Cricket Australia Contracts 2017/8

[Demosthenes]

The pay dispute was discussed on Offsiders this morning with the panel falling on the side of the cricketers, and Dave Warner in particular being praised. Definitely worth checking out.

Not a massive surprise for the ABC to side with the union.

IMO a fixed % or revenue seems fair so don't understand CA's position.

The problem is that it disincentivises growing the game. Any attempt by CA to expand will involve them incurring 100% of the costs and only receiving 80% of the benefit. Skimming a fifth of the revenue off the top of a project can make it uneconomic very quickly.

I am sympathetic to the players wanting domestic players to receive adequate compensation (and frankly the CA offer in this regard is insulting) but getting a cut of gross income is an incredibly cushy deal, and bad for the sport. After all (as much as they'd like to think otherwise) players are not really the ones who grow the game. They provide the product, but the business infrastructure is what really determines revenue expansion and that costs money. If players want scaled pay, it should be performance linked.

Realistically the ACA probably have too much bargaining power to completely end revenue sharing. A realistic compromise would be some sort of adjusted revenue figure - i.e. a restricted number of revenue streams, after deduction of certain classes of expenditure (like grassroots or development costs). This would have the added advantage of incentivising CA to maximise spend in deductible classes and minimise spend elsewhere.

 

[nobbyiscool]

After all (as much as they'd like to think otherwise) players are not really the ones who grow the game. They provide the product, but the business infrastructure is what really determines revenue expansion and that costs money.

I couldn't disagree with this more vehemently.

The players are absolutely the ones who grow the game - the suits just provide the infrastructure (such as the BBL) to allow the players to do it.

When our national team plays well, and when we have likeable players who perform well in the media, that's when cricket is at is most popular in Australia. That's when crowds swell, and that's when people are talking about it around their workplaces.

Whether 40,000 people or 70,000 people turn up on Boxing Day this year has almost nothing to do with the administration - it is almost entirely due to the players themselves.

 

[Demosthenes]

I couldn't disagree with this more vehemently.

The players are absolutely the ones who grow the game - the suits just provide the infrastructure (such as the BBL) to allow the players to do it.

That is like saying that hamburgers grow McDonalds.

When our national team plays well, and when we have likeable players who perform well in the media, that's when cricket is at is most popular in Australia. That's when crowds swell, and that's when people are talking about it around their workplaces.

Whether 40,000 people or 70,000 people turn up on Boxing Day this year has almost nothing to do with the administration - it is almost entirely due to the players themselves.

That is an incredibly poor analysis of the business of sport, for many reasons. However you are correct insofar as the value players bring to the game is directly related to their performance. Which means the sensible way to determine scaled pay for players is to link it to performance - not revenue.

 

[nobbyiscool]

That is like saying that hamburgers grow McDonalds.

That is an incredibly poor analysis of the business of sport, for many reasons. However you are correct insofar as the value players bring to the game is directly related to their performance. Which means the sensible way to determine scaled pay for players is to link it to performance - not revenue.

So given that the dispute isn't about the top end players - who are payed according to performance with yearly contracts - how do you even pay domestic players according to performance? What are the criteria?

1 team will win the Shield, 5 teams won't; 1 team will win the BBL, 7 teams won't. None of that affects what the overall money pot should be. And while the strength of the domestic leagues is ultimately reflected in the performance of the national team (usually), doesn't it seem incredibly unfair to tie a domestic players pay to the performance of national teams?

The criteria are surely things like tv deals - which, for the BBL, will likely grow by 300% next season - and things like attendance, which has also grown at an immense rate with the BBL Who is responsible for that? It's not Cricket Australia - it's the players who made the game marketable. Guys like Travis Head and Chris Lynn who weren't on the international scene, but still drew crowds and tv viewers. (Meanwhile, CA does its best to kill off non-BBL forms of the game at the domestic level as we see with the domestic one day tournament.)


CA deserves every bit of criticism they get. They never really explained why the revenue sharing model didn't work - they just expected the players and the public to go along with it. And having failed to explain their position, they refused mediation and instead embarked on a ridiculous propaganda war. In publicly discussing giving longer contracts, they also tried to force the high-profile national team players to cast off the domestic players, which is a disgusting way to approach collective bargaining.

 

[Demosthenes]

So given that the dispute isn't about the top end players - who are payed according to performance with yearly contracts - how do you even pay domestic players according to performance? What are the criteria?

Same criteria every other employee in the country gets judged by.

Who is responsible for that? It's not Cricket Australia - it's the players who made the game marketable. Guys like Travis Head and Chris Lynn who weren't on the international scene, but still drew crowds and tv viewers. (Meanwhile, CA does its best to kill off non-BBL forms of the game at the domestic level as we see with the domestic one day tournament.)

Players come and go, and are little more than a commodity that are produced and sold via the effectiveness of the business infrastructure - from the grassroots to Test level. Someone will always be hitting sixes in the BBL, whether it is Head and Lynn is mostly immaterial.

CA deserves every bit of criticism they get. They never really explained why the revenue sharing model didn't work - they just expected the players and the public to go along with it. And having failed to explain their position, they refused mediation and instead embarked on a ridiculous propaganda war. In publicly discussing giving longer contracts, they also tried to force the high-profile national team players to cast off the domestic players, which is a disgusting way to approach collective bargaining.

Neither side has covered themselves in glory. CA are blundering around with union busting tactics in an attempt to reel in a fat and complacent ACA. If there is a lockout, both sides will get what they deserve because of a mutual unwillingness to meet halfway.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Same criteria every other employee in the country gets judged by.

What are those criteria? I might have a bad week, or even a bad month at work, but I don't get penalised with lower pay or anything.

In the context of cricket though, aren't you already judged more harshly? At domestic level, if you play crap, you get dropped, and you don't get paid.

Players come and go, and are little more than a commodity that are produced and sold via the effectiveness of the business infrastructure - from the grassroots to Test level. Someone will always be hitting sixes in the BBL, whether it is Head and Lynn is mostly immaterial.

Regardless of who the player is though, you do need them hitting sixes, bowling quick, or ripping big leg breaks. They are the people that ensure the prosperity of the BBL, cos if players aren't doing that, no amount of marketing or promotion or great administration is going to grow the league.

Neither side has covered themselves in glory. CA are blundering around with union busting tactics in an attempt to reel in a fat and complacent ACA. If there is a lockout, both sides will get what they deserve because of a mutual unwillingness to meet halfway.

I don't disagree that neither side has handled it particularly well - but I think ACA are winning the public relations battle by 10 wickets at the moment.

I think the last line is a bit simplistic. Ideally in bargaining both sides make a claim and you meet somewhere in the middle, or you trade off claims to get the ones that you really wanted.

In this argument though, one team is steadfastly against revenue sharing, and the other is steadfastly defensive of it. When you're approaching it from those positions, there's not really a middle ground. Maaaybe there's some middle ground to be found in the realm of profit sharing as opposed to revenue sharing - but in my view it's still not really middle ground. The ACA are giving up much more ground than CA if that's the compromise - and as I say, I think ACA are dominating the PR battle, so I don't think they really need to be the one that gives up more ground.

What's the alternative compromise though? You might be able to think of one - if you can please share it, cos I've racked my brain and I really can't see what it is.

 

[Scotland]

Good decision to axe Faulkner. Couldn't possibly have used a bloke that offers something other than 'fast, back of a length' with the ball and has a good temperament with the bat.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Champions Trophy: Australia eliminated, but that will suit Cricket Australia's pay negotiations

Analysis
By Geoff Lemon at Edgbaston
Updated earlier today at 9:48am

As Australia crashed out of the Champions Trophy in the group stage, the English crowd at Edgbaston jeered and cheered. But losing is not cause for humiliation.

If embarrassment should be felt at the timing and manner of the exit, it should be apportioned to a few cricketing acronyms: CA, the ECB, and the ICC.

Cricket Australia, or at least its executive staff at the pointiest end, would probably have been quietly pleased to see their national team knocked out.

This is an extraordinary sentence to write, and would doubtless be indignantly rejected by CA boss James Sutherland and his board members.

But it's pretty simple arithmetic. Had Australia's players won a global tournament and stood up on a podium being showered in glitter on the evening of June 18, it would have made Cricket Australia look especially bad when it sacks all those players on the evening of June 30.

That's the likely outcome when player contracts expire at the end of this month. Cricket Australia has declared it will leave all international and most domestic players out of work, after they refused to accept proposed changes in the way they are paid and employed.

Now that the national team has made a Champions Trophy exit, one with few bangs and a handful of whimpers at 3:00am on Sunday (Jolimont time), the bosses at least dodge the most jarring possible image in the PR battle.

Whatever the right or wrong of CA's push to change player payments, the way the board has gone about its campaign has been disingenuous and damaging.

Back in December 2016, CA withdrew from negotiations with the players' union after the Australian Cricketers Association publicised controversial clauses in contracts for female players.

At the time, CA announced that it would "not take part in a process which seeks to draw its players into a public dispute.

"Players deserve the opportunity to focus on the game, rather than being distracted by a negotiation that should be conducted in a professional and confidential manner... [that] cannot be assured if discussions continue under current arrangements with the ACA."

Fast forward six months, and just a couple of days before the elimination game at Edgbaston, CA publicly released a PR video and associated documents. The video featured executive general manager Kevin Roberts making arguments about why the player payment structure should be changed.

It wasn't sent to players, but was about them and effectively addressed to them. Whether the point was to win over players or public support was unclear, but either way it was provocative.

David Warner was unequivocal in his disapproval.

"We're here to win. If CA were trying to help us win, I don't think they'd be trying to release videos like that. We've got an important game coming up this week. That's our main focus," he said.

However well paid players may be, the uncertainty and notion of impending unemployment can't help but be a distraction. It's impossible to draw definite links, but Australia's scratchy batting performance could well have been affected.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-...a-would-prefer-we-didnt/8607884?section=sport

 

[Demosthenes]

What are those criteria? I might have a bad week, or even a bad month at work, but I don't get penalised with lower pay or anything.

In the context of cricket though, aren't you already judged more harshly? At domestic level, if you play crap, you get dropped, and you don't get paid.

The criteria vary from job to job, but nowhere does it involve a cut of gross revenue (unless it's something direct like commission). It's just not a sensible way to compensate employees, because it hampers the ability of a business to function effectively.

Regardless of who the player is though, you do need them hitting sixes, bowling quick, or ripping big leg breaks. They are the people that ensure the prosperity of the BBL, cos if players aren't doing that, no amount of marketing or promotion or great administration is going to grow the league.

As long as effective business infrastructure exists, it will produce or attract the players it needs.

I don't disagree that neither side has handled it particularly well - but I think ACA are winning the public relations battle by 10 wickets at the moment.

I think the last line is a bit simplistic. Ideally in bargaining both sides make a claim and you meet somewhere in the middle, or you trade off claims to get the ones that you really wanted.

In this argument though, one team is steadfastly against revenue sharing, and the other is steadfastly defensive of it. When you're approaching it from those positions, there's not really a middle ground.

The good faith tactic in this situation (fundamentally incompatible proposals) is to offer a clean slate negotiation to the counterparty. This allows both to come to the table without losing face. You can then work on the problems behind closed doors.

Neither side has done this and both have doubled down on their proposal as the starting point. If they damage the game and their own incomes through refusal to explore options, they have nobody but themselves to blame.

Maaaybe there's some middle ground to be found in the realm of profit sharing as opposed to revenue sharing - but in my view it's still not really middle ground. The ACA are giving up much more ground than CA if that's the compromise - and as I say, I think ACA are dominating the PR battle, so I don't think they really need to be the one that gives up more ground.

Profit sharing (or rather adjusted revenue sharing) is the very definition of a middle ground - ACA keeps some monies linked to revenue streams, CA gets to extract some monies independent of this for developing the game. It satisfies both their ostensible motives, so both can call it a win. I am almost certain it is where we will eventually end up - either in a month or a year from now.

Frankly it will be more than the ACA deserves - they have an absurdly cushy deal at the moment, struck at a time when the game's administration was quite weak. If CA hadn't butchered their handling of this situation, the players wouldn't be getting away with nearly as much.

 

[eddiesmith]

My only comment on the players performances grow the game is cricket had a massive surge in popularity in 2005, when Australia lost the Ashes to England.

 

[Kram]

Good decision to axe Faulkner. Couldn't possibly have used a bloke that offers something other than 'fast, back of a length' with the ball and has a good temperament with the bat.

If he had have passed 25 more than once in about his last 20 innings it might have helped his cause.

 

[legend166]

Profit sharing is completely pointless when you are employed by a non-profit entity.

 

[King Elvis]

Sutherland ******* Cricket Australia up, as always.

 

[Belnakor]

In this argument though, one team is steadfastly against revenue sharing, and the other is steadfastly defensive of it. When you're approaching it from those positions, there's not really a middle ground. Maaaybe there's some middle ground to be found in the realm of profit sharing as opposed to revenue sharing - but in my view it's still not really middle ground. The ACA are giving up much more ground than CA if that's the compromise - and as I say, I think ACA are dominating the PR battle, so I don't think they really need to be the one that gives up more ground.

What's the alternative compromise though? You might be able to think of one - if you can please share it, cos I've racked my brain and I really can't see what it is.

profit sharing is never a good idea since it is so hard to actually define "profit"

ACA are refusing to show the books to the CA. They are essentially trying to strong arm the players... for some reason they seem to be under the delusion that the public is on their side.

The revenue sharing is there partially to stop the ACA becoming a bloated bureaucracy (more so). I'm sure if they want to "grow the game" the players would be supportive of this (they did give 20m last time for exactly that purpose). The compromise would simply be activities which grow the game don't form part of the revenue share.

Growing the game is a complete fallacy anyway. Fund junior cricket and have a good top level competition is pretty much it.

 

[Phone]

Sutherland ******* Cricket Australia up, as always.

Almost nothing to do with Sutherland (who is barely involved in the negotiations). The board has pretty clearly told the executive team what they expect/want from the new agreement and that's what they're doing.

 

[Father Jack]

Amazing how well run the AFL looks when you bother to have have a look at pretty much every other major sporting organisation in Australia.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Amazing how well run the AFL looks when you bother to have have a look at pretty much every other major sporting organisation in Australia.

Pretty sure the key difference is the AFLPA has negotiated a share of net profit, while the ACA wants a share of all revenue though.

 

[The Passenger]

It's been a bit hard to follow this from O/S but how come I keep seeing state players names being thrown around as potential replacements for the Ashes if this isn't solved?

Surely they fall under the bracket of not having a MOU in the same way the internationals do?

If this isn't resolved surely Australia either forfeits matches or can only play guys willing to play without pay (which almost certainly won't be any current professionals - whether they are state or international level).

 

[Bomberboyokay]

how come I keep seeing state players names being thrown around as potential replacements for the Ashes if this isn't solved?

Because people are idiots.

 

[The Passenger]

Upon a bit more research this afternoon it's confirmed my initial thought that the stand off includes all professional cricketers in the country. Was a little confused when people in the media started mentioning state players as lining up in the Ashes and just hadn't really had the time or inclination to delve deeper.

 

[Hellgood]

Because people are idiots.

Case in point the other thread on this board.

 

[Cleavy]

Almost nothing to do with Sutherland (who is barely involved in the negotiations). The board has pretty clearly told the executive team what they expect/want from the new agreement and that's what they're doing.

He will claim all the glory when a deal is agreed though.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Upon a bit more research this afternoon it's confirmed my initial thought that the stand off includes all professional cricketers in the country. Was a little confused when people in the media started mentioning state players as lining up in the Ashes and just hadn't really had the time or inclination to delve deeper.

Case in point the other thread on this board.

The layperson doing it is one thing. Media doing it is the height of laziness.

 

[Run n Spread]

It will be solved at the 11th hour as always.

Far too much money and future benefits at stake for both parties to piss away.

While they talk tough now come Thursday next week when s**t gets real it will be solved.

From the outside looking in no one really seems to know what they are doing or more specifically how to handle IR negotiations. Yes the players are winning the PR war but that won't count for much if they can't come to the table.

Come late next week the players themselves will sit down with the CA head honchos and will be ironed out in a jiffy (once someone blinks).

My guess they will meet in the middle. The Players will not strike but CA will s**t themselves if it gets to 1159 next Friday.

 

[The Passenger]

These things usually do get resolved, especially in Australian sports.

There has been some high profile cases in American sports where it hasn't been resolved - NHL, NBA and MLB have all had significantly reduced season/s at some point in the last 20 years with NHL 04/05 season completely cancelled and MLB cancelling the 1994 post season. The NFL also had a couple of seasons in the 80's with reduced games played.

It would, however, be a landmark occurrence in Australian sport if we were to lose test matches - particularly Ashes Tests - over a lockout.