Cricket faces an employment earthquake

[Junaids]

There is a separate thread for the dispute between Cricket Australia and its players, but with those players having become unemployed 2.5 hours ago a much bigger issue is now about to play out.

When the boards of England and Australia tried to prevent Kerry Packer's players from representing their countries in 1977 and 1978, they were trounced in the English courts.

When the BCCI developed the IPL a decade ago it faced a similar problem. New Zealand Cricket had formally advised Shane Bond in writing that they approved him playing ICL and that he could still play for the national team, and indeed his ICL contract was written in such a way as to ensure that he was always released for national duty.

This led to the legally-informed but clearly unlawful introduction by the ICC - at the BCCI's insistence - of regulations which stipulated that no player could play any form of cricket unless:

A) it was sanctioned by the national board hosting it, and
B) th player was issued with a No Objection Certificate by his own board.

Hence the spectacle of even retired Pakistanis seeking NOCs to play exhibition tournaments.

We know that the ICC's lawyers cautioned against this NOC policy, but that the BCCI insisted upon it.

One Cricket Australia executive, David Peever, is a notorious union basher, and has precipitated the current dispute.

And now Cricket Australia has, in industrial terms, locked out the players. They are now unemployed and don't "belong" to Cricket Australia any more.

In law - as proved by football's 1995 Bosman case - they would be free agents, entitled to play any official or unofficial matches without permission or future consequences.

But Cricket Australia is threatening them that if they do play anywhere without their written permission in the form of a NOC, they will be banned from the Ashes six months from now.

So we are about to see the whole NOC model challenged in court. And Cricket Australia - and by extension the ICC and BCCI - is clearly going to lose.

The floodgates will then truly be open not just for the IPL to expand, but for any entrepreneur to create any competition for the Indian market.

 

[Napa]

But Cricket Australia is threatening them that if they do play anywhere without their written permission in the form of a NOC, they will be banned from the Ashes six months from now.

...

So we are about to see the whole NOC model challenged in court. And Cricket Australia - and by extension the ICC and BCCI - is clearly going to lose.

The floodgates will then truly be open not just for the IPL to expand, but for any entrepreneur to create any competition for the Indian market.

Weren't you just a little while ago claiming that the best Australian players would not give up playing in Australia for the chance to play in India. Now it appears that they will go even further and give up playing for their country!

 

[Convict]

Weren't you just a little while ago claiming that the best Australian players would not give up playing in Australia for the chance to play in India. Now it appears that they will go even further and give up playing for their country!

This has nothing to do with India or BCCI or whatever despite what Junaids may be saying.

Its the ACA union standing by the Sheffield Shield players (who generally aren't good enough to get IPL contracts anyway). Cricket Australia wanted to splinter the two.

 

[Junaids]

This has nothing to do with India or BCCI or whatever despite what Junaids may be saying.

Its the ACA union standing by the Sheffield Shield players (who generally aren't good enough to get IPL contracts anyway). Cricket Australia wanted to splinter the two.

You are missing the point completely.

Yes, this is a simple case of a monopoly employer trying to bust a strong union, and using the renegotiation of an expiring contract to lock out the workforce.

But that is covered on the other thread.

The purpose of this thread is to signpost that the NOC arrangements are being (ab)used by that monopoly employer, and that if this gets to court the NOC structure will be laughed out of court.

Which would demolish Cricket Australia's position, and revolutionise leagues around the world - as well as allowing any number of private leagues.

 

[Napa]

This has nothing to do with India or BCCI or whatever despite what Junaids may be saying.

Its the ACA union standing by the Sheffield Shield players (who generally aren't good enough to get IPL contracts anyway). Cricket Australia wanted to splinter the two.

There is some truth in what you say. However I think players like Smith and Warner have been emboldened by IPL, and know that CA is not the only game in town. Twenty years ago, they may not have felt as much confidence in taking on their board.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

There is a separate thread for the dispute between Cricket Australia and its players, but with those players having become unemployed 2.5 hours ago a much bigger issue is now about to play out.

When the boards of England and Australia tried to prevent Kerry Packer's players from representing their countries in 1977 and 1978, they were trounced in the English courts.

When the BCCI developed the IPL a decade ago it faced a similar problem. New Zealand Cricket had formally advised Shane Bond in writing that they approved him playing ICL and that he could still play for the national team, and indeed his ICL contract was written in such a way as to ensure that he was always released for national duty.

This led to the legally-informed but clearly unlawful introduction by the ICC - at the BCCI's insistence - of regulations which stipulated that no player could play any form of cricket unless:

A) it was sanctioned by the national board hosting it, and
B) th player was issued with a No Objection Certificate by his own board.

Hence the spectacle of even retired Pakistanis seeking NOCs to play exhibition tournaments.

We know that the ICC's lawyers cautioned against this NOC policy, but that the BCCI insisted upon it.

One Cricket Australia executive, David Peever, is a notorious union basher, and has precipitated the current dispute.

And now Cricket Australia has, in industrial terms, locked out the players. They are now unemployed and don't "belong" to Cricket Australia any more.

In law - as proved by football's 1995 Bosman case - they would be free agents, entitled to play any official or unofficial matches without permission or future consequences.

But Cricket Australia is threatening them that if they do play anywhere without their written permission in the form of a NOC, they will be banned from the Ashes six months from now.

So we are about to see the whole NOC model challenged in court. And Cricket Australia - and by extension the ICC and BCCI - is clearly going to lose.

The floodgates will then truly be open not just for the IPL to expand, but for any entrepreneur to create any competition for the Indian market.

Very good post. This is for a change 100% accurate and non-ideological summary of the facts. If CA is dumb enough not to grant an NOC, the entire regime will be challenged and there is NO WAY this stands up in Court, which is why nobody refuses to grant NOCs even when they would clearly prefer their players not play (other than BCCI, who pay their players enough anyway).

 

[CricketAnalyst]

What Junaids is saying is right, and it will be revolutionary because anybody can then host leagues and invite Indian players or anyone in general, and this will absolutely wreck the international schedule.

 

[Junaids]

What Junaids is saying is right, and it will be revolutionary because anybody can then host leagues and invite Indian players or anyone in general, and this will absolutely wreck the international schedule.

I suspect that even [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] will agree with my next comment.

David Peever's background as a senior mining executive has taught him that you can divide and rule your workforce because once collective bargaining with a union is broken, you can pay people whatever suits you and if one worker doesn't like the conditions you will find another who accepts them to replace him.

He thinks the cricketers' existing conditions - specifically revenue sharing - are too generous, and that now is the time to break them.

As [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] writes, to him it's a simple industrial dispute. And he has spent decades in the echo chamber of senior management, hardening his dogma.

But there are two problems.

The first is that you can't just replace Smith or Warner or Starc. The back-up is inferior, as Australia learned in 1978-79 when they lost the Ashes 5-1 at home without the Packer players.

The second is that Peever probably has never heard of Bosman and does not realise that the NOC rules are legally indefensible.

Elements in the BCCI - specifically the Srinivasan bloc - feel betrayed by Cricket Australia and free to poach their players for a 52 week IPL if they want to.

But there's a deeper problem. If the NOC model goes, there's nothing to stop ANY company with deep pockets from hijacking the world's elite cricketers for the Indian market.

David Peever's industrial dogma has the potential to totally overturn the cricket hierarchy and structures worldwide.

 

[Convict]

There is some truth in what you say. However I think players like Smith and Warner have been emboldened by IPL, and know that CA is not the only game in town. Twenty years ago, they may not have felt as much confidence in taking on their board.

Twenty years ago the Australian team under Mark Waugh made this exact stand.

 

[Junaids]

There is some truth in what you say. However I think players like Smith and Warner have been emboldened by IPL, and know that CA is not the only game in town. Twenty years ago, they may not have felt as much confidence in taking on their board.

I agree!

 

[Napa]

Twenty years ago the Australian team under Mark Waugh made this exact stand.

They may have made the same stand, but what they perceive as their bargaining power is different this time around. The idea is simple, the players will be much more willing to take risk in their confrontation with CA as they know they have a backup in the form of IPL.

 

[Napa]

I agree!

I always knew we were both great minds

 

[ipl_fan]

Boo Hoo !!

Another doomsday theory thread from [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] . Surprise surprise !!

 

[zyrus]

There is a separate thread for the dispute between Cricket Australia and its players, but with those players having become unemployed 2.5 hours ago a much bigger issue is now about to play out.

When the boards of England and Australia tried to prevent Kerry Packer's players from representing their countries in 1977 and 1978, they were trounced in the English courts.

When the BCCI developed the IPL a decade ago it faced a similar problem. New Zealand Cricket had formally advised Shane Bond in writing that they approved him playing ICL and that he could still play for the national team, and indeed his ICL contract was written in such a way as to ensure that he was always released for national duty.

This led to the legally-informed but clearly unlawful introduction by the ICC - at the BCCI's insistence - of regulations which stipulated that no player could play any form of cricket unless:

A) it was sanctioned by the national board hosting it, and
B) th player was issued with a No Objection Certificate by his own board.

Hence the spectacle of even retired Pakistanis seeking NOCs to play exhibition tournaments.

We know that the ICC's lawyers cautioned against this NOC policy, but that the BCCI insisted upon it.

One Cricket Australia executive, David Peever, is a notorious union basher, and has precipitated the current dispute.

And now Cricket Australia has, in industrial terms, locked out the players. They are now unemployed and don't "belong" to Cricket Australia any more.

In law - as proved by football's 1995 Bosman case - they would be free agents, entitled to play any official or unofficial matches without permission or future consequences.

But Cricket Australia is threatening them that if they do play anywhere without their written permission in the form of a NOC, they will be banned from the Ashes six months from now.

So we are about to see the whole NOC model challenged in court. And Cricket Australia - and by extension the ICC and BCCI - is clearly going to lose.

The floodgates will then truly be open not just for the IPL to expand, but for any entrepreneur to create any competition for the Indian market.

This was on the cards. ICC allowed such leagues to take away their share of sponsors and players, they'll suffer now. BCCI can possibly ditch ICC and creat council of their own.

 

[theariezman]

This is just temporary thing possibly to create attention from CA that they can also go into crises if their share from ICC is decreases.