T20 league shambles leave CSA looking out of touch with reality

When life gave Cricket South Africa lemons… they didn't just make lemonade, their sliced the lemons, placed them atop tequila shots and downed the whole lot like teenagers playing a drinking game, a game everyone was winning.

If nothing else, at least the organisation knows how to make the best of a bad situation but CSA's bizarre response to accusations of mishandling the cancellation of the T20 Global League (GLT20) needs to be dissected, because if smacks of an organisation out of touch with reality.

Not one, not two, but three GLT20 franchise owners have released strong statements over their displeasure with CSA's handling of the tournament's cancellation. Two of them, Durban Qalandars and Nelson Mandela Bay Stars, have threatened legal action. The third, Bloem City Blazers, provided a blow-by-blow account of how their attempts to communicate with CSA went ignored.

The franchises have used words like "unethical" to describe CSA's conduct, they have accused CSA of manipulation, in particular with regards to the way in which former CEO Haroon Lorgat left his post, and of falling victim to "personal agendas," when they decided to cancel the inaugural edition of the GLT20 and then replace it with another event, co-owned with pay-television broadcaster SuperSport.

These are serious blights on CSA, which should be met with contrition.

Instead, CSA has responded like the recipient of an award. It has described the owners' annoyance as "welcome interest", and even called it "encouraging" that they want to stay involved. Moreover, CSA has completely ignored that the three owners who have spoken out have all made plain that they reserve their rights as team owners, and not that they are willing to negotiate a new offer, which CSA indicated it could (not will, but could) be open to once details of the new tournament have been confirmed.

This is significant because, according to at least one legal expert, the owners may have a case. Their succesful bids gave them rights to own a franchise for 10 years and they could argue that that applies whether or not that team plays in a tournament called the GLT20. In other words, they could make a case to own a team in CSA's new yet-to-named league, which would force CSA to involve them.

For now, perhaps CSA believes it can afford to ride the wave, because it has reserves of more than R 600 million, and it enjoyed a bumper 2017-18 summer, with incoming tours from India and Australia. But this season will be lean and costly, with visits from Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and, eventually, the bills may take their toll.

Perhaps what is most striking is how unfazed CSA is about how much this could all cost. The organisation has already lost millions - USD 14.1 million to be exact - in the aborted inaugural edition of the GLT20, for which it held a lavish launch in London and ultimately had to pay out players for contracts that could not be honoured. It has also concluded a settlement with Lorgat, the value of which has not been disclosed, and will have more bills to pay whether or not the battle with the GLT20 owners ends up in court.

The owners have already been paid back their refundable deposits of USD 250,000 plus interest of 3.5% but they want more. Hiren Bhanu of the Pretoria Mavericks, told South African newspaper City Press that the owners requested the bank lending rate of 10%, as well as reimbursements of their costs they incurred in planning for the GLT20. Bhanu put these costs (on top of the refunded amount) at between USD 400,00 and USD 500,000. In a letter to the Qalandars, seen by ESPNcricinfo, CSA offered less than half, just USD 180,000. Even if that is all they settle on per franchise, CSA will still up paying out USD 1.44 million, which amounts to almost R 20 million.

For now, perhaps CSA believes it can afford to ride the wave, because it has reserves of more than R 600 million, and it enjoyed a bumper 2017-18 summer, with incoming tours from India and Australia. But this season will be lean and costly, with visits from Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and, eventually, the bills may take their toll.

And then there is the issue of public confidence. CSA lost plenty of it after the 2009 IPL bonus scandal that cost Gerald Majola his job and is not really in a position to squander more. The organisation has been through four CEOs in eight years, two of them - Jacques Faul and Thabang Moroe - only in acting capacity. Moroe remains a temporary appointment, with no indication of when the board will advertise his post despite his being in the role for 10 months.

All this has taken place while CSA has involved in protracted discussions with the players' association SACA and the signing of their MOU has been delayed twice. An obvious conclusion is that the new administration is floundering, but it is worth noting that the only thing "new" about his administration is the CEO. And Moroe was the vice-president of the board before that.

And that is where the real problem lies. CSA's board has not changed since Lorgat's time in charge and has also not faced any formal inquiry into how the GLT20 saga played out under its watch. The only public comment made in relation to this was that the board felt Lorgat did not "properly appraise" it of his dealings, with either the GLT20 franchise owners or in terms of the broadcast deal. The question that should be asked is why the board did not do more to find out why it left an executive to his own devices until it was too late and why there was no other active involvement in trying to secure a broadcast deal and sponsor.

Under this board, the relationship between Lorgat and his chief financial officer Naasei Appiah, who should have been involved in the GLT20 planning, broke down to the point where the two were not on talking terms. The roots of that are often said to sprung from transformation issues within the CSA office. An internal investigation into the causes of their fracas took place but the findings were not made public.

Appiah remains in his position at CSA, whose lack of transparency and direction does not do much for its reputation, which is currently only being propped up by SuperSport, which maintains full confidence in the board. SuperSport only issued a one-line response to the public criticism of the GLT20 fall-out, distancing itself from any dirty work with the former owners and reaffirming its relationship with CSA. "CSA has advised us that it is dealing with those concerns. They do not impact on our relationship with CSA."

Of course not, because SuperSport is none the better in all of this. After playing hardball with Lorgat (whose over-reaching in asking for upwards of USD 15 million in television rights played a major role in his departure), it has come out of the whole thing in the best position possible. It is now co-owner of a new competition, which means that even though SuperSport will need to invest some money, it will also eventually be able to lay claim to the profits. Their partnership with CSA also means it will avoid having to tussle for rights to broadcast the tournament, because that now comes guaranteed, and that is really what SuperSport cares about.

As the hegemonic sports broadcaster in South Africa, SuperSport has the rights to, among other things, the Springboks' matches, the Premier Soccer League, and all South Africa cricket, both home and away. It has no local rivals because the public broadcaster, the SABC, is cash-strapped and corruption-riddled but it feared losing the rights to a T20 competition to an overseas broadcaster, something Lorgat was pursuing in a bid to break the SuperSport monopoly. That is now an idea that will remain only that, as SuperSport will continue to hold the rights to all cricket in South Africa.

Lemons? No. Only Tequila.