[Lawson]

Sigh…another contracts dispute.

 

[Lars]

And for the oldest reason known to cricketers… “A clause in the contract requires the players to renounce their individual sponsorship deals when it clashes with the official sponsors of tournaments like the World Cup and the Champions Trophy, but the players are reluctant to toe the line.”

 

[Lars]

And for the oldest reason known to cricketers… “A clause in the contract requires the players to renounce their individual sponsorship deals when it clashes with the official sponsors of tournaments like the World Cup and the Champions Trophy, but the players are reluctant to toe the line.”

 

[Jeremy]

Remember the showdown with the Indian team on two occasions – during the 2002 ICC Champions Trophy and the 2003 World Cup? The Indian board worked out a solution at the last minute, and the players eventually signed the contract conditionally.

 

[sticky]

But then the tournament sponsors retaliated by seeking damages with the ICC and withheld payment to India, to the tune of over US$ 13 million. Can you imagine the New Zealand board absorbing such a huge blow? I mean, their annual turnover is only around $ 25 million.

 

[ohcricket]

The NZ Herald says the players are yet to sign a collective participation contract, which stipulates that they cannot endorse products that are in direct conflict with the tournament sponsors during major competitions like the World Cup and Champions Trophy. But the problem is that the ICC imposes this restriction for a period of six months -- three months each before and after the tournament. That is why the players are hurting so bad.