St John’s, Antigua –The WICB notes WIPA’s responses to the WICB’s exposure of the players association’s rejection of the joint ICC/FICA proposal which was designed to bring a final resolution to the issue of image rights and intellectual property.
WIPA asserts: “The ICC/ FICA proposal as contained in its document to WIPA indicates under the heading “Degree of Authority”: ‘that the scope of authority vested on ICC/FICA is only to discuss and recommend joint proposals, where possible. No power to bind the WICB or WIPA”.
The FACTS: In the same way that both parties must agree that Arbitration is binding thus both parties would have had to agree that the joint ICC/FICA proposal would have been binding, leading to a final resolution.
It is without question that the joint ICC/FICA proposal could have led to a final and binding agreement on the issue of image rights and intellectual property, if it had been given a chance to proceed.
WIPA’s rejection of the joint ICC/FICA proposal which may have produced a solution is a clear case of WIPA wanting to drag on the Special Arbitration Process for as long as it can benefit from the status quo.
WIPA asserts: “There was no timeframe set out in the New York Agreement (NYA) for the Special Arbitrations as articulated by the WICB.”
The FACTS: WIPA is once again adopting its trademark disingenuity on this matter as the time for the Special Arbitration was understood within the critical context of the discussions between the parties, including the deadline for the new Collective Bargaining Agreement/Memorandum Of Understanding.
The new document would be guided by the decision of the Special Arbitration Panel as it related to the use of image rights. For the new CBA/MOU to have been completed by December 31 2009 deadline, as outlined by the New York Agreement, then surely the Special Arbitration would have needed to precede that.
It is clear that WIPA is aiming to misguide the public in suggesting that the CBA/MOU had nothing to do with the Special Arbitration Panel when the decisions of the panel are integral to it.
WIPA asserts: “With regards to the CBA/MOU negotiations it was agreed by representatives of both parties following meetings on October 14th 2009 and November 26th 2009 that completion of this process would be impossible by December 31st 2009. WIPA forwarded its position in writing on 7th December 2009 in respect of the proposed CBA/MOU and has had no response from the WICB.”
The FACTS: WICB has always made it clear that in keeping with the New York Agreement, there has to be agreement by December 31 2009. WICB submitted its draft CBA/MOU on July 28 2009 for WIPA’s consideration.
The draft contains a proposal similar to that signed recently between Cricket South Africa and the South Africa Cricketers Association (http://www.sport24.co.za/Cricket/Better-deal-for-SA-cricketers-20100824) for a commitment of a percentage of all WICB commercial revenue to a Players’ Pool in which all players would share. WIPA agreed, in March 2009, to the concept and committed to working towards its finalization.
WICB, on January 12 2010 wrote to WIPA in response to its communication of December 7 2009. For WIPA to assert that the WICB did not respond is patently false. A copy of the WICB’s letter to WIPA is attached.
The letter states, in part: “On October 10, 2009, as part of the New York Agreement which was intended to resolve all outstanding issues, both WIPA and WICB agreed to “commence negotiations on or before October 15 2009 with respect to a new long term MOU/CBA agreement between the parties with a commitment towards its finalization by December 31 2009”.
“As WIPA at that time had already been in possession of the proposed MOU for three months, it is unfortunate that you are only now stating objections to the proposal. In fact, we are of the view that WIPA’s present actions are in complete opposition to both the letter and spirit of the New York Agreement in respect of the negotiation of a new MOU/CBA.”
WIPA asserts: “Contrary to the WICB’s assertion that they have adhered to all the terms of the New York Agreement, the issue of Players Rankings has not been agreed.”
The FACTS: ALL PLAYERS signed retainer contracts in October 2009 which were offered in accordance with the ranking of players.
How can the issue of player ranking not have been settled if ALL PLAYERS signed their retainer contracts for 2009-2010? This assertion by WIPA makes no sense whatsoever. Further WICB has asked WIPA on two occasions for their ideas on the system used to arrive at the rankings. There has been no response from WIPA.
WIPA asserts: “…the procedure agreed regarding the matter of injury payments has not been followed and these matters still remain unresolved.”
The FACTS: WICB has paid, in full, ALL claims made by players for injuries. The WICB has asked WIPA to submit any outstanding injury claims. There has been no response from WIPA.
WICB is now making a public appeal to WIPA to so indicate.
WIPA asserts: “The WICB in its release further stated that it “paid the legal fees as agreed and has paid the US $450,000.00 of which Mr. Ramnarine received US$ 150,000.00”
The FACTS: Mr. Dinanath Ramnarine, after initially insisting that the entire amount of US$450,000 be paid to WIPA, eventually provided a list of 17 players among whom the money should be allocated and how it should be distributed. It is true that US$150,000 was paid into a WIPA account. There was no intention to suggest that Mr. Ramnarine personally received or benefitted from that money.
The WICB allows the facts to speak for themselves but will not allow WIPA to skirt over the substantive issue of its rejection of the joint ICC/FICA proposal.
As the WICB does not take any delight in exposing WIPA’s disingenuity and attempts to misguide the public, we, yet again, call on WIPA to behave in a manner not inimical to the best interest of West Indies cricket and to offer the full facts in its dispatches to the media.
Continue to expose WIPA with the facts. Dinanath Ramnarine it would seem is just out to create problems in West Indies cricket. WIPA’s entire operations need to be overhauled.