Ashes lockout with Aussie players on the front foot

Henry wrote: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.

Smith and Warner (et al) missing out on millions of dollars through not being contracted might weaken their resolve ....they have WAGs to maintain

embee wrote:

Henry wrote: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.

Smith and Warner (et al)  missing out on millions of dollars through not being contracted might weaken their resolve ....they have WAGs to maintain

Interesting that not all members of the public are with the players. A newspaper article alluded to the fact that the average yearly salary of the test players is at least one million. The average salary of AFL players (less elite of course) is over 300k, but the average punter has been subject to stagnating wages for quite some time so is not necessarily totally sympathetic here.

Red wrote:

embee wrote:

Henry wrote: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.

Smith and Warner (et al)  missing out on millions of dollars through not being contracted might weaken their resolve ....they have WAGs to maintain

 Interesting that not all members of the public are with the players.  A newspaper article alluded to the fact that the average yearly salary of the test players is at least one million. The average salary of AFL players (less elite of course) is over 300k, but the average punter has been subject to stagnating wages for quite some time so is not necessarily totally sympathetic here.

Is the million from CA?

As the players have repeatedly stated, the deal they seek is not one that will automatically give them more money.

It gives them a guaranteed fraction of the whole pie, whatever happens to the size of that pie going forwards. The pie may grow, stagnate, or diminish; their fraction will remain the same.

I'm with the players on this one.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

embee wrote:

Henry wrote: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.

Smith and Warner (et al)  missing out on millions of dollars through not being contracted might weaken their resolve ....they have WAGs to maintain

 Interesting that not all members of the public are with the players.  A newspaper article alluded to the fact that the average yearly salary of the test players is at least one million. The average salary of AFL players (less elite of course) is over 300k, but the average punter has been subject to stagnating wages for quite some time so is not necessarily totally sympathetic here.

Is the million from CA?

"Australian cricket captain Steve Smith is on a retainer of $1.2 million from Cricket Australia and he pockets $14,000 every time he pulls on a baggy green and runs out in a Test match."

Thats from an article in the Australian in May

lardbucket wrote:As the players have repeatedly stated, the deal they seek is not one that will automatically give them more money.

It gives them a guaranteed fraction of the whole pie, whatever happens to the size of that pie going forwards. The pie may grow, stagnate, or diminish; their fraction will remain the same.

I'm with the players on this one.

100%.

Im with the players (based on what little information has been put out or Ive bothered to read)

they want the current system to remain (with a few tweaks in their favour)

CA wants to make big changes ...but they havent sold their story well enough to get it through

If it aint broke ....

unfortunately its currently a qunt off between CA and the players


and as Ive read about Oz cricket

they are the quntiest qunts that ever qunted

If CA give in, it surely means mass resignations/sackings would have to take place in CA. 'Job for life' Sutherland is suddenly fighting for his career. He won't go quietly seeing his he's been able to hang on to his post through thick and thin the last 15 years.

The players should throw in an extra demand. That any future redundancy payments to sacked CA officials come out of CA's share after the division of spoils.

It's farked that CA won't explain exactly why they want to change away from the revenue sharing model that has seemingly worked well for 20 years. It smacks of secret cricket business and a masters and servants scenario.

I sure hope it doesn't result in a bunch of Grade cricketers representing Aus in the Ashes. If Ashes revenue gets hurt, Sutherland should be sacked over this debacle.

embee wrote:Im with the players (based on what little information has been put out or Ive bothered to read)

they want the current system to remain (with a few tweaks in their favour)

CA wants to make big changes ...but they havent sold their story well enough to get it through

If it aint broke ....

As I said a couple of days ago we don't know all the facts so hard to make a call. I have a problem in that IMHO certain sports people are highly overpaid to the detriment of the sport they participate in. I will wait until all the facts are in.

Meanwhile, CA chief fark-knuckle pisses off the Vomits

"Cricket Australia high performance manager Pat Howard is sticking by polarising comments he made to members of Victoria's squad at a meeting at the MCG on Monday.
...
It's understood several Bushrangers were unhappy with the way CA addressed the pay dispute, with the key issue being CA's desire to end the 20-year revenue-sharing model.
...
However pay was not the sole point of contention. Several players referred to comments made by Howard in relation to the Matador Cup one-day domestic competition. It has moved in recent years from a league played throughout most of the summer to a tournament-style competition played in two cities – in part to replicate international play.

Howard described it as a pre-season competition."

-----------------------------------------

What has Howard ever done to benefit Aus Cricket??

I suppose they need to expand their HQ operations. If this goes on think of the poor bastards who'll lose their job. It won't be Howard et al, it'll be the struggling dietician, herbalist, psychic, 2nd assistant motivational guru, the board's international travel consultant and his two offsiders and Sutherland's wife's chauffeur who get it in the arse.

Quntouris????

A new position has opened up at CA. Premier Cricket Development Manager. The job closes tomorrow if anyone wants in on the gravy train.

"As part of our aim to be a sport for all Australians, CA’s strategy is to increase participation across all forms of Cricket, which reflect the diversity of Australia’s population. As the Premier Cricket Development Manager, you are accountable for developing and overseeing the delivery of strategic initiatives aimed at aligning and strengthening Premier Cricket’s place in the Australian Cricket pathway whilst also managing key partnerships and relationships across Australian Cricket.

• Working within Team Performance, the Premier Cricket Development Manager is accountable for developing and overseeing the improvement of Premier Cricket. They will drive National alignment through the implementation of the National Strategy for Premier Cricket to underpin the Australian Cricket Pathway and deliver inclusive, competitive and attractive clubs for talented athletes."

Is premier cricket some new comp?

skully wrote:It's farked that CA won't explain exactly why they want to change away from the revenue sharing model that has seemingly worked well for 20 years. It smacks of secret cricket business and a masters and servants scenario.

I sure hope it doesn't result in a bunch of Grade cricketers representing Aus in the Ashes. If Ashes revenue gets hurt, Sutherland should be sacked over this debacle.

Well, the Marsh brothers and Henriques are in with a shout of being picked.....

Fortunately they are all ACA members, thus may not be available.

Bradman wrote:A new position has opened up at CA.  Premier Cricket Development Manager. The job closes tomorrow if anyone wants in on the gravy train.

"As part of our aim to be a sport for all Australians, CA’s strategy is to increase participation across all forms of Cricket, which reflect the diversity of Australia’s population. As the Premier Cricket Development Manager, you are accountable for developing and overseeing the delivery of strategic initiatives aimed at aligning and strengthening Premier Cricket’s place in the Australian Cricket pathway whilst also managing key partnerships and relationships across Australian Cricket.

•    Working within Team Performance, the Premier Cricket Development Manager is accountable for developing and overseeing the improvement of Premier Cricket. They will drive National alignment through the implementation of the National Strategy for Premier Cricket to underpin the Australian Cricket Pathway and deliver inclusive, competitive and attractive clubs for talented athletes."

Is premier cricket some new comp?

Can someone please translate that from corporate speak into plain english.

make grade cricket and grade cricketers better

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:Im with the players (based on what little information has been put out or Ive bothered to read)

they want the current system to remain (with a few tweaks in their favour)

CA wants to make big changes ...but they havent sold their story well enough to get it through

If it aint broke ....

As I said a couple of days ago we don't know all the facts so hard to make a call. I have a problem in that IMHO certain sports people are highly overpaid to the detriment of the sport they participate in. I will wait until all the facts are in.

You still don't get it.

The Australian players are not, repeat not, asking for 'a pay rise'. They want the existing arrangement, 'a share of revenue raised through cricket', to continue, and to extend to Sate cricketers. CA wants to fix and control all player incomes at levels CA deems to be appropriate ...

According to Crash Craddock, CA expects a big boost in revenue in the ensuing years so the revenue sharing model doesn't suit them.

Craddock believes that cricketers have been underpaid for 130 of 140 years, but not the last ten.

He is happy with some aspects of what players want from revenue sharing, but believes them wanting a slice of junior fees for example, is not desirable.

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  

I get it very clearly if it is as per embee's post. CA are changing the revenue sharing platform. However it is not clear from his post whether the revenue share agreement was based on turnover or profit. As I said I do not have enough information to make a decision.

some info extracted from CA's own annual report (and I'm quoting from another on-line source):

Cricket Australia's model sees players paid a fixed amount out of 'surplus', after all other expenditure. From 2015 to 2016 the surplus went down by 53%. Smaller pie for the players, more pie for administration.

In the year reported:

Administration costs went up by 18.5% (results didn't)

Operations costs went up by 12% (results didn't)

payments to players and umpires went down by 25.9% (so did results)

revenue went down by 10%

So ... less money coming in, increased expenditure on administration and operations, less pie for the players, diminishing on-field returns

and

CA want the players of the future to get paid AFTER all administration etc expenses ("after their empire building exhausts the revenue").

The players position of continuing the current arrangement gives them a guaranteed share of "the pie" and puts a cap on potential (further) bloating of administration

Did I mention that CA are qunts?