'T20 league-bound players need to resist compensation demands'

APD NEWS

text

Jason Ratcliffe, a leading player agent and former Deputy Chief Executive of the Professional Cricketers' Association, believes England's professional players should resist moves by the first-class counties to claim standard compensation payments from those who participate in T20 tournaments outside the county season. It follows a meeting of county Directors of Cricket and Head Coaches on Tuesday (April 10) where the proposal was discussed.

The meeting, chaired by Yorkshire's Martyn Moxon and attended by 17 of the 18 first-class counties, took place to discuss a range of issues currently afflicting the county game. Topics understood to be on the agenda included the availability of players for the Indian Premier League, compensation payments due to counties for players participating in global T20 competitions and issues relating to the ECB's new eight team T20 tournament, scheduled to begin in 2020.

Neither the PCA nor the ECB were represented at the meeting which was arranged by the counties themselves although Moxon sits on the ECB's cricket committee as the coaches' representative and will provide feedback of the outcome of the discussions to the governing body. Although the recommendations have not yet been made public, Moxon said: "It was a very good meeting and well attended.

"What we have agreed is that until we have fed back to our chief executives and the ECB, we're not going to make any public statements on what we felt or what are any of the potential solutions to these issues. We feel these decisions have to be made for the good of the game as a whole, to protect it and make it something that people want to play and watch."

Ratcliffe, who represents the likes of Somerset and England's Craig Overton and Jack Leach and Kent's Joe Denly, believes the players should be at the table for discussions which could impact their contracts or earning potential. "What neither the PCA nor the agents want is for something to progress from the meeting which then goes on further on down the line and then becomes a real fight at a later date," he tells Cricbuzz.

Potentially the most controversial topic under discussion, from the player's perspective at least, is whether counties should be due a standard rate of compensation for time their contracted players spend playing in T20 competitions which fall outside the English domestic season such as the Big Bash or Pakistan Super League. Currently, counties receive a set rate from those players who take part in the IPL - calculated by days spent in India - as the tournament overlaps with the domestic season.

But with county players now employed on 12 month contracts, a suggestion is that the first-class counties should also be consistently recompensed, by way of a player directly paying their county a certain percentage of their salary, for time spent playing in other T20 tournaments which fall outside the county season of April to September. Ostensibly, that is to provide counties with compensation in case injury or burn out sustained in these competitions affects their players' domestic availability.

Conversely though, Ratcliffe thinks it unfair on players to demand standard payments as a matter of course, something which could dissuade some from taking a deal in an overseas competition, curbing their career development and earning potential. Despite the move to 12-month contracts, he believes the winter months should be available to players without restriction. "I would be reluctant to see counties push for payments to be taken out of things like Pakistan Super League, Bangladesh Premier League and the Big Bash," Ratcliffe says.

"What else are the players doing at home? They're either in the nets or in the gym. Spending five or six days of the winter in and out of gymnasiums and swimming pools is pretty tedious. Many cricketers decided once the reality of 12-month contracts kicked in, it would be better if they actually do their fitness in a different country but also improve and expand their games as well."

When player contracts were extended to 12 months in 2009, the ECB agreed to pay the counties GBP 75,000 each per year to cover payments for the extension for 15 players. Given many counties had more than 15 players on their books and once tax and pension contributions had been taken away, that meant an almost worthless increase in salaries and valued the summer portion of a player's contract at 95 to 97 per cent of the total. Taking a cut for tournaments played in the winter, a time when counties are not playing, is, according to Ratcliffe, unfair.

"I was heavily involved in the 12-month contract change over," he says. "It was about the Indian Cricket League. There were a number of cricketers who went to ICL and the main reason for 12-month contracts coming in was to stop players going to play in unauthorised competitions such as that. That still exists but there are more authorised competitions and the value ascribed to the winter portion of a contract is essentially negligible and therefore players should be able to go and play in them without financial penalty.

"It's good that there is the flexibility now that clubs are saying to players that they don't mind them going to these competitions for career development and progression but counties need to realise that was the principle of 12-month contracts. On that basis, players should resist anything which restricts them from authorised cricket from October to April. On behalf of all players, they need to beware because I don't think it would be fair [to deduct this money]."

Despite warning against compensation payments, Ratcliffe thinks players could underwrite their county salary with insurance so that their club gets a payout in the event of injury or non-availability caused by playing in a T20 competition outside of the county schedule. In 2016 for example, Luke Wright suffered a wrist injury during the PSL which required surgery and limited his appearances for Sussex in the opening stages of the Championship season.

"I recognise that injury scenarios are pertinent and why should a county suffer from someone falling over in one of these competitions?" Ratcliffe adds. "The fact players are earning money on top of their county deals is the core reason why people think there needs to be some recompense if a player gets injured. When counties say there is a potential for players to underwrite their own county salary with insurance, I'm sure most people would see that as sensible and reasonable."

Another item understood to have been discussed at the meeting of county coaches was how to handle ongoing contract negotiations in light of the new T20 tournament scheduled to begin in two years time. Given the current uncertainty surrounding the competition, counties are unwilling to tie themselves to significant contract extensions given a player could end up playing for one of the new franchises in the T20 competition, missing county matches as a result.

"It's difficult for everybody," admits Ratcliffe. "It's difficult for clubs, for players and for agents to decided what's the best route if someone wants a contract post 2019 because no one knows what that landscape looks like at the moment. They don't know what the remuneration might be, they don't who they might be playing for.

"There are significant unknowns and they seem to have been significant unknowns for the last two years. We are still no clearer about what this competition will be and the consequences for everybody involved including Directors of Cricket, coaches and players."

(CRICBUZZ)