The inside story of why we launched Big Bash League

Russ, and why the rush to push through this expansion before the review is tabled in October. I would have thought enough mistakes have been made without further exacerbating the situation. A lot of this stems from the ownership of the Champions League and we really have a right to know what is discussed among CA,SAF and the BCCI. It is public knowledge that CA "instructed" Bollinger and Hussey to play in SAF before the Test tour to India. The lack of preparation had a disastrous effect on our chances and this compounded through into the Ashes summer. There would have been a prospectus put out to investors that detailed returns on investment. It is not enough for CA to say they have research that backs up their actions. I would want to see this before I gave any credence to what they are doing. I have been in business long enough to read between the lines. Let CA come out outright and say they have not discussed the prospect of an extra spot in the Champions League down the track.

Melbourne Rebels should've been called the Victoria Rebels

I'm 17 and I agree with you!

I'm not really sure what to think. I think CA likes more money, but I shudder to think about what they will do with it. Case in point, I have kids who attend Milo in2cricket. In comparison to Auskick it appears poorly organised. That's no slur on the club running the sessions but they get no apparent help from CA along the lines of Auskick. From what I can see no pre-season coaching of the coaches took place because on the day a CA coach did come to the ground the whole session ran much more smoothly and the kids and coaches learned a heap that day. So how's CA going to spend the T20 money making the game in Aus better ? I love the game and watch pretty much every form of it, and would watch domestic if it were on free to air. And I don't mind Aus losing (much) but we need to be competitive. It's much easier to be competitive in T20 and maybe CA have seen the light and decided it's too hard and costly to compete in Tests. If that proves to be the case there's no way I'll be taking my boys to the 'G or anywhere else to watch or play the game (no even the EA sports version). CA will have lost me and my dollar.

MyLeftFoot,my commercialreality is based on actually talking to franchise owners,players that play in the IPL and the Big Bash,and administrators who know what it takes to run a grade or district club. I am aware of the commercial reality that sees conflicts of interest among Australian State CEO's. I don't simply dismiss the BB. I fail to see how you cannot see the commercial reality of a product that relies on the skills developed in the longer forms of the game. Guys like Sehwag and Pietersen play the Twenty20 because it is easy,fun and immensely rewarding. But they developed their skills in the longer form. No amount of fancy marketing jargon will make a dud product better. Test Criket is only profitable for CA when England or India tours. When the West indies and Pakistan toured it was a loss. I don't believe the West Indies took the live feed. India will not be so keen to tour if Australia languishes mid table in the rankings. If CA can't fix the quality it is pointless pushing ahead with the BB. If anything a strong Shield and Test team will support the BB...not the other way around. Again I ask you: where will the BB get its quality players from next season when Australia's and India's best are involved in a Test series from December through January. or for that matter in 2014 or 2015 when the WC is on in Australia. ODI players can cross over to Tests . I do not see any strictly Twenty20 player in Australia's WC squad.

It would be gutsy of CA to have a real differential. Christians v. the rest as an example to add some spice. Then it might actually be worth getting into it all if it becomes a Holy Crusade.

Will be very interesting to see how this will fit with the international summer. Also looking for some good meaningful franchise branding not like the IPL. PLEASE NO ROYALS OR SUPER KINGS OR KINGS OR ROYAL CHALLENGERS

MyLeftFoot, what you've not noticed is that if what I said is true, and Shield cricket is no longer representative cricket - and it hasn't been, since the advent of player contracting, and marketing in the early-90s - then the Shield teams are no longer representative teams, but club teams, already. Hence, for me, this is not an argument about commercial reality, with which I agree, and on which I have written about, but an argument about ownership, history and potential conflict of interest. I fail to see a single benefit of imposing clubs over the top of existing state "clubs", given they could easily expand the state competition (and should, as I've argued above). The IPL i not a relevant consideration, not least because 1) They never had a viable (small) club-based competition running 2) The Indian domestic sports market is poorly developed, unlike Australia (although cricket has room to expand) 3) It is played in an international window (at least for India and a few others) and attracted the cream of international talent. The proposed city-based BBL is going to have to overcome 1) The absence of recognised international players 2) The absence of recognised local players, because everyone is being moved around 3) A lack of identification with any of the teams except via local geography 4) A very short life-span for the team brands, as they only operate for 8 weeks a year. As you stated, the BB already attracts crowds in the tens of thousands; I don't see the pressing need to toss that out and start afresh when a simple expansion would suffice. Finally, the BBL raises all manner of questions over player contracts and team income (especially subsidies). The teams are partly privately owned, and therefore subject to conflict between the player's Shield contract and BBL contract. What happens if the BBL teams, which, by and large, will pay better, and therefore have greater leverage over the players services look to flex that muscle? If they are very successful, how many years until they form a breakaway league that plays Oct-March? It is good that CA is developing the competition before someone else (with deep pockets) tries - in some ways, it is a surprise someone hasn't already. Separate entities from the Shield competition brings with it a host of potential pitfalls, all of which are easily avoided by working within the existing structures.

The decision is purely a financial one. ACT and NT don't have the population that CA hopes will fill a stadium like the one the they are banking on in Sydney and Melbourne. NZ doesn't come into the equation because CA would have to part with some of the revenue to NZ cricket. In saying that I do actually like the idea of NT, ACT and NZ being included. I prefer the traditional state model than the city model. I think the most telling comment is 'we don't want all our eggs in one basket'. This is only an issue if you think the basket will be dropped. CA has limited say in what the international schedule is, who they play and what format they play. the shifting power in world cricket towards Asia means that CA will have less and less say on the schedule and therefore cannot control their income stream. I am speculating but I believe that CA doesn't have much confidence in this system. Understandably they are looking after the interest of cricket in this country in the long run. They want control. If international cricket goes pear shaped for whatever reason, australian cricket can weather the storm. T20 is what will bring in the revenue... TV revenue. They are banking on a cross city rivalry in Sydney and Melbourne doing better than an ACT vs NT match. If they play their cards right it may work. Most people are banking on the concept being a flop... anything better than this will be met with surprise and may just be seen as a success. I'll watch with interest. I prefer the state set up but I'll go to the odd game of the new set up. I'll watch a few games on TV. I think most will do the same... But in the end they need to remember... We're not India.

Thanks for your perspective. It was a massive mistake not to award Geelong a BBL licence. How will two Melbourne teams differentiate? There is no natural divide in Melbourne, sure you could use the Yarra River, buts it hardly a tangible social demographic divide once past Toorak. There are bogans in Broadmeadows & Frankston. No-one cares about north v south. We see the same problem in the A League between Victory and Heart in Melbourne, no natural point of difference. Geelong could have garnered the parochial support of the populace and a big chunk of regional Victoria who have a natural antipathy towards Melbourne.

T20 will get big crowds but will ultimately feel empty with fans who just turn up for a bash. The a-league has 0 bells and whistles and has fans who are amongst the most passionate of all the codes. If the T20 can get fans as good as the a-leagues, or if Rugby and AFL can for that matter, then they will be doing well.

It is true that starting new comps is a difficult exercise. But in terms of your post specifically: 1. the A-League ain't going away in a hurry; and 2. the present big bash has tested the waters sufficiently to show that there is a market for a proper comp. Don't forget, this will be the first time they've actually tried to put a fair dinkum comp together, and in the period they are most interested, over Dec/Jan, there is a market for going out of an evening to watch some cricket.

The NBL and A League are precedents for the ultimate failure of the BBL. If a sport needs fireworks, dancing girls, macho team names and gimmicks to attract attention then it is not a sport worth watching and ultimately this is what happened with the old NBL and the current A League. The Big Bash this year was tedious with barely a close or exciting game in the entire competition. Captains have already worked out that they should have a rotation of slow bowlers bowling very full which will force the dreaded "picket fence" of 6 singles in an over that was one of the downfalls of 50 over cricket, or batsmen will need to take risks in trying to create their own pace to hit a boundary. For every freak like a Pollard there are dozens of Baileys and Rohrers and so on who simply can't hit 6s at will all the time. Fans will ultimately realise that there is a sameness about each game (as they did for 50 over cricket) and that if they don't turn up today, that will be fine because there will be another game tomorrow. No amount of gimmicks will change that fundamental flaw in T20.

Vinay IMHO, you are arguing from a point of view that is removed from commercial reality. For instance, when you talk about investors, you remind me of the way soccer supporters talk about "investors" in the context of the A-League. Test cricket sustains pretty much every other level, which all survives via cross-subsidisation from Test cricket. However, a format like Twenty20 club cricket creates the possibility of establishing a competition that not only pays for itself, but generates a surplus for cricket, i.e. for CA. Why? Because people will go and watch it in sufficiently large numbers: memberships, match day revenue, broadcasting fees, sponsorships - that's a sustainable business model. It's not for nothing that ultimately club spots were determined primarily on venues. As for the argument about reducing the standard of test cricket via the focus on Twenty20 - I just can't see the argument. Twenty20 does not impinge on either Test cricket, or the level underneath it - so as long as both Sheffield cricket and Test cricket continue as presently is the case, I don't understand the argument that T20 somehow will drain the skills out of these players. Ultimately, we may well find it's the case that the amount of crossover is minimal.

Outstanding point Rob. If the parents aren't interested in T20 then how are they going to get their kids interested? The cricket won't be on the TV or radio all day of every day of a test match. Cricket won't get to become a part of routine on summer and when my kids have kids, there won't be any love of cricket at all.

The funny thing is, I would rather watch Major League Baseball than T20 cricket played by teams I have no affinity with.

Cricket Oz and it's marketing people are too detached from reality. Trying to copy what happens in India won't work here!

-"...Cricket Australia is trying to turn it into baseball." The same thought has occurred to me.

Brian,boards have a habit of talking global and acting local. Bilateral arrangements take precedence over the greater good.

I can't see how this will work. The HAL was hard enough to setup never mind diluting most of your existing fan base becuase they're actually interested in Test Cricket. Until CA realise that an international approach is needed to fix cricket's problems thne the game will continue to go in one direction. As a cricket tragic its sad to see but its true.