The suits are gathering in Auckland as we speak, fluttering like scavengers onto a carcass for another spell of spending too much money in the cause of talking about how to make more money. For cricket, of course.
They come from all corners of the game's globe, including ours, under cover of the International Cricket Council (ICC) board meeting, which starts tomorrow.
Chris Nenzani, Cricket South Africa's (CSA) president, and Thabang Moroe, their vice-president as well as their acting chief executive, will be there. But not Haroon Lorgat, who has been removed and replaced by Moroe.
Whoever. Whatever. Not for the first time, the suits will get it wrong. But not for the usual reasons.
One of the items on their agenda concerns an issue that was, probably, one of Lorgat's bright ideas.
South Africa hope to play a test in Port Elizabeth on Boxing Day. Over four days! Against Zimbabwe! Under lights!
If that's too many exclamation marks for your liking, welcome to the calculating world of Haroon Lorgat.
He knew India, who had been scheduled to tour for the first half of the summer, weren't going to be around by December 26. Howzit St George's Park .
He would have known that the idea of a four-day test against opponents any better than risibly weak - and thus eminently beatable in that time - wouldn't get off the ground. Hello Harare ...
He would also have known that those factors alone wouldn't be attractive enough to seal the deal. Flick on those floodlights ...
Thing is, the ICC will have to agree.
Support for the venture in the Lorgat-less CSA seems tepid, particularly as they can't afford to spend on grand experiments now that the former chief executive's other baby, the T20 Global League, is losing money faster than Bangladesh's bowlers bleed runs.
It would be a pity if the debate over four-day tests dies this week, because while the notion is flawed it is useful. Simply, the suits shouldn't be agonising over whether some tests should be reduced by a day. Instead, they should cut all tests to three days.
The players won't be happy about that. Just this week Faf du Plessis and Dean Elgar voiced displeasure about the four-day idea.
But players need to understand that they are able to play for a living less because they are good at it, and more because people are willing to pay to watch them play or take an interest in their performances.
In too many countries to ignore - ours included - fewer people watch less test cricket or take an interest in the format. Denying that is like denying climate change.
Besides, it's rich for players who have grown up on four-day cricket at first-class level to pull up their noses at the stuff as if they were being asked to downgrade from espresso to instant.
And many a student of the game will tell you that three-day cricket is where the canniest captains are made and where players learn how to find a way to win.
Pitches could be prepared accordingly, tactics adjusted to suit the new reality, and perchance the crowds will swell: they couldn't get much smaller at any test that doesn't involve India, Australia or England.
But before we get to three-day tests we're going to have to get that down to four.
You can hear the suits thinking: fewer days' play means less television money. Bad for the bank balance. Can't have that...