Players from a number of leading countries have been involved in conversations with IPL franchises about the possibility of contracts which will see them play in multiple leagues for the franchise. Though discussions have been informal, they do raise the prospect wherein the main employers for leading players could eventually be an IPL franchise, rather than a full-member board. The Times reported on Tuesday that six English players, including some internationals, were approached by IPL franchise owners and asked whether they would be open to a deal in which the franchise owner, rather than the board or county, would be their main employer.

These conversations have taken place not just in England but in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and West Indies, according to Heath Mills, executive chairman of FICA, the global players' body. "There have been informal conversations between some franchises and players about being available to play in multiple tournaments," Mills told ESPNcricinfo. "That can take a different shape and form for different players. But it should come as no surprise to anyone in cricket that these conversations are happening and that players will have these sorts of options in the future.

"Without going into the specifics of individual conversations, they are about a player being available to play for a franchise in different T20 leagues. A franchise might have three or four teams globally, so they might want the player in multiple competitions - as opposed to just the IPL. It's not necessarily about signing a player up for all competitions exclusively but rather additional ones to their IPL team."

Mills said he wasn't aware of any individual having signed a contract yet with a franchise, but that FICA was "aware of conversations for a little while now with a few players to be available for multiple competitions."

"We're going to have to pay them more money," Gould said. "That's probably likely to be based on appearance money rather than the central-contract element because I think that gives us the most cost-effective way of dealing with any particular competitive tournament at that particular time.

"Our responsibility is to make sure we can compete in the global player market to ensure that our players want to play for us, men and women, both for England and within our domestic competitions. But to do that, we've got to make sure we've got the financial clout to retain them.

"Often, I think people will place a huge emphasis on playing for England, and we're grateful to them for their loyalty. But we need to make sure that we can pay the going rate, and having come back from football, player markets are something I know pretty well, and we need to make sure we can compete in the global player market. And that global player market does change from month to month depending on what other competition there is there."

FICA has long called for a rationalisation of the cricket calendar, consistently arguing that the glut of international bilateral cricket, ICC events, and T20 leagues is forcing the best players to choose and prioritise where and when they want to play. Mills was critical of how members go about putting together the Future Tours Programme (FTP) - the most recent version of which was announced last year. "The current situation sees each board organise their own bilateral programme and its T20 competition independently of each other. And everyone wants the best outcome for them alone. But they also all want the best players to enhance their international and T20 products. But obviously, the best players can't be everywhere on the same day.

"Whilst we have an arrangement where everyone does their own thing in terms of scheduling, we are going to have this collision of T20 leagues and international cricket occurring every month. The boards and the leagues are effectively cannibalising themselves. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me."

Mills offered a solution, by creating three windows in a year for T20 leagues alone, so as to avoid direct clashes with international cricket.

"One option boards have is to actually come together and agree to incorporate T20 leagues in their bilateral programme and within that process look at creating windows for T20 leagues. You might create a window in April-May for IPL, you might create another window for T20 leagues in the southern hemisphere in January and early February, you might create another window in September before an ICC event.

"You could look to create windows where people agree to not play any international cricket when a T20 league is happening. Everyone will need to compromise a little bit, but it is possible. Until that happens there will continue to be a collision and players will be forced to make a choice. And sadly I'm not sure that bilateral cricket will win."