Tesla-gate
Opinion: Even if the business case makes sense, who thought it would be a good idea to justify the purchase of expensive cars given Cricket Ireland's current finances?
Four years ago, during the pandemic, alleged breaches of lockdown rules by high profile political figures in the UK led to one of print journalism’s most memorable front page spreads.
After Dominic Cummings, adviser to Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the day, tried to justify flouting lockdown stay-at-home orders with excuses such as the need to test his eyesight by going on a drive, the Daily Mail, historically a supporter of Johnson’s Conservative Party, printed the following question on their front page:
“What planet are they on?”
In vastly different circumstances, that question has been flying around Irish cricket circles this weekend, including inside Cricket Ireland’s (CI) very own offices.
In the last three weeks, financial constraints and unforeseen changes to CI’s budget has led to the postponement of Ireland’s home series against Australia, the touted cancelling of a rare home Test match against Zimbabwe and the relocation of another home series with South Africa to the UAE. If you were a betting man, you’d wager that the latter is now unlikely to go ahead. On the women’s side, CI has committed to not cancelling a series in its entirety, but individual matches could well be cut from the visits of England, Sri Lanka and the Netherlands to these shores.
Meanwhile, it emerged that CI had acquired two new company cars for its CEO, Warren Deutrom, and chief financial officer (CFO) Andrew May. The cars are Tesla Y models. Ever since news of the fixture uncertainty leaked out, sources have been stressing CI’s desire to trim the financial fat in order to preserve as much of their schedule as possible. All while two expensive cars for the use of two of the highest paid members of staff were sitting in the carpark of the Kinsealy office.
Where to even begin?
To their credit, CI’s media team opted for an attempt at transparency when journalists started asking questions. They released a statement justifying the purchase. Unusually, it came from chairman Brian MacNeice, presumably because the optics of the CEO - normally the public face of the organisation - defending the car he drives would be iffy.
What MacNeice said was interesting to say the least. Firstly, the tone of the statement (the entirety of which can be found here) was bizarre. Phrases such as “Let me be clear” come across as very teacher, if not lecturer-like. Tone of the written word can be misconstrued, but multiple people have read it as a blunt instruction to stop talking about our cars.
The essence of MacNeice’s message was that it was financially prudent to buy these vehicles. It is “consistent with the wider industry practice” to make such purchases for senior staff, he said. The cars were bought on a hire purchase with 0 per cent financing, and they can be sold in three years’ time for €8,000 more than their market value, according to the chairman.
Breaking down the figures from the statement, it appears that each car is worth €56,000, though you have to figure out yourself. A statement released “to be as transparent on this matter as possible” doesn’t actually give you that basic figure.
Depreciation over three years will cost CI €34,000 per car, leaving each Tesla with a value of €22,000. CI says they can then sell each of them for €30,000. If that does indeed happen, CI will have spent €26,000 per Tesla, €52,000 total. They say that a lease, rather than this hire purchase, will cost €33,000 per car, meaning the “more advantageous position” MacNeice references is in relation to the purchase arrangement. Not more advantageous than, say, buying a Toyota or, heaven forbid, not giving these freebies to well-paid staff.
The scale of the arrogance defies belief. Planning for the future sale of electric cars, given the volatility of that market, especially when it comes to Tesla, is ambitious enough. Then we are supposed to believe that the phrase “more advantageous financial position” can be used next to a €52,000 expense by a representative of a cash-strapped organisation. Lest we forget the speed with which CI came out to defend the whole affair. Is this really the hill they’re willing to die on?
For what it’s worth, I have no interest writing about the cars of senior staff members. I’d much rather talk about the current Wolves tour, about two T20 matches which saw nearly 800 runs scored across them, about Neil Rock, Stephen Doheny and PJ Moor scoring plenty of eye-catching runs. But Tesla-gate, as ludicrous and, quite frankly, petty as it sounds, has to be talked about if only out of principle.
Did the cars have to be Teslas in order to be a financially prudent investment, a brand widely regarded as high status and the most luxurious on the electric car market? If it makes good long-term financial sense to buy a Tesla, why only two? Why not one for everyone in the audience? Do other members of staff entitled to a company car, including those in the high performance department who have to drive from Bready to Cork to scout players and take training sessions, also have Teslas?
What about everyone else in the Cricket Ireland offices in North Dublin? Do they walk by the Teslas in the carpark on their way in the door and get to ask for one too?
If CI is in such a dire financial position, has there been a conversation about the very need for a company car for the CEO and CFO? These are two of the best paid members of staff in the organisation. If all the fat was well and truly trimmed, should they still have free cars?
MacNeice references industry standard practice. Which industry is he talking about? In the industry of ICC full member nations, the heads of the BCCI, ECB and Cricket Australia probably do get company cars. In the industry of Irish sport, it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine that Kevin Potts of the IRFU and Jonathan Hill of the FAI also get cars, or are at least entitled to them.
But can an organisation which, quite clearly, is not in an “industry standard” financial position justify partaking in other industry standard practices? It’s all well and good saying everyone else does this, but everyone else has a lot more money than Cricket Ireland. The reason why senior staff need, firstly, any car and secondly, one worth over €50,000 cannot be just, “well, all the others are at it as well.” Remember when your mother asked: “would you jump off a cliff just because Johnny did?”
For the record, IRFU staff members drive Opels, not Teslas.
All of these questions have been put to Cricket Ireland’s media team as well as Deutrom and May themselves. MacNeice has also been contacted, even if he is just the public face trying to defend this.
There is a portion of the fanbase that will always lash out at Cricket Ireland no matter what. There is another group who are quick to anger but calm down when more context is added to seemingly negative news. CI have tried to add that context to the Tesla issue, people can make up their own mind.
But the real tragedy of this episode is what it does to the credibility of senior CI staff within their own organisation. When the CFO goes to a department, be it operations, participation, high performance, whatever, and asks them to cut costs, what authority does he have given the value of the car afforded to him?
When CI sits down with players to negotiate contracts, what do those who are offered deals of a lower value than the price of a Tesla think? In all likelihood, for 2023, roughly three quarters of the contracted men’s players and all of the contracted women were on an annual salary of less than €56,000. Granted, match fees and bonuses can inflate those numbers.
There are also players on casual contracts who don’t even get an annual salary, only per diems and match fees when in camp. The price of the Teslas could give at least three - if not more, given what some players are being paid - a half-decent living. How can CI look those who earn revenue for the organisation in the eye and say they’re worth less than the cars being driven by the CEO and CFO? Sod it, Teslas for the boys.
There is an argument that, in terms of fixtures at least, the cars don’t make that much of a difference. The financial hole blown in CI’s budget at a recent ICC meeting is understood to be in the region of €1.5 million. The second such hole identified last week is at least €300,000. Two cars worth €112,000 won’t bring back a Test match.
Perhaps not, but they could pay for more than seven days of DRS at home internationals. Remember how furious we all were at the lack of technology in the Afghanistan series? If a Test match happens, and bookies accepted wagers on whether DRS will be available, they would have stopped taking bets long ago. You can forget the prospect of Ireland women’s series against England having DRS, unless the ECB offers to pay for it. When Ireland played Australia last year, there weren’t even run-out referrals.
The whole affair is an optics disaster. Given the cars are used by two of the most senior individuals in the company, who signed off on the decision? Did they do so themselves? Was it MacNeice, the chairman? Was the board involved? Regardless of the business argument, again, if legitimate, did anyone ask how is this going to look to staff, fans and the media?
If no one did, then you have to question competence, if not the very governance structure of the whole organisation. If someone did and the answer was to keep going, then you have to question their perception of reality, or lack thereof.
What planet are they on?
Absolutely crazy! Makes no sense when there are so many other cheaper cars on the market, including other brands pumping out electric cars.