Scott Weenink is facing pressure amid a power struggle over a proposed T20 franchise competition. Photo / Getty Images
By Dana Johannsen of RNZ
New Zealand Cricket boss Scott Weenink is said to be “fighting for his survival” in his role, amid a political power struggle over the future shape of the domestic game – a dispute so fraught that senior figures have warned the board is no longer functioning cohesively.
NZ Cricket denies a formal process is under way to remove Weenink as chief executive, but RNZ understands the board has signalled his position has become untenable.
Sources have indicated he faces allegations of working to “actively undermine” a bid by a private consortium to establish a new T20 franchise competition. The proposal is supported by all six major associations – Northern Districts, Auckland, Central Districts, Wellington, Canterbury and Otago – and the NZ Cricket Players’ Association (NZCPA).
External pressure is understood to be mounting on the NZ Cricket board by its member organisations, who have become frustrated at what they see as delaying tactics by Weenink.
Weenink’s supporters say the chief executive is urging the sport’s leaders to take time to do their due diligence, but his pleas for a pause have “fallen on deaf ears”.
Several senior cricket figures say that a proposed T20 franchise league, backed by Indian investors and several prominent former Black Caps, has become a defining faultline in the sport.
Depending on who you speak to, the competition has been positioned either as a “rebel league” that could jeopardise NZ Cricket’s existing commercial agreements and player development pathways, or as a necessary shake-up that would bring new investment and visibility to the domestic game, and help retain talent currently being lured to overseas T20 leagues.
The division did not emerge overnight. A leaked email from former president Lesley Murdoch, sent to fellow directors in September and seen by RNZ, shows the board has been gridlocked for months.
Murdoch wrote that recent decisions had “promoted distrust and disunity”, and warned cricket “deserves a board that operates as one team, not a collection of individuals with competing agendas”.
There are fears the internal division has come at the expense of NZ Cricket’s international reputation, leading board chairwoman Diana Puketapu-Lyndon to take the extraordinary step of writing to the sport’s international body to dismiss claims of a “hostile takeover”.
Puketapu-Lyndon’s letter, which was also signed by the chairmen of the six major associations, expressed deep concern about “the origin of any messaging that has the potential to undermine the reputation of cricket and cricket governance in New Zealand”.
It is understood moves are now under way to remove Weenink from his position.
A senior cricket figure told RNZ that Puketapu-Lyndon had met with Weenink and his legal representatives on at least three separate occasions in recent weeks.
“It has become very ugly, [Weenink] is basically fighting for his survival right now,” the source said.
However, NZ Cricket insists no employment process has begun. In response to questions over whether the board had initiated steps to axe Weenink, NZ Cricket public affairs manager Richard Boock replied: “No.”
He added the board still had confidence in Weenink’s leadership, although “it’s not something that’s been formally discussed”.
Outgoing board member Sarah Beaman, who decided not to stand for re-election at last week’s AGM, said she would be disappointed if the board was making moves to replace Weenink, describing him as “an absolutely brilliant CEO”.
NZ Cricket also played down any internal rifts over the proposed new league.
Boock said the organisation was “currently considering the merits of the NZ20 proposal”, with other options, as part of broader work looking at the future of domestic T20 cricket in New Zealand.
Among the options being considered as part of “Project Bigger Smash” is exploring ways to monetise the existing Super Smash competition, or entering New Zealand teams in Australia’s men’s and women’s Big Bash competitions – an option Weenink is said to favour.
“We’re united in running a fair process, using expert independent advice to determine the best option.”
Boock added the independent assessment was expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2026.
While NZ Cricket is presenting a united front publicly, insiders fear the fractures on the board are becoming more entrenched.
Murdoch’s email to directors appears to speak, not only to philosophical disagreements over the future of the game, but to a deeper concern that board processes have become adversarial rather than collaborative.
A significant portion of Murdoch’s message focused on the need for directors to declare potential conflicts of interest “openly and without hesitation”.
With commercial proposals circulating, and some board members holding roles in major associations or other sports entities, conflicts of interest have become an increasingly sensitive subject.
“Declaring and managing conflicts protects the reputations of everyone involved,” Murdoch wrote.
Murdoch, who finished her term as president this month, declined to comment on the concerns raised in her email, but in a statement said she had been in a “privileged position” over the past four years to attend meetings and witness the work that went on at all levels of the game.
“I have huge admiration for the massive workload, the initiatives and the outstanding care that Scott Weenink and his talented management team have given cricket and progressed it.”
NZ Cricket was asked for its response to Murdoch’s email and the issues it raises.
“We wouldn’t comment on someone’s private correspondence,” Boock said.
Asked if the board was comfortable with how conflicts of interest are managed, Boock responded: “Yes.”
Initially deeply divided over the consortium’s plans, more recently the bloc in favour of the private league has strengthened, after Beaman – a staunch supporter of Weenink’s – decided not to stand for re-election at last week’s AGM.
Beaman declined to go into the reasons for stepping aside, describing it as a “personal decision”.
“I don’t think it’s good form to talk about what has happened on a board,” she said. “For me, that’s not good practice.
“I’m more than happy to talk about how fantastic it has been working with such a great management team.”
– RNZ