Andrew Voss

Sounds like it, yes.

I wouldn't call it bruising.

I'd just call it open conversation, dialogue, a lot of debate, difference of opinions across cricket.

I'm okay with that, but I'm at pains to point out we've got to keep talking about these issues because they're not going to go away.

So you don't have an accord with the states, but what is the status of the project?

Look, I think we tried our hardest to get complete uniformity across the system.

What I mean by that is, you know, we've got six member states.

I was aiming to get everybody aligned on the project and the objectives.

We didn't get there.

We ended up probably split in half.

And that's understandable, probably realistic given the difficulties in a federated model.

That's not an excuse, by the way, but it's just the realities of what we face.

So there's more dialogue.

I do think there's a way through where potentially private capital can come in in a staggered approach.

And we're in the middle of those conversations right now.

Well, certainly the three states being Victoria, WA and Tasmania are very keen to continue to progress and they're actively engaged in those plans.

In saying that though, what we have to be satisfied, we being Cricket Australia, the governing body, we have to be satisfied on a couple of fronts.

One is

Can we continue to operate a league with different ownership models?

So in other words, can we run the big bash, some leagues having some private capital and ownership and some others being traditional models?