KEY POINTS:
The fine print in New Zealand Cricket's 20 central contracts could make it impossible for the national body to seek recompense should any of their players join the Indian Cricket League.
The air around NZC headquarters last week was thick with the talk of litigation at the prospect of losing key players like Shane Bond and incumbent test captain Stephen Fleming to the fledgling league.
While chief executive Justin Vaughan later stated it was "hypothetical", it would appear the national body has no grounds to sue.
It is a common misconception that the players are employed by NZC. They are individual contractors whose agreements specifically contemplate players may play for other "principals" during the time of their contract.
While players are obliged to seek consent before they play for someone else, the contracts also state that consent cannot reasonably be withheld.
This clause is no doubt aimed at players wanting to play county cricket, or in lucrative double-wicket tournaments or the Hong Kong Sixes - and not a rebel competition that will almost certainly clash with a national tour - but still the NZC is required to consider each request individually.
Several times in the past few years players have taken up county contracts when NZC would have rather had them at home.
Last week, New Zealand Cricket predictably announced they would not release any contracted players to play in the league because "the proposed rebel league is scheduled to directly conflict with New Zealand's tour to South Africa as well as the start of our State domestic season. We have considered this issue carefully and have concluded that New Zealand Cricket cannot agree to release our contracted players to participate in the ICL".
The release also stated NZC had worked closely with the Players' Association during the past month and had their endorsement, but NZCPA manager Heath Mills told this newspaper that: "We would still expect NZC to abide by its obligation to consider individual circumstances and to make its decisions accordingly."
Mills said the preoccupation with the ICL was distracting from the wider issues facing the game. He also said that the BCCI's proposed competition, which would almost certainly get International Cricket Council (ICC) ratification, had the potential to affect NZC just as profoundly as the ICL.
"From what I have heard the competition will involve four countries. Currently, I see no mention of New Zealand," he said.
As was revealed last Sunday, Bond is agonising over whether to set himself and his young family up for life by taking the $600,000 per year, three-year offer placed in front of him by the Essel Group, which control the finances for the proposed competition.
A source yesterday told the Herald on Sunday Bond had made a decision but was not ready to go public yet.
Significant pressure has been placed on him to reiterate his loyalty to New Zealand Cricket. As their No 1-ranked contractee he is, in effect, New Zealand's top cricketer.
However, Bond also knows he is one more stress fracture away from early retirement and the gaudy figures being offered may mean the accountant takes priority over the purist.
Newspapers in Pakistan have reported the PCB tried to lure Mohammad Yousuf back by offering wheelbarrows of rupees but there is no provision for NZC to do the same for the likes of Bond and Fleming.
They could purchase his property rights as an individual or formalise an employment relationship with Bond - in effect making him an employee of NZC, rather than an independent contractor - but both measures would still fall a long way short of the financial security offered by the ICL.
NZC's stand was last week endorsed by the NZCPA, but manager Heath Mills still had some shots to fire at the game's governing body.
Mills said the ICC's approach to sanctioning events was archaic in that it puts the decision over sanctioning into the hands of the home board.
In the ICL's case the decision was made by the Board of Cricket Control India (BCCI).
"Yet all these proposed matches and competitions affect all member nations," Mills said. "There should be a policy that involves consultation with all affected nations otherwise we remain at the whim of the internal politics of one country.
"We can't just keep trying to kick these things to touch all the time because next year there will be another broadcaster, or another company, wanting a slice of the action."
