[PeterM]

Yesterday I was notified that Lyneham and Kambah would not be participating in this year's superleague competition. This is an extremely disappointing development, but not one that was unforeseeable with all the goings on with affiliation etc.

For those of you out of the loop, it is my understanding that this decision stemmed initially from Cricket Australia's takeover of the Australian Indoor Cricket Federation. Part of the conditions of takeover were that individual centres were required to sign agreements with Cricket Australia. Whilst Weston has taken a commercial decision to sign the agreement with CA, Lyneham and Kambah have taken the commercial decision not to. I have only heard rumours around what terms were not acceptable to Lyneham and Kambah (maybe someone can fill us in) but the upshot is that they are no longer affiliated with CA, having potential implications for players at their centres and their representative aspirations. (I understand that for this year players can remain at their home centres, however next year players seeking to play rep need to have an association with an affiliated centre).

As you know, ACTICF is tied to CA and run the superleague competition. Discussions have broken down between the ACTICF and the unaffiliated centres, to the extent that (I am informed) the ACTICF have removed its invitation to Lyneham and Kambah to play superleague. Not sure what is happening with Goulburn though.

To me, this is one of the biggest issues in indoor cricket generally (there are centres in other states who have not signed the CA agreement also). There are many questions buzzing through my head, not knowing the full story - if anyone has some insights that would be useful:

- What was in the CA agreement that made it commercially impractical for Lyneham and Kambah to sign it?
- Will we lose rep players next year due to people being unwilling to switch centres?
- (For our interstate observers) Has there been similar issues in other states?
- Has the CA takeover of indoor cricket worked? We do get more TV coverage, and a slicker approach, but has it helped grass roots indoor?

What do you all think of this?

[Cam]

Pete, given this forum hasn't been used in... over a year... I'd be surprised if anyone will see this thread. I'll post a link to it on Facebook etc and see if we can't get some people in here to discuss.

I've got a lot of thoughts but I'm about to start work, I'll post some later.

[Fatty Arbuckle]

Hi all

So what are the chances of getting both sides of the story....

Can we get some comments from the ACTICF, Weston, Lyneham and Kambah as to their positions? I think if players are going to be affected by these issues they should all be informed as to why there has been a division in the centres....

Tim

[Cam]

Also, I should say that it would be premature to suggest that Weston have withdrawn their offer for other centres to participate in Superleague. I'm not sure where that is coming from. It is in the interests of Weston for there to be a Superleague, so it would be lunacy for them to withdraw it. It's a case of trying to get the centres in a position where they can agree on terms for the competition.

What it boils down to is this: Superleague generates revenue that helps run the ACTICF. Unsurprisingly, non-aligned centres and no doubt their players could have an issue with paying to participate in a competition that supports the ACTICF when participating in that competition may not entitle them to represent the ACT at nationals. In other words, why would you pay to support an entity you are not eligible to represent?

I can't say this strongly enough: If Weston chose to assert their right as the only affiliated centre in the ACT, I would stand 100% behind that decision. Weston has been at the forefront of everything that has made the ACTICF what it is for decades - including sacrificing time, effort and cold hard cash when the other centres (three of them at the time, one of which I managed) wanted nothing to do with it. The reality is the structure of indoor cricket in the ACT and indeed the country has changed drastically, and each centre has made their own decision about how they wish to participate.

Us indoor cricketers can pontificate as much as we like about how nonsensical it is for a centre to choose not to affiliate, but try and see it from a business perspective. Why would you introduce the risk and financial burden of being affiliated if cricket was not the be all and end all of your centre? Or, if cricket is already ridiculously strong in your centre, to the point where you've got one of the highest participation rates in the country? Just like I would support Weston if they chose to assert their rights, I support both Lyneham and Kambah in making the commercial decisions that they have made. I've seen the contract that CA are asking the centres to sign, and to be honest I change my mind every day as to whether or not I would sign it or not if I were still running a centre.

In any event, the reality is we have 1 affiliated centre and 2 non-affiliated centres. Throw Goulburn in the mix too. There's nothing that any of us can do to change the minds of the centres that haven't signed on, other than to vote with our feet. If being part of what CA is doing is so important to you, and representing the ACT is your prime reason to play indoor cricket, then I suggest you start playing at Weston. Whilst Weston are being more than generous in terms of asserting their rights right now or not, they may be put in a position in the future where they can't afford not to.

Other than that, it's in all our best interests to encourage the establishment of a strong inter-centre competition. Preferably, Superleague. Honestly, I don't think that will happen because of the costs structure that I alluded to above. Seems to be that whatever inter-centre competition is formed, it will need to take place under a different banner, run by a different entity or group (perhaps player driven). Left field ideas include a geographical representative comp (South vs Central vs North) or something like that. Or perhaps a club championship of some description.

If the player base chooses to get upset over the new status quo and complain about the various decisions that have been made by the centres (who are, first and foremost, FOR-PROFIT businesses), then I'm afraid nothing will happen. If we are constructive and tolerant of commercial decisions as well as mindful of the implications of the affiliation situation, perhaps we can come up with something that both allows an inter-centre competition and makes life easy for those that want to represent the ACT. At the same time, representative players should WANT to reward the centre that chooses to affiliate. After all, if Weston made the same decision Lyneham and Kambah had made, NONE OF US would be able to represent the ACT at nationals.

[Cam]

Tim - didn't see your post when I posted mine. It's unlikely you'll get the full side of the story from any party as to be honest, it's all commercial-in-confidence type stuff. I skirted around disclosing things that I shouldn't in my post above.

As for the ACTICF, whilst it continues to exist as an entityt and is the dejure governing body of indoor cricket in the ACT, the fact is that with only one affiliated centre these days, the defacto governing body is Weston, via Con and those that assist. Marie for example is doing a wonderful job of getting the representative stuff organised. Con is liaising with Cricket ACT and making all of that stuff happen. The various coaches are running their sides. And a group of representatives from each centre is continuing to try and get something happening - with a meeting likely to happen later this week.

I wouldn't hold out for answers from businesses, particularly if you have nothing to do with that business, and when ultimately the answer to the question makes very little difference going forward.

[Cam]

ALSO: Other than coach of the 30's, I have no official involvement with the ACTICF or any centre. I am simply a well-informed and interested party, and one that has been heavily involved over the last seven years or so. I've been participating in some of the discussions and trying to work through some of the issues with each centre behind the scenes. Despite being unofficial, this website still sits on my servers and I'm still the forum admin here, so I just want to say now that any unjustified slagging of any centre or individual, or even Cricket Australia, won't be tolerated. Carry on...