The Fin Review article sums it up very well. The push to privatise has not been accompanied by any serious attempt to explain why such action is warranted and what the benefit will be. CA have put forward a solution without really saying what the problem is, nor how the proceeds from the solution will be invested. The complete absence of any attempt by CA to engage with the cricket following public is also a sign of arrogance. CA should be asked to answer the points raised in the concluding para of the Fin Review article! Why aren’t they capable of running cricket?
Greenberg saying on the Grade Cricketer that he was engaging the public by being on that show, and then laughingly saying he didn’t prepare for it, tells you all you need to know about how much they think they need to engage.
He and Baird can’t be trusted to do the right thing. If they could, they’d explain what it looks like.
That's exactly the point: CA's job is to run cricket. If it outsources that, why does it exist?
The logic behind the move is said to be a deficit in CA's accounts which is said to be the result of a poor broadcasting rights deal, which runs for another six years. Another way of putting that is that it's a short-term fix. And what gets sold off next time there's a hole in the bucket, I wonder?
Anyway, it's a short-term fix with long-term consequences. People don't buy sports franchises so that they can get to meet Adam Zampa; they expect a more tangible return. Which means that they will demand a say in how things run. And those broadcasting rights that are meant to fix the problem in 2032? On what planet would the new owners not want their cut of those?
Look, Mike Baird is a doctrinaire small-government Liberal who believes in selling things off. That, if you were wondering, is why one of the largest ports in NSW is Chinese-owned, why our power prices are so high and why driving around Sydney's roads can send you broke with all the tolls.
But CA isn't a bank or a widget-maker. It's a not-for-profit company with a duty to care for the game. And no one has even attempted to mount an argument that placing part ownership of the game in private hands will improve it.
Cricket Australia seems overly keen to sell off the BBL to the highest bidder. I think we should all be concerned by this. Do we really want to see the teams fully owned by foreign conglomerates with little interest in implications for the Australian game?
I know I struggle with maintaining interest in the BBL as it currently stands with a large number of games between manufactured franchises. To me it still lacks authenticity. What will foreign ownership bring it?
Is the real question to be asked, "is the federalist not-for-profit structure of CA outdated, failing, and attracting substandard leadership?" What the IPL threat to BBL shows is that the competition is corporate - it's funded, engaging the latest technology, and its output far exceeds the BBL's and CA's.
I personally don't trust CA's folk to deploy any windfall $$ efficiently.
If our national goal is to maintain a high-performing national team across all formats (as a product indicative of the entire health of our cricket ecosystem), then we appear to be failing. Once the elite half dozen (Smith, Cummins, Starc, Hazelwood, Lyon, etc) retire soon, do we really have quality in the next 25 to compete? It's hard to see, if you look at the statistics in the Sheffield Shield with declining runs scored and wickets (it's a far cry from the 90s and 00s in terms of depth). We've missed the semis of recent world cups. The next 18 months of Tests will be telling.
And the future doesn't bode well when the Shield champs, SA, cannot find a way to fund their academy players (the program which is intended to help players transition from promising to professional), who are required at a pivotal age (19-23) in their lives to commit nearly full-time to their cricket dream, yet are not paid a penny. If SA isn't entrepreneurial enough to find $300-500K per year for their best youngsters, how really will they compete with a pocketful of cash from a BBL sale?
State Library OF Victoria, Melbourne Cricket Club, Melbourne Football Club, Carlton Football Club and Cricket Australia down the road. Where will it all end GH? I am beside myself with grief being a Victorian.
more than sleepwalking. Just received the latest from CA. Looks like we will be in for many, many sleepless nights before this is resolved. The "world landscape" gets a lot of mentions. Stuff the world just get it right here in Oz.
Great work Gideon the focus rightly needs to be on CA and their specific motivations. How much money do they believe is needed, and what is it exactly needed for?
Why are we in the dark on these crucial elements?
If the climate is challenging, which it may well be, what exactly will the windfall/sugar hit solve? And for how long will things be solved for?
Once something is sold it’s highly unlikely it’s going to be repurchased at some future date? So then what?
The Fin Review article sums it up very well. The push to privatise has not been accompanied by any serious attempt to explain why such action is warranted and what the benefit will be. CA have put forward a solution without really saying what the problem is, nor how the proceeds from the solution will be invested. The complete absence of any attempt by CA to engage with the cricket following public is also a sign of arrogance. CA should be asked to answer the points raised in the concluding para of the Fin Review article! Why aren’t they capable of running cricket?
Greenberg saying on the Grade Cricketer that he was engaging the public by being on that show, and then laughingly saying he didn’t prepare for it, tells you all you need to know about how much they think they need to engage.
He and Baird can’t be trusted to do the right thing. If they could, they’d explain what it looks like.
Aye, that was risible. One of the low points of summer.
A privatised BBL risks being as soulless and confected as LIV golf
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/liv-golf-is-dying-of-boredom
Too many suits & not enough flannels
When I first saw that photo I thought Modi was shaking hands with Ben Roberts Smith👎
Me too - anything that weird is more than possible in 2026!
That's exactly the point: CA's job is to run cricket. If it outsources that, why does it exist?
The logic behind the move is said to be a deficit in CA's accounts which is said to be the result of a poor broadcasting rights deal, which runs for another six years. Another way of putting that is that it's a short-term fix. And what gets sold off next time there's a hole in the bucket, I wonder?
Anyway, it's a short-term fix with long-term consequences. People don't buy sports franchises so that they can get to meet Adam Zampa; they expect a more tangible return. Which means that they will demand a say in how things run. And those broadcasting rights that are meant to fix the problem in 2032? On what planet would the new owners not want their cut of those?
Look, Mike Baird is a doctrinaire small-government Liberal who believes in selling things off. That, if you were wondering, is why one of the largest ports in NSW is Chinese-owned, why our power prices are so high and why driving around Sydney's roads can send you broke with all the tolls.
But CA isn't a bank or a widget-maker. It's a not-for-profit company with a duty to care for the game. And no one has even attempted to mount an argument that placing part ownership of the game in private hands will improve it.
Cricket Australia seems overly keen to sell off the BBL to the highest bidder. I think we should all be concerned by this. Do we really want to see the teams fully owned by foreign conglomerates with little interest in implications for the Australian game?
I know I struggle with maintaining interest in the BBL as it currently stands with a large number of games between manufactured franchises. To me it still lacks authenticity. What will foreign ownership bring it?
Is the real question to be asked, "is the federalist not-for-profit structure of CA outdated, failing, and attracting substandard leadership?" What the IPL threat to BBL shows is that the competition is corporate - it's funded, engaging the latest technology, and its output far exceeds the BBL's and CA's.
I personally don't trust CA's folk to deploy any windfall $$ efficiently.
If our national goal is to maintain a high-performing national team across all formats (as a product indicative of the entire health of our cricket ecosystem), then we appear to be failing. Once the elite half dozen (Smith, Cummins, Starc, Hazelwood, Lyon, etc) retire soon, do we really have quality in the next 25 to compete? It's hard to see, if you look at the statistics in the Sheffield Shield with declining runs scored and wickets (it's a far cry from the 90s and 00s in terms of depth). We've missed the semis of recent world cups. The next 18 months of Tests will be telling.
And the future doesn't bode well when the Shield champs, SA, cannot find a way to fund their academy players (the program which is intended to help players transition from promising to professional), who are required at a pivotal age (19-23) in their lives to commit nearly full-time to their cricket dream, yet are not paid a penny. If SA isn't entrepreneurial enough to find $300-500K per year for their best youngsters, how really will they compete with a pocketful of cash from a BBL sale?
State Library OF Victoria, Melbourne Cricket Club, Melbourne Football Club, Carlton Football Club and Cricket Australia down the road. Where will it all end GH? I am beside myself with grief being a Victorian.
more than sleepwalking. Just received the latest from CA. Looks like we will be in for many, many sleepless nights before this is resolved. The "world landscape" gets a lot of mentions. Stuff the world just get it right here in Oz.
Great work Gideon the focus rightly needs to be on CA and their specific motivations. How much money do they believe is needed, and what is it exactly needed for?
Why are we in the dark on these crucial elements?
If the climate is challenging, which it may well be, what exactly will the windfall/sugar hit solve? And for how long will things be solved for?
Once something is sold it’s highly unlikely it’s going to be repurchased at some future date? So then what?
A very unconvincing argument on many levels.
Perfectly put.
Tim who?