Now that the acrimonious dispute between the Australian Cricketers' Association (ACA) and Cricket Australia is finally over, there is relief and one nagging question: "Why did it take so long to resolve?"
As much as you felt deep down that CA would never let the situation deteriorate to the point where an Ashes series was cancelled, there was palpable relief to hear that it actually will go ahead. And as much as you knew in your heart that CA would never - knowing the financial punishment inflicted by the BCCI on the West Indies board when its team abandoned a tour - not fulfil its ODI commitment in India, it was uplifting to know that the matches will be played.
However, knowing that CA was so anti-revenue-sharing in the lead up to and during the ongoing negotiations, and to then find out that the new MoU will contain a "modernised" form of revenue sharing, it was only natural to wonder why this agreement wasn't reached long before it alienated the fans.
Revenue-sharing is important to the players because it signifies a partnership rather than a boss-and-employee arrangement. To CA it was a curse because it felt including it would leave the board with too little ammunition to fight the ongoing battle for the hearts and minds of young "first-choice athletes" - those talented kids who go on to become the elite players who are critical to keeping Australian cricket teams successful, which, in turn, helps to build the popularity of the sport.
The endgame is to ensure that Australian cricket teams - men and women - are strong. If those teams keep winning, then administering the sport becomes a lot simpler.
This has never been more true than in the current atmosphere. If Australia were to lose the Ashes, then an already angry public will take out their frustration and cricket will experience a recession. As it is, cricket will take time to recover its elevated place in the hearts and minds of the Australian public, but suffer a loss to England and it will take a damn sight longer to recapture the faith.
David Warner has been the face and mouthpiece of the players' grievances during the protracted dispute. Warner is a strong-minded individual - you have to be to successfully play the role of belligerent opening bat - but he's going to need all the will power he can muster if he starts the summer slowly. The kids love Warner but if he fails against England they will hear - loud and clear - from their fathers about this "greedy, loud-mouthed so and so" and they will begin to wonder if they were right to idolise the ebullient opener. In those cases it will confirm the statement: "There are no delinquent children, only delinquent adults."
While questions abound for CA - Why did an agreement take so long? Why try to fracture the ACA? Why did the CEO only become involved late in the piece? - the question for the players is a simple one: will you leave the game stronger than it was when you began your career?
Most young cricketers take up the game because they adopt a hero. They watch cricket firstly because it's a popular sport and then one player in particular catches their eye. They begin to wonder if they could emulate his or her feats and they head out to the park to begin a journey of discovery.
As long as there are cricket heroes for kids to follow, the game will remain strong. However, there's a new ingredient to this recipe. It now requires more money to ensure the kids have the facilities and assistance to follow their heroes onto the playing fields of the cricket world.
It is said that the best deals always leave a dollar on the table for the next guy. If the latest MoU between the ACA and CA means there's enough left in the kitty to ensure today's kids are able to emulate their heroes in the future, then this will be a good deal and cricket in Australia will prosper.