The paper said one sticking point was the ownership model, which allows only a 49 per cent stake, with investors reluctant to stump up cash without a controlling stake.
However, Vaughan was encouraged by the number of potential international investors who view New Zealand as a (vastly) cheaper option than trying to get a piece of the Indian Premier League.
Local investor interest had also been encouraging, he said. Domestic cricket costs NZC about $10 million a year. With outside capital, NZC could reduce that figure and pump it into development programmes.
Key questions
1. Why would investors want all three forms and not just the money-spinning T20?
Operationally it is easier to have one organisation governing and managing the team in all three formats. It is also easier for all stakeholders and the public to understand whom they are connected to and supporting.
2. Why would investors want to spend their own money on competitions that lose money?
The financial model would need to be compelling and would hinge on who owns what property rights. Private investors bring business expertise and business partners with them and are better placed to leverage off their own property. They wouldn't invest if they didn't have an empathy for the game or feel they could generate a return.
3. What is to stop team owners insisting on the availability of internationals, even if it compromises their ability to perform for New Zealand?
NZC would wholly own the franchise competition and would ensure New Zealand has priority on players and that all parts of the game benefited from this development.