Andrew Voss

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?

I think the answer to that is yes, but we have to do the piece of work first.

And then second of all, I've been really clear all the way through this that I think maximizing value for the sport is where everyone goes together.

If we end up not going together at the same time, can we still extract the same level of revenue and can we extract the same level of value?

And again, I think we can, but I've got to do the work to satisfy a recommendation that would ultimately go to the members in our board.

Well, what we'll be looking to do, Gerard, is create some form of mandate from the members so that...

We're not looking to split.

We're not looking to go off in breakaways.

We're looking to go together.

And it might be that there's an ability for some states who genuinely want to go now and some states who want to go later.