WIPA responds to WICB’s CEO re scheduling of regional cricket
No sponsors for past two years
Port of Spain, Trinidad
and Tobago: Dec. 30, 2009 -- WIPA is dismayed at the response of the Chief Executive
Officer of the WICB, Dr. Ernest Hilaire, to its continued recommendation
that the Regional Four-Day Tournament should remain two rounds instead
of one, as the Board has recently announced.
The main thrust of WIPA’s
position is the insufficiency of cricket being played in this tournament
which, therefore, does not provide for adequate preparation for participation
against opponents from other countries whose state and county competitions
are of much longer durations.
In fact, our investigations
have revealed that West Indies will now be playing the least amount
of cricket of all ICC full member countries. The WICB prepared the West
Indies team for the just concluded Test tour of Australia with four
One Day games and will follow up with seven First Class games and no
Twenty20 Tournament for a One Day Tour of Australia followed by the
Home Series. There are other obstacles preventing the senior West Indies
team from competing on a level playing field with cricketers from other
ICC full member countries but lack of preparation should not be one.
The WICB’s media statement,
issued over the weekend, is unfortunately loaded with inaccuracies and
innuendos, which, if left uncorrected, could convey to an unsuspecting
public the impression that WIPA has been demonstrating a certain degree
of unreasonableness in its stance on the duration of the regional tournament.
In keeping with its commitment
to transparency and acknowledgement of the West Indian public as a key
stakeholder in West Indies cricket, WIPA issued a 15 point plan following
its Board Meeting of December 3rd last which included its views on the
Regional Four Day Tournament. This is a matter of scheduling which needs
to be agreed to by both WICB and WIPA.
Contrary to the WICB’s claim,
WIPA never stated in its release that there was no consultation with
the WICB. What WIPA pointed out was that, in accordance with the MOU
between both parties, no agreement was reached on the schedule of cricket
for the 2009/2010 season. In spite of this, WIPA indicated its willingness
to continue the discussions with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable
decision.
Request for such meeting(s)
was communicated to the WICB in writing and through telephonic contacts.
Curiously, when WIPA and the WICB Cricket Operations Officer, Mr. Tony
Howard, agreed to continue discussions on December 4, 2009, the curt
response from the CEO, Dr. Hilarie was “for what purpose?”.
It must be noted that the MOU
requires finalization of the schedule of cricket by September 30, 2009.
On September 18, 2009, the first (draft) fixtures were received by WIPA
which included two rounds of matches. However, on November 16, 2009
a new fixture list was received from the WICB in which only one round
of matches was included. WIPA reiterated its objections to the reduction,
pointing to the shortness of the tournament, the inadequacy of time
for preparation and the need to play against higher level teams from
outside the region to sharpen the competitive edge of the players.
During its discussions with
the WICB, WIPA was never provided with any strategic objectives or philosophical
underpinning for reverting to one round apart from the cost factor which
was tabled without details. WIPA became aware of an Under-23 tournament,
an Academy team visiting India, a development team tour to Canada, and
an A Team programme for 2010/11 through the recent media statement by
the WICB.
Furthermore, no financial details
were given by the WICB to allow for a proper evaluation in terms of
savings and immediate and medium-term development. Thus WIPA was deprived
of the opportunity to explore and propose alternative models or to suggest
a compromise position. It is always WIPA’s interest to have cricket
played for the mutual benefit of all stakeholders.
WIPA seriously questions the
decision of the WICB to abandon the two round games in the regional
tournament. It wonders about the inputs, if any, of the Cricket Committee,
the Marketing Committee and Directors of the WICB themselves in this
decision. WIPA’s understanding is that they played no role.
Who then made the decision?
