spinofflive
MARLON WILLIAMS (PHOTO: JOEL THOMAS)
MARLON WILLIAMS (PHOTO: JOEL THOMAS)

FeaturesFebruary 16, 2018

Marlon Williams is trying to break your heart

MARLON WILLIAMS (PHOTO: JOEL THOMAS)
MARLON WILLIAMS (PHOTO: JOEL THOMAS)

In February, Marlon Williams released the first great New Zealand album of 2018. He talked to Henry Oliver about the heartbreak and honesty that went into making it.

“It’s not, but it is,” Marlon Williams said, introducing his song ‘Love is a Terrible Thing’ at a showcase for his new album, Make Way For Love, which recounts the disintegration of his relationship with fellow singer-songwriter Aldous Harding. “It’s like Old Testament terrible. In the same way God is.”

Make Way For Love is a classic break-up album, like Bob Dylan’s Blood on the Tracks or Joni Mitchell’s Blue (also about a relationship with another musician). Its eleven songs of country, folk, heartbroken early-rock n roll, and lightly-experimental traditional pop are the shattered remains of a break-up. It’s a mournful album about desire (‘Come to Me’); miscommunication (‘What’s Chasing You’); lust (‘Beautiful Dress’); possessiveness (‘Party Boy’); longing and jealousy (‘Can I Call You?’); melancholy (‘Love is a Terrible Thing’); bitterness (‘I Know a Jeweller’); vengeance and infidelity (‘I Didn’t Make a Plan’); resignation (‘The Fire of Love’); bargaining and acceptance (‘Nobody Gets What They Want Anymore’); and, just maybe, hope (‘Make Way for Love’).

And through it all is Marlon Williams and his blessed voice. A combination of country croon and vibrato swoon, it is the product of the cathedral, the marae, and the bar. It’s smooth and warm and deep. He has the effortless range and perfect breadth of someone both naturally gifted and formally taught. No syllable is a struggle, no note is out of reach. He’s been called the Māori Elvis, but could just as easily be the Māori Roy Orbison, the Māori Gram Parsons, and now, the Māori Scott Walker, the Māori Odetta, or, even, the Māori Leonard Cohen or Nick Cave. But while American forms have always been at the heart of Williams’ music, this more sonically expansive album includes more direct Māori influences, recalling Prince Tui Teka, Sir Howard Morrison and the Māori showbands of the ‘50s.

The thematic core of the album is ‘Nobody Gets What They Want Anymore’, a duet with singer-songwriter Aldous Harding – the object of not just the song but, seemingly, the entire album. He sent her the song, asking if she’d sing her part of a dialogue they, perhaps, couldn’t have in real life. He wanted to record it together, in the same room, but her touring schedule didn’t allow it, so she recorded in Cardiff a couple of months after he recorded in California. “There is no blame, there is no shame, I need you more,” they sing to each other separated by an ocean, a continent and time. “Nobody gets what they want anymore.”

“We had to be honest with the reality of what the record is,” he said about the collaboration, which became the first single of the album (making the first voice the public heard of the album not his, but hers). “I was nervous, but it allowed me to communicate things that I couldn’t do any other way. There is a feeling in that song that I don’t have words for, that I had, up until that point, had tried to express but couldn’t. I was really excited to sing that to her. Like, ‘This is where I’m at. And just so you know, this is where I think you’re at.’ I wanted to make it clear that these are my words in her mouth, this is my world as I see it. And the fact that she agreed to sing it and sing my words in her mouth was some sort of validation to me in itself.”

Last year, Aldous Harding released her own sophomore album, Party, which helped her win Breakthrough Artist and Best Alternative Artist at the 2017 New Zealand Music Awards. Party hinted at a disintegrating relationship but obscured any literal interpretations in a metaphorical haze. But it was easy to speculate that the “perfect man” Harding really wanted back again in ‘Blend’ and the wounded babe she scolds in ‘Horizon’ (“I’m showing that person two things; their life, and their life with me. And I’m taking one of them away. And that’s me,” she explained to NPR) are Williams. But, while Harding almost never discusses Williams publicly (a notable exception is when she told Jesse Mulligan on RNZ, “He’s the only one really… that I’ve got time for”), Williams talks freely about how their break-up inspired the writing of Make Way For Love, both as material and motivation.

“It’s funny because she doesn’t talk about us in interviews – pointedly so,” he told me over steak, fries and a ‘special coffee’ in a wood-lined booth at one of Auckland’s three steakhouses called Tony’s. “She won’t do it, which is part of her cultivation of her … [she’s] protecting the ambiguity of the songs and I completely understand why she does that. She literally made [Party] while I was in the middle of panicking about my own music, and she was like, ‘I’ve made this record and it’s pretty good. And now you’ve got to try and make a pretty good record too. You’ve got no choice.’ I remember just sweating and being like ‘This is the worst. How do I do this?’”

Knowing, from writing about Harding, how reluctant she’s been to fill any literal gaps in her songs, I wondered what responsibility he felt he had to respect Harding’s privacy. I asked him whether he’d listened to Lorde’s ‘Writer in the Dark’ and whether he empathised with its sentiment (“Bet you rue the day you kissed a writer the dark,” she taunts an ex). He said he’d compared notes and shared lyrics with Lorde while they were both writing albums dealing with related subjects. So what, I wondered, does an artist owe their subject? If a person knows their partner is an artist are they necessarily making their private lives available as a character or as content? And what if the subject is not only an artist too, but has made work about the same thing and chosen not to talk about it explicitly?

“Being with a musician or another artist, there are unique ways of communication and there’s an element of ‘the show’ over the whole thing – and there always was,” Williams explained. “We were musical buddies before we were together and there’s an acceptance, some sort of fatalistic, ego-driven, musical personality going on the whole way down the track. So it meant [being candid about the relationship] was an obvious thing to do in an odd way, to treat it like that at the end.

“There’s no distinction between the musical world and our private relationship. It’s all so tied in. For the same reason I respected her decision not to talk about it, I knew that she might be pissed off by the fact that I’m talking about it. But she would never tell me that I couldn’t do it. It’s my prerogative to decide … I could generalise a bit more, sure. But it seems pointless.”

But now that the record’s done and he’s played the songs for large groups of people, and he’s talking to strangers like me about how he turned a break-up into an album, he’s been forced to reflect upon the motivations behind his openness. “I’m trying to work out whether there’s some kind of emotional exhibitionism going on,” he said. “Sometimes it feels like how alcoholics talk about AA all the time; there’s always this element of fanaticism going on. There’s a tiny part of me that worries that I’ll wake up one day and go, ‘Why have I just told everyone all this stuff?’ But I think it’s alright. I think I’ll be okay. I feel like I can never be angry at myself for doing it. You can get stuck pretending like you’re being backed into a corner, but I’m not a circus monkey. There’s a lot of intent going into this. And I could stop anytime. No-one’s holding a gun to my head.”

MARLON WILLIAMS AT TONY’S (PHOTO: JOEL THOMAS)

Marlon Williams was born in a bathtub on Cashel Street, Christchurch on New Year’s Eve 1990. When he was “about six” his family moved to Lyttelton, which became the epicentre of one of New Zealand’s most fertile music scenes. He’s Kāi Tahu through his mother’s side, and Ngāi Tai through his father’s. He’s an only child. (“It’s just me,” he said. “Someone picked it the other day and, you know, it’s always really annoying when someone goes ‘Are you an only child?’ It’s the most loaded ‘fuck you’ thing to say. I think it was because I made everyone come play basketball with me at 3am. Because I like playing basketball regardless of what everyone else likes.”)

As a child, Williams fell in love with harmony by singing along to the car stereo with his mother on long-distance drives. “Me and mum spent a lot of time in the car trying to nail harmonies before we got to the hui and had to do it for real,” he said. “We’d listen to recordings of the waiata that we’d have to sing.” His earliest musical loves were John Travolta, early Elvis, and the Beatles (“I think I’m a Paul guy,” he told me, a few days after Paul McCartney’s Auckland concert, despite having often played John Lennon’s ‘Jealous Guy’ at the shows leading up to the new album’s release).

He sung in the Christchurch Cathedral Choir, the country’s oldest choir, and went to Christchurch Boys High School (“Number one rugby school in the world,” he said with ironic pride) and a class signifier in Canterbury society. “It’s literally a conversation opener,” he said. “In typical Christchurch circles, that’s how you approach someone.” But, unlike some of his friends, he loved the school, with its rules and its traditions. “It’s probably something along the same lines as what draws me to strict bluegrass music – these weird forms and traditions that you have to observe. Having fun between the lines is great.” That sense of tradition is crucial for a musician rooted in country, bluegrass and folk music which was forced upon him by his former-punk father.

“There’s something in the fatalism of the songs,” he said about how he fell in love with country music. “These things just happen and there’s just the most tragic inevitability to those stories. I’ve always been into folk tales like Grimm’s fairy tales and Arthurian legends and things like that. There’s just something that really gets me about allegorical writing.”

At Boys High he formed The Unfaithful Ways with two friends and a science teacher and, a while later, met Delaney Davidson, an artist at the centre of Lyttleton’s Americana scene, when the two turned up to play with the Eastern’s Adam McGrath before realising they knew so many of the same songs they might as well play them together. Davidson quickly became a mentor figure for Williams, showing him how a life in music was possible. “When I first met him I was definitely in awe of him,” Williams said. “I was a big fan of his music and just getting to be around him and absorbing his energy and drive… He definitely challenged that part of me that was superstitious about writing. He’s so disciplined, he likes to write every day, he instilled a lot of the ideas of craftsmanship, as opposed to just inspiration or whatever. Just literally being around someone who’s that restless and hungry to create and do good things and to do good work was the number one thing that you take away from being around Delaney.

“It can be overwhelming because he’s so driven you can end up feeling a little bit like you can’t keep up with yourself, let alone him, and I think that’s why I ended up moving to Melbourne and ended up just working things out for myself for a while and now when I work with him, it’s really great because, you know, I’m not afraid of him.”

MARLON WILLIAMS AT TONY’S (PHOTO: JOEL THOMAS)

His first album, 2015’s Marlon Williams (which also features Harding), is, lyrically, almost devoid of Marlon Williams. There are songs about vagrants and gold miners, soldiers and sailors (who return again here on ‘I Didn’t Make a Plan’), all set to faithfully-reproduced genre conventions. It’s an album of impeccable craft, but it’s low on emotional stakes. The album’s tension feels like it’s off somewhere else, either in the distance or in the distant past. “I felt some sort of privileged space from the music – y’know, ‘I’ll tell you about a story about something terrible that happened to somebody else’. I just saw that as a really simple way of circumventing the whole experience question. I hate that bullshit about, like, ‘How could he have written those songs, you’re too young to have lived through that.’ Fucking Hank Williams was dead by the time he was 30, so it’s bullshit that it has to be forged through life lessons. I’m just a little bit allergic to that… I don’t feel inauthentic or I don’t feel authentic. I don’t even care.”

“People were always questioning him – ‘Oh, you’ve written a song about a woman with cancer who died who’s your wife, but you haven’t been married’,” Delaney Davidson said to me over the phone from Lyttleton. “And I think he got a bit pissed off at that. Obviously, Marlon’s got a love for the form of bluegrass music, country music folk music. I think it was at my 40th birthday, he just sat down with his guitar and started singing and it was like an anthology of old bluegrass, old folk music, y’know, song after song after song. We knew it all. He knows that background and that tradition and he probably saw those songs as coming from that. So he didn’t understand why people were questioning the validity of those songs – whether he’d done this or done that – it just didn’t make sense to him.

“I remember saying that this personal stuff … put that into the songs,” Davidson continues. “I think he was already doing that anyway, but I was supporting that idea. That’s what people want to hear. Because if you can stand up and make people have feelings, they don’t see you as vulnerable, they see you as strong. In the end, he just realised this thing that seemed so personal, a lot of people go through that. So if you’re singing it to people in a song, they don’t think it’s about you, they think it’s about them. And that’s what music’s for. That’s the beauty of it – that it goes from one person’s heart to someone else’s heart and it’s like it never travelled, it just was born in both hearts.”

Since releasing his debut – he’d had already made albums with The Unfaithful Ways and as a duo with Delaney Davidson – Williams had toured extensively in the US and Europe, playing hundreds of shows but over a nearly two year period had written nothing more than two “sort of half-assed” songs. “I was just not in the mood,” he said. “I really need the direct pressure. It really needs to be on for me to be able to do it. I need to know that if I don’t have these songs done, I’m going to be wasting thousands and thousands of dollars. Which is terrible. I need to potentially lose money and break up with someone to make music.

“It felt like a total crime of passion, like I just had no idea what I was doing, it was so unconscious,” he said, recalling how he ended up writing 16 songs in 30 days. “It was like my body throwing something up, like it made a choice that something doesn’t belong there. Which is as helpless as I feel about the album. It was super scary and real.”

For three weeks he went between Ben Edwards’ studio in Lyttelton and his mother’s house and wrote. Then he took those demos to California, where he recorded with Noah Georgeson, the producer on two Cate Le Bon albums that Williams is “obsessed with”. “I wasn’t sure what I wanted,” he said. “I’d never worked with anyone except Ben before and just naively thought people make music the same: you just get in there and produce an album. But he was way more passive than I expected so I freaked out the first day. I had all the songs and the arrangements, loosely, but I totally expected him to sort it out and then he didn’t. So I knew I’d have to push this thing and he’d make it sound great because that’s his strength as a producer; he’d tie it in and sonically make it a complete and sensible piece. So once I got that sussed it was much easier. But we didn’t have a lot of time to get to that point.”

He describes the process of writing and recording the album as a therapy and an exorcism and, ultimately a confrontation not with Harding, but with himself. “I’ve got a better sense of my own sexuality,” he said when asked what he’s learnt from the experience. “It’s a weird thing to say without sounding arrogant, but my own power as a sexual being and responsibility and my potential for hurting people.

“There are things you can hide behind, there are questions you can ignore when you’re in a relationship with someone. If you want to break away from that, you’ve got to answer the questions. And they’re based on sexuality and everything, your own opinions, you just have to stand on your own two feet and say, ‘Well, I believe this’. Being forced to choose is a really good thing that people shouldn’t hide their whole lives from, but I have heretofore.”

“Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power,” Oscar Wilde apparently said, a cliché that has found renewed relevance in the wake of the #metoo movement, and finds relevance in Make Way For Love. “It’s an interesting time to try and assert yourself,” Williams said. “And when you’re trying to work out what’s appropriate, what I want, what I’m allowed to want – all this basic shit that we’re all thinking about again. I want to be top dog sometimes and sometimes there’s that part of me that wants to hurt other people with whatever power I have. That’s in me. And accepting that it’s in there is good. I would never say anything to anyone like ‘I’m not usually like that’. That’s a completely nonsensical thing to say, but [the album] is a total exploitation of power – social power and sexual power. All sorts of power.”

MARLON WILLIAMS (PHOTO: JOEL THOMAS)

It is usually inadvisable, and often dangerous, to draw absolute truths from a work of art, even when the artist has told you their work is autobiographical. So we cannot know, from these songs alone, what happened between these two people. Whatever stories this record is telling, we can be sure that there are many more to be told, and that all of them have different sides and competing interpretations. We don’t really know anything. And, to be honest, we don’t need to. The capital-T truth behind an artwork is irrelevant. All we really need to listen to is what the record is telling us.

And whatever really happened, whoever was really at fault, whoever was really hurt the most, Make Way For Love says, ‘I was wrong, but you were wrong too’. ‘I miss you’. ‘I’m sorry’.

‘I love you’.

 

Keep going!
Former New Zealand cricketers, and CricHQ investors, Brendon McCullum and Stephen Fleming. Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images
Former New Zealand cricketers, and CricHQ investors, Brendon McCullum and Stephen Fleming. Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images

BusinessFebruary 13, 2018

The rise and fall of CricHQ, the star-backed ‘Facebook for cricket’

Former New Zealand cricketers, and CricHQ investors, Brendon McCullum and Stephen Fleming. Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images
Former New Zealand cricketers, and CricHQ investors, Brendon McCullum and Stephen Fleming. Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images

With Stephen Fleming and Brendon McCullum among its founders, CricHQ capitalised on global interest in both cricket and cloud-based internet startups. It attracted a star-studded lineup of investors and seemed hugely successful, at one point boasting that it could bring in as much as US $10 billion. Then, in October, it went into receivership. Rebecca Stevenson investigates CricHQ’s downfall.

The cash was running out. In mid-2014 technology company CricHQ was desperate for investment. The company’s grants from government agency Callaghan Innovation had been spent, and their income was just a trickle – not the flood of cash required to keep a technology startup with global ambitions going. 

Like all software startups it was hungry for one thing in particular: money, and lots of it. The cloud-based cricket platform received help from on high – the government’s international business agency New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) introduced CricHQ to Singaporean-based private equity firm Tembusu Partners in September 2014. It had a chance now, but the price would be dear.

Tembusu agreed to kick in about NZ$15 million through a convertible debt note (a short term loan that turns into shares), but CricHQ had to pay 12% annual interest for the first three years, and 8% from then on. 

Tembusu gained control of the purse strings; expenditure above $100,000 had to be approved, remuneration changes for directors or managers needed their say so, the firm had to sign off budgets. “They had to do that,” a source with intimate knowledge of the company’s history says of CricHQ’s Tembusu deal. “It probably hasn’t been too good for them … but at the time they had just run out of cash.” The company lived to fight another day, but the noose was slowly tightening.

If the investment fell over, the company was likely history. But for its largest shareholders – founder and CEO Simon Baker, former Black Caps captains Stephen Fleming and Brendon McCullum – the deal also put them at risk of losing everything anyway. If CricHQ defaulted on the terms of the agreement the bulk of their shares (held in a company called Moneybaker Holdings) would go to Tembusu. It appears now, with CricHQ’s receivership in October last year and subsequent sale, that its founders have lost control of a company which had at one point looked set to propel them into sports tech stardom.

CricHQ founder and former CEO Simon Baker. Screengrab

The company pushed a cloud-based application which allowed amateur cricketers to score games, but evolved into a competition management tool and had ambitions at one time to be the “Facebook for cricket”.

The first receiver’s report from December 18 hints at how much the new owners (led by businessman Erin Walshe) paid for the platform. Tembusu had advanced about $8m and “based on the sale price achieved for the assets,” the report says, “there will be a shortfall to Tembusu”. Sources put the sale price at about $3m – a catastrophic drop from the company’s $70m valuation touted throughout its last failed capital raising. Late in 2016, the company had boasted that its “ultimate revenue opportunity” amounted to US $10 billion.

The company had had assets valued at $4.2 million. It was almost all intellectual property. Two succinct sentences from the receiver’s report sum up the company’s woes. “The majority of the Company’s customers were non-fee paying for the services provided. Prior to receivership the Company was unable to secure funding to enable it to continue trading.”

“As an investor I have the courage to invest right at the beginning now. Because the returns are gonna be, I think, super high, if this goes right … I’m going to put more money in,” said former CricHQ chairman (and ex-Saatchi and Saatchi boss) Kevin Roberts in a slick video targeted at potential investors last year.

It is no overstatement to say the company attracted one of the most star-studded lineup of investors ever assembled for a New Zealand company. It has more than 200 shareholders, among them some of the biggest names in world cricket: South Africa’s Faf du Plessis and Albie Morkel; Australian Michael Hussey; Sri Lanka’s Muttiah Muralitharan and of course former Black Caps – including Scott Styris, who has been a highly visible promoter of the company.

There are a lot of smaller names, too, many of them drawn from around the Wellington region where CricHQ was headquartered, and where both Baker and Fleming lived for many years. Karori, Mount Cook, Waikanae, Hataitai, Te Aro, Johnsonville – ordinary investors drawn to the company’s impeccable cricket credentials and the promise of a game-changing technology platform.

Cricket is infamously complex; the impenetrable terminology and strange rules can make it a tough sell for an outsider. But there are legions of cricket-mad followers – known as nuffies – and the amateur game relies on these enthusiasts for much of the unpaid work that goes into running the game, including scoring.

Kevin Roberts and Scott Styris in one of the company’s investor videos. Screengrab

It has been called the second most popular sport in the world, behind only football, with an estimated billion players and fans. With its reach into Asia, and particularly India, the cricket market is an attractive one to try and dominate; all these people around the world love cricket – surely there’s money to be made? ESPNcricinfo showed the way with its live scoring site for the top end of the game, but Cricinfo was only concerned with “about the top one percent of global cricket”, CricHQ’s former marketing manager Jarred Sewell said in 2013. CricHQ would be for everyone.

Cricketers also love stats: runs, wickets, economy rates, and comparing themselves to their peers. It is a team game, sure, but players are often more focused on their individual performances inside the wider game. Into this obsessive world, then still highly reliant on paper and pen as its data management system, came CricHQ in 2010. At first it was pitched as a player/management tool, but the development of a scoring application was where it first found real success (helped along in no small way by an early plug from Fleming while sitting in the commentary box for a Black Caps game).

Scoring a cricket match with paper and pen is as fun as it sounds. Time consuming and laborious. CricHQ’s scoring platform aimed to make it easier, and cut the admin time down by doing away with manually inputting data post-match into a central system; the CricHQ app means the data should already be there, ready to be harvested.

From the beginning the company had hype and ample media coverage, much of it thanks to Fleming and McCullum. Their involvement was priceless, opening the doors of world cricket to the ambitious startup. The company appeared to make rapid progress, at least in New Zealand, including support from the New Zealand Cricket Players Association (its boss Heath Mills is a shareholder and former director) and a deal with New Zealand Cricket.

Amateur clubs in New Zealand were early adopters of the scoring platform, but it was initially dogged by stability issues. Now cricket administrators say it outstrips anything else on the market.

The company signed a country-wide deal with New Zealand Cricket (NZC) in 2013. “New Zealand Cricket is a massive deal simply because it gets the entire country using CricHQ,” Sewell said at the time. “What that data capture leads to is fantastic – we wouldn’t be able to get the information we needed without them.” In 2015 it added Zimbabwe and more importantly, South Africa (test playing nations were always CricHQ’s holy grail customers, with South Africa, England, India and Australia the most desirable).

Fleming, McCullum and Styris were the Kiwi faces of the product: Fleming at a photo opp at the Basin Reserve with Muralitharan; McCullum with former prime minister John Key on an investment trip to India; Styris shooting aspirational investor videos with Roberts for the CricHQ website. “What we found … particularly when you go up to India, is when you take Stephen or Brendon into a meeting people are there to see Stephen and Brendon and we come secondary,” former CricHQ chairman Mike Loftus said in 2016.

CricHQ’s interface. Screengrab.

It said the app was being used to score about 200,000 cricket games each year, and was capturing one in every ten balls bowled in organised cricket matches. CricHQ was chipping away in the critical markets of India and England, where it had signed up a number of county cricket clubs. “We’re top-down based on connections in the cricketing world originally through Fleming and McCullum’s credibility, and bottom up through the mums and dads who were the early adopters of the technology,” Baker told media in happier days.

It has also been backed over the years by the New Zealand taxpayer to the tune of more than $2m in grants from Callaghan Innovation, the government’s business innovation agency – and the government funding was critical. A report prepared for CricHQ’s shareholders in 2015 showed that in 2012 money from government grants and advertising revenue were even at about $200,000. In the following year the money coming in increased dramatically to $1.8 million, but $1m of that was from Callaghan as a rebate for project development costs. In 2014 ‘revenue’ jumped again to $2.9m but again $1m was government grants. It became crystal clear in 2015 how crucial the grants were: without it revenue dropped away to $300,000, the report says, and the company booked a $5m loss.

But then Tembusu, with an assist from NZTE, came to the cash-burning startup’s aid.

The company also got off to a cracking start in cricket’s original heartland, England. It received endorsement from the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) after it launched there in 2012, even though there was already a popular local incumbent Total Cricket Scorer (TCS). “[The endorsement] pissed a lot of people off,” a UK cricket administrator says.

But chief executive officer Baker got it, despite rumblings that his approach alienated the power brokers at the ECB. “[Baker] didn’t understand or care about the dress code,” the UK cricket administrator says by way of an example. Not a big deal to us antipodeans, but this is England and Baker was at Lords, the home of cricket. The Queen has her own entrance there, along with a green leather chair just for her in a grand room with a prime view of the hallowed ground. Baker, with his heavy smoking and unpolished communication style, didn’t impress the traditional guardians of the game.

Queen Elizabeth at Lord’s Cricket Ground. Getty Images

Baker’s approach to doing business echoed his leadership style on the cricket pitch, sources say. But unlike the overwhelming positive coverage the company received, his exploits on the field earned him unfavourable press. The Karori club captain denied he was a “villain” after infamously running out two cricketers (including a schoolboy) at the non-striker’s end while preparing to bowl (a “mankad”), breaching a long-standing gentleman’s agreement. “At the end of the day if the batsman doesn’t break the law by leaving his ground early then he won’t be run out,” Baker said at the time.

He’s been known to take pot-shots at selectors and is unusually brash for the secretive and controlled cricket world (the Spinoff interviewed dozens of people close to CricHQ or with influence within the cricket community for this story, but only a handful would go on the record for fear of being ostracised or cut out of future business opportunities). He’s the tough-guy stalwart of the Karori club, beloved by those on his team for dragging it out of the doldrums and nabbing club cricket silverware. A former player at the club says Baker – in his thirties at the time – seemed cool because he played hard and “smoked darts” with the boys. But as the years wound on, they moved on. Baker, they say, did not. At Karori he also found loyal staff for CricHQ, including Sewell and former chief operating officer Neil Martin.

In January of 2016 CricHQ appeared to be on track to dominate the all-important England market, and nail a critical $1m KPI for Tembusu ($1m, per country, was to be paid out when it signed up the national cricket bodies in Australia, England, South Africa and India). But somewhere in 2016 the relationship between the cricket software company and the ECB broke down irrevocably. The board had decided to build its own platform with another technology company.

Perhaps strangely, given the stakes, CricHQ said it had chosen not to pitch. “CricHQ was invited to respond to the ECB scoring app tender in Q3 last year,” Baker wrote in an email to UK-based CricHQ users in 2017. “At that time we communicated to the ECB that CricHQ had serious concerns with the tender requirements and we would not be formally responding … In addition to the difficulties with the technical specification and timeframes of the tender, the ECB’s commercial terms were unacceptable to CricHQ.”

The fall-out with the ECB was highly damaging, and saw CricHQ’s head-start nullified. The stalemate between the company and the national cricket body prompted a slanging match (conducted via emails sent to CricHQ users), with the board accusing the Kiwi company of “holding users to ransom” by not allowing data captured through CricHQ to flow through to the ECB’s systems.

CricHQ screengrab

The email from Baker claimed CricHQ had invested deeply in its relationship with the cricket body for no financial gain, and suggested the ECB had pulled the rug out from underneath it. “The reality is that the ECB has not accepted any of our multiple and reasonable commercial options, nor responded to our invitation to suggest an alternate commercial agreement,” Baker wrote. “The ECB has quite simply demanded that CricHQ provide everything totally free of charge (£0).”

CricHQ director Loftus, who stepped down as chairman in early 2017, admits the relationship with the ECB had deteriorated. But he still defends Baker, saying there is blame on both sides. “Simon has a certain personality, he is very polarising,” Loftus says. “He is an absolute visionary …  [but] other management echelons of the game didn’t share that same vision.”

A source with first-hand knowledge of events said the ECB were “very wary” of allowing any company to own their data. “I didn’t think they would ever get England, or Australia, the two nations they were after. It is very difficult to get in.” He points to Cricinfo as the reason why – the website was originally started by scorers, and then sold to ESPN, but the source says as the ECB saw it no-one had ever approved a company to “officially” score their matches let alone then profit from them.

Meanwhile India, characterised by Baker as the “heart” if not the home of cricket, proved an even harder ask. “India is a cricket-crazy nation. It has a huge following for the game and we see India as the biggest growth market,” Baker said in 2014. Despite having the Tembusu funds to boost its presence and expand on the sub-continent, the big fish, the national body the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), eluded Baker. CricHQ had some Indian state cricket boards sign up, but regardless of the company’s star power the BCCI didn’t seem keen to play ball. CricHQ’s issue in India is easy to see with a quick Google: there are multiple apps now for live cricket scoring, and none of them is lumbered with CricHQ’s debt baggage.

The company received unflattering reviews from staff in India. “Sinking ship”, one posted on anonymous employee assessment site Glassdoor in June 2017. Another listed a under pros “Good Salary… Some great names were associated”, but under cons “Very Rude management has no planning, just throwing money like peanuts”. Others accuse the company of wasting investor money on “booz and parties”, although other former staff highlighted “parties” as a pro rather than a con. But most damagingly, the former employees said management was directionless, and despite “BIG CLAIMS BY THE NZ TEAM – THE GROUND REALITY IS BIG ZERO”.

Former prime minister John Key and Stephen Fleming in New Delhi. Getty Images

“They didn’t need all those people in India,” a CricHQ insider says (the company claimed in late 2016 had about 70 staff there, 30 in Wellington). Loftus says the India team, led for a time by COO Martin, had “mixed results”. “India is a very different market,” he says, “it’s very political … You have to be in for the long haul.” While Fleming’s name opened doors, opportunists seeking a meeting with the Kiwi star were often waiting on the other side.

In Australia another incumbent, InteractSport, was in the way and with a heavyweight backer – national body Cricket Australia. Multiple sources confirmed the company had been interested at one time in buying CricHQ, as were a number of private equity firms. A deal with an Australian-based wealth management company came very close, Loftus says. A rumoured condition of any buyout from the private equity firm was Baker’s exit. “I wouldn’t go that far,” Loftus says, “the relationship broke down … It wasn’t as warm or as good as it could have been.”

Back at home, a number of workplace disputes had resulted in settlements to former staff. Loftus says no “ex gratia” payments were ever made and any payouts were for shares; but he acknowledged there are “a couple” of non-disclosure agreements “floating around”. Company insiders pinpoint the conflict to Baker’s strong Karori cricket ties; inexperienced staff close to Baker were promoted into critical senior roles, a source with intimate knowledge of the company’s affairs says.

“At a different stage of the business they were the right people for the business,” Loftus says. “It was a true startup, some of the people from [Karori Cricket Club] worked for the passion of it, and certainly added value … Everyone would like to hire the best staff, sometimes circumstances don’t allow that, and the team doesn’t allow that.”

The stoush with the ECB continued to play out throughout 2017, while in the background – but looming ever larger for CricHQ – was another capital raising that had been dragging on. It was aiming to raise another $10m, based on valuing the company at $70m for more staff, new features including a fantasy league and even a payment platform, with the end goal to “offer more features than any of its competitors”. Despite cold call emails (one landed in the inbox of NBR publisher Todd Scott), and a fresh gush of media coverage when ad-man Roberts came on board, time was running out, regardless of the company’s leadership continuing to make the right noises.

“We’ve still got realistically between 15 and 24 months runway before we need money,” Loftus told New Zealand media in September 2016.

On September 28 of 2017 the walls were closing in, and CricHQ was taken on a last ditch trip by New Zealand stock exchange operator NZX and sharebroker Woodward Partners for an investor roadshow to Sydney. (NZX spokeswoman Hannah Lynch initially denied the stock exchange was involved with the roadshow, but later in an emailed statement said “as an exchange operator NZX has an important role to play in facilitating increased access to the local market, and promoting the advantages of listing, hence our [involvement] in the NZ Spotlight Sydney, Investor Day”.)

Why did CricHQ fail to gain the investment it needed? The company came up against an issue plaguing many technology startups. It’s all very well to build a popular platform or app and get people to use it; getting them to pay for it is another thing. CricHQ had made steps towards monetising its platform; clubs and associations paid fees to use its software (about US$200 for a club, associations paid US$2000 per year), national cricketing bodies paid for its services (but not that much: the South African deal was reportedly only worth $100,000 per year) and it had revenue from ad banners on the site.

Where it had been open slather access for the public, in 2017 it had started restricting site access before closing it off completely, making the software signup and login only. Premium products were on their way, and a monthly subscription for administrators was introduced. A source with first-hand knowledge of events says it was a mistake not to charge. “The product itself is great. It was entirely free and they thought they could make money from advertising. Well, advertising couldn’t save the day. People were only paying $2.49 per month for live scoring. That’s nothing.”

Wellington-based PR man Mark Blackham became a CricHQ shareholder after he (along with two business partners) sold a statistical tool that could analyse cricket data, and predict results, to the company in 2014 (each received shares worth about $65,000). He says CricHQ had a great idea, that had been executed – but the idea wasn’t being sold, and the platform was failing to gain traction with participants. “People who tried to use the platform would have difficulty with it.”

Blackham says the value of the deals the company announced were unclear. “Shareholders would get emails occasionally talking about this deal with x club internationally or locally, but it was never clear what the deals were actually for. It was always a bit of a mystery to me about what actually was really making a difference, what actually was real about the organisation… which of the actions was going to impact income, what was delivering for the business? I don’t think I ever spotted a number of users.”

Loftus says user numbers were a “frustration”. “The way [active users] were categorised changed from time to time,” making it difficult for the board to track growth. “We pulled them up on it,” he says.

Trying too many things is a common complaint about CricHQ. In its first iteration it was to help clubs and coaches track and improve player performance, but it became a hit through scoring cricket games, so that became the bedrock of the business. Then it was a tool for administrators to run competitions. Then it wanted to be the “Facebook for cricket”, a place where cricketers – including professionals – would build online profiles based from the live scoring data and this would bring in the fans.

The NZ player’s association had seen potential for players here to link to sponsors and make money from the platform that way, but it never took off and there was disquiet from some that the association was too closely aligned with the company. There was also a well-established competition within and without of the game: Facebook, Twitter and of course, Cricinfo.

The company was tracking towards a data play; cricket bodies, clubs and players would freely hand over all their stats and information which the company would somehow make money from by providing insights, predictions, analysis. But unlike cloud accounting app Xero’s move towards harvesting small business data, with CricHQ how it would work was less obvious, and Cricinfo already had the elite side of cricket locked up.

“Content is the first component of the company’s strategy in as far as its digital platform provides benefits to cricketing organisations (such as Cricket New Zealand) through to individual leagues and tournaments,” an investor report into the company said. “This enables CricHQ to gain usage for unique cricket content such as statistics and scorecards. The more clients the Company secures the more unique content it gains and the closer it gets to critical mass.”

A source close to the company agrees. “They have great data, they know when people are playing, when they are looking. That must be worth something.”

My Action Replay’s founder Emily Kent and sales manager Stewart Reynolds (right) receiving an award in 2017. Screengrab

It had also charged headlong into video with a deal to purchase video highlight provider My Action Replay announced with fanfare in early 2017. This would allow clubs and teams to broadcast their games – all linked with CricHQ live scoring and data. “By enabling fans and players to see video of cricket at all levels, we’ll get to enjoy cricket in a whole new way,” chairman and director Roberts said, “effectively CricHQ intends on becoming the world’s largest broadcaster of cricket.”

Grand ambitions, but an inglorious end was looming. Just prior to the receivership came what might be the most ignominious moment in the company’s history. Documents lodged with the Companies Office show CricHQ allocated 57,326 new shares on October 13, with the paperwork uploaded on October 16 – a single day before receiver KordaMentha was appointed by Tembusu to take over.

Among those who ponied up were My Food Bag founder Cecilia Robinson and her husband, James. The Robinsons increased their holding by more than 1,500 shares, from 10,606 shares to 12,401. Vector chairman and former KordaMentha partner Michael Stiassny, along with Grant Graham, also got some of the new shares in the company. Chairman Roberts increased his shareholding in the company too at this time, as did Baker and Loftus (Loftus is involved with cricket video content venture Behind the Seams with cricketer Mitchell McClenaghan), but it was common for CricHQ to reward staff with shares so it’s likely these were sweat equity rather than purchased.

Among these investors who put in money days before the receivership, there is a sense of grievance against CricHQ, Baker, and Fleming. “You should ask Simon Baker and Stephen Fleming,” one investor from that final round says. Another says they are “totally unhappy” with Baker, and want nothing to do with his “roguish” ways. “And [the receivership] warns of the dangers of celebrity endorsement,” they add. (Fleming did not respond to a request for an interview).

Loftus sees a company simply continuing to hustle, just like it had from the beginning. “Right up until it when it was collapsed they were looking to secure funds. We needed a major investment or new client to come on board, that’s all it needed.” Tembusu, with two seats on the board, were the ones who put CricHQ into receivership, he says.

It was the allure of the former Black Caps captains that proved irresistible to many investors. “In my opinion a lot of investment was made by Joe Bloggs so they can ‘be in business with my mates Flem and Baz’,” a source says. The duo were not involved in the day-to-day running of the business (Fleming served as a director from 2012 until 2015; McCullum was a director for about six months in 2012). “The unfortunate thing about all of this, particularly for Stephen, [is] he got a lot of cricket players as shareholders,” an insider says. “He is one of the nice guys. Probably too nice, and put too much money in … You can’t blame Stephen or Brendon, there’s nothing those guys didn’t do for the company, including fronting up with lots of cash.”

A Companies Office spokesperson says there is no restriction on issuing shares prior to a receiver being appointed in the Companies Act 1993, or the Receiverships Act 1993. “Issuing shares is usually a way for a company to raise further funds. In some cases, the board of directors may receive a demand from secured parties or creditors without knowing a receiver is to be appointed on a particular day.”

One investor who put money in days before the company was tipped into receivership says the company was asking $30 a share, but insists they paid nothing like that. Based on the 2015 price investors could be out of pocket by about $500,000 for the new shares. In a short phone call last year Baker said he “didn’t know much about [the new shares] I’m afraid”. Baker said he had no message for disgruntled investors, and suggested we ask the receiver “why these shares were allocated”. CricHQ receiver Brendon Gibson said he had no knowledge of the new shares. Several attempts to talk further with Baker about the company’s demise more recently were rebuffed. He agreed to talk at first, but then further efforts to reach him were unsuccessful.

Screengrab CricHQ Twitter, September 20, 2017

Some early investors say they wrote their money off long ago. One reportedly only found out about the company’s troubles after a friend saw it in the news. “I thought that was really terrible,” a source says, “as one of the first guys, that’s fucked.”

Blackham says he hasn’t heard from the company since the receivership. “I thought, ‘well there you go. There’s an opportunity that’s gone away’… I didn’t expect to be kept informed, I wasn’t in the inner circle of shareholders, the in crowd.”

Wellington real estate agent David Platt bought into CricHQ through a “personal contact” but says he was a “fairly small investor”. “You win some, you lose some. It was something that didn’t work out. What I’m most concerned about is the people grafting away trying to make something of it … From my point of view in the tech business there are no guarantees.”

The investors’ future shareholdings in the company are uncertain – a number of them are former staff who were part-compensated in shares. McCullum and Fleming are among the largest shareholders, and will likely lose a significant amount of money. It is rumoured Baker had everything tied up in the company. “I’m not sure but he’s probably lost his house,” a New Zealand source says.

Platt says he’s heard existing shareholders will still be involved in the company. It would make little sense for the new owners to burn off the cricketers who invested and played such a pivotal role in building up the company. “It was obviously helpful to give cachet and credibility to the business to have cricketers involved,” Blackham says. “Existing shareholders will be carried over in some way,” another source confirms. “There’s a lot of cricket people.”

Du Plessis, Hussey, Morkel, Styris, Franklin, Chris Martin – all their investments have likely diminished substantially. So too the money invested by Cecilia and James Robinson. Roberts, who reportedly pumped seven figures into the company (but it’s rumoured much of it is again is sweat equity) is also likely to have lost money. But the majority, some 140 or so, are ordinary investors who just wanted to be part of a Kiwi company involved in the game they love, with players they loved watching.

Was Baker a risk-taking businessman who simply ran out of cash? In Loftus’ eyes the company just needed more time. “We got to that stage where Simon had met with people around the world, and they had made a decision about CricHQ [based] on those meetings. But, we gained NZC, we got some interest out of India and various other places. If we had more time, and more cash in the bank the business would have been on the right track.”

Loftus says had the company secured more money Baker would have been hailed as a national hero. Instead, insiders say Baker’s failure to let go of his company secured his downfall. Baker had contemplated stepping down, Loftus says; a role on the product side of the business was discussed. But he didn’t.

“There’s a level of balls you need as an entrepreneur, arrogance even. But when that arrogance becomes too much and you think you’re Mark Zuckerberg and you’re not,” a source with first-hand knowledge of events says. “He wanted to build a cricket social network … He became obsessed with the thrill of trying to raise investment cash and lost touch with the day-to-day running of his business.”

“CricHQ would not exist without Simon Baker,” a New Zealand cricket administrator says. “He made CricHQ, he was the heart and soul. But was he the right guy to be CEO? Probably not.”

A source who has remained close to CricHQ agrees. “The people who were running it before had no focus, and would just lurch from side to side.” But he sees a strong future for the new owners, and CricHQ under its new leadership of former Park Road Production head Cameron Harland. “The idea is great. I think it’s one of those things where it needs a little bit of focus perhaps, that and execution … I know the new guy pretty well, the guy who is going to run it. He is awesome.”

The site went offline for three days when unpaid staff were let go, but a deal was hashed out and it has continued on as before, though without the man who started it all. Simon Baker quit as CEO before the receivership. But he stayed involved in at least one way: late last year he recorded a 47-ball hundred for Karori on the CricHQ app.


The Spinoff’s business content is brought to you by our friends at Kiwibank. Kiwibank backs small to medium businesses, social enterprises and Kiwis who innovate to make good things happen.

Check out how Kiwibank can help your business take the next step.