Weenink resigned from his role in December, before the report came back, citing a “different view” to some of the sport’s key stakeholders, namely New Zealand’s six Major Associations – Auckland, Northern Districts, Central Districts, Wellington, Canterbury and Otago – as well as the New Zealand Cricket Players Association. What’s more, the Herald understands Deloitte’s brief changed from assessing the best option to simply providing the pros and cons of all four.
The Herald also understands that while all four options were assessed, only two were seriously considered: the Big Bash League or the private franchise league – known as NZ20.
In March, the board decided to back NZ20, which saw one of its members, former Black Cap Dion Nash, resign as a result.
Former Black Cap Dion Nash resigned from the NZC board earlier this year. Photo / Photosport
That brings us to now.
Last week, Sir Richard Hadlee, arguably New Zealand’s greatest cricketer, penned a letter, obtained by the Herald, to NZC’s board and chief executive Geoff Allott – who only began the role on July 1.
Among other things – including saying he was “embarrassed to have my personal name attached to the organisation” – Hadlee called for the Deloitte report to be released in full and Allott and the board to “consider whether changes need to be made to lead NZC into the future”.
Two days later, he was joined by former NZC president Lesley Murdoch, who echoed his sentiment in demanding the release of the Deloitte report and transparency from the board in emails obtained by the Herald.
Hadlee and Murdoch are two of NZC’s life members. Both contributed to the Deloitte report and claim they were told they would be given a copy of its findings. Hadlee’s letter also said he was prepared to take legal action to ensure the Deloitte report is released – an assertion backed up by Northland Cricket’s board chair Derek Slatter on Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive on Monday.
Both Hadlee and Murdoch may have legitimate grounds to ask for the report if it was promised to them when taking part in its process. But whether the report should be released, and whether it should have determined the board’s decision, are separate questions.
The process was about making sure the NZC board had information needed to make the best decision for the future of the sport. The Deloitte report was part of that information. It could not, on its own, settle which option New Zealand Cricket could realistically implement.
The Herald understands both the Cricket Players Association and NZ20 were initially reluctant to participate in the review, concerned that the process was designed to deliver a predetermined outcome. Both ultimately chose to co-operate because they accepted that participation was necessary to ensure their positions were represented in the formal process.
Any decision regarding the future of domestic T20 cricket required the support of the six Major Associations and the Players Association. All supported NZ20 and refused to back the Big Bash proposal.
That was more than a difference of opinion. Even if NZC’s board had preferred the Big Bash, it could not proceed without their agreement. Their concerns included the concentration of top-level playing opportunities in one men’s and one women’s team, rather than across six teams in each competition, alongside questions of regional representation, ownership and control.
While the Big Bash option might have offered greater commercial returns, the board also had to weigh those potential benefits against the implications for New Zealand’s domestic pathways and its ability to shape its own future.
Current Black Caps Daryl Mitchell and Rachin Ravindra even spoke to the Herald without NZC’s approval to publicly back NZ20.
Senior Black Caps Daryl Mitchell (left) and Rachin Ravindra broke ranks with New Zealand Cricket to publicly back NZ20. Photo / Photosport
Nor was entering the Big Bash a guaranteed option on the other side of the Tasman.
Cricket Australia was interested in bringing New Zealand into its competition. But that interest is not the same as a fully approved arrangement, with the necessary support from Australia’s states and Players Association secured.
The Herald understands those approvals were far from assured. A decision by NZC’s board to pursue the Big Bash would not, by itself, have delivered a place in the competition.
Neither option has been straightforward since the decision. NZ20’s proposed start date has moved to the summer of 2027-28, with the search for league investors ongoing.
Meanwhile, the Big Bash has also been the focal point for turbulence across the Ditch, after Cricket Australia’s decision to allow states to seek private investment was rejected by Queensland and New South Wales – but continued anyway. Last week, Cricket Australia chair Mike Baird resigned from his role, while the Australian Cricketers’ Association also appears at odds with how the process is playing out.
Those disputes concern the Australian competition’s investment model and do not, by themselves, prove a New Zealand team could never have joined. They do, however, illustrate the complex political landscape in which any expansion would have had to be negotiated.
In his letter, Hadlee outlined that he had indicated to Deloitte the Big Bash was his preference. His views deserve consideration. But a preference for the Australian competition does not answer how NZC could have secured the agreements necessary to enter it.
Even if the Deloitte report presented a compelling commercial case for the Big Bash, that would not remove the obstacles to delivering it. NZC’s board still had to consider stakeholder support, contractual arrangements, playing pathways and the unresolved negotiations on both sides of the Tasman.
If this entire saga has been brought back to the boil as a means of reigniting the NZ20 versus Big Bash debate in the court of public opinion, those realities need to be part of the discussion.
In 2013, after the Black Caps were bowled out for 45 against South Africa in Cape Town, a meeting between captain Brendon McCullum, coach Mike Hesson, team manager Mike Sandle and batting coach Bob Carter took place at the team hotel.
The foursome decided that it was time for the Black Caps to stop trying to emulate how Australia played the game and concentrate on being authentic as New Zealanders. That decision helped usher in a golden age of New Zealand cricket.
Nearly 14 years later, at a different kind of fork in the road, NZC’s board has again chosen to pursue a New Zealand-led approach.
That choice does not put NZ20 beyond scrutiny. Its backers still need to secure investment and deliver a competition that fulfils its promise.
But judging the board’s decision requires more than asking which option looked best in a consultancy report. It also requires asking which option could be delivered, on acceptable terms, with the support New Zealand cricket needed.
Alex Powell is a sports journalist for the NZ Herald. He has been a sports journalist since 2016.