- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,389
- AFL Club
- Geelong
We could play the Afghanis on Manus Island.
Cricket Australia Contracts 2017/8
- Thread starter Yellowperil
- Start date
- Tagged users None
We could play the Afghanis on Manus Island.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,389
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I think everything is going to be alright.
Yesterday CA sent me an email:
Yesterday CA sent me an email:
The countdown is on to Our Greatest Test, when Australia takes on England in the Men's 2017-18 Ashes Series. Next Tuesday you will receive exclusive early bird access to purchase tickets to the Perth Ashes Test.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,389
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Moody Blue
Premiership Player
Pretty sure if they try and shaft India, they will get it back ten fold. They may be only one dayers, but they make a lot of money on them.
CA still living in the 50's and believe that they will outlast the players. With an Ashes series 16 weeks away from starting, they will want to make sure they get their tactics right. Australia hasn't played a Test for a while, and all there is no the horizon are one day matches. All the Shield teams would be training but when you are not getting paid, and the bills keep coming in, your attention will drift. If the Poms come over and smash us (which is pretty likely) then the public will turn on CA and the players. Face facts, most people are really interested in the Ashes and an India series and occasionally the Kiwis when they put up a fight.
There is. They also count ODIs and T20 when determining the series winner.
Point taken. Though its been marketed as the Womens Ashes for some time now.
Think i saw something the other day that players had voted to not tour...
Not quite the whole story, it was conditional on a few things and given the seeming upswing in positivity in the press from both sides will hopefully not be an issue.
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
they burnt "things" and put the ashes in a trophy.
In a ceremony at the Harris Garden inside Lord’s, a bat signed by the two competing teams, a copy of the Women’s Cricket Association (WCA) constitution and the rules book were burnt, with the Ashes of the items sealed in a 300-year-old yew tree trophy.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 22,935
- 25,103
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
It's nice that after 300 years they found a use for that yew tree trophy then.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,389
- AFL Club
- Geelong
They were saving it up in case the British Army ever went back to bows and arrows.
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
I wish David Warner would shut his gob on this contract stuff. I bet he and the rest of his high rolling mates are shelling out to help their younger state team mates pay their rent and bills while this drags on. He has completely lost me this bloke
NTRabbit
Brownlow Medallist
It looks like nobody is buying CAs ridiculous attempt to jump out and claim they want arbitration because the union is being intransigent, people actually do remember the ACA asking for mediation months before the contracts expired.
Eat a dick Sutherland, you hopeless w***er.
Monocle
And the rebuild begins.
- Sep 18, 2003
- 11,813
- 36,012
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Claremont NE Patriots Eagles AFLW
Of course ACA want mediation rather than arbitration.
If ACA don't like the result of mediation they just walk away and protract the situation until they get closer to what they want.
Arbitration will produce an outcome that will be binding to both parties.
Both parties are going to need to compromise ( and it would appear by some margin for both parties, given their current stances ) before play is resumed.
Hard to see how ACA can compromise as the have steadfastly maintained from the outset that its keep the "MOU as is without any changes" or they don't play.
CA has done a horrible job explaining WHY they want to implement changes to the structure of the current MOU.
We the public have been kept in the dark as to just how CA plan to fund their new proposal.
Hard to form any sort of meaningful opinion about the changes unless we know what those changes are.
I have no idea what is right or wrong with this whole sordid affair,its become a total cluster f***.
One thing is for sure IMO and that there will be bad blood between both parties for the foreseeable future as the the whole fiasco has been handled so badly by both parties.
There will be casualties of this war and the Australian Cricket loving public will be one of them.
If ACA don't like the result of mediation they just walk away and protract the situation until they get closer to what they want.
Arbitration will produce an outcome that will be binding to both parties.
Both parties are going to need to compromise ( and it would appear by some margin for both parties, given their current stances ) before play is resumed.
Hard to see how ACA can compromise as the have steadfastly maintained from the outset that its keep the "MOU as is without any changes" or they don't play.
CA has done a horrible job explaining WHY they want to implement changes to the structure of the current MOU.
We the public have been kept in the dark as to just how CA plan to fund their new proposal.
Hard to form any sort of meaningful opinion about the changes unless we know what those changes are.
I have no idea what is right or wrong with this whole sordid affair,its become a total cluster f***.
One thing is for sure IMO and that there will be bad blood between both parties for the foreseeable future as the the whole fiasco has been handled so badly by both parties.
There will be casualties of this war and the Australian Cricket loving public will be one of them.
Yellowperil
Debutant
- Jan 27, 2017
- 99
- 61
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Thread starter
- #295
This x1000
The other casualties will be the players on the fringes that could have done with the Australia A and the Bangers tour. Players like Maxwell, Cartwright and even Ashton Agar would have been given a decent run on these tours to play some actual cricket and press their case. With the next tour being the Ashes it's hard to see these guys getting a look in on the test team.
NTRabbit
Brownlow Medallist
Arbitration is also heavily stacked against workers, and has been for 15 years.
Sydney_hawk
Rookie
- Jul 25, 2017
- 45
- 64
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Banned
- #297
I have no idea how arbitration work. Can aca say no to it? The players are not contracted so why would aca want to go there?
courageous_tom
Team Captain
It seems like everyone is firmly on the side of the players with this. I'm not sure it's so simple.
The main issue is about linking player earnings to a % of CA's revenue. This is how it's always been done, and it's how the players want it to stay. CA wants to break away from a set percentage of revenue, and instead negotiate fixed increases in the contract pool. ie 3% increase in the pool each year, regardless of CA's revenue.
The reason CA wants to do this, is that they're looking into alternate broadcasting models for cricket. If CA were to break up with channel 9/10 in the future, and instead produce their own content digitally, this would fundamentally change the revenue structure of the business.
CA offering all cricket matches, live, in HD via a streaming service on their website for example, would likely lead to a huge increase in revenue. Great right? CA gets more money, the players automatically get more money too. Everyone is happy. Except CA also has a huge increase in costs that they've never had before.
This kind of setup might include a 300% increase in revenue, but only a 10% increase in overall profitability. Normally you would want a business to pursue something like this, a 10% increase in profitability is fantastic. However with player contracts linked to revenue, they would also be getting a 300% increase in revenue, and that profitability number dissapears, so the deal doesn't get done. The game is worse off.
The main issue is about linking player earnings to a % of CA's revenue. This is how it's always been done, and it's how the players want it to stay. CA wants to break away from a set percentage of revenue, and instead negotiate fixed increases in the contract pool. ie 3% increase in the pool each year, regardless of CA's revenue.
The reason CA wants to do this, is that they're looking into alternate broadcasting models for cricket. If CA were to break up with channel 9/10 in the future, and instead produce their own content digitally, this would fundamentally change the revenue structure of the business.
CA offering all cricket matches, live, in HD via a streaming service on their website for example, would likely lead to a huge increase in revenue. Great right? CA gets more money, the players automatically get more money too. Everyone is happy. Except CA also has a huge increase in costs that they've never had before.
This kind of setup might include a 300% increase in revenue, but only a 10% increase in overall profitability. Normally you would want a business to pursue something like this, a 10% increase in profitability is fantastic. However with player contracts linked to revenue, they would also be getting a 300% increase in revenue, and that profitability number dissapears, so the deal doesn't get done. The game is worse off.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 22,935
- 25,103
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
Why did they make it all about grassroots then?
courageous_tom
Team Captain
I don't know.
I suspect it's not good business practice to telegraph that your planning on going out on your own, when you're currently in bed with the current networks
Similar threads
