Lightning McQueen wrote:heater31 wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:It's not the topline players that are getting ripped off.
Which what I'm so annoyed about you have state players on less than $100 k per year being held to ransom because the million dollar men aren't going to see massive pay increases each year when revenue goes up.
I read it the other way around, the million dollar men were trying to get the lower echelon players a more sustainable wage.
Yep me too.
Unless you're a cricketing progeny you aren't going to make good coin until you are 25 (playing international cricket)
Reality it's not until you are about 20 that you start playing state cricket and then it takes 2-3 years to start playing it consistently to start earning good dollars 100-200K (rookie contracts are still `$50K IIRC) I haven't factored in the BBL money here which not all State/TInternational players play.
The problem cricket has is the players they are fighting other sports for (particularly in the Southern states can earn $100 -200 K as an 18-19 year old on an AFL list)
Cricket needs to be seen as attractive to those players so some not all, hence why domestic cricket (whilst not viable on a profit:loss balance sheet) realistically is the R&D of cricket Australia. If it isn't funded properly the talent will not be there at 25 when we are wanting the next lot of players coming through to win teh ASHES, Border Gavasker Trophy's World Cups.
I remember talking to Matthew Elliot when he was doing a guest spot at the NT Institute of Sport Cricket program in 2003 (before he buggered off halfway through because Glamorgan offered him a spot with better coin - yes money is a driver for them). He said one of their motivations for a better pay deal in 1997-98 when the revenue sharing deal was first struck was to get a better deal for the State players so it is more attractive to athletes who need to make a choice. Cricket Victoria missed out on Delidio and Hodge because footy offered more money immediately than what cricket could even though they were both earmarked as FTP (future test players).
IIRC S Waugh in his biography even stated in there first year of the 1997-98 deal the international players wages went down as the money was shared at lower levels before it picked up as the money rolled in.
if we want Australian cricket to be strong and successful the revenue sharing deal needs to be kept and the 2nd XI and 1st XI state players need to be rewarded to keep them in the game. Some players will get over paid for their talents (the ones in the cross hairs of the been counters at CA) which in turn will be paid off by those who go through and dominate international cricket between the ages of 25-35 will earn for CA through TV revenue, sponsorship and ticket sales as they hopefully dominate World cricket.
IMO
Let that be a lesson to you Port, no one beats the Bays five times in a row in a GF and gets away with it!!!
