CRICKET Australia has begun trying to implement one of the Argus review's central and most contentious recommendations: that player pay be weighted towards team and individual performance.
A meeting this week between CA and the Australian Cricketers Association, relating to the next pay agreement, gave the association a glimpse of the proposed formula to reward players when the team excels, and punish them when the team fails.
The current policy of allocating 25 lucrative central contracts per year is sure to be amended - it will probably be pruned to 20 - although CA's greater battle will be to convince players to cede their guaranteed claim to 26 per cent of cricket-related income.
CA chief executive James Sutherland wants to introduce a policy based on paying ''the right money to the right players at the right time for the right performance''.
''It's something everyone is familiar with: you get paid more if you perform better. On the flipside of that, if you don't perform well then why should you get paid the same amount?
''Our players get paid the same amount whether we win 4-0 against India or we lose 0-4. Does that make sense? I don't think it really does.
''There's an argument to say [under the current system] 'if they perform crap then next year their contracts are going to be re-appraised and they'll find they'll get demoted in the rankings', but what if there's no other players to replace them?
''If there's no other players who are better, then they'll still be in the same ranking spot and they'll still get the same pay.''
Sutherland said he was frustrated by the scenario of players being given central contracts mid-year, and then falling down the pecking order below uncontracted players, who played regularly enough to earn an upgrade.
Callum Ferguson, Jason Krejza, Steve Smith and Nathan Hauritz are examples of the former - Ferguson and Krejza have not been selected in this contract period despite being fit - while Nathan Lyon, David Warner, Ed Cowan, James Pattinson, Mitchell Starc and Matthew Wade are among those upgraded due to passing the appearances threshold.
The CA chief instead wants ''a smaller group that they [selectors] have greater confidence in''.
''No one's going to be worse off by this because their performances are going to justify it, and the right people will get the right money,'' he said. ''There's probably four or five players who get a contract at the start of the year and don't play enough games - if they weren't contracted - to actually get an upgrade … there's another misallocation of funds.''
Sutherland's declaration that CA is willing to pay players more than 26 per cent of cricket-related income, if they perform well, was confirmed by ACA chief Paul Marsh, although he believed the proposed pay model was weighted too heavily against players.
''The upside is a lot less than the downside, in terms of the quantum … and the benchmark is reasonably high,'' Marsh said, without elaborating on the financial implications.
''I don't think we're in a position to deliver to our players a model that's worse than what we've got currently, just like CA aren't going to want to deliver a model that's worse [for them].''