'It's incorrect to say we have been unreasonable'

Where do the relations between the WIPA and WICB stand now?
We met the WICB on Thursday to discuss a number of issues. The board asked if we would end the strike. Our position was that this was not a strike. What our players had done was to withdraw their services, and they were entitled to do that. The board invited them to participate in a series of matches and they have not accepted that because the terms and conditions are not known to them. The players are not under contract, so how could they strike?

After around 25 minutes [Dave] Cameron [the WICB's lead negotiator] indicated that they were not prepared to negotiate under duress. Given the release of the WICB after the meeting, clearly we believe they do not want the matter resolved. The information we have is, they want the second-string team to continue, because they believe even if matters get resolved it would be unfair to the team that is playing the first Test against Bangladesh. Therefore they intend to prolong the issue, which is an unfortunate situation, because you would like the best team to play. We want both parties to come together in a responsible manner and in good faith and sit down and discuss the issue. We've made it very clear to WICB that our players don't believe in continuing to play without a contract, having already done that for almost five series now.

But the WICB says players are unwilling to sign the contracts due to the "intransigence and unreasonable behaviour displayed by the WIPA" whenever the contracts came up for renewal.
No, no, that is not the case at all. On April 2 this year the two parties met, where we agreed on quite a few things, including finalising the retainer contract. The board sent us that around April 6 or 7 and asked us to provide our comments, which we did. We were required to provide other documentation relating to the intellectual property- and image rights of the players, which we also did. On May 7, when we met in Trinidad, we provided a marked-up copy of the contract, copied to their legal officer and Mr Cameron, but till date we have not had a response whether they agree or disagree with our comments. So to say that we have been unreasonable is totally incorrect. They have not responded and I stand by that.

WIPA has spoken strongly about five of its players losing money after the WICB rejected the US$35,000-per-day sponsorship fee during the England away series after the players had left the IPL early and joined the squad. But those players opted to play the IPL on their own, didn't they?
The players had no commitments, so some committed to the IPL. Then the WICB and the ECB agreed a series after Sri Lanka pulled out of their England tour. But this is not the issue. The real one is the player contracts. Is it reasonable to ask them to continue playing without them knowing the terms and conditions?

What about the first-class players, who due to the standoff are losing far more than the five?
That information is not correct. In fact, the WICB made a statement that they are going to compensate the players who lose out on the IPL. They must look after other players as well and that is what we've been telling them to do. Further to which, earlier this year first-class players have been paid US$ 200-300 per game. The last time that was increased was after WIPA went on strike in 2003, fighting for the rights of the domestic players. We did it again this year and the WICB increased the payment. Before 2003 it was [increased] some 15 years ago. It would not be fair to say that WIPA is only interested in safe-guarding the interests of only the senior international players. In fact, our international players, based on the last retainer contract agreed, never got an increase in their fees.

Can you clarify the players' stand of skipping sponsor-related events and even sticking tape over the sponsor logos on their shirts, despite having taken the sponsorship fee? If the dispute is with the WICB, why is it that the object of action is Digicel?
That is because WICB is claiming that Digicel owes them US$ 3 million and won't pay. This is not about Digicel or any company per se. The players are being told "Look, these are your obligations as the board has a contract with the third party." What we are claiming is what we had agreed on: we had agreed $35,000 per day to be shared amongst the players for fulfilling sponsor [Digicel] obligations. We are asking for nothing more. All we are saying is, the ECB would've paid money to the WICB - the board claims it is $2 million, but we don't know how much they would've benefited from the television rights. We don't know what money they received from Digicel for that particular series. The board made us an offer of $1.48 million as participation fee, which we accepted.

All we are saying is, the players have performed obligations to a sponsor. For example, during the ICC World Twenty20 the board said they would pay the players 25% of the participation fee. We said we would accept that, too, but said give us the match fee as well. WICB came back with an offer of 20% and the match fee, which we rejected.

Take another example. In the four-game ODI series recently against India the board is getting approximately US$13-15 million. They are claiming that series was part of the Future Tours Program (FTP), but clearly it was outside that and it was agreed by both parties after it was accepted at the arbitration panel. The WICB offered the players US$250,000. But the public doesn't know this.

In the last few days you've claimed that the WICB has not been clear about its payment structure in the case of player injuries. But the WICB says it has got a form for submission of claims for this, and that they have received only one application so far and that has been paid.
In the April 2 meeting WICB agreed to send medical information on injured players to WIPA, but when we met on Thursday they had operational issues. They apologised for having messed up. Because the information they are asking us to fill up in the form needs to be supplied by them. We need to state the nature of the injury, how long the player was injured, what was the prognosis. On March 30 we sent them the list of players stating the nature of the injury and how long they have been out, but for further information we needed them to get back.

Do you not feel any responsibility for the damage this is doing to West Indies cricket?
I feel responsible for the players playing without contracts, because we told the players to give us the opportunity to work things out with the board behind the scenes and resolve the various issues, and given our best efforts we have not been able to do that.

If Digicel walk away, as contractually they could, then your players could be left with very little. Is that not a concern?
It is always a concern if anybody walks away. If you want to blame us for players playing without a contract, not understanding what their terms and conditions of employment would be, playing a game that is high-risk, in which that they could get injured, I'm happy to accept the responsibility for that. The damage has been done when you cannot sit down as responsible bodies and honour what you agreed to. Our players cannot be asked to work when they are not motivated at all. Look, if the board was saying, "We know that we have this disagreement, but give us time to fulfill the obligations," then there is dialogue. But in the absence of information, when the WICB is not responding to us, what are we supposed to do?

The players always seem to be wanting more, while their performance gets worse. How can this be justified?
The WICB is distracting them by saying the players are money-hungry and they are not performing. But what does the board do for the performance of the team? Every single series there is a problem and we have been having an issue for the last five series, and each time the players go to the negotiation table without knowing what they are in for. The board in its operation and its conduct really does not work in the best interest of West Indies cricket and its cricketers. If you look at our on-field performances we drew the series in New Zealand, drew the series against Sri Lanka at home, won the home series against England, went to England in a period when no Test-match cricket is normally played and were beaten, then reached the semi-finals of the Twenty20 World Cup. We are progressing, but every time there seems to be some movement, the board puts a debacle. I question if these tactics by the board are deliberate because it almost gives them relevance.

Long-term, what is the solution if this sorry and ongoing dispute is to be ended before the damage is irreparable?
There is a lot of mistrust. The parties ought to come together and sit down to find some sort of mechanism to progress. Perhaps during the negotiations there should be an independent person taking notes. For example, take the recent India series: we said that if you look at the arbitration ruling in 2007, the series should be treated outside the FTP. We asked them in meetings as to their reasons why the series was part of the FTP. But they said they were not willing to talk on the subject. In other words they were pre-determined for the matter to go to arbitration. How do you negotiate and deal with something like that?