Digicel: caught in the crossfire © Digicel

The statement confirmed that the contract guaranteed a total of US$19.75m, comprised of US$18.75 million for sponsorship rights and US$1 million for youth development programmes. In addition, a further US$6.65 million was put aside for team incentives and bonuses, but as these depend on on-field results, it seems unlikely that anything like this sum will be paid.

One of the interesting parts of the statement was the confirmation that a total of 10% of the contract value (up to US$2.6 million) would be paid to the ISM agency for brokering the deal, making the net guaranteed figure US$17.775 million, or US$3.55 million a year.

This will raise a few eyebrows. In April, the WICB, in response to Cable & Wireless comments, issued a statement confirming that in March, 2004 C&W were asked if, as the existing sponsors, they wanted to match a "rival sponsorship bid totalling US $23 million dollars over five years." That higher figure was subsequently reduced when it became clear that the 2007 World Cup was not included.

The board also confirmed that in 2003 it gave an " initial proposal to Cable and Wireless [which] reflected a five-year sponsorship of the team on a home and away basis at a cost of US $30 million." Again, this sum appears with hindsight to be considerably higher than the one finally brokered, even allowing for the World Cup element.

The C&W offer was for US$10.95 million, or US$3.65 million a year. Assuming that there would have been no need to pay an intermediary to renew an existing deal, it seems this figure is actually slightly greater than the one eventually agreed to by the WICB. In April, a Digicel representative said that the company intended spending up to US$50 million over the course of the contract on promoting cricket across the region.

It may be that the Digicel contract offers more than C&W was prepared to, but the board has repeatedly refused to let anyone see it. While it is understandable that the details are commercially sensitive, faced with a barrage of rumour and inuendo, the board could have ended the speculation by allowing it to be seen by an independent third party a long time ago.

An investigation into the contract headed by Justice Anthony Lucky is expected to submit its report within the next week, and that could help to explain the process by which Digicel were chosen.

Although they remain committed to the sponsorship, Digicel has, so far, had almost nothing but grief and adverse publicity out of the whole affair. And yet they are actually blameless in this entire situation. It is the board which faces the tough questions, and which will either be cleared or shamed by Lucky's report.