~~You do realise that there are other costs involved in organizing a tour.~~

Shit, I almost forgot who I was talking to.

by lardbucket Mon 03 Jul 2017, 08:44

Slater and Cowan on opposite sides of this argument on radio ...

only one brain between them, and it's not employed by Channel Nein

by Big Dog Mon 03 Jul 2017, 10:10

skully wrote:It's time for Sutherland to earn his money and step in and sort this debacle.

Maybe those who have faceache accounts can start a petition to demand Sutherlands resignation. Clearly CA thinks the sport exists for their benefit.

by skully Mon 03 Jul 2017, 10:25

Aye. When did CA go from "our players are our family and the heart of the game and deserve a share of revenue" to "let's screw this pack of greedy qunts"?

by skully Mon 03 Jul 2017, 10:27

lardbucket wrote:Slater and Cowan on opposite sides of this argument on radio ...

only one brain between them, and it's not employed by Channel Nein

Slater is taking CA's side?? Wotaquntishnob.

by taipan Mon 03 Jul 2017, 10:34

I would still like to see what the players have been offered.

by Nath Mon 03 Jul 2017, 10:54

skully wrote:
lardbucket wrote:Slater and Cowan on opposite sides of this argument on radio ...

only one brain between them, and it's not employed by Channel Nein

Slater is taking CA's side?? Wotaquntishnob.

it wasn't a fair discussion. Slater's multiple personalities have Cowan outnumbered by about 7 to 1.

by skully Mon 03 Jul 2017, 11:08

Aye. Cybil lifted her skirt and Moo gagged.

by embee Mon 03 Jul 2017, 12:06

Previous arrangement was a revenue share agreement ...ACA want to expand definition of revenue

CA wants to change to a surplus share arrangement ...and when they claim the BBL has lost $33 million you can see why the ACA doesn't want this model

by taipan Mon 03 Jul 2017, 12:14

embee wrote:Previous arrangement was a revenue share agreement ...ACA want to expand definition of revenue

CA wants to change to a surplus share arrangement ...and when they claim the BBL has lost $33 million you can see why the ACA doesn't want this model

So if the BBL had made a profit the players would have been as happy as pigs in shit.

by Red Mon 03 Jul 2017, 12:26

The one thing CA is clearly worried about is the uncertain media bidding environment.

With Ten in receivership, they are unlikely to be able to make a play for the BBL again.

This leaves only Nine, as perhaps the only bidder for the new jewel in the crown. They can point to declining ratings over the past few summers, allegedly, which means it's harder for CA to up the ante in the way the AFL can.

CA can see its overall profits declining under this future funding model.

by Henry Mon 03 Jul 2017, 12:30

Who has the power to sack James Sutherland and the CA Board if need be, and bring in a chief executive and Board that will agree to the players terms?

If the players, both international and State, all stick together, they will eventually win. It's inevitable, because CA will start to lose too much money from lost TV revenue etc. Cricket has to eventually be played.

by skully Mon 03 Jul 2017, 13:20

Nice summary, Trev. Let's hope CA realises this and comes to their senses sooner rather than later.

by Sponsored content