The International Cricket Council held a series of important meetings in Dubai, during which it has moved to take back control of the game from the so-called Big Three of India, Australia and England.
Structures of the game, including governance and finance are under the spotlight but everything is not over the line just yet.
Q: What does the International Cricket Council's rejigged governance and financial model mean for New Zealand Cricket?
A: In simple terms, more money. Not enough to have them dancing a jig but enough to improve services in various areas such as grassroots, the ability to more easily arrange A tours and more investment in women's cricket. Call it some extra flesh on the bones.
Q: So how much more?
A: According to NZC chairman Greg Barclay about 20 percent more per annum than it currently gets from the ICC. At present that amount is about $US10 million. In Barclay's book it doesn't radically change the situation for NZC but extra funding is always welcome.
Q: You reckon India's board are happy with the arrangement?
A: Not exactly. The so-called Big Three model, drawn up three years ago by the game's most powerful players, the boards of India, England and Australia, has been binned in favour of a vastly reduced share of the financial pot for India, down from the $US440 million India planned to award itself under the Big Three plan to approximately $US293 million over the eight-year cycle to 2023. England are due $US143 million, lowly Zimbabwe $US94 million and the other seven $US132 million. The changes were passed 14-1 with guess who the sole dissenter. Call it a case of the biters getting bitten.
Q: So that's the end of it?
A: Hold on for now. It's believed that shortly after the BCCI were outvoted, a settlement offer of an additional $US100 million sweetener was still on the table. The idea was to get as close to the $US445 million figure the Committee of Administrators appointed by India's Supreme Court to supervise the shambolic BCCI operation has asked for in March. India rejected the extra offer, for now.
Q: What do you think India make of their regular voting friends from Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the West Indies turning their backs on them when hands were raised to vote?
A: Take one guess. The BCCI thought it had support around the table but for some of those countries, extra funding carried plenty of sway.
Q: Does New Zealand's future tour planning change with this?
A: Not according to Barclay. It's business as usual.
Q: So this is a done deal now, after more than a year of planning?
A: Not quite. The changes to the constitution, governance structure and financial model has to be approved at the ICC's annual meeting in late June in England. But barring a late development, it should go ahead. Essentially the control of the game goes back to the ICC and puts an end to the Big Three scheme. That said, there's a desire to keep India inside the tent rather than agitating from outside. Expect India to hold out for more than the $US100 million top up offer.