CA contract cuts

[dan warna]

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/contract-cuts-a-bouncer-for-state-teams-20120310-1urig.html

Good news IMO.

It would seem embarrassing that so many undeserving players got dosh from CA.

Massive Cam White fan over the past decade but he doesn't deserve the national contract, neither do hughes, smith, hauritz, hastings and a few others.

Good start IMO

 

[Phone]

Although the amount of money in the overall player-payment pool will increase, with a portion carved aside to fund performance-based bonuses, CA does not intend to increase the proportion of the pool that is paid to state cricketers even though more players will be seeking domestic contracts, creating a knock-on effect.

makes this pretty worrying for me. What are CA doing with the 2.5million they'll be saving? Common sense says they'd be giving it back to the states who'll have to handle more players wanting closer to the max cap hit, but they're not. It seems all set for the likes of james hopes, darren pattinson and maybe even Katich to say "well I'm gonna retire to allow....", and that's just something aus cricket doesn't need anymore of.

That said, this is obviously CA's ideal position, which they absolutely won't get. But yeah I'm concerned a good idea in theory will lead to more good, but old players, retiring for youth.

 

[Cleavy]

so how many is the magic number?

 

[year of the roo]

15 is surely not enough. Will end up 18+ IMO.

 

[Phone]

Current is 25, CA want 15, Players will want 20, give or take 2 either side.

Reform is good. 25 is too much. But on the other hand, we shouldn't reduce the standard of domestic cricket anymore just so we can avoid the yearly "why is this guy making so much money article". And the way this article has been written makes me fearful that CA will just take the money saved by cutting contracts to pay for the BigBash or something and this will cost the likes of Steve Magoffin - who doesn't have a contract anyway - their state career and more 19yo kids on no money will get games.

But then if I'm having these fears surely the Players are. The point is, they have to be careful in what cutbacks they do to make sure they won't be harming Aus cricket.

 

[skipper kelly]

How is having less contracts better for cricket in Australia?

 

[Gak Attack]

How can this be seen as good news? It's not like CA is going broke. Less CA contracts means less players able to secure state contracts, which means less full time cricketers. So how exactly is this good?

Lowering the contract $$$ amounts would be good and reinvesting that money into lower levels of the game but not just cutting contracts.

 

[Phone]

and they cut state contracts last year...

A whole review of the whole, inc states, contract system is def a worthy thing to do, because this current system has been in place for years and it's probably due a review, but it doesn't seem there's a review taking place. it just seems they're cutting a lot of contracts because this time last year there was a bunch of people whinging about how over-paid the cricketers were, something CA has no doubt been saying to itself for years and years.

 

[Thommo 42]

I like it.

Contract a core squad of 15 and then hand out the remaining contracts to people who get selected during the year.

The situation at the start of this year was a joke, we announced 25 blokes and within days we announced a test squad with 2 people that were unconctracted!

Much prefer the core 15 + anyone selected for Tests + anyone selected for 3 or more ODI's. T20's shouldn't count, good T20 players will be earning a pretty penny already.

 

[Phone]

well that was just bad selection. I mean, you can hand out 75 CA contracts a year and Jason Krejza still probably doesn't deserve one.

 

[Gak Attack]

If it was 15, who would you have?

1. Clarke
2. Watson
3. M.Hussey
4. Warner
5. Ponting
6. Pattinson
7. Siddle
8. Hilfenhaus
9. D. Hussey
10. Cowan
11. Harris
12. Lyon
13. Doherty
14. Christain
15. Wade

Leaves off Haddin, Cummins, Starc, Forrest, Lee, McKay, Finch, Paine just a few who might play for Australia in some form.

 

[Tassieboy]

I think it's pretty shit news as Gak alluded to.

 

[dan warna]

Cummins deserves a contract because hilditch was a moron who pre-empted a season of injury.

 

[adamj1300au]

all is fair and well to cut the list, but with the selectors rotation policies so many injuries now days what is done with players on long term injury lists, cummins, pain, hastings, pattenson etc....

what is the use of cutting the list when so many players are used.

its fair enough to cut duds off the list smith, hughts and the now hopeless camron white, for players who reciever contract up grades

 

[Nuke Fremantle]

I like it. Keep it lean and mean and don't allow dead wood to accumulate.

There'll be a few who'll spit the chewy and say, "stuff CA, i'll quit Australia and join the T20 circuit" but they'll tend to be either players nearing the end of their career or the journeymen list cloggers that we could do without.

 

[Phone]

may I ask what players you would classify as the "journeymen list cloggers"? Because most of the players clogging lists and lowering the standard of domestic cricket are 18-22yo kids...

 

[eddiesmith]

Good to cut the contracts, you dont need 25 players with Australian contracts because despite the likelihood of using that many throughout a year, you cant predict who they are. So its far better to contract your core 15 which is pretty simple, the list above pretty accurate

Then as a player gets themselves into the team, give them a contract then

Not sure they need to cut state contracts though and add more players the states need to pay, thats just stupid

 

[The_Reaper]

Each of the states should be given an extra $400,000 a year for contracts from these savings.

 

[Belnakor]

I thought the idea behind the CA contracts was it allowed guys to work full time on their cricket. So having 15 doesn't seem to make much sense, you would think at least that many are in contention every test

 

[King Elvis]

Each of the states should be given an extra $400,000 a year for contracts from these savings.

Exactly - cutting the list is good, reward the high performing domestic players a bit better.

 

[Underarm]

15 is way too low a number to cover all 3 formats.
Considering (you would think....) that the full strength test side would all get contracts....

1. Warner
2. Cowan
3. Watson
4. Ponting
5. Clarke
6. Hussey
7. Haddin
8. Siddle
9. Pattinson
10. Lyon
11. Hilfy

Then those in the ODI's....
12. Wade
13. Forrest
14. Christian
15. Mckay
16. Lee
17. Doherty
18. DJ Hussey

All of those deserve contracts. On top of that, Bailey will get a Contract as T20 captain, and Starc and Harris *might* get lucky, depending on how many they give out....

20 seems about right. No one else warrants a Contract. Paine hasnt played all summer and is no where near being selected for Australia. Cummins would be Unlikely as well seeing he's only played 1 Test and spent the rest of the Summer Injured.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Agree with that underarm. 25 I agree is more than necessary and can be counter productive (as you get the likes of Smith getting a reported $1mil+ to play domestic cricket, which takes away a bit of the incentive to work his ass off to improve and get back into the Australian team/s.) but 15 seems too few to cover those regularly playing in one of the 3 formats.
Maybe this is why they're supposedly hoping the likes of Forrest (and I get the feeling Bailey) will be able to play all 3 forms, so they can save some money (on top of seemingly trying to save money by not sending the likes of Finch over to the WI as back-up for the T20's, instead having someone who appears ill-suited to the format as the only batting back-up).

 

[The_Reaper]

Why does a Twenty20 specialist need a contract?

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Why does a Twenty20 specialist need a contract?

Exactly.

18 contracts would be enough. No reason to give all the test only players a top contract either.

And I like the idea of performance related bonuses.

 

[Selective Retention]

In an ideal world you would have 15 contracts pre season and another 5 or so that can be awarded throughout the year.

Then guys like Cowan, Lyon, Forrest, Bailey, Doherty etc don't necessarily get a contract to start with but if they hold their position in the respective sides for the year they can be upgraded on a performance basis.

But the problem is that everything feeds down from the top and it would cause havoc with contracts at domestic level.

They interviewed a guy on SEN today and the funding for sub district cricket in Melbourne is facing a 50% funding cut. The greedier they get at the top, both player demands with % of revenue agreements and administrators pushing T20, the less money funnels down to the bottom levels where the players are initially developed. Although I guess you could argue the Victorian system develops squat anyway.