A CEO ousted, a board divided: What went wrong at New Zealand Cricket?

Source: Radio New Zealand

The insiders dubbed it ‘Project Underground’.

In February last year, a group of senior cricket figures, private investors and sports marketing experts gathered around the boardroom table within the bunker-like office of the New Zealand Cricket Players’ Association (CPA) underneath Eden Park’s eastern stand.

The group was there to discuss whether a privatised Twenty20 franchise league might have legs in New Zealand.

At the time, the name was more of an in-joke – a self-aware nod to both the location and the speculative nature of the conversation. A blue-sky discussion held beneath the stands.

But in light of what was to follow over the back half of the year as NZ Cricket descended into open conflict and institutional paralysis, Project Underground would come to sound less tongue-in-cheek and more conspiratorial.

The bid by a consortium of high profile cricket figures, pulled together by CPA boss Heath Mills, to launch a T20 competition became a flashpoint in a much wider struggle for control of the sport’s future, culminating in the resignation of NZ Cricket chief executive Scott Weenink days before Christmas.

Last Friday marked the end of Weenink’s reign with the national body, bringing to a close a tenure defined by ongoing tensions with key stakeholders including the players, the six major associations, and eventually, his own board.

In a statement accompanying the announcement of his resignation, Weenink cited fundamental differences with the game’s stakeholders as a driver.

“After careful consideration, it has become clear that I hold a different view from several Member Associations, and the [CPA], on the future priorities for NZC, including the long-term direction of the game and the best role for T20 cricket in New Zealand,” Weenink said.

“I do not wish to create ongoing instability by continuing without the support of some key stakeholders.”

Weenink declined to be interviewed by RNZ about his time with the national body, maintaining his silence throughout the dispute.

It has been a common theme of the saga.

Few of the central players are willing to talk openly on the record about the tensions. Instead, much of the disagreement has played out in the media through leaked documents and correspondence.

Beneath the personality clashes and brinkmanship lies a more consequential argument – one that long predates NZ20 and will outlast Weenink’s departure. At its core was a dispute over how New Zealand cricket should be organised, funded and governed in a rapidly changing global game.

The central question facing the sport remains the same – whether the existing domestic structure can meet those pressures, or whether a privatised T20 league represents a necessary evolution.

The pitch

For years, the conventional wisdom was that New Zealand was simply too small a market to sustain a privately backed T20 franchise competition.

That assumption has been steadily eroded as T20 leagues have sprung up around the cricketing world. Since the Indian Premier League (IPL) launched in 2008, franchise cricket has taken hold in England, Australia, the West Indies, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and South Africa, with newer ventures emerging in the UAE and the United States.

As the franchise game boomed, anxiety crept in back home. New Zealand’s top players and coaches plying their trade in overseas leagues began to worry the country was isolating itself from the rest of the world. Supporters of NZ20 point to a curious anomaly: New Zealand is the only test-playing nation without a franchise T20 league.

“We’ve become an island in international cricket,” says one advocate.

When the consortium began sketching out plans for a competition, they did not chase the scale of the IPL or Australia’s Big Bash League. Instead, they found inspiration in a more unlikely success story – the Caribbean Premier League (CPL).

The CPL was built across a scatter of small, cricket-mad islands with limited commercial clout. By doubling down on local colour, a party-style presentation and sprinkling in global stars, the league turned a high-risk idea into one of the most recognisable and resilient properties in world cricket.

Official documents frame the NZ20 in similar terms: a “boutique, city-based cricket festival”, designed to fuse sport with tourism and trade, and to deepen strategic ties between India and New Zealand.

RNZ understands the consortium has briefed several senior government figures about the competition and plans for Indian investment.

Under the proposal, franchises would not align directly with the six major associations. Instead, teams would be based in the main population centres and seasonal tourism hubs, including Mount Maunganui and Queenstown.

However, the major associations – Auckland, Northern Districts, Central Districts, Wellington, Canterbury and Otago – still stand to benefit financially, which has helped secure their support for the concept. It is understood the proceeds from the sale of franchise licences would be directed into a capital fund to be distributed among the associations.

Supporters of the model argue that private ownership would allow the league to operate with a clearer commercial focus than the Super Smash, which has come to be seen as more of a development league. They contend that separating those functions would allow the proposed league to prioritise broadcast appeal, sponsorship and fan engagement.

Don Mackinnon, chair of the NZ20 establishment committee, declined to be interviewed by RNZ while discussions with the national body remain delicate. In previous media appearances, however, he has outlined what he sees as the advantages of keeping the league at arm’s length from New Zealand Cricket and the major associations.

“It’s driven out of private investment and so you get the ability to be very innovative,” Mackinnon told ESPN in November. “You have greater capital to invest in the fan experience – at the ground, on television and online. And if we get this right, we believe we’ll attract the very best New Zealand players back into our domestic competitions.”

By September, the consortium believed it had secured sufficient international and domestic investor interest, including a group of six “high net-worth Kiwis”, to formally present the proposal to the NZC board. Among those rumoured to have expressed interest are Xero founder Rod Drury, and Zuru co-founder Anna Mowbray and her husband, former All Black Ali Williams.

For all the ambition and investor interest, NZC still holds the keys.

To get the league off the ground, the consortium needs the national body to sanction the league and commit to providing a protected four-week window in January free from international commitments.

The proposed scheduling has led to concerns from some within NZC about how a privately run league would fit alongside existing commercial and broadcast agreements, which are built around NZC’s control of the domestic and international calendar.

In hindsight, however, one person briefed on the board presentation believes the main sticking point came during discussions about potential investors. They believe the suggestion that former players such as Stephen Fleming, Daniel Vettori and Brendon McCullum could leverage their overseas connections, particularly in India, to attract investors and possibly take ownership stakes themselves, shifted the mood in the room.

“There was a definite change after that,” the source said. “Suddenly, [that was interpreted as], ‘oh, they’re all on the take’.”

This would become a focal point for public critics of the proposal.

Much of the resistance that followed was shaped by a broader unease about private ownership – specifically, who would stand to benefit, and what control the game in New Zealand might lose in the process.

The letter-writing campaign

The proposal’s arrival at NZC marked the point at which a philosophical debate became a governance crisis.

The organisation was already grappling with its own future by the time the NZ20 consortium approached the NZC board. In parallel with discussions around a private league, NZC had begun examining options to rejuvenate its domestic T20 competition through an external review dubbed ‘Project Bigger Smash’.

The review, led by Deloitte, examined four separate pathways to revitalise T20 cricket, including private ownership and the option of entering a New Zealand team into Australia’s Big Bash League. The latter was widely understood to be Weenink’s preferred path.

In the months that followed, the board effectively attempted to pursue two tracks. It continued work on the Deloitte review, while appointing two directors – Bill Birnie and Anna Campbell – to the NZ20 establishment committee to further develop the consortium’s proposal.

That dual approach, however, soon began to fray.

Competing narratives took hold both inside and outside the organisation. Critics of the proposal portrayed NZ20 as a “rebel” league engineered through a hostile takeover by the players’ association.

Supporters countered that elements within NZC were posturing as open-minded regulators while quietly entrenching opposition behind the scenes.

Internal correspondence illustrates how quickly trust in the boardroom deteriorated.

In an email to fellow directors in October, then-NZC president Lesley Murdoch warned recent decisions had promoted “distrust and disunity”.

“A decision determined by a casting vote suggests to me that more thought should be given to that decision and perhaps be revisited to ensure all the relevant information has been revealed, discussed and understood,” Murdoch wrote, while not directly referencing the specific vote.

She also questioned whether members of the board were acting in self-interest, cautioning that the sport “deserves a board that operates as one team, not a collection of individuals with competing agendas”.

At the same time the Murdoch letter was leaked, another piece of correspondence surfaced in the media – one that hinted at a widening rift between Weenink and his board.

NZ Cricket chairperson Diana Puketapu-Lyndon wrote to the head of the International Cricket Council (ICC), Jay Shah, to reject claims of a rebel league or player coup.

“We are deeply concerned about the origin of any messaging that has the potential to undermine the reputation of cricket and cricket governance in New Zealand,” the letter, which was also signed by the chairs of each of the major associations, stated.

According to one source, the letter reflected concerns from some officials that Weenink was perceived to be actively undermining efforts to establish a private league – a perception that placed him increasingly at odds with the major associations and the Players’ Association.

Weenink’s supporters believed he was simply urging the sport’s leaders to take time to do their due diligence on a decision with long-term consequences for the game.

Pressure from the major associations soon became explicit in correspondence. On 16 October, the chairs and chief executives of the six organisations wrote to the NZC board, stating their relationship with the chief executive had become “irretrievable” and that they had lost “respect, trust and confidence” in Weenink.

The same source said concerns about Weenink’s leadership style and approach had been raised directly with Puketapu-Lyndon earlier in the year, and again by follow-up letter in July – well before the NZ20 concept was formally presented to NZC.

As the dispute escalated, Weenink’s position became increasingly untenable, leading to reports the chief executive was “fighting for survival”. The response was more letter writing.

In early December a group of four NZC life members wrote to the board and directors of the national body, the major associations, the Players’ Association and the NZ20 establishment committee to express their “dismay” at what they described as a campaign to remove the chief executive.

“We urge all those involved to stop ‘playing the man’ and, instead, focus solely on ‘playing the ball’,” the letter said.

By that point, however, the relationship between Weenink and sections of the board had fractured. Weenink was increasingly sidelined from key meetings and decisions, and in December he abruptly went on leave ahead of mediation over his future.

His resignation followed days before Christmas, leaving NZC seeking a new leader amid unresolved questions about the future of the domestic game.

Projecting unity

While the immediate crisis has been defused, New Zealand Cricket is now seeking to steady itself and project a more unified front as it weighs decisions that will shape the game’s future.

Publicly, the message is one of alignment and patience. The NZ20 consortium, which was initially reluctant to engage with the Deloitte-led review, is now participating in the process as the board awaits the full findings before determining the long-term direction of domestic Twenty20 cricket.

In a statement, NZ20 establishment committee chair Don Mackinnon said the group was working closely with NZC “as the next stage of the concept is considered”.

“We have also engaged fully with representatives from Deloitte, who have been appointed to independently assess all options for the future of domestic T20 cricket in New Zealand,” Mackinnon said. “We support this process, and will continue to do so.”

Asked when the review might be completed, NZC referred RNZ to a statement issued in December, saying it was committed to running an “independent and objective process” but was limited in what it could say publicly due to “sensitivities and confidentiality requirements”.

Privately, however, tensions remain close to the surface. A number of figures across the game, including senior staff at the national body, remain loyal to Weenink and are said to be deeply unhappy with the manner of his departure.

There is unease that the mistrust sown during last year’s dispute has not been resolved, but merely contained.

Those concerns have been heightened by the need to repair relationships beyond New Zealand’s borders.

NZC chair Diana Puketapu-Lyndon travelled to India and Dubai last month alongside director Roger Twose and newly installed president Mark Greatbatch, a trip described by one source as a “diplomatic mission” to reassure international stakeholders and potential investors unsettled by the public stoush.

NZC has played down the travel, with public affairs manager Richard Boock describing the visits as “a regular part of NZC’s stakeholder management approach”.

Mackinnon, meanwhile, insists investor interest in NZ20 remains strong and says the consortium continues to be approached by prospective backers.

But one source involved in the proposal says there is growing anxiety around the length of time it is taking to land on a decision. There is currently no broadcast deal in place for New Zealand’s domestic competitions beyond this season, with the new agreement with Sky excluding domestic cricket.

While domestic cricket will likely still be streamed on NZC’s platforms, there are concerns that a sub-standard broadcast product could devalue the competition in the eyes of potential investors and weaken New Zealand Cricket’s negotiating position at a critical moment.

Several figures involved say that urgency sits awkwardly alongside a process that is designed to inform the decision, not make it.

The Deloitte review is expected to stop short of recommending a single preferred model, instead providing a cost-benefit analysis of the available options.

Ultimately, the decision will rest with the board – the same body whose divisions brought the organisation to a standstill just months earlier.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand