Emerging from the debris of the meeting between the country's top cricket administrators and the six major associations were questions around the role of Martin Snedden – a man who has dedicated a large chunk of his life to serving the game.
Following the story about the state of New Zealand Cricket's finances – parlous or robust depending who you're talking to – and what it means for the member associations, the Herald talked to a prominent figure in the game who said a lot of tension remained around Snedden's role.
The source said Snedden's dual role of project leader and board member was "curious" and had caused a degree of discomfit.
Real honesty was difficult when you're asked to offer sensitive information to somebody who is on the board that effectively controls the financial lifeblood of your association.
NZC chairman Greg Barclay acknowledged that tension existed, saying Snedden "wouldn't be Mr Popularity in all the boardrooms right now, but people don't like change".
Barclay also launched a staunch defence of Snedden's dual role, saying they could have brought in high-priced consultants to do the work but knowing it would be fraught they wanted someone with a bone-deep connection to cricket in New Zealand.
As a former international, consulting lawyer to NZC and former CEO through one of the game's trickiest periods – see players' strike (2002) – Snedden ticked the boxes.
"We've got the right person, I'm more than comfortable with it," Barclay said.
Even NZC's most virulent critics would admit that the game is fiendishly difficult to administer.
Inside the ugly meeting that sparked NZ Cricket's 'financial crisis'
Dylan Cleaver: NZ's World Cup hopes rest on one man - and it's not Kane Williamson
French cut: The call that changed the course of NZ cricket history
It has three professional, internationally played formats and a bunch of other representative and grassroots strains, from two-day to 10-over slogs.
England, that bastion of upright stances, will introduce a new concept - the 100 (as in balls per innings and, yes, 100 is not divisible by six) – to further confuse matters.
In New Zealand, we have junior cricket, school cricket, club cricket, twilight cricket/ businesshouse/ Last Man Stands, age-group cricket, minor association rep cricket and major association cricket from Plunket Shield to Super Smash.
To this burden add 2016's Women and Cricket report that determined the national body needed to significantly raise its game when it came to delivering cricket for females.
Trying to come up with a cohesive strategy to serve the needs of all cricket providers and, ultimately, cricketers, with a finite pool of money is like trying to complete a Rubik's Cube in the dark with one arm.
Snedden's role as project leader is to make some sense of this. To put the layers together with the right-coloured squares in the right places.
To use a bit of boardroom speak, he'll be looking for efficiencies where there are now deficiencies; he'll be looking to modernise the delivery of the game.
Resistance to this change is inevitable.
Since the days of the draining of swamps to create playing fields, cricket has largely been the preserve of middle-class white men.
They have fossilised views on how the game should be played and run.
They've often dedicated their lives to the sport for very little return, too. That's why some are angry.
The game's finances are, in one respect, a bit of a red herring.
What's really at stake is the idea that the way something has been done for decades won't be done tomorrow. That's a bit frightening.
The change agent, Snedden, is an easy target for ire.
The associations respond
On Wednesday, the Herald reported that a heated meeting between key New Zealand cricket staff and the heads of the six major associations has fuelled suggestions the game faces a financial crisis.
The CEOs of the associations – Northern and Central Districts, Auckland, Wellington, Canterbury and Otago – met NZC chief David White, chairman Greg Barclay and board member Martin Snedden earlier this month with NZC allegedly unable to tell the associations how much money they had to spend for the coming season.
The associations responded on Thursday, by issuing a joint statement:
"The Major Associations are engaging with NZC through a number of workstreams, to positively look at the way that the game is positioned for the future, both from a delivery and funding perspective.
"It has been agreed by the seven parties (being the six Major Associations and NZC) that the outcomes of these discussions will be arrived at collectively. To this end, the Major Associations are acting collectively, and as one voice.
"We are fully committed to working with NZC towards an agreement that ensures the long term sustainability of the game."