Yes. What got the players and their representatives irreversibly offside from a more enduring policy perspective was CA’s formal offer, issued in March, removing a key tenet of industrial agreements since 1997 known as the revenue-sharing model.
Under this, anywhere from a fifth to a quarter of all CA incomings has been returned to players above their annual retainers.
In CA’s proposal, that arrangement was wound up for state cricketers – both men and women – with a version retained for international players.
Administrators believe revenue sharing is now unsustainable and want to re-route more money to grassroots cricket at the expense of additional windfalls for state players, who – they argue – receive salaries as good as any in Australian sport.
International and female state players also stand to receive sizeable salary increases as part of the reallocation. Australian representatives, for example, will see their pay jump to $180,000 (£106,239) a year if CA’s proposal goes ahead, a boost of 125% on the current average.
Meanwhile, male state players – those playing in the Sheffield Shield – are still due to have their annual salaries jump from $199,000 (£117,453) to $234,000 (£138,110) across the 2017-2022 window.