'My role is to run the business and your role is to play cricket to the best of your ability'

We have asked players whether they have spoken directly to or met Dave Cameron.
And what do they say?

No one has.
But I am available. I have told them directly. I have told them through the manager that I am available. They are next door in the Trident [hotel in Mumbai].

Have you gone out of your way to reach out?
I have gone out of my way on more than one occasion. In South Africa I went to dinner with them.

Is it true that more than half the players did not turn up there?
Not as much as half. A few of the players did not turn up. It was shortly after October 2014 [when the team pulled out of their tour of India]. It is a lot of emotions, and emotions wrongly placed because a lot of players sat down and analysed what West Indies has done. Those "India 15" players have benefited tremendously since 2013, with the CPL coming in. You should ask them about that - how much more money they are making from when West Indies used to run the Caribbean T20 to what they are making now. The CPL is WICB's product.

Again, WICB has received the flak for selling the CPL to a foreign entity. But who has benefited? Our players. We did that so that our players could move from earning US$5000 per season to $150,000-160,000 at the top end. All of those 15 players are earning at that level. Have they lost $150,000-160,000 due to the new restructuring? No, they have not. I can categorically show you that these players are making a lot more money solely from the WICB.

Let us go to October 2014. It was one of the saddest chapters in West Indies cricket. Reacting to the pull-out last January, you said: "I don't believe they are even aware about what they have done." Why did you say that?
Because we are two years behind where we could have been now had we not had that situation in India. We have struggled for the last two years with our finances, etc. And look at what we have been able to achieve with winning Under-19 [World Cup] and being here in the semi-finals of both men and women's World T20. My whole objective is about the players and how we can use our players, once we are on the same side, to generate more revenues for WICB and for them.

The underpinning thing about the MoU with the players is that they get 25% of our commercial revenues over a four-year period. And that is very, very critical. So they have fixed payments - match fees, retainer - but on a four-year rolling cycle the WICB would review how much of the commercial revenues are there, based on how much players have received. Then they will all get bonuses once the numbers exceed. If numbers don't exceed, we are not taking back their money. It is a genuine partnership.

So once we make more money, the players stand to benefit. The upside is for the senior players, not for regional players. Our percentage payments to our first-class and international players are in line with all the major Full Member countries, like Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

According to you, who pulled out of the India tour - the WICB or the players?
We have been having a lot of discussions about that. The fact of the matter is, the tour was called off. I don't necessarily want to go into that.

The press releases sent by the BCCI stated the WICB had abandoned the tour.
If the WICB pull out, what is the difference? If the players walked out, what is the difference at this point? The happy thing is, that is behind us and the future is ahead of us. Again, we have not been credited enough for how we took it on the chin, because all those players were sent to South Africa right after that India tour.

Except for Dwayne Bravo and Kieron Pollard.
The president has no veto in selections, as is the case in some countries. The West Indies selection process is totally independent of the board. The only job we have is telling who becomes captain.

You were derided for not flying down to meet the players in India at the time. You said that past WICB presidents, Pat Rousseau and Wes Hall, had reached out to players in times of strife, but what purpose did that serve?
I absolutely don't believe that that would have changed anything, because immediately after I found out that there was an issue, I offered to Skype all the players and speak to them. One day you will get the full story about that.

And that is not an arrogant view, as people might conclude?
No, not an arrogant view at all. My response to Sir Wes, when he asked me that question, was: "Sir Wes, we have had strikes or potential strikes for the last 14 years. And we have all gone and met the players and given in. And we are ranked eight or nine [on ICC rankings]. I am not sure going and meeting them would have solved it."

As a matter of fact, for the first time my board said to me, "President, you are not authorised to do anything to this agreement because you paid the guys money for the last year and a half when you had the opportunity to change the agreement. You have demonstrated good faith. You have worked with the WIPA to get the MoU done. For the last how many years, every time we are trying to move the process forward, so that we can create a professional set-up, we get held to ransom. We are just tired as an organisation."

Wes Hall had strikes against him. Sir Julian [Hunte] had a couple of issues. It started under Pat Rousseau. It happened to Teddy Griffith. Everybody went and gave them [the players] what they wanted. Did our system get any better? It got worse. We have moved from No. 1 in the world in 1995 to eight and nine in Tests and ODIs.

What is happening to the previous BCCI administration's claim of $42 million in damages for the aborted tour?
We will do a joint media release for you as soon as both boards are ready.

Moving back to the first-class structure, right through your tenure you have said the lack of professional structure set West Indies cricket back by 20 years. How much have things improved since the CPL, PCL and Super50 have started?
It is tremendous. We are not where we need to be at. I don't believe the administration we need around the players is at the level we want to be at. The coaching is something we are working on seriously. We need to upscale our coaches.

The big advantage is just that we now have players who can actually see themselves as cricketers without having to go elsewhere and try and find a job in far-off places like the UK. For the first time we have a bunch of umpires who are on retainers.

We have 11 women players who are on retainers and that is why our women's cricket is growing strong. The positive coming out is that cricket is now a career. Track and field and basketball have been the sports that have taken away all our athletes. Now parents can look at cricket and say: if my son gets into the lowest rung of the regional cricket structure, he can make $30,000 as a starting salary, which is more than what a lawyer makes coming out of a university in the Caribbean. Once you start attracting talent, you are forcing people to get better.

Around 1998, when England changed their county set-up, where only two overseas players were allowed in per county, we got hurt the worst. As our players got exceedingly worse, we lost all of those contracts. England was our finishing school. That is where players really went and learned professionalism.

Take the example of England batsman James Taylor, who scored a hundred in the last Ashes [he made a hundred in the ODIs that followed]. He is only 25 years old. He has somewhere in the region of 65 [131] first-class matches. At 25, in the Caribbean, prior to last year, you would have had played a maximum of 25 first-class games. It is very difficult for anybody to get good playing 25 games by time you are 25.

With the PCL you will have the opportunity to play at least 50 first-class matches. Then there are home and away A team matches. So in a year a good second-tier player should play at least 15 first-class, ten List A matches, which helps you identify who are going to be your best players.

What has happened to the $360,000 that the CPL said would go to cricket development? Reportedly, it has been diverted to paying the salaries of the domestic cricketers. Is that correct?
That money has gone into the professional set-up. It is not ring-fenced that this money must do that. We give every franchise $45,000 every month; $27,500 of that amount is earmarked for the payment of the players and the balance is for the administration, which includes the coaches, support staff, administrators. That $27,500 is part of the 25% being paid to the players.

Have you met the players here in India during the World T20?
I haven't met all of them. I have seen them.

They are staying next door?
They are staying next door [in a hotel in Mumbai]. I haven't been around them too much. And that is very, very deliberate. I am staying next door and not in the same hotel because sometimes players get a little nervous when the management is around them. They probably feel a little defensive. I don't want to feel like I am spying on them.

No, man, the relationship is good. It is where it needs to be. I'm the president of the organisation. They are the stars and they know that the WICB is supporting them in winning these tournaments. We are happy with that.

What if a player thinks, "Oh, he is here. Not even meeting us. We are in the World T20 semi-finals." Or he might think, "My boss is here. We have come this far in the tournament. Do I get a pat on my back, will he come and talk to me in person?"
I am tweeting and supporting them. They are aware. I have reached out and I have told the manager that I am here if anybody wants to speak to me. A lot of them are very busy - their schedule, practice.

What is your relationship with Phil Simmons, West Indies coach, since his suspension?
We have met. We have spoken. We are professionals. Phil is the coach and I am the president. One other thing I try not to do is get too involved in processes. I have a CEO. I know people think I am the guy directing the ship, but I am really at 100,000 feet [above]. The CEO is running the organisation. There is a director of cricket who Phil directly reports to. My relationship with Phil is on a professional basis.

What if the players say: we won despite the WICB. How would you take it?
"Despite"! Well, I don't know you get "despite".

Only because they are saying 14 of us 15 are not part of WIPA. We are not talking to WICB.
So who is the team representing here? (Laughs). It can't be "despite of". It is really about having those discussions and both parties wanting to sit down. You asked me about going to meet players and trying to talk to them. If they don't want to speak to me, it is a waste of an attempt. So both parties have to say: this is where we are at, let me hear what you have to say, let me give you my views, and then we can think of going forward. Winning the World T20 or being here in the World T20 is because of what the WICB has done. The players here, where did they come from?

This relationship between the two parties, which is very important, is not there.
I don't necessarily agree with you. When you get a chance, speak to the players of 20 years ago. Most of them did not even know who the president of the WICB was. And we were No. 1 in the world. So I think you are making this relationship more than it needs to be.

My role is to run the business and your role is to play cricket to the best of your ability. I am providing you with the best compensation that we can afford, that will allow the product to develop and for us to be able to produce the next [set of] players.

What is the question these players are asking you?
That is a good question. When you find out, you let me know. Every match you win, there is a cheque, and the players are getting 100% of that. Some of these players are also on retainers. They keep forgetting. They are playing T20 but they are still on a retainer. The retainer is anywhere between $100,000-150,000 [per year].

I don't want to dwell on money. Money is never enough. West Indies cricket is so critical to us as a nation, as a region that sells tourism, that sells the warmth of our people, the warmth of our islands. That is what we need to be able to communicate to our players.

Respect and trust are very important, as you point out. Would you admit that the way Shivnarine Chanderpaul retired and the way it was handled was not appropriate?
It has been called interference by myself because I felt he should not have been dealt with that way. But the selection process is very independent. Shivnarine Chanderpaul and I have a very good relationship.

It may be a West Indian thing - that our players seem to not take it upon themselves to communicate to us in a timely manner when they are going to or would like to go.

On the other side as well, our selectors, our people who are around the set-up, don't communicate and don't give us enough warning about when they believe players are at that point in time.

When I took office in 2013, I asked the selectors to tell us when our senior players are at that point so that we can honour them and treat them with the respect they deserve. Myself and the vice-president were vocal about how Chanderpaul was treated. Chanderpaul has signalled he has retired. We have our awards later on this year [during the tri-series in June] where we will certainly award the Under-19s. Maybe an opportunity to honour Chanderpaul as well.

Another example is Chris Gayle. He is the biggest name for West Indies. What is your plan for him?
Chris Gayle and I actually grew up together. We have played together, played against each other. He is at Lucas. My club, Kensington, is literally next door. We have a very cordial relationship. Chris is at a point in time where it is very important how the selectors handle him. I have had those discussions with the selectors. It is not something I want to get involved in. It is important that I stay at a certain level. I would love for Chris to play for as long as possible, but it is based upon his willingness and fitness. I am aware that he is still struggling with some fitness issues. Test cricket is quite rigorous, so I am not sure how long he will play. But it is good to know that he has signalled he would like to play for a few more years. Once he is fit, once the selectors believe he can contribute positively to the team, [then it is up to them].

Then there is this hostile relationship you share with the media. You have locked horns with eminent names like Michael Holding. Why is he not commentating in the Caribbean?
I want to leave alone that one.

Do you think you are the Sepp Blatter of West Indies cricket?
No, I am the opposite of Sepp, because everybody loved Sepp. When Sepp came to our country, he was worshipped.

Our governance systems in the West Indies have been the best they have ever been. We have four independent directors and I have used them to chair some of the important committees. We have an audit, risk and compliance committee, chaired by an independent director. We had a surplus of $3.5 million last year - first time we had such a surplus outside of 2007. All our financial statements are on our website. Two-thousand eighteen is going to be a very difficult year for us because we don't have inbound tours. We only make [money] when we have inbound tours. The only inbound tours that make money are England and India, and to a lesser extent, Australia.

What is your challenge in the remaining time you have as WICB president?
We are at a point now where West Indies cricket has never been in a better place. Financially, we can see our way forward. We have put in a professional structure. We will continue to fiddle with that. Do we increase the matches as our resources get better? Do we pay the players more money, and that kind of stuff? But we are in a place now where we have set the platform and the sky is the limit, and we are on our way up.

One of the next steps is, we are creating a commercial entity called Cricket West Indies. Cricket West Indies will be the corporate name for the organisation and the entity in which we will be looking at the performance of our teams will be a separate one. That way we feel we can somehow isolate some of the issues which will always be so, so political [away] from the performance and far from commercialisation of the team. That is happening soon.