$600m Big Bash plan put on hold as another state joins Aussie cricket revolt

Cricket Australia’s plan to privatise the Big Bash League has been put on hold after Queensland Cricket joined New South Wales in rejecting the $600 million proposal.

Queensland Cricket, who controls the Brisbane Heat, has informed CA that the state is not in favour of continuing the process, joining a revolt against plans to sell stakes in BBL clubs. Elsewhere, South Australia has proposed a hybrid model with heavy caveats on investment.

CA needed five of the six states to agree to the proposal for the governing body to immediately move forward with the plan.

Get all the latest cricket news, highlights and analysis delivered straight to your inbox with Fox Sports Sportmail. Sign up now >

On Thursday afternoon, CA released a statement confirming the state associations were yet to reach consensus on the proposal to formally test market interest in selling stakes in the BBL clubs, with some “alternative options” being considered.

“Private investment in the Big Bash Leagues needs to benefit all of Australian cricket and this is a major decision for the game,” the statement read.

“Given CA does not currently have full alignment on the proposed next step with our members, some alternative options are being considered that require additional analysis and consideration with States, and that work is underway.

“Australian cricket remains united on the need to grow and continue investment in all aspects of the game and CA thanks the State Associations and players for their engagement and collaboration in this project.

“We will continue to monitor the shifting global landscape, including the player market and developments in other domestic T20 leagues.”

Speaking to reporters on Thursday, CA boss Todd Greenberg claimed the governing body remained committed to finding a solution to save the game’s finances, adding that in his view private investment in the Big Bash was “inevitable”.

“NSW and Queensland are certainly not supportive of private capital. NSW have an alternative model to self-fund it. Queensland don’t have an alternative model. But they don’t believe private capital is something for them,” Greenberg said.

“South Australia are in a hybrid situation where they would like the ability for some states to take the opportunity to bring private capital in, and for some states to come in later at their choice.

“Then three other states, Victoria, WA and Tasmania who are very strong and very supportive at the opportunity to bring private capital into their states.

“So if you’re sitting in my shoes, with a federated model and six members, that’s why it’s difficult.“

He added: “The six states have completely opposing views of the type of partners they want to bring in. Some are absolutely very interested in IPL ownership, some have the complete opposite (view). I don’t know who’s right or wrong but they have differing views, and they have a risk appetite that they will obviously look through, and we’ve been helping them understand and mitigate what those risks look like.”

Greenberg explained that CA would now examine models under which some clubs could selectively privatise and others remain under the domain of their state associations. However, he admitted CA would need time to analyse how that would work.

“The alternate ideas are similar to what South Australia have been saying to us. There may be a world where some want to do this and some don’t. Some want to do it now and some in a different time frame,” he continued.

“Option A has always been to do it at the same time to extract maximum value in the market. But clearly we’re not at that point, so we have to reassess what comes next.”

He added: “We would have to get some deep analysis to understand the impacts on Australian cricket, because if you get back to the very objective that we started with, to do this it needs to benefit the entire sport.

“We have to look at that lens in the decisions that we make. And we’ve now got some analysis to do if that’s the case or not.”

Elsewhere, Greenberg declared that Cricket NSW’s proposal for an alternative self-funding model backed largely by increasing the sport’s share of gambling revenue was not a viable option.

“Our view is that that’s not a step that the sport would accept,” he said.

“To back itself on wagering is not a not a way to fund the game. That’s been very clear from the CA Board.”

Click here to read article