Updated ,first published
Australian cricket’s biggest state fears that privatising Big Bash League clubs will expose the national game to club versus country tensions that have been evident in other Twenty20 leagues around the world.
Cricket NSW chief executive Lee Germon articulated his state’s reservations on Wednesday as the deadline passed for states to respond to Cricket Australia’s BBL privatisation float.
Germon said his state’s most significant reservations about BBL club sales related to the loss of control of a finely balanced cricket system in Australia. CNSW is acutely aware of these issues, given that its chair, John Knox, is a partner with the sport private equity firm Ares, which is a part owner of the Trent Rockets in the Hundred competition in the UK.
“Our biggest fear is the external investment coming into a cricket ecosystem, which is working very effectively and very well now, in terms of adding more voices to how our cricket is run, and our players are produced,” Germon said.
“We see some risks here, which Cricket Australia share by the way. You suddenly open up the involvement of external investors who will not have aligned goals with the states or Cricket Australia in terms of how they want the game to be run.”
Queensland joined NSW in pressing the pause button on CA plans to sell stakes in BBL clubs, leaving the governing body without nationwide consensus.
Following a board meeting on Tuesday night, Queensland Cricket confirmed to this masthead that it would seek further clarity, and time, from CA about plans for the partial sale of clubs. Both CA and Queensland Cricket insist that their dialogue remains constructive, including calls between CEOs Todd Greenberg and Terry Svensson and chairs Mike Baird and Kirsten Pike on Wednesday.
Germon explained that his state wanted to pause the process until all parties agreed, and give time for alternative paths to be explored.
“The fact that we’re saying we are not in at the moment means that we also do not want to be part of going to market for a valuation of our clubs,” Germon said. “I also respect the sovereignty and the decision-making of other states. It needs to be worked through whether you can pause it, stop it totally, or do a concurrent process. It remains to be seen.
“Our position is that we still do not believe the sale of the BBL clubs is the right approach here. What I’d like to reiterate is we are in fierce agreement with Cricket Australia that we need to invest in the BBL and grow it. We need to have our best players playing the BBL in a window that allows that.
“We believe there is another way of doing that through other funding mechanisms and over the last three to four weeks we’ve been able to work on that alternative strategy. We shared that with Cricket Australia and the states yesterday. We would hope that now forms a discussion in terms of an alternative strategy.”
Greenberg, the Cricket Australia chief executive, said the lines of discussion were open.
“We are receiving responses from states to our proposal on private investment in BBL clubs and remain open to discussing any questions or concerns about this model,” he said.
“This process remains respectful and collaborative and with the best interests of Australian Cricket the key consideration of all involved.”
NSW and Queensland have formed the view that, while private investment in the BBL may be a good idea in the future, they are unconvinced that it needs to happen immediately.
Instead, their preference is for further work to be done on the fundamentals of any sale plan, while also encouraging CA to grow more value in the league and in cricket as a whole.
NSW and Queensland are both open to finding different ways of raising more commercial revenue without selling stakes in clubs, including the pursuit of higher product fees from wagering companies.
“It’s a range of revenue within the Cricket Australia … that we think offer opportunity to increase revenue to fund a reset or an improvement of the BBL over the next three to four years,” Germon said.
There’s a number of lines there, so it’s ticket yield, it’s attendance, it’s commercial sponsorship, it’s a number of different items there. Some will be more palatable than others, some will be more achievable than others.
“But we believe that they need to be looked at in terms of providing an opportunity to fund our way through this, to develop the BBL without going straight to selling our clubs.”
CA has previously indicated that it will be possible for the sale process to proceed without the agreement of all states. The next step will involve seeking valuations for clubs – finding out how much money may be raised by their sale.
News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport are sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.
