Cricket: Domestic revamp could see franchises relocated

Photo / Thinkstock

The revamping of domestic cricket could see traditional bases abandoned and franchises relocated to provincial strongholds like Whangarei, New Plymouth, Nelson or Invercargill. Alternatively, more than one side could play in cities like Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch.

Each of those suggestions is hypothetical but among those being considered as New Zealand Cricket prepares to cast a dispassionate eye over the domestic game and it's possible a team could move outside their province.

No sudden changes will be made but if the six major associations are allowed to privatise up to 49 per cent of their franchise, players could move to stronger markets, or to those in which an investor conducts the majority of their business.

"There are no sacred cows," says New Zealand Cricket board member Greg Barclay regarding their approach.

A confidential report, authored by general manager of domestic cricket David Cooper, on the "administration and delivery of domestic cricket" makes 18 recommendations for improvement. They include:

As part of any sale approval of up to 49 per cent, each MA and/or NZC evaluating the potential value of any franchise.

Developing a proposal for the transformation of the domestic Twenty20 product, creating a new brand and including the timing of a relaunch. This should include a financial evaluation after rights discussions with Sky TV. In addition, there are 'drivers for change':

The majority of MAs face ongoing financial pressure and most are not in a position to build reserves for long-term, strategic investment. Their dependence on NZC revenue, via the international game, and gaming funding is significant.

The gap in the quality and required level of professionalism between domestic and international cricket needs bridging. New Zealand players are expected to come under further threat to leave international cricket either completely or in part with further international Twenty20 leagues emerging.

"Everything's up for debate," Barclay says. "It's quite conceivable a team could relocate to a bigger commercial centre. And would there be any harm in another sporting organisation like a rugby franchise buying in and sharing facilities?

" Leaving things as they are means results will stay as they are and we'll have a fairly mediocre domestic product getting picked off by other sports through the summer period.

"At the moment, cricket has an advantage if you ask the general punter 'what is the main summer sport?' However, I suspect you could walk up Queen St, for example, and ask people who was playing in the Ford Trophy final and they'd struggle to tell you."

Barclay's reasoning is backed by a paltry attendance at yesterday's final in Mt Maunganui.

"We want a sustainable future. The rigours an investor would bring must be seen as a positive from a commercial governance point of view.

"We must generate revenue which we can re-invest. It's also going to cost. We must recognise the commercial properties sitting around domestic cricket, not least of all broadcasting rights to the T20, raise awareness, make it more entertaining and hopefully earn some revenue off it."

Cricket Wellington chief executive Peter Clinton, whose side won yesterday's Ford Trophy, says it's a strategic direction they support.

"We see value in mustering private equity. Something has to change. We've got an exciting format with T20 but haven't been able to maximise its entertainment value because of limited resources."