When I first walked into Wanderers Cricket Club in Townsville as a kid, nobody was talking about franchise valuations, private investors or licence sales. It was a very different time I know.

They were talking about getting enough players on the field for the weekend, finding volunteers to run the canteen, preparing wickets, coaching juniors and helping young cricketers improve.

That is where Australian cricket begins.

Not in boardrooms, not in investor meetings and not in franchise negotiations.

Which is why the recent news surrounding Cricket Victoria’s proposed Melbourne Stars and Melbourne Renegades merger, and the possibility of privatisation, has sparked such a strong reaction across the cricket community.

My first, instinctive reaction was simple: Victoria being Victoria again.

Cricket Victoria has often positioned itself as a leader within Australian cricket. Whether it has been player pathways, coaching systems or high-performance programs, Victoria has never been afraid to push boundaries and move first.

There is nothing wrong with leadership.

But leadership also comes with responsibility.

What concerns me isn’t necessarily the idea of change. Cricket must continue to evolve. The game cannot stand still while the sporting landscape around the world changes.

What concerns me is understanding exactly how this helps Australian cricket.

At the moment, there seem to be more questions than answers.

The proposed merger doesn’t really feel like a merger when one licence could ultimately be sold, potentially to private investors with links to overseas Twenty20 leagues. If that happens, what does the future structure of the BBL look like? What happens with salary caps? What happens if some teams receive outside investment and others don’t? What happens to competitive balance?

Most importantly, what does it mean for the game beneath the professional level?

Because while administrators discuss investment opportunities and franchise values, many cricket people are asking a much simpler question:

Where does the money go?

If Cricket Victoria receives millions through privatisation, how much of that money finds its way back to grassroots cricket?

How much goes to junior participation?

How much goes to country cricket?

How much goes to club facilities?

How much goes to supporting the volunteers who keep the game alive every weekend?

Those questions matter because grassroots cricket is not some small part of Australian cricket. It is the foundation of Australian cricket.

Every player starts there.

Whether it is Cricket Blast, junior cricket, indoor cricket, representative cricket or local club cricket, this is the system that has built generations of Australian players.

It built me.

I didn’t fall in love with cricket because of franchise valuations, private investors or licence sales.

I fell in love with cricket because of Wanderers Cricket Club.

Because of volunteers who gave up their time, coaches who believed in young players and teammates and opponents who helped create a competitive environment.

Because of a pathway system that eventually led me to a pace bowling camp where Dennis Lillee spotted something in me and helped change the course of my life.

That story isn’t unique.

Thousands of Australian cricketers have similar stories.

The strength of Australian cricket has never been built solely on elite programs. It has been built on local clubs, local communities and local people.

That’s why I believe the grassroots discussion should be front and centre in this debate.

I understand the argument for private investment.

More money can create opportunities, improve facilities, strengthen pathways and more money can help cricket compete in an increasingly crowded sporting market.

But more money doesn’t automatically make cricket better.

If additional investment simply leads to bigger contracts, more overseas players and greater commercialisation, then Australian cricket risks losing sight of what has made it successful in the first place.

The BBL already has a strong foundation.

The competition has produced Australian players.

It has connected with families.

It has created rivalries and identities that supporters genuinely care about.

The Stars and Renegades have built passionate fan bases over more than a decade.

The league doesn’t need saving.

What it needs is clarity about is where it is heading.

The other part that shouldn’t be ignored is the reaction from around Australian cricket. The noise coming from other States suggests this proposal caught many by surprise. That raises questions about communication between Cricket Australia and its State associations.

For a decision of this magnitude, everyone should be moving in the same direction.

Instead, it feels like Australian cricket is having this conversation publicly rather than collectively.

Perhaps Cricket Victoria is right.

Perhaps this move will prove to be visionary.

Perhaps private investment will strengthen the game from top to bottom.

But if Victoria wants to lead Australian cricket into a new era, then it must also lead the conversation about accountability.

Show us how grassroots cricket, local clubs and its volunteers all benefit.

Show us how the next generation of Australian cricketers benefit.

Because Australian cricket wasn’t built by investors.

It was built by communities.

And whatever direction the game takes next, that should never be forgotten.