The International Cricket Council has no intention of seeking Olympic status for the sport in the near future, and what's more it sees no urgent need to do so.
"That's according to the former Chairman of the ICC's Development Committee, Dr. Ali Bacher, speaking from the Sydney Olympic Games, where he is absorbing Australian know-how for South Africa's running of the 2003 World Cup.
"It's obvious it's something that should be seriously considered," Dr. Bacher said.
"However the ICC's Development Progamme has only really been going for about three-and-a-half years and we need a bit more time to get it up and running. There's the bigger vision to consider - getting things such as tournament structures and coaching progammes going."
Dr. Bacher also said the funds which will be generated from television rights for the 2003 and 2007 World Cups means there is no short term financial imperative for our sport to either seek official recognition from the International Olympic Committee or chase a place for it on the Games roster.
"I don't think we should look at joining the IOC just primarily for getting money. First we should make sure the Development Programme is on a substantial footing."
However, it's those financial incentives which have the ICC's mainly European and North American Associate members keen to see our sport rejoin the Olympic fold, in which it briefly appeared 100 years ago in Paris.
"In Europe, the sporting scenario is mostly governed by national Olympic Committees - de facto Government Sports Ministries in disguise," Italian Cricket Association President, Dr. Simone Gambino explained.
"The participation or not of a sport to this maximum event strongly influences the financing each national cricketing body receives from their government," Dr. Gambino added.
"Cricket, because of its absence from the Olympics is consequently the loser of this unfortunate situation."
France Cricket official, Simon Hewitt, concurred.
"French cricket would benefit greatly if cricket were an Olympic sport as it would then automatically be considered by the Sports Ministry as a 'sport de haut niveau' or top-level sport.
"Not only would it qualify for extra funding, but would also have an automatic right to one or more government-salaried technical staff, such as coaches and development officers. As well players selected for national teams would be financially compensated for time off work."
Government funding wouldn't be the only benefit to flow-on from an Olympic involvement, according to United States Cricket Association President, Kamran Khan.
"We would have a big advantage from cricket being part of the Olympics - it's the status involved that would help us enormously. It's what the recognition would say to corporations that would provide the biggest boost."
For the Canadian and Malaysian Cricket Associations, the Test countries decision to discontinue cricket's brief flirtation with the Commonwealth Games continues to hurt.
"Cricket in Malaysia has dropped several rungs in ranking over the years, largely due to lack of funds. Turf wickets were converted to artificial and in some cases cricket grounds had to give way to other sports and infrastructure development," MCA secretary, Mr. Karu Selvaratnam said.
"That was until the Commonwealth Games was awarded to Kuala Lumpur in 1998 and cricket got included as a sport.
"This great move was like a shot in the arm. Eight turf wickets and three new cricket club houses were built at a cost of nearly RM 22 million. More than two years has gone by and we are struggling to maintain them, as there is decreased government funding," Mr. Selvaratnam continued.
"We received funding from the government when we participated in the 1997 Commonwealth Games, but we haven't had any since," Canadian Cricket Association First Vice-President, Mr. Jack Kyle said.
"Every sport here that is in the Olympic Games receives government funding."
So what are the other benefits?
While the IOC's acceptance of sports such as synchronised swimming weakens the argument, cricket's association with the IOC and its inclusion on continental Games meets may strengthen its pretensions as a global sport, rather than simply a British Empire oddity.
Even without a proactive membership drive, cricket just qualifies as an IOC sport with 75 members from IOC countries.
The addition of national associations such as Mauritius, the Seychelles, Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, the Maldives, Myanmar, Indonesia, American Samoa, Turks and Caicos Islands, would push cricket well past the qualifying number. Additionally it is known to have a permanent presence in at least another 50 countries.
In real terms, this helps our pioneers in the new frontiers - regular readers of this page will know a preconception of cricket as a quaint British past-time has deterred those from 'non-cricketing' cultures.
The other big plus is simply the exposure - even if cricket at the Olympics becomes just a minor act on a huge stage, it will still guarantee our game will be beamed ever so briefly around the world into lounge rooms which would have otherwise never seen it.
And with the formulation of a coordinated development friendly television policy undoubtedly one of the challenges remaining for the ICC, the above can only be positive.
That's not to mention the actual spectators. With the Olympics enjoying 'event' status, many sports lovers will sample whatever is on the Games menu, just to be part of the atmosphere - that's been the case here in Sydney anyway.
Feeling nauseated by all the positivity?
The five likely big minuses:
How do you get the respective Cricket Boards to send their best squads? Remember KL?
With sports like football (soccer) and tennis staging their own major titles, their Olympic events have arguably struggled to find a niche. How do you give cricket's Olympic event its own character distinct from the World Cup?
What format should be used? The purists will argue that a 'bastardised' version is hardly the way to showcase our sport
A perception that international and national cricket bodies would fear losing their independence and status if forced to fall under the umbrella of the IOC or their National Olympic Committee
To many purists, the simple notion of cricket being part of the capitalist juggernaut that is the Olympics is frightening
Conveniently, I only ever promised in the last edition to provide a non-Test perspective, so I will sidestep the first two quandries.
With the third, my preference is for 25-over-a-side matches with dismissals for maiden overs. This is roughly the same time frame as a baseball match, and with more 'realism' than a match involving a reduction in fielders.
Martin Crowe, former New Zealand Test captain, and regarded as the main advocate of Cricket Max, will be tell you soon in BTTW why Cricket Max is the most suitable vehicle to promote our game in alien cultures.
The last two negatives raise an important point which few are aware of.
It is not actually necessary for cricket to actually be on the Olympic Games roster for it to receive financial benefits.
"What we need to achieve is that ICC is recognized as the world body for cricket," Dutch Cricket Board President, Mr. Rene Van Ierschot said. "Dutch government funding, as in other countries, depends on such recognition.
"Recognition may be obtained through IOC membership or IOC acceptance of ICC as THE body responsible for cricket. An alternative would be membership of the General Association of International Sports Federations (GAISF). Either solution would suit us."
And as the wily Dr. Gambino points out, cricket administrators should not rule out any Olympic affiliation for fear of being answerable to or consumed by a higher authority.
"It must be clarified that applying and entering IOC would in no way limit ICC's independence. Nor would it automatically qualify the game for an Olympic berth.
"Consequently, there really is no valid reason for ICC not to apply thus helping many a member, mostly Associates and Affiliates, to gain status on their internal fronts."