Both sides of Australian cricket's civil war can and should do more to end the impasse according to Jason Gillespie, who has bemoaned the ongoing "tit for tat" that is hurting the sport.
Pay talks continue between Cricket Australia (CA) and the Australian Cricketers' Association (ACA) but the two parties remain deadlocked regarding revenue sharing.
CA is adamant the model, which has governed players' income since the first Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was agreed 20 years ago, is no longer financially viable.
The ACA believe the cashed-up governing body is at fault for underfunding grassroots, and that they're attempting to starve players out.
Some 230 players have been unemployed since the start of this month. This week will mark the first time there is no pay packet delivered to their bank accounts.
There are fears this summer's Ashes, plus upcoming trips to Bangladesh and India, could be affected. This month's Australia A tour to South Africa has already been cancelled.
Former Test paceman Gillespie, who is a life member of the ACA, was meant to be coaching the Australia A squad in South Africa.
"I've followed this saga with interest," he wrote in a column published on The Roar.
"I have to admit to being disappointed in the tit for tat in the media between the ACA and CA. Why have there been so many press releases stating disappointment at the lack of meaningful talks?
"Find a compromise and let's get on with the cricket. It's not a great look for our game."
Gillespie noted fans were unhappy with both the union and governing body.
"The public opinions are many and varied," he wrote.
"Some believe the players are greedy, some believe that CA are screwing the players. I can assure you that neither of these statements are true.
"The public has all agreed on one thing: why have CA and the ACA released a number of statements publicly and not just closed the door and sorted this out? I agree."
Gillespie, who sits seventh on Australia's list of Test wicket-takers with 259 scalps, called on the warring parties to show flexibility.
"CA have spoken about 'genuine flexibility' around talks with the ACA. Then we read in the papers that CA bypass the ACA and offer contracts directly to individual players," he wrote.
"I'm not surprised there is some hesitation from the playing group.
"The ACA are willing to be flexible in negotiations yet won't talk unless the revenue share model stays. Is that 'genuine flexibility?'"
Share
