St John’s, Antigua – The WICB notes WIPA’s response of August 23rd, to its release of August 21st which exposed WIPA’s rejection of the joint ICC/FICA proposal to intervene in an attempt to bring final settlement to years of acrimonious relations.
WIPA’s release attempts to defend its rejection of the ICC/FICA on two grounds:
1. That WIPA respects the CARICOM appointed Arbitration Panel and as such did not want to engage the joint ICC/FICA proposal.
2. That WIPA views the joint ICC/FICA proposal as non-binding whereas it views arbitration as binding.
Once again, WIPA is engaged in misinformation and muddling of the facts in light of the exposure of its rejection of the joint ICC/FICA proposal.
1. The joint ICC/FICA proposal was not meant to supersede or replace the CARICOM initiated arbitration. It was meant to run parallel to it and WIPA was fully aware of this as communicated to it by both FICA and ICC.
The joint ICC/FICA proposal would have offered a framework – based on how other ICC full members had resolved similar issues to the satisfaction of all parties – for settling the specific issue of image rights and intellectual property. It was made very clear that if the framework was not accepted then the process of arbitration would continue.
2. For an arbitration to be deemed binding, the parties – in this case WICB and WIPA – must agree that they would be bound by the judgment. Similarly, had WIPA not rejected the joint ICC/FICA proposal and along with the WICB, agree to be bound by the decisions therein, it would have been binding on both parties. For WIPA to skew the facts to suggest that the joint ICC/FICA intervention could not have led to a binding agreement is disingenuous.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the WICB remains fully committed to the arbitration process. In fact, further to the CARICOM Agreement both parties – through the New York Agreement – agreed on the details of the way forward for the arbitration process. The attached New York Agreement clearly states that the process would have been completed by December 2009. In this regard, WIPA’s procrastination has resulted in WIPA being in breach of the New York Agreement.
Therefore WICB also notes, with interest, WIPA’s assertion that the arbitration is “due to be heard shortly before a panel of distinguished Caribbean jurists.”
WICB is taken aback by this statement as we are not aware that any date has been set for the arbitration hearing. The truth is WIPA’s delaying tactics stymied any chance of an agreement – by the December 2009 date as outlined in the New York Agreement – on the terms of reference for the arbitration.
In the last few days, the WICB has been at pains to seek WIPA’s agreement on a meeting of both parties to progress the matter, but WIPA has been non-committal.
Critically, the WICB is proud of the fact that it has honoured every single commitment in the New York Agreement whereupon WIPA remains in breach thereby attempting to keep West Indies cricket in a state of limbo.
i) The WICB has paid the legal fees as agreed and has paid the US$450,000 of which Mr. Ramnarine received US$150,000. Meanwhile WIPA refuses to discuss a new CBA/MOU and refuses to progress on the arbitration.
ii) WICB has paid all injury payments to players and has signed retainer contracts as of October 2009 to September 30, 2010 in accordance with the player rankings.
The WICB once again calls on WIPA to commit to working together for the good of West Indies cricket. One way in which it can demonstrate this is to show some modicum of respect to its own parent body – FICA – and cricket’s world governing body – the ICC – and review its rejection of the joint ICC/FICA proposal.
Another way would be to honour its obligations as per the New York Agreement in an effort to get the arbitration process meaningfully on the way.
In my opinion Dinanath Ramnarine, WIPA’s president, is nothing more than a troublemaker who seems to be cunningly using WIPA as a front it seems to get back at the WICB.