OK, Now We Rock at cricket- What was I thinking :-)

[Moxley]

I haven't followed this too closely but I can't think of too many, if any, instances where employees think they are entitled to a set share of the revenue. I think I am siding with CA with this one, the players have been offered a decent pay rise on top of already very good money but knocked it back.  It's starting to have the appearance of a union official on a power trip, more interested in the fight than the best all round outcome.

i can see your point, but the so called employers only came about after the players, in the sense that cricket was a game before it became a business and 'administrators' got involved. I consider the players to essentially be the employers in this case.

In any event, they've been operating under a share model for over 20 years. If the administrators want to change that model, then they should give good reasons. If they have given reasons, obviously they haven't convinced the players.  I don't think the public is convinced either.

[Bird]

I don't think the public is convinced either.

I think most people think "sportsmen" are well overpaid as is.
I'd like to see some form of performance clauses in there.. play like Shit get Shit.

[03GV]

I heard they want to go away from the revenue sharing model because they would have to open the books and show exactly what money comes in!

Its going to be interesting with test cricket interest falling away, tv deals will be smaller as the viewers dissappear. 

[xcvator]

I'd like to know EXACTLY what wanted and offered .

[Moxley]

I think most people think "sportsmen" are well overpaid as is.
I'd like to see some form of performance clauses in there.. play like Shit get Shit.

Revenue sharing would do that to some extent.  But then I still watch regardless pretty much.

[tryagain]

i can see your point, but the so called employers only came about after the players, in the sense that cricket was a game before it became a business and 'administrators' got involved. I consider the players to essentially be the employers in this case.

Yeah, there are always two sides to every story, I had considered that point but on the balance of things came back to it being the "business" side of cricket that makes the money. The game in and of its self, doesn't do that.

In any event, they've been operating under a share model for over 20 years. If the administrators want to change that model, then they should give good reasons. If they have given reasons, obviously they haven't convinced the players.  I don't think the public is convinced either.

They have given reasons for it (mainly to invest a greater percentage into into grass roots) but in this case, what is best for the game long term doesn't necessarily coincide with what is best for the players back pocket here and now. I think Kerry O'Keeffe actually put it fairly well when he said

The players have to blink first because they risk failing the pub test. Now the public's starting to find out Steve Smith's on $2 million, Mitchell Starc's on $1.8 million, that the average Shield player gets $240,000," he said.
They (the public) will start to resent this grab for money. The players will say, 'That's money we earn,' but if you lose the public you lose the game

I know it's when I heard the sort of $$$ involved that my sympathy for the players waned.

[tryagain]

I found this article from last month pretty good at explaining both sides of the argument.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/pay-war-threatening-to-cripple-aussie-cricket-explained/news-story/17a877ae3567fd854c415a835c9f2f9c

[Bird]

Its going to be interesting with test cricket interest falling away, tv deals will be smaller as the viewers dissappear.

agree.. TV deals wont always be a total bottomless pit

[D4D]

I know it's when I heard the sort of $$$ involved that my sympathy for the players waned.

Why is that? That's their profession and only the top few get that amount? They get maybe 5 years at their peak earning capacity then what do they do after that? Most don't have anything to fall back on as they spent what is normally your career building years competing to get to the top level. It is also very small compared with to the overseas soccer, basketball, football etc.

[Bird]

They get maybe 5 years at their peak earning capacity then what do they do after that?

Live happily ever after..

5 yrs x 2 million = never have to work again

[Bird]

then this pops up in the news feed

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/cricketers-propose-peace-plan-to-end-pay-impasse-ahead-of-ashes-20170723-gxgsbc.html

[tryagain]

Why is that? That's their profession and only the top few get that amount? They get maybe 5 years at their peak earning capacity then what do they do after that? Most don't have anything to fall back on as they spent what is normally your career building years competing to get to the top level.

As Bird said, the elite are set for life, even if they never work again, but plenty will get work coaching, commentating etc. The best-paid cricketers get roughly double what their AFL/NRL counterparts do and shield players will average about 3x the average wage, whilst still having enough time to get a qualification at the same time. If you think I should sympathise with their financial circumstances, well it isn't happening.

It is also very small compared with to the overseas soccer, basketball, football etc.

But so is the revenue stream, it's not a good comparison.

[D4D]

As Bird said, the elite are set for life, even if they never work again, but plenty will get work coaching, commentating etc. The best-paid cricketers get roughly double what their AFL/NRL counterparts do and shield players will average about 3x the average wage, whilst still having enough time to get a qualification at the same time. If you think I should sympathise with their financial circumstances, well it isn't happening.

Set for life is a relative thing, the more you earn the more you spend. Capitalism at it's finest. Some are smart with their $ e.g. Warner, Clarke etc. some well not so much.

Many more top level AFL/NFL teams/players vs. the one test/one day team.

But so is the revenue stream, it's not a good comparison.

And that is exactly the players' point...

[alnjan]

Why is that? That's their profession and only the top few get that amount? They get maybe 5 years at their peak earning capacity then what do they do after that? Most don't have anything to fall back on as they spent what is normally your career building years competing to get to the top level. It is also very small compared with to the overseas soccer, basketball, football etc.

They do the same as everyone else, go and get a real job.  that five year peak earning capacity is not or should not be to pay for the rest of the life. 

[D4D]

They do the same as everyone else, go and get a real job. 

Define a 'real' job these days?

[xcvator]

They do the same as everyone else, go and get a real job. that five year peak earning capacity is not or should not be to pay for the rest of the life. 

Exactly, and in that time they will earn (collect) more than the average person will in their lifetime

[D4D]

Exactly, and in that time they will earn (collect) more than the average person will in their lifetime

I don't see why this is relevant. They're not the average person, they're at the top of their game. Like many CEOs and Executives, who at the top of their game get paid a lot more. What you're suggesting amounts to communism. If you want everybody to be on the average wage then move to Russia or China. We're in a capitalist society, that's the way it works. Get on the bus or get hit by it.

Getting back to cricket, I wonder how well the Women's cricket will rate over summer?

[Bird]

Sorry.. anyone who cant make 10 million dollars last a lifetime doesn't deserve it.
yea some cant but that x million more than I'll or most people will ever see.

Real job.. making pathetic air con commercials... doing the talking circuit at 1000/head, coaching,

Or even Shit kicker, flippin burgers at Maccas, or even as lowly as an IT drone they have 10 million, they *might* be able to afford to do a Uni degree in something useful

I'm more shocked that the Sheffield shield players get paid anything remotely like that .. talk about money for old rope... What in front of a crowd of 10? not even on the ABC!!!!

[D4D]

Sorry.. anyone who cant make 10 million dollars last a lifetime doesn't deserve it.

Again, the more you earn the more you spend, it's all relative.

[tryagain]

Set for life is a relative thing, the more you earn the more you spend. Capitalism at it's finest. Some are smart with their $ e.g. Warner, Clarke etc. some well not so much.

That's an argument for paying them less not more! my original point, that this is in regards to was that "my sympathy had waned when I heard the $$ figures involved" so now I am supposed to sympathise because they might not be very good with their money and might blow the big $$$ they earn?

And that is exactly the players' point...

That the revenue stream compared to some different sports overseas is smaller, therefore, they deserve to share the revenue? Sorry but that makes no sense what so ever.

[tryagain]

I'm more shocked that the Sheffield shield players get paid anything remotely like that .. talk about money for old rope... What in front of a crowd of 10? not even on the ABC!!!!

This is the bit that shocked me the most too

[D4D]

That's an argument for paying them less not more! my original point, that this is in regards to was that "my sympathy had waned when I heard the $$ figures involved" so now I am supposed to sympathise because they might not be very good with their money and might blow the big $$$ they earn?

I don't really care if you sympathise with them, I am just pointing out the facts.

That the revenue stream compared to some different sports overseas is smaller, therefore, they deserve to share the revenue? Sorry but that makes no sense what so ever.

Overseas sports revenue streams are massive compared to cricket in AU, hence the players overseas earn more $$. With the growth of cricket in AU, revenue increases and the players want a share of it. After all without the players there is no game.

[xcvator]

I don't really care if you sympathise with them, I am just pointing out the facts.
Overseas sports revenue streams are massive compared to cricket in AU, hence the players overseas earn more $$. With the growth of cricket in AU, revenue increases and the players want a share of it. After all without the players there is no game.

I don't really care if you sympathise with them, I am just pointing out the facts.
Overseas sports revenue streams are massive compared to cricket in AU, hence the players overseas earn more $$. With the growth of cricket in AU, revenue increases and the players want a share of it. After all without the players there is no game.

Muddeying the water with that statement,(oranges to apples ) the Australian test circuit is one of the highest grosing in the world
Tell that to the west Indies, Zambabwa and a lot of other countries 
And of course the management, coaching and marketing etc.has had nothing to do with  this expansion, the money that these players get at med/high level sports to the average person is obscene, the same with many CEO's. Nobody has forced these players to go into these sports, but when they do get to the "elite levels" they seem to believe the world owes them what ever they ask.

[Bird]

With the growth of cricket in AU,

You must be talking of 20/20.. that's the only form of cricket in AU that's living let alone growing. Test is very much on life support except for a few 80yr old diehards - and 50 has been killed by 20/20. Shame, I loved 50 over game.

Sheffield shield has been dead and decomposed for .... 30yrs+? has it ever attracted a crowd?

but not even 20/20 will continue growing for much longer. maybe 10/10/10/10 (2 innings each) is next???

The sport itself isn't helped by schools banning kids playing it at lunchtime anymore as little diddum's may hurt his self and sue the school

anyway nothing I've read so far deters me from thinking they are being paid what they deserve.  Same in the AFL, with the new pay deal.. ridiculous amounts for 18yr old kids.

[tryagain]

I know it's when I heard the sort of $$$ involved that my sympathy for the players waned.

Why is that? That's their profession and only the top few get that amount? They get maybe 5 years at their peak earning capacity then what do they do after that? Most don't have anything to fall back on as they spent what is normally your career building years competing to get to the top level. It is also very small compared with to the overseas soccer, basketball, football etc.

I don't really care if you sympathise with them, I am just pointing out the facts.

I think some "facts" seem to be pretty fluid here.

Overseas sports revenue streams are massive compared to cricket in AU, hence the players overseas earn more $$. With the growth of cricket in AU, revenue increases and the players want a share of it. After all without the players there is no game.

If you are comparing Australian cricketers to say American basketballers and European football players, it's flawed. If you compare Australian cricketers to other cricketers around the world it's far more applicable and you will find they aren't hard done by.