KEY POINTS:
Yesterday Shane Bond was just another club bowler playing on just another suburban oval.
Precisely why he was at Burnside Park, Christchurch, and not preparing to face England at Eden Park on Tuesday might never be known but correspondence between Bond and Justin Vaughan appears to prove somebody "got to" the New Zealand Cricket chief executive.
In a release letter - written on New Zealand Cricket letterhead and sent while Bond was on tour in South Africa - the national body cleared the fast bowler to play in the rebel Indian Cricket League (ICL).
Those who have seen the letter say the language is clear and unambiguous: Bond had been given the green light to travel to India for the competition and to play against England as long as basic terms and conditions were met.
Bond said he agreed to the terms before departing for the tour in South Africa.
Less than a fortnight later, Bond received a "bolt out of the blue" when told by Vaughan there were issues with his playing for New Zealand while signed to play for the ICL. So what changed?
"Who knows?" he said, though it is clear he thinks there are bigger issues at play than some hitherto unnoticed "ICC regulation".
Last week, Bond was released from his NZC contract after he could not be persuaded to renege on his reported $3.1 million contract with the ICL. Bond was the No 1-ranked NZC player on a $128,000 retainer.
NZC had offered to assist with the costs of breaking his contract and to help facilitate an increase in the reported counter-offer - $250,000 a year, dependent on fitness - made by Indian Cricket to play in the Indian Premier League (IPL).
Bond was advised he had a bona fide "restraint of trade" case if he wanted to take NZC to the Employment Court but, thoroughly disillusioned and with the knowledge he was calling time on his test career anyway, the 32-year-old cut his losses, and his ties.
"I thought about it and decided 'well, I could go to court and win and play two more years of one-dayers, but at what cost?"' Bond told the Herald on Sunday. "It would have been no good for the game, or the credibility of it. All I knew was that if I went to court I would have had a good chance of winning, but it was stressful enough and there were enough sleepless nights anyway.
"To have it ongoing would have been a further nightmare, it would have been in the middle of the cricket season and people would have been talking about the court case and not the cricket. It would have been a disaster."
NZC's conduct has been slammed by the New Zealand Players' Association, led by Heath Mills.
"NZC has become increasingly concerned at the implications should they select Bond, or any other player, to represent New Zealand if they are contracted to the ICL," Mills said. "These concerns principally relate to NZC's relationship with the Indian board [BCCI] and perceived risks to future revenue streams should the BCCI take a stand against NZC, given the ICL is not sanctioned by that organisation."
The implication is clear: that the BCCI effectively ordered NZC to dump Bond. At the same time, the IPL, to which five New Zealanders are committed, was launched with all the fun of the fair last week, with teams being "sold" to third-party investors for sums in some cases exceeding US$100 million.
