The crux of any deal in New Zealand is likely to be the percentage of "revenue share" players receive, the same issue preventing a resolution in Australia.
The revenue share model has worked for Australian players for two decades and was set at 26 per cent in the last MoU. The ACA want to keep the system, whereas CA want to implement a fixed salary model so they can invest more in the game's grassroots.
In the 2010 MoU between NZC and NZCPA, a fixed salary model was agreed, but that could change if the ACA-CA duel is any gauge.
By way of comparison, the New Zealand Rugby Players' Association negotiated a 36.5 per cent revenue share with New Zealand Rugby in December last year.
American professional sports offer further evidence of the model in action. The National Basketball Association, National Football League, National Hockey League and Major League Baseball have arrangements which see players reap anywhere from 47 per cent (NFL) to 52 per cent (MLB) of revenue.
Hopefully a painless resolution can be reached in New Zealand rather than risk what former Australian cricketer Kerry O'Keeffe described as "failing the pub test". That is a scenario where either side's negotiating position flounders against what the average person thinks.
Given centrally-contracted players earn well over the average salary, it's a difficult spot from which to convince Joe Public.
Similarly NZC, who have experienced a gilded run since the Black Caps' success at the World Cup under the leadership of former captain Brendon McCullum and coach Mike Hesson, would be loath to fritter that goodwill away.
If they take a hardline stance it would potentially be at odds with the strides made for inclusiveness in the game, notably the mea culpa and subsequent dedication to women's cricket last November.
Cricket in Australia is faced with repairing a sense of betrayal, but it's worth remembering the extent of public feeling here when the NZCPA was established in 2002. After six weeks of negotiations a peace accord was reached on November 11 - Armistice Day appropriately enough - which changed the face of the sport in this country.
However, the relationships between players, administrators and fans were tested to the brink during that period.
Players sought a system consisting of fair incomes, ground standards, and a future voice in running the game. Administrators wanted an affordable set-up which recognised player needs but which wasn't going to break the bank or have the tail wagging the dog.
Fans just wanted some cricket.
Debate raged. Did players deserve a reasonable slice of the financial future? Who were these upstarts wreaking havoc with the status quo? Why can't they play for the "love of the game"?
Little has changed in some respects but NZC and NZCPA at least have the chance to prevent any disharmony rather than risk, as observed across the Tasman, not finding a cure.
