Brett Lee: good leadership or poor judgement?

I think the author of this article got his answer today. It was just excellent leadership by brett lee not a poor judgement. It was a poor judgement by the author.

This statement has just been released on the Cricket NSW website which seems to be a sensible resolution for all: Cricket New South Wales confirms that the conduct charges against Brett Lee have been withdrawn. Both parties acknowledge that there is a code of conduct in place and to which all contracted players must adhere. Cricket New South Wales and Brett Lee are pleased to state that they have arrived at a consensual resolution of the matter, including that Cricket New South Wales will immediately establish a Sub-Committee of its Board to which Brett Lee will be invited to contribute to address issues as to the future direction of cricket in New South Wales. Both parties are very pleased to have found a way forward and at having arrived at a very positive mutual outcome. Brett Lee looks forward very much to working constructively with Cricket New South Wales into the future.

Misconduct charges withdrawn. Excellent outcome.

Agreed, it should be Dr Harinath and not led in trial, Lee spoke the minds of many players who have left NSW for the reasons he listed

Outstanding post, Bayman.

Paula, There's a few issues at work here. Certainly Brett Lee has a contract with Cricket NSW on the basis of his continuing involvement with the Sixers in the BBL. In addition, that contract may well state that he cannot be making disparaging remarks about CNSW, as you say, "without consequence". Your argument, however, ignores the possibility - and even probability - that Lee doesn't give a damn about the consequences. He fully understands the consequence of his statements and welcomes the opportunity to properly express his view in the appropriate forum. You say there are already appropriate avenues for grievances but it is not beyond the realm of possibilities that Lee has already trod that route with no success and even less response. Secret processes are all well and good but true issues are then easily swept under the carpet and nobody outside those directly involved is any the wiser. Perhaps Lee's primary purpose is to bring these things out into the open, to provide transparency, so that the issues are stated and then must be addressed - openly. Otherwise, CNSW risks further investigation from the media as to why the issues have not been properly dealt with to the satisfaction of all concerned. You state that Lee's contract almost certainly contains a clause requiring Lee to act in the best interests of the organisation with which he has that contract. I might equally argue that is precisely what Lee has done in this instance. If Lee achieves his aim, in this case the removal of David Gilbert, I suggest to you that in Lee's eyes he will have acted in the best interests of Cricket NSW. Not the best interests of David Gilbert, certainly, but Gilbert's personal interests are not necessarily one and the same as CNSW. Contracts are all very well but as soon as a contract is pulled out of the filing cabinet then that contract is under stress. The perfect contractual arrangement exists when the contract is never seen again after the signing. If Lee is going against his contractual arrangements then we can probably assume a good reason. Lee does not have, as far as I know, any great reputation as a trouble-maker. Rumours of David Gilbert being under pressure abound. I don't think it is a coincidence that Lee has made public his views. Nor do I think he's simply being vindictive in this case. Lee guenuinely loves NSW cricket and wants it to do well and continue to do well. I've no doubt David Gilbert feels the same way. Being CEO simply puts Gilbert in the spotlight and under the pump if things are not going well - and they are not going well. It is not in NSW best interests to continually ignore the situation nor to gag any critics. It may be in Gilbert's best interests but, as I have already said, that's not the same thing. Any government, corporation or sporting administrative body who actively suppresses criticism is a government, corporation or sports administration which is not worth having. The job of CEO is a transient one. David Gilbert today, someone else tomorrow. Cricket NSW, however, will go on long after Gilbert is gone. If anyone has missed the point here I think it is you - not Brett Lee. His concern is for Cricket NSW and cricket in NSW - not for David Gilbert who is simply the man in charge for now. Brett Lee has done cricket in NSW a favour by raising this issue and instigating a hearing whereby the grievances will be heard and not just ignored in private. Whether Gilbert stays or goes is neither here nor there. If Lee's action stimulates Cricket NSW to achieve positive outcomes then he has done cricket in the state a great service. Personally, I don't trust any organisation which suppresses criticism. All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The idea that someone may have a grievance which doesn't get raised publicly because, "My contract won't let me say anything" is appalling. All it requires David Gilbert to do is ignore the complaint and nothing changes. That may be your idea of good corporate governance - but it's not mine.

What Brett Lee has stated is similar to the problems WA cricket has had for over a decade - To WA's credit, they have actually started to do something about it recently. Those involved with the game know what he is saying has some weight. I can'y wait for the hearing either, he's got nothing to lose and cricket has a lot to gain.

I query how effective the "bring into disrepute" clause is anyway. It is a subjective thing as to whether certain actions bring the game or association into disrepute or whether it is in the best interests of the game and where the arbiter of that call for contract purposes is the employer itself, it would seem to be a bit of an unfair clause in an employment contract because it relies on the employer's good faith. And as for Gilbert - what a sook. No choice my hat.

Lee's comments may not be harmful to cricket, but actually beneficial. Where there's smoke there's fire (except when it's coming out of Quade Cooper's backside - which subsequently may be because his head is on fire).

I think you've summed it up pretty well there. Lee's comments have breached his contract so in that sense he has rightfully been cited. However there do seem to be quite a few people who agree with what he said and I think he made his comments with good intentions i.e. what he thought as best for NSW cricket rather than any personal gain

He has a sixers contract and they are owned by Cricket NSW, though run independently

I just play it one game at a time......II'll go back and work on it in the nets......The rotation policy is the right way to go......I don't look to far forward, I'm just taking it one week at a time.....the best defence is a good offence......I'm not worried about my personal performance, I'm just working for the team......the team's looked great on the track.......Blah, blah, blah, blah Whatever happened to freedom of speech? sick of plastic sport stars reading from scripts, good on ya Brett, it's almost communist censoring people

From a contractual point of view, the author of this article is correct. Brett Lee should not have made public statements about CNSW as an employee. But that's where it ends with regards to comparison to Quade Cooper. QC's comments about the Wallabies and the coach were (1) more malicious - Lee's comments were targeted at an individual, and I don't think many would see his comments as "bringing the game into disrepulte" as QC's comments did (2) QC already had a track-record of naughty behaviour - whilst Lee has been nothing but a great ambassador for his state and national teams and for Australians. I think Lee, with good legal representation, would have a good chance at the disciplinary hearing.

On one hand we all hate the written standardised statements sportsmen and women all spurt out today with nothing but cliches, but when we have someone who is honest, associations feel the need to fine them. It all comes down to whether the players have the right to speak their mind. Is it bringing the game into disrepute to out incompetence higher up? Is it the right thing to do? Quade Cooper probably did it the wrong way, and said some rather upsetting things, but he was right in my mind. Everyone was saying the same things at the same time. He obviously agreed. But, if the player is correct, and it really should be said, how do they do it to get benefit to the organisation if the people that can bring about the change are the problem?

Too much solid text is off-putting, V44. The return key is useful. But yes, Brett Lee must have known he would be cited. He now has the opportunity to put all his objections and reservations on the record. Can't wait to hear what he has to say. Gilbert had his say in the Fairfax press this morning.

Personally I think Brett Lee deserves a medal for raising these issues. About time somebody did. CNSW, it's structure and function is a mess, built more on nepotism and old boy network than needs and required outcomes. Management are a mob dinosaurs so set and narrow in their views ( a lot built around their own club background) that there is a huge gap between them and the players, who want leadership, expertise and quite simply a "fair go". Player dissatisfaction has been a huge issue for a number of years now, hence the ongoing drain to other States, yes some under banner of " game improvement" but a lot more out of frustration at internal selection process, lack of direction etc. Quite simply the other States do it a lot better than CNSW with player / ability recognition not based on cronyism . This latest debacle with Anthony Stuart / Bayliss / Gilbert is simply putting out there some ( and only some ) of the player concerns of just what CNSW is really about. Contracted players or those close to one are too frightened to raise issues or question "the boss" because of what the outcome may be for not following the party line. Well Lee has broken ranks and hopefully it will lead some serious soul searching. If CNSW is to retain its place as the leading State (in cricketing terms ) then change is a must and Lees' point is this must come from the top down. Take a minute and look at CNSW Strategic Plan to 2015, it is a joke, as are a lot of what CNSW do, take as an example the so called age based development squads ( Academy ) and subsequent selection of " State Junior Teams". Without any disrespect to those kids named reality is, these are based on a "fair " distribution basis across Statewide Junior development areas ( to appease respective Junior Associations) and not on ability / potential of the kids themselves.( CNSW will argue "team balance" to in some way validate ) .So what happens, the better kids miss out to less talented players ( the joke is the kids themselves know themselves who are the better players ) and they in turn look elsewhere, maybe not there and then but in time they remember how CNSW do things, and move on. If the kids don't remember the parents certainly do. From the ground up CNSW needs a rethink and please do not get me started on "Dr Harry", who is actually pivotal to a lot of the said issues involving Stuart / Gilbert, that is a subject for another day. But back to the primary point....good on you Brett Lee and go into your meeting with CA "guns blazing" for the good of CNSW and all those that love the game not just the glory.

Lee isn't on contract to cricket nsw anymore so his meeting is with cricket Australia. I think he will do fine considering he can play 20/20 all over the world for as much money as he is on now -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].

Afraid I disagree with your article. Not because I don't agree with its logic, but because I just can't accept that Cricket Australia should be seen as a corporation and the players as employees. Sport is (or should be) more than that. I love cricket, because of the glory of the game and the way the longer forms of the game develop into a contest, not just of skill, but of will. The spirit of the game is what makes it great. Not the marketing bollocks that dribbles out of CA geadquarters. We've all seen what happens when corporate thinking turns the game into the 'product'. Big Bash League anyone..? The players make the game. Not the administrators. Dave Gilbert may not like it, but to the viewer, he is a million times less significant than Brett Lee. Brett Lee may have been out of line wanting to come back without a grade game. But he shouldn't be punished for not acting like a good little cog in the marketing machine!!