December 5, 2025 • 20 mins
The off-field wrangling over whether New Zealand adopts a franchise Twenty20 cricket model continues.
A group of fifteen former internationals signed an open letter raising concerns over the viability of NZ20, a privately backed T20 league.
Richard Petrie was one of these signatories who sees this idea as being detrimental to domestic cricket in New Zealand.
He told Piney they’re not opposed to a T20 competition per se, but rather a private organisation coming in and taking over the January window for profit making reasons.
Petrie says it would put New Zealand cricket in turmoil.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Weekend Sport podcast with Jason Vine
from Newstalk ZEDB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
The stoush has intensified between those pushing for a revamped
n ZED twenty short format cricket competition and a consortium
in support of New Zealand Cricket. Further weighing up their options,
an open letter signed by fifteen former national representatives has
questioned several aspects of the NZED twenty proposal. N ZED
twenty backers have responded to that virus statement, saying they
(00:35):
have engaged in a transparent manner with New Zealand Cricket,
which has appointed two board members to sit on their committee,
and that cooperation will be sought throughout the process. One
of the signatories to the open letter, which was published
on Thursday, is former international Richard Petrie, who joins US now. Richard,
why are you opposed to m ZED twenty.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Yeah, Hi, Jason. There's a number of people who are
opposed to it. We're not opposed to T twenty competition.
Person say, what we're opposed to is a private organization
coming in taking over that January window for profit making
(01:18):
reasons basically and really putting New Zealand Cricket and turmoil.
I don't know if people realize how much turmoil the
game is in at national level. The board is split,
I think. I think there was released a letter from
Hadley and Stedden and Boch and Murdoch to the board
(01:38):
asking them to you know, they're severely worried about what's
going on at that level. There are two sides. It's
not as friendly as as maybe the MS twenty people
are making out. It's and really it's a battle for
control of the game. I think that's the best way
to sum it up, and I can sort of explain
(02:00):
why if if you want to know, I.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Do want to know. But before we get into that,
do you think change to our domestic T twenty game
is needed?
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Possibly? And there's lots of options on the table, including
the Big Bash, which I believe is a very viable
option and a very profitable option, but one where New
Zealand Cricket maintains control of the whole situation. So there
are a number of options. I know Scott Weenix looking
at four. He's listed out four of them, and you
know he's very keen to look at all four because
(02:33):
it's really important the road they go down here. If
they go down the wrong path, there are some big consequences.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
All right.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Well.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
New Zealand twenty the head of the establishing Committee, Don McKinnon,
was on the radio with me a couple of weeks
ago and said that yes, they are one of four
options being looked at, and it's good governance from New
Zealand Cricket to be looking at all four options and
that they will cooperate with any process and be fine
with the outcome. So the letter that was sent on
(03:05):
Thursday seemed to talk about things like dealing covertly and
other such language. Can you expand on why you believe
they're dealing covertly to push their league as is written here?
Speaker 3 (03:21):
Yeah? Sure, my understanding where our understanding is that you
know they've Don McKinnon and other people have done a
tour around the country and told players there are players
that we know of who have been told keep this quiet,
keep it to yourself, we need to establish things and
don't you know, sort of don't let anything out about
(03:41):
what we're discussing. So that's our understanding of what was happening.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Okay, Can I pick up on that, Ben, because on
the statement we received yesterday from m Z twenty. It
said mister McKinnon has never presented to any of the
players or major associations about the NZ twenty League, save
on one occasion when m Z twenty met with the
major associations with two New Zealand Cricket directors. Any suggestion
anyone has been sworn to secrecy is false and a
(04:05):
slur on the character of those involved. So they, you know,
unequivocally refute that suggestion.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Well, yeah, the technical terms there that there have been
tours round where players have been approached and spoken to.
I know of players who I mean, that's where I've
heard of players who are reporting that that's been the case.
They were told not to say anything.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
So, in other words, so you're you're refuting this statement.
You're saying that players have been approached privately and spawned.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
In groups, in groups that well you know, they've been
approached in groups and and told to keep it to themselves.
That's that's our understanding. Yep.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
All right, Well, I guess we're in a bit of
a bit of an impasse there and that that's your understanding.
They have refuted that, so let's move your open letter
was addressed to Stephen Fleming, Heath Mills, Don the Ken
and David Holme and the NZ twenty consortium. Why didn't
you send the letter wrecked to those? That was addressed to?
Speaker 3 (05:12):
As I said, I think we're former players. We're not.
We're not New Zealand Cricket. We're not any sort of
we don't have any power or authority. We've just got
a vested interest in the game that we love. We're
more fans and so we're not directly involved with these guys,
but we are very concerned about, you know, what potentially
(05:35):
can happen to the game in New Zealand. Like I said,
the board is fractured. Our understanding, the board is fractured.
It is split. There's there's some of them wanting to
go one way, someone wanting to go the other. And
it's it's not a happy it's not a happy camp.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
That's not in Z twenty's fault, though, is it.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
It's not in seed twenties fault. This is a What
you've got to understand is it's a power play here.
If n Z twenty comes set up a tournament and
they run a tournament, that's fine. They have kind of
drafted the major associations or not all of them, but
most of them to want to back this thing with.
(06:21):
You know, there's been money promised to them and so
the major associations are wanting to sort of look down
this route. The Planers Association are actively involved. The problem is,
you know, you're going to look at one of the consequences,
because that's what it's all about. You know, Let's say
a game that New Zealand Cricket has no stake in.
(06:42):
Like in every other country where there's a T twenty tournament,
like South Africa, England, Australia, the governing the national governing
body are the ones that own and run that tournament.
Right in this in this situation, what they're proposing is
a T twenty tournament where they're trying to raise a
lot of money and pay a whole lot of people out,
(07:04):
including the major associations. And do you know New Zealand
Crickets stake in this in this operation zero.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
But Richard, they do have to sign but they do
have to sign it off. They have the final sign
off on this competition on the way forward here in
New Zealand. Whatever they decide, they sign off. So why
would New Zealand Cricket grant n Z twenty a license
if it would be to their detriment?
Speaker 3 (07:31):
That's a very good question. Why would they? Why would
New Zealand? And it's it's done at board level, so
it's only the board that can do it right now
that you've got to ask you, and that's the question
of ours and the media, and why would a New
Zealand national board give away their IP their players during January,
(07:53):
compromising their national obligations to the ICC? Why would it?
Why would a national board of directors or whatever they
are vote for that? And you know it's a real thing,
it could happen, and that's the question. That's the question
you'd be asking the board. Why would you do what's
in the benefit for New Zealand Cricket to compromise your
(08:16):
national your international schedule to put your TV rights which
are huge at risk and those TV rights are what
runs the whole game in New Zealand, right if sonny
And and SkyTV don't get the game they want, don't
get the players they want, and that you know, in
(08:36):
that January window, there's a very real risk that they
would withdraw. They've paid a lot of money. They paid
a lot of money for TV rights for the black Caps.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
But there's no suggestion that players will be pulled out
of international cricket. There's there's no suggestion of that at all.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
There is a suggestion that all players that sign up
to this need to be available for this January window.
So I mean, that's that's a question that needs to
be clarified, right. I listened to that Dan McCarty interview
yesterday with Don McKinnon. Yeah, there's way more questions that
need to be asked to those guys. Is exactly how
it's going to work. But it's not New Zeon's cricket tournament.
(09:15):
You know, why would Nuzeon Cricket hand over the keys
to anyone else to go out and make money off
their off their game.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Well then in that case, then why would we send
two teams to the Big Bash, as is one of
the other suggestions on the table.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Well, it's controlled by New Zeon Cricket, and Zeon Cricket
maintains control of it.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
But the Big not the Big, not the Big Bash,
not the.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Big main control. They may control. They maintain control of
their own players and the terms and conditions for how
it all works, and there's there's decent money in that,
but that works, that works.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
The reason I think that people think this is a
good idea is because the Super Smash is losing money.
There's no broadcast deal for it next year, which it
has I'm sure you know the broadcast deal with Sky
which comes into effect next summer is International Cricket. So
at the moment, there's no broadcast partner for the Super Smash,
(10:15):
which means that there's no revenue stream created by that competition. Again,
I just don't understand why you are not in favor
of investment in the game here.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
Is it investment in the game or is it an
investment in n Z twenty. When you say investments in
the game, where does the money go? It doesn't go
to New Zealand Cricket.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Well, the major associations are part of New Zealand Cricket
and as I understand that, they get a very good
chunk of the revenue generated from this competition, this proposed competition.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
They do, they do, and then what do you end
up with If your money is coming from n Z twenty,
not from New Zealand Cricket, what do you end up with?
You know, do you end up with the cohesi of
New Zealand cricket scene, or do you end up with
a whole lot of minor associations, you know, independent operating, independing.
New Zealand's a small nation, right, we punch above our
(11:10):
weight on the international circuit. Right, We've done really, really well.
But the only way we can do that is if
we maintain a cohesive unit where we're led from you know,
the top down, and we're well organized. We play smart,
we train smart. We shouldn't be performing the way we
do on the world stage. We're a small, reasonably poorly
(11:31):
funded country, right, we can't afford to be fractured. So
you know, there are other options. There's the big bash option.
If it was such a great idea to run a
franchise system, then why wouldn't New Zealand Cricket run it.
Why would they outsource it to someone else?
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Well, you said before that every other competition in the
world has has ownership from its national association. Well, the IPL,
the the IPL doesn't, the Caribbean Premier League doesn't. And
I think that's the one that NZ twenty have kind
of looked towards as a as a bit of a
model for this proposal.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Yeah, you're right. No, I didn't say all of them.
I said the South African, the the BBL, the English
one hundred are all owned by the governing association. The
West Indian one, You're right, it's owned by some Irish billionaire,
I think, and I don't think the West Indian model
was the model to be following. If that's the model
they're following, then we're in trouble. Why so, well, look
(12:31):
at state of West Indians cricket. I mean they can't
get their play you know, from where they were to
where they are now. They're not a cohesive unit. They're
struggling on the world stage. They've got they can't get
their best players playing for the national team. It's difficult
for them. They've lost to some degree, they've lost control.
(12:51):
And this is what we fear is when New Zealand
Cricket loses control of the game, then New Zealand cricket
at grassroots level but even up to the up to
the international level will not be as strong. And I
just think, you know, the game needs to be controlled
by New Zealand cricket and this board, this board need
(13:13):
to look after New Zealand Cricket O.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Look, you won't get an argument from me on that.
You're right, it's the board's responsibility to administer or other
oversee the game strategically at all levels, including at international level.
But as I said before, Itch in, New Zealand Cricket
have the final sign off on what happens next to
our domestic T twenty competition. So why on earth would
they grant n Z twenty a license? You know NZ
(13:40):
twenty Dom McKinnon and I listened to Daniel McCarty's interview
yesterday and he said, look, if they decide that where
the best option, then then we'll embrace that. If they
decide we're not, then we'll shake hands and walk away.
Why would New Zealand Cricket go down a path which
would be detrimental to them?
Speaker 3 (13:57):
Well, well that's a question you have to ask the
board members, right. You know, from my point of view,
having been and watched and played in the aim and
being involved, it seems the craziest decision I have ever seen,
you know, in the history of you know, since I've
been around. It's unbelievable. And I know I'm not the
(14:17):
only one, and you know, I've got a lot of contacts,
but there are people on the board who who are
either you know, it's a I think it's a very
weak board. At one end, that's that's the nicest thing
you can say about it. At the other end, it's
potentially compromised. So some are on that scale. If that
(14:38):
board lets this happen, you know what's the space it's
it's a dangerous thing to do.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Again, the board are in charge of the future direction
and strategy of New Zealand cricket at all levels, and
then they hand down that decision to the CEO and
the operational team to execute that strategy. So again they
they I don't know that it's there. It's their duty.
They're responsible to come up with the best outcome, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
Yeah, it's there, Absolutely it is. And it's our duty
as former players to say to put our point and
say we think if you're thinking of going down this path,
we think it's the wrong path. I mean, they'll make
the decision. It won't be me or anyone else. But
you know, rest assured that that board is not a
(15:30):
happy board, all right.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Just to just back to what it could mean then,
as you say, we're going down this path as I
understand that the proposal is for our top female cricketers
to be available for three weeks in December, and our
top male cricketers to be available for pretty much the
calendar month of January, you know, inside existing agreements. And
I saw it suggested that perhaps players will be pulled
out of the Test series against Australia in January next year,
(15:54):
which has never been suggested, never been you know, talked about.
But let's say it's January. There isn't any international cricket
here in January anyway, Richard. There wasn't last summer, there
isn't this summer. So why wouldn't that window be a
good one.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Well, if it's completely open then from a point of
view of cricket finn But I think there's the Fourth
Test that falls into January, and there's a Sri Lankan
tour that falls into January. Isn't there yet? There is?
Speaker 2 (16:22):
And as I'm sure you heard Don McKinnon say yesterday,
there is no suggestion that players would be pulled out
of their test commitments in January to play n Z
twenty if in fact that is the proposal that goes ahead.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Yeah, well, they've been pretty light on detail. But he
also said there'd be three to four international players in
each team, didn't he. Yep, that's what I picked up.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Yep, he said that to me as well.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
Yeah, okay, Well, where are they coming from?
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Well, I guess internationally would be from the cricket playing
nations around the world. The same part types of players
they're playing the Big Bash, that play in the South
African competition. Those sorts of players i'd imagine would be
the ones that he's talking about.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Well, they're playing in the Big Bash and they're playing
in South Africa.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Come on, Rich, there's more than there's a lot of
cricketers around the world.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Yeah, yeah, but you know, three to four international players
and these teams, I mean, they're a bit light on
detail because I don't think he actually, you know, means
that seriously, because you know what we need is I
think way more detail on this because and it's just
a highly risky situation that you know, they need to
(17:33):
answer a lot more questions on it. It's you know,
I can tell you now that it's a very divided
there's two sides. It's very divided. It's quite emotional it's
it's you know, there's a lot going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Which is a shame because emotion needs to be taken
out of this. In many ways, we need to hover
above this and say what is best for the game.
I know you want what's best for the game.
Speaker 3 (17:59):
You know.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
A further a former international player and someone who's always
been deeply invested in it, Richard, you and I've talked
a lot about cricket, it all in all sorts of
different ways over the time that I have known you.
And at the end of the day, the game has
to sit in the middle of this conversation. It can't
be hijacked by emotion and hyperbole.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
I agree. It's got to be the best decision for
the game and that that's what the letter from Hadley
and Snedden and Murdoch and Stephen Boch were saying is listen, guys,
you've got to put cricket first and you've got to
sort this out. One of their comments was you've got
to play the player, the play the ball, not the man.
You know.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Again, that's that's removing emotion, isn't it. That's another way
of saying, let's remove the emotion from this let's look
at the options on the table and let's work out
what is best going forward.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
Absolutely, absolutely, that's what work out what's best going forward.
And I guess what I'm saying is, or what we're
saying is, you know, you've got to have New Zealand
Cricket in control of New Zealand Cricket. Once you once
you vote to give away power and put your revenue
streams at risk, you're putting yourself in a weak position
(19:13):
and it's very hard to get it back. So you know,
New Zealand Cricket needs to be running New Zealand Cricket.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
All right, we are going to disagree obviously on a
couple of points. Yeah, one final thing I wanted to
ask you. You accept this as not a rebel league.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Right, depends on how you define it.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
How do you define it?
Speaker 3 (19:39):
I would say a rebel league as where outside has
come in and look to take over a situation using
all sorts of means possible.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
And also I think I think the suggestion is that
it would run alongside an existing league, which there's no
suggestion that this would. I like the ICL, I think,
which ran alongside the ip L. Ic L was a
rebel league, which which wasn't sanctioned any competition that's run
here in New Zealand, as I say, to be sanctioned
by New Zealand Cricket. This is not a rebel lead.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
That's right. No, no, you're right on that basis. You
know it would be if it was sanctioned by by
the Board of New Zealand Cricket. I mean the question
is the Board of New Zealand Cricket. Yeah, that's an
interesting one. That's an interesting group.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
All right, Richard, always enjoyed chatting. Thanks for being so
frank and joining us this afternoon.
Speaker 3 (20:30):
No problem.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
Thanks Jason for more from Weekend Sport with Jason Fine.
Listen live to News Talk z B weekends from midday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Sport podcast with Jason Vine
from Newstalk ZEDB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
The stoush has intensified between those pushing for a revamped
n ZED twenty short format cricket competition and a consortium
in support of New Zealand Cricket. Further weighing up their options,
an open letter signed by fifteen former national representatives has
questioned several aspects of the NZED twenty proposal. N ZED
twenty backers have responded to that virus statement, saying they
(00:35):
have engaged in a transparent manner with New Zealand Cricket,
which has appointed two board members to sit on their committee,
and that cooperation will be sought throughout the process. One
of the signatories to the open letter, which was published
on Thursday, is former international Richard Petrie, who joins US now. Richard,
why are you opposed to m ZED twenty.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Yeah, Hi, Jason. There's a number of people who are
opposed to it. We're not opposed to T twenty competition.
Person say, what we're opposed to is a private organization
coming in taking over that January window for profit making
(01:18):
reasons basically and really putting New Zealand Cricket and turmoil.
I don't know if people realize how much turmoil the
game is in at national level. The board is split,
I think. I think there was released a letter from
Hadley and Stedden and Boch and Murdoch to the board
(01:38):
asking them to you know, they're severely worried about what's
going on at that level. There are two sides. It's
not as friendly as as maybe the MS twenty people
are making out. It's and really it's a battle for
control of the game. I think that's the best way
to sum it up, and I can sort of explain
(02:00):
why if if you want to know, I.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Do want to know. But before we get into that,
do you think change to our domestic T twenty game
is needed?
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Possibly? And there's lots of options on the table, including
the Big Bash, which I believe is a very viable
option and a very profitable option, but one where New
Zealand Cricket maintains control of the whole situation. So there
are a number of options. I know Scott Weenix looking
at four. He's listed out four of them, and you
know he's very keen to look at all four because
(02:33):
it's really important the road they go down here. If
they go down the wrong path, there are some big consequences.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
All right.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Well.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
New Zealand twenty the head of the establishing Committee, Don McKinnon,
was on the radio with me a couple of weeks
ago and said that yes, they are one of four
options being looked at, and it's good governance from New
Zealand Cricket to be looking at all four options and
that they will cooperate with any process and be fine
with the outcome. So the letter that was sent on
(03:05):
Thursday seemed to talk about things like dealing covertly and
other such language. Can you expand on why you believe
they're dealing covertly to push their league as is written here?
Speaker 3 (03:21):
Yeah? Sure, my understanding where our understanding is that you
know they've Don McKinnon and other people have done a
tour around the country and told players there are players
that we know of who have been told keep this quiet,
keep it to yourself, we need to establish things and
don't you know, sort of don't let anything out about
(03:41):
what we're discussing. So that's our understanding of what was happening.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Okay, Can I pick up on that, Ben, because on
the statement we received yesterday from m Z twenty. It
said mister McKinnon has never presented to any of the
players or major associations about the NZ twenty League, save
on one occasion when m Z twenty met with the
major associations with two New Zealand Cricket directors. Any suggestion
anyone has been sworn to secrecy is false and a
(04:05):
slur on the character of those involved. So they, you know,
unequivocally refute that suggestion.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Well, yeah, the technical terms there that there have been
tours round where players have been approached and spoken to.
I know of players who I mean, that's where I've
heard of players who are reporting that that's been the case.
They were told not to say anything.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
So, in other words, so you're you're refuting this statement.
You're saying that players have been approached privately and spawned.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
In groups, in groups that well you know, they've been
approached in groups and and told to keep it to themselves.
That's that's our understanding. Yep.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
All right, Well, I guess we're in a bit of
a bit of an impasse there and that that's your understanding.
They have refuted that, so let's move your open letter
was addressed to Stephen Fleming, Heath Mills, Don the Ken
and David Holme and the NZ twenty consortium. Why didn't
you send the letter wrecked to those? That was addressed to?
Speaker 3 (05:12):
As I said, I think we're former players. We're not.
We're not New Zealand Cricket. We're not any sort of
we don't have any power or authority. We've just got
a vested interest in the game that we love. We're
more fans and so we're not directly involved with these guys,
but we are very concerned about, you know, what potentially
(05:35):
can happen to the game in New Zealand. Like I said,
the board is fractured. Our understanding, the board is fractured.
It is split. There's there's some of them wanting to
go one way, someone wanting to go the other. And
it's it's not a happy it's not a happy camp.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
That's not in Z twenty's fault, though, is it.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
It's not in seed twenties fault. This is a What
you've got to understand is it's a power play here.
If n Z twenty comes set up a tournament and
they run a tournament, that's fine. They have kind of
drafted the major associations or not all of them, but
most of them to want to back this thing with.
(06:21):
You know, there's been money promised to them and so
the major associations are wanting to sort of look down
this route. The Planers Association are actively involved. The problem is,
you know, you're going to look at one of the consequences,
because that's what it's all about. You know, Let's say
a game that New Zealand Cricket has no stake in.
(06:42):
Like in every other country where there's a T twenty tournament,
like South Africa, England, Australia, the governing the national governing
body are the ones that own and run that tournament.
Right in this in this situation, what they're proposing is
a T twenty tournament where they're trying to raise a
lot of money and pay a whole lot of people out,
(07:04):
including the major associations. And do you know New Zealand
Crickets stake in this in this operation zero.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
But Richard, they do have to sign but they do
have to sign it off. They have the final sign
off on this competition on the way forward here in
New Zealand. Whatever they decide, they sign off. So why
would New Zealand Cricket grant n Z twenty a license
if it would be to their detriment?
Speaker 3 (07:31):
That's a very good question. Why would they? Why would
New Zealand? And it's it's done at board level, so
it's only the board that can do it right now
that you've got to ask you, and that's the question
of ours and the media, and why would a New
Zealand national board give away their IP their players during January,
(07:53):
compromising their national obligations to the ICC? Why would it?
Why would a national board of directors or whatever they
are vote for that? And you know it's a real thing,
it could happen, and that's the question. That's the question
you'd be asking the board. Why would you do what's
in the benefit for New Zealand Cricket to compromise your
(08:16):
national your international schedule to put your TV rights which
are huge at risk and those TV rights are what
runs the whole game in New Zealand, right if sonny
And and SkyTV don't get the game they want, don't
get the players they want, and that you know, in
(08:36):
that January window, there's a very real risk that they
would withdraw. They've paid a lot of money. They paid
a lot of money for TV rights for the black Caps.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
But there's no suggestion that players will be pulled out
of international cricket. There's there's no suggestion of that at all.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
There is a suggestion that all players that sign up
to this need to be available for this January window.
So I mean, that's that's a question that needs to
be clarified, right. I listened to that Dan McCarty interview
yesterday with Don McKinnon. Yeah, there's way more questions that
need to be asked to those guys. Is exactly how
it's going to work. But it's not New Zeon's cricket tournament.
(09:15):
You know, why would Nuzeon Cricket hand over the keys
to anyone else to go out and make money off
their off their game.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Well then in that case, then why would we send
two teams to the Big Bash, as is one of
the other suggestions on the table.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Well, it's controlled by New Zeon Cricket, and Zeon Cricket
maintains control of it.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
But the Big not the Big, not the Big Bash,
not the.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Big main control. They may control. They maintain control of
their own players and the terms and conditions for how
it all works, and there's there's decent money in that,
but that works, that works.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
The reason I think that people think this is a
good idea is because the Super Smash is losing money.
There's no broadcast deal for it next year, which it
has I'm sure you know the broadcast deal with Sky
which comes into effect next summer is International Cricket. So
at the moment, there's no broadcast partner for the Super Smash,
(10:15):
which means that there's no revenue stream created by that competition. Again,
I just don't understand why you are not in favor
of investment in the game here.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
Is it investment in the game or is it an
investment in n Z twenty. When you say investments in
the game, where does the money go? It doesn't go
to New Zealand Cricket.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Well, the major associations are part of New Zealand Cricket
and as I understand that, they get a very good
chunk of the revenue generated from this competition, this proposed competition.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
They do, they do, and then what do you end
up with If your money is coming from n Z twenty,
not from New Zealand Cricket, what do you end up with?
You know, do you end up with the cohesi of
New Zealand cricket scene, or do you end up with
a whole lot of minor associations, you know, independent operating, independing.
New Zealand's a small nation, right, we punch above our
(11:10):
weight on the international circuit. Right, We've done really, really well.
But the only way we can do that is if
we maintain a cohesive unit where we're led from you know,
the top down, and we're well organized. We play smart,
we train smart. We shouldn't be performing the way we
do on the world stage. We're a small, reasonably poorly
(11:31):
funded country, right, we can't afford to be fractured. So
you know, there are other options. There's the big bash option.
If it was such a great idea to run a
franchise system, then why wouldn't New Zealand Cricket run it.
Why would they outsource it to someone else?
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Well, you said before that every other competition in the
world has has ownership from its national association. Well, the IPL,
the the IPL doesn't, the Caribbean Premier League doesn't. And
I think that's the one that NZ twenty have kind
of looked towards as a as a bit of a
model for this proposal.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Yeah, you're right. No, I didn't say all of them.
I said the South African, the the BBL, the English
one hundred are all owned by the governing association. The
West Indian one, You're right, it's owned by some Irish billionaire,
I think, and I don't think the West Indian model
was the model to be following. If that's the model
they're following, then we're in trouble. Why so, well, look
(12:31):
at state of West Indians cricket. I mean they can't
get their play you know, from where they were to
where they are now. They're not a cohesive unit. They're
struggling on the world stage. They've got they can't get
their best players playing for the national team. It's difficult
for them. They've lost to some degree, they've lost control.
(12:51):
And this is what we fear is when New Zealand
Cricket loses control of the game, then New Zealand cricket
at grassroots level but even up to the up to
the international level will not be as strong. And I
just think, you know, the game needs to be controlled
by New Zealand cricket and this board, this board need
(13:13):
to look after New Zealand Cricket O.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Look, you won't get an argument from me on that.
You're right, it's the board's responsibility to administer or other
oversee the game strategically at all levels, including at international level.
But as I said before, Itch in, New Zealand Cricket
have the final sign off on what happens next to
our domestic T twenty competition. So why on earth would
they grant n Z twenty a license? You know NZ
(13:40):
twenty Dom McKinnon and I listened to Daniel McCarty's interview
yesterday and he said, look, if they decide that where
the best option, then then we'll embrace that. If they
decide we're not, then we'll shake hands and walk away.
Why would New Zealand Cricket go down a path which
would be detrimental to them?
Speaker 3 (13:57):
Well, well that's a question you have to ask the
board members, right. You know, from my point of view,
having been and watched and played in the aim and
being involved, it seems the craziest decision I have ever seen,
you know, in the history of you know, since I've
been around. It's unbelievable. And I know I'm not the
(14:17):
only one, and you know, I've got a lot of contacts,
but there are people on the board who who are
either you know, it's a I think it's a very
weak board. At one end, that's that's the nicest thing
you can say about it. At the other end, it's
potentially compromised. So some are on that scale. If that
(14:38):
board lets this happen, you know what's the space it's
it's a dangerous thing to do.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Again, the board are in charge of the future direction
and strategy of New Zealand cricket at all levels, and
then they hand down that decision to the CEO and
the operational team to execute that strategy. So again they
they I don't know that it's there. It's their duty.
They're responsible to come up with the best outcome, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
Yeah, it's there, Absolutely it is. And it's our duty
as former players to say to put our point and
say we think if you're thinking of going down this path,
we think it's the wrong path. I mean, they'll make
the decision. It won't be me or anyone else. But
you know, rest assured that that board is not a
(15:30):
happy board, all right.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Just to just back to what it could mean then,
as you say, we're going down this path as I
understand that the proposal is for our top female cricketers
to be available for three weeks in December, and our
top male cricketers to be available for pretty much the
calendar month of January, you know, inside existing agreements. And
I saw it suggested that perhaps players will be pulled
out of the Test series against Australia in January next year,
(15:54):
which has never been suggested, never been you know, talked about.
But let's say it's January. There isn't any international cricket
here in January anyway, Richard. There wasn't last summer, there
isn't this summer. So why wouldn't that window be a
good one.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Well, if it's completely open then from a point of
view of cricket finn But I think there's the Fourth
Test that falls into January, and there's a Sri Lankan
tour that falls into January. Isn't there yet? There is?
Speaker 2 (16:22):
And as I'm sure you heard Don McKinnon say yesterday,
there is no suggestion that players would be pulled out
of their test commitments in January to play n Z
twenty if in fact that is the proposal that goes ahead.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Yeah, well, they've been pretty light on detail. But he
also said there'd be three to four international players in
each team, didn't he. Yep, that's what I picked up.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Yep, he said that to me as well.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
Yeah, okay, Well, where are they coming from?
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Well, I guess internationally would be from the cricket playing
nations around the world. The same part types of players
they're playing the Big Bash, that play in the South
African competition. Those sorts of players i'd imagine would be
the ones that he's talking about.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Well, they're playing in the Big Bash and they're playing
in South Africa.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Come on, Rich, there's more than there's a lot of
cricketers around the world.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Yeah, yeah, but you know, three to four international players
and these teams, I mean, they're a bit light on
detail because I don't think he actually, you know, means
that seriously, because you know what we need is I
think way more detail on this because and it's just
a highly risky situation that you know, they need to
(17:33):
answer a lot more questions on it. It's you know,
I can tell you now that it's a very divided
there's two sides. It's very divided. It's quite emotional it's
it's you know, there's a lot going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Which is a shame because emotion needs to be taken
out of this. In many ways, we need to hover
above this and say what is best for the game.
I know you want what's best for the game.
Speaker 3 (17:59):
You know.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
A further a former international player and someone who's always
been deeply invested in it, Richard, you and I've talked
a lot about cricket, it all in all sorts of
different ways over the time that I have known you.
And at the end of the day, the game has
to sit in the middle of this conversation. It can't
be hijacked by emotion and hyperbole.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
I agree. It's got to be the best decision for
the game and that that's what the letter from Hadley
and Snedden and Murdoch and Stephen Boch were saying is listen, guys,
you've got to put cricket first and you've got to
sort this out. One of their comments was you've got
to play the player, the play the ball, not the man.
You know.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Again, that's that's removing emotion, isn't it. That's another way
of saying, let's remove the emotion from this let's look
at the options on the table and let's work out
what is best going forward.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
Absolutely, absolutely, that's what work out what's best going forward.
And I guess what I'm saying is, or what we're
saying is, you know, you've got to have New Zealand
Cricket in control of New Zealand Cricket. Once you once
you vote to give away power and put your revenue
streams at risk, you're putting yourself in a weak position
(19:13):
and it's very hard to get it back. So you know,
New Zealand Cricket needs to be running New Zealand Cricket.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
All right, we are going to disagree obviously on a
couple of points. Yeah, one final thing I wanted to
ask you. You accept this as not a rebel league.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Right, depends on how you define it.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
How do you define it?
Speaker 3 (19:39):
I would say a rebel league as where outside has
come in and look to take over a situation using
all sorts of means possible.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
And also I think I think the suggestion is that
it would run alongside an existing league, which there's no
suggestion that this would. I like the ICL, I think,
which ran alongside the ip L. Ic L was a
rebel league, which which wasn't sanctioned any competition that's run
here in New Zealand, as I say, to be sanctioned
by New Zealand Cricket. This is not a rebel lead.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
That's right. No, no, you're right on that basis. You
know it would be if it was sanctioned by by
the Board of New Zealand Cricket. I mean the question
is the Board of New Zealand Cricket. Yeah, that's an
interesting one. That's an interesting group.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
All right, Richard, always enjoyed chatting. Thanks for being so
frank and joining us this afternoon.
Speaker 3 (20:30):
No problem.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
Thanks Jason for more from Weekend Sport with Jason Fine.
Listen live to News Talk z B weekends from midday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.