Ashes lockout with Aussie players on the front foot

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/ashes-lockout-looms-as-players-hit-back-in-response-to-explosive-cricket-australia-email-20170514-gw4cyy.html

Impasse here; trouble ahead?

it only damages the board and its finances anyway, since the Ashes is 1 of the 2 Test tours that is profitable.

Have been looking at getting tickets for a few of us on day two or there, and have noticed all the premium spots have gone. Day one is almost a sellout.

It's hard to believe the players would allow a third string team to be on show.

We might be getting slightly more of the standard chest-banging bullshit than usual with these kind of stories (the AFL were here a couple of months ago) but I'd say we're a good while away from needing to worry about WSC Mark II just yet....

Fred Nerk wrote:We might be getting slightly more of the standard chest-banging bullshit than usual with these kind of stories (the AFL were here a couple of months ago) but I'd say we're a good while away from needing to worry about WSC Mark II just yet....

IPL 2.0?

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/australian-star-david-warner-says-pay-dispute-puts-ashes-summer-in-doubt-20170515-gw51tz.html

Warner has his say on the matter.

I'm guessing Warne has had his and they're going in alphabetical order....Damn! Missed that one as well

So how much is a CA contract worth? I assume IPL and BB salaries are over and above this?

yep on top of babel wages...Smith would be on around $3M pa

horace wrote:yep on top of babel wages...Smith would be on around $3M pa

And the bat, car,etc endorsements?

Additional cream on the cake.

And speaking engagements.

These guys are not exactly paupers.

taipan wrote:And speaking engagements.

These guys are not exactly paupers.

...and a lot of them are not earning their money anyway. They should all be put on performance based contracts.

Big Dog wrote:

taipan wrote:And speaking engagements.

These guys are not exactly paupers.

...and a lot of them are not earning their money anyway. They should all be put on performance based contracts.

Won't that require them to play too much cricket?

Having all the top guns unavailable might be a great opportunity to finally see some of the up-and-comers in action (particularly in the middle order to end the ridiculous Marsh merry-go-round). A chance to improve us from a 2 man top order.

Sure, we'll get smashed, but every cloud...

It's hard to be as sympathetic towards the players as those of yore. When WSC started, the players had allegedly been on Shield payments of eight dollars per day and modest test match earnings. They also had attracted huge test crowds in the lead-up to the defection.

I foresee a public backlash against the players.

Red wrote:It's hard to be as sympathetic towards the players as those of yore. When WSC started, the players had allegedly been on Shield payments of eight dollars per day and modest test match earnings. They also had attracted huge test crowds in the lead-up to the defection.

I don't begrudge the players earning as much as they possibly can before their used-by-dates are reached. And I tend to agree that they ARE the product, so deserve a share of revenue. The current 26% doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

CA really hasn't indicated why they want to change the existing model, have they?

skully wrote:Having all the top guns unavailable might be a great opportunity to finally see some of the up-and-comers in action (particularly in the middle order to end the ridiculous Marsh merry-go-round). A chance to improve us from a 2 man top order.

Sure, we'll get smashed, but every cloud...

anything to give Henriques a game...

Sweet Baby Jesus, Nath - wash yer ferkin mouth out!!!!!

Judging from his inglorious international career, Reeks could never go on strike let alone strike a blow.

From the Australian Cricketers Association website



The ACA on behalf of Australia’s cricketers has today rejected Cricket Australia’s pay and conditions proposal.

Since 20th March 2017, despite a lack of the necessary financial information, the ACA’s legal, financial and media experts have been analysing Cricket Australia’s (CA) remuneration proposal to Australia’s international and domestic players.

The Cricket Australia Proposal
The ACA has found that CA’s proposal is a ‘win’ for cricket administrators but a ‘loss’ for cricket.

That’s because CA’s proposal:

Misunderstands a fundamental truth about cricket: cricket is for the fans and the players are the gateway to the fans;
Would end the successful 20-year partnership with the players; a partnership that allows the players to share in the ‘ups and downs’ of the games and its revenue, and allows for the fluctuations in media rights cycles;
Denies female cricketers the opportunity to share in the games’ revenue thus compromising CA’s otherwise positive response to the ACA’s calls for gender equity, which have been welcomed by the ACA;
Disrespects the value of domestic cricketers and the role they play in Australian cricket;
Fails to fully disclose sufficient financial information requested by the ACA;
Fails to allocate with transparency or certainty the independently forecasted $2.6 billion which is expected to enter that game over the next five years;
Makes an artificially inflated offer to the players by including both income the players have already earned (called the Adjustment Ledger) and CA’s (and its Associations) payroll tax obligations;
Continues to short change desperately needed grassroots investment currently at only 12% of revenue;
Reduces the share of Australian Cricket Revenue (ACR) available to the players and their programs in real terms;
Creates large scale confusion for domestic players still on multi-year revenue-sharing contracts;
Creates inequity amongst the playing groups. It is unfair for CA to create a situation, via its offer, that some players playing in a domestic team enjoy revenue share and other do not;
Fails to bridge the trust gap with the players that was created by CA which, amongst other things, shared zero per cent of digital revenue with the players; and
Maintains the threat to remove the ACA’s funding and payments and hence the critical programs that the ACA provides.
These factors render CA’s offer unacceptable to male, female, international and domestic players in Australia.

The ACA also expresses frustration that what should be a relatively simple and good faith negotiation has not proceeded in this way.

The fact that CA has, despite various attempts to do so, produced no logical reason to break the successful partnership model and longstanding relationship with players, leaves the players unclear as to CA’s objectives.

That’s why the players urge Cricket Australia’s Board to fundamentally revise and restructure CA’s proposal, as a precondition to further negotiations.

An ACA ‘WIN WIN’ Solution
To assist CA, the players and the ACA offer a ‘Win Win’ model, as a solution.

A ‘win’ for the men and women who play the game, a ‘win’ for the grassroots, a ‘win’ for broadcasters and sponsors, a ‘win’ for Cricket Australia and most importantly a ‘win’ for the fans.

The players propose a modernised Revenue Sharing Model with an updated and inclusive definition of revenue.

The proposal is for a 22.5/22.5/55 split of agreed revenue share to grassroots cricket, the players and CA respectively.
An updated and inclusive definition of cricket revenue is required given the current loopholes and exclusions of revenue streams like digital revenue. Players are also prepared to increase their exposure to revenue risk given their preparedness to share any underachievement of revenue forecasts as part of a revamped revenue share model.

The ACA’s proposal is:

Simple, transparent and accountable;
Retains all the benefits of the successful partnership model;
Builds trust by having an inclusive definition of revenue rather than one with outdated definitions and loopholes;
Allocates the players and their programs a set share of these revenues that the game can afford;
Prioritises the investment in grassroots cricket by protecting 22.5% of these revenues for it, including the creation of an estimated $119 million per year, 5-year ‘Grassroots Seed Fund’ to secure cricket’s future;
Leaves an estimated $1.5 billion (or 55% of these revenues) with CA for cricket administration over and above player payments and protected grassroots investment;
Creates a pro-investment environment supported by the players;
Treats men and women fairly, with equal conditions;
Treats domestic players with respect and acknowledges their important role;
Eliminates the unnecessary risk CA is asking broadcasters and sponsors to take, by asking them to support an untested model;
Regards CA’s positive statements regarding ‘gender equity’ as heading in the right direction
The model is based on expert financial advice and media market modelling commissioned by the ACA and historically based revenue parameters, in lieu of CA’s requested financial disclosure.

This expert analysis suggests that over the next five years’ cricket in Australia will generate approximately $2.6 billion in revenue for CA in an income tax free environment.

The ACA remains intent on the new MOU being settled before the end of the current financial year when all international players’ (and many domestic players’) contracts expire.



Accusing CA of some dodgy accounting

So, anyone wanna have a stab at a non-contracted XI? Based on 16-17 Shield performance (less Reeks)...

Burns
Harris
Cowan
Turner
Patterson
Lehmann
Hartley
Holland
Tremain
Behrendorff
Sayers

um ...those blokes are all part of the ACA


Nath
Lardy
Fred
horace
skully
embee
wally
big dog
red
blackadder
brockley

Really?? So it's the State contracted players as well that will be shut out?? Geez Louise!!