West Indies board 'sets the record straight'

Teddy Griffith has a deepening crisis on his hands © Getty Images

The tit-for-tat war of words between the West Indies board (WICB), Digicel and Cable & Wireless (C&W) escalated today when the WICB issued a press release vehemently denying claims made yesterday by C&W.

Reacting to a statement from C&W which claimed that it was never given a chance to match Digicel's $23 million offer, the WICB stated that it had offered C&W the opportunity to make a counter-offer in March 2004. It said it could produce a letter dated March 16, 2004 from Usman Saadat, C&W's regional marketing vice-president, in which he informed them that his company had "decided not to match the rival bid."

The WICB also dismissed claims that in 2003 it had offered a similar contract to C&W for $30 million. "The initial proposal reflected a five-year sponsorship of the team on a home-and-away basis at a cost of $30 million," it stated. "C&W stated quite clearly that it was not interested in being a sponsor of the West Indies team away from home. The discussions then centred only on the home series and team sponsorship during those series on a three-year renewal basis."

According to the board, in September 2003 it reached agreement with C&W for a new three-year deal totaling almost $11 million subject. But two months later a draft contract produced by C&W was rejected as it allegedly contained conditions and provisions not previously discussed.

In December, the WICB wrote to C&W advising them that, in accordance with the existing contract, it was "going to the market" to explore alternative sponsorship opportunities. Although C&W withdrew the contentious elements in had included in the draft contract, the WICB said that it would still be looking at all options.

In March 2004, although C&W declined to counter Digicel's bid, it did ask for its original $11 million offer to be reconsidered. The WICB said that it declined, advising C&W that "that discussions with representatives of the rival bidder were well advanced and were being conducted in good faith ... and the board considered it inappropriate to re-open negotiations with C&W."

The WICB also denied that the personal contracts with the seven players, which are at the heart of this dispute, were submitted to the board, although it admitted that it was sent a template contract with no signatures or dates. "The board was advised by legal counsel that it would be unsafe to rely on such a specimen document.

"The WICB, therefore has never been in a position, prior to March 11, 2005 to say whether the contracts ultimately entered into by C&W and the players bore any resemblance to this document. The board is now in receipt of the contracts and its legal counsel is reviewing them."