The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[rich1uk]

really disappointed to see this sort of story coming out regardless of where it came from

all the indications the last week or so were fairly positive about him returning to the squad but if any sort of legal action was taken then regardless of who wins the case it would surely mean pietersen will have burned his bridges with the ECB

employment law is quite strict with regard to due process when it comes to any form of dismissal and without knowing the details here but from what is said in that article then he might actually have a case , if it did come to a legal case tho i wouldn't really care who won . i want to see him back playing cricket in an england shirt and this is not the way thats going to happen.

[Making_Splinters]

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill- there is nothing in the article that is given a source, also it doesn't say he will take legal action at all, in fact it doesn't even say whether or not KP is even considering it.

While Hoult is usually a fairly decent journalist this is the second article on the KP story he has pushed out containing zero sources and stories which should be big news that no one else is covering, in fact everywhere else is saying that there are strong chances he will actually return in the near future.

[hopeforthebest]

If KP has reached the point where he or his agent are threatening legal action then he will almost certainly not get a contract. The ECB could hardly do so under such a threat.

[sussexpob]

Pietersen's chances of winning such a court case against the ECB are approximately between zero and zero.

What makes you so sure?

When KP retired from one day games he effectively broke the contract he signed only 8 months earlier and when he admitted sending texts he almost certainly breached an aspect of the code of behaviour in the contract. I'm also pretty sure that the ECB have a list of misdemeanors to add to to that.

I dont think anyone could make a fair assessment on which way a decision would go. I think at the end of the day a court cannot force a sportsbody to pick a person, and regardless of the contrusctive ways that this "unfair dismissal" has been created in the Telegraph piece, I dont really think it is in the interests of the law or society to hold a party responsible for not renewing a contract and call that an unfair dismissal. After all, isnt the point of a fixed term contract the fact that its fixed term... why the hell would it be unfair not to renew a timed agreement? It lasts 12 months, after which there is surely no legal obligation to renew it? Especially when the nature of sport selection can be based on so many temporal criteria? In reality I doubt there is any depth to it at all.

What the article does highlight to me, however, is the question of how the ECB treat their players. The ECB have a monopoly on the cricket market, set all the rules and hold all the cards in negotiating the contination of cricketers careers, and I think this case has highlighted how the control of a few men in cricket can make or break a star players career at the top level, and the reasons can be either political or personal. I would question, therefore, that certain people have too much muscle in the dressing room... its the players that are the key, not the men in suits behind them.

In any situation where one entity controls so much power in their relative field of business you have to ask, are they using this power responsibily? I have stated billions of times on this thread one of my main issues with this situation is my belief that the ECB are punishing KP for reasons linked to IPL cricket and the ECB's self preservation. Maybe it was time that such questions are asked and answered, and the ECB are a bit more open about the reasons for their decisions. They exist as a legal entity to service English cricket and uphold the value of cricket... it seems to me that currently there are too many personal politics and cash dollars clouding judgements, and I say that for both parties involved.

[sussexpob]

When KP retired from one day games he effectively broke the contract he signed only 8 months earlier and when he admitted sending texts he almost certainly breached an aspect of the code of behaviour in the contract. I'm also pretty sure that the ECB have a list of misdemeanors to add to to that.

Didnt Andrew Strauss retire recently? Did he break his obligation to the ECB also?

Of course not... a player is well within their legal rights to retire!

[meninblue]

I don't know about the English laws but if KP slams few cases then the ECB too has justification on team unity etc grounds as was discussed in the 200 pages. The amount they would have to pay will not be as high even if they fail to defend. However, filing a case will take KP in sports history as a villain, more than what he is viewed as now by millions of cricket fans.

It's not like Chris Ciarns case where it was important he fought to get the tag of fixing away. A million for KP given in leiu of other effects will not be worthy. He will earn more than that in one IPL anyway.

[hopeforthebest]

Personally I don't believe that KP has threatened legal action, it would be a totally foolish move to make.

[Making_Splinters]

Personally I don't believe that KP has threatened legal action, it would be a totally foolish move to make.

I'm fairly sure we're not allowed to agree on anything in this thread Hope so I'll write this off as an anomaly!

[Arthur Crabtree]

Maybe he will sue the Telegraph instead.

[Aidan11]

I'd be happier if he sued Daily Mail journo Lawrence Booth - the man who broke the text story.

[D/L]

I'd be happier if he sued Daily Mail journo Lawrence Booth - the man who broke the text story.

How strange. Sometimes the press are useful, as they surely were in this case.

[Aidan11]

I'd be happier if he sued Daily Mail journo Lawrence Booth - the man who broke the text story.

How strange. Sometimes the press are useful, as they surely were in this case.

That depends on your viewpoint.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'd be happier if he sued Daily Mail journo Lawrence Booth - the man who broke the text story.

It was hardly a precise, forensic piece of journalism. More a lousy dirty bomb lobbed into the market place. The Mail had to apologise for its leading revelation, that KP had fed tactical information to the opposition. All we had other than that was a swear word.

The Mail just (like the Telegraph) fulfilled editorial policy, which was to take Pietersen out. Which suited them and the ECB. Unfortunately, they left behind trauma and wreckage.

[D/L]

Without the media, we’d have known nothing about the texts and been scratching our heads wondering why Pietersen had been dropped.

Getting parts of the story wrong (if they did) only detracts slightly from the service rendered.

[mikesiva]

It seems that the ECB might just recognise that their legal position is not that strong, and are prepared to resolve the conflict....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricke ... gland.html

"Pietersen held a series of meetings with ECB officials in Sri Lanka on Wednesday and Thursday and the rift between him and the England management appears to be healing. Once the new contract is signed focus will switch to reintegrating Pietersen into the England side. Professional dispute resolution advisers will be brought in to help ease the transition which is most likely to start in February when England depart for a two-month tour of New Zealand. The Professional Cricketers’ Association will work with the ECB to co-ordinate that process. Pietersen’s contract negotiations reached a crucial tipping point this week. His central contract expires on Sept 30 and Telegraph Sport reported on Wednesday the player's option of legal action if a new deal was not offered by the board."

This is the kind of approach the WICB should have taken....