"The IPL'' is not something I'm particularly interested in. Money's not really too important, it's not as if I need money right now. England has given me a fantastic opportunity to a fantastic life at the moment. So I'm fully committed 100% to playing for England, to winning games for England, to scoring thousands more runs for England." (BBC Radio 5 Live)
5th April 2008: "I won't jeopardise my England career for the IPL just yet, but the schedules have to be sorted because the England players are the only ones missing out." (The Times)
Thirty-five days to crack under Lalit Modi's torture methods (he ties pros to a chair and makes them watch as he hands Cameron White a cheque for $500,000): Kevin Pietersen makes this job too easy some times.
Except we didn't need his help on this occasion: we asked on 21st February, "Does English cricket really want to issue Kevin Pietersen with a stark choice between hundreds and thousands of pounds, and Three Lions? And all in the build-up to the 2009 Ashes?"
C365 was hardly alone either; the reporters who follow the England team began dropping hints that certain players were less than happy to be landing in New Zealand as auction prices took off in Mumbai.
So how is it that the ECB is still treating the IPL as some vulgar non-event attractive only to the ungrateful and idiotic?
Giles Clarke declared in October - six weeks after the IPL was convened - that cricket is "ultimately another business".
And on Monday he tried to play deaf to the IPL in the same terms: "Employment contracts are a matter between an employer and an employee. If you don't want to be employed by someone you don't have to be, but in turn you run the risk of not being employed by that person."
Given the money on offer in India, is this really the time to be teaching 'O' level commerce to the players?
IPL and ECB income/sponsorship are comparable - but one takes a fraction of the time to earn.
And what is this 'risk' that Clarke talks of? Any KP substitute available in English cricket please make themselves known to the nearest selector.
Pietersen's rational decision is to dive headfirst into an IPL deal before Clarke can say homo economicus and take his international chances on a Test-by-ODI basis.
Here's the difference that the ECB don't seem to have clocked: Pietersen is an individual responsible to himself; Clarke a governor responsible to English cricket.
At the moment they seem to have it the other way around: selling tv rights to Sky for their own profit (English cricket was hardly starving on C4 money) but furious that players might follow their example.
Clarke was ridiculed for his "ultimately another business" line because very few things are only about money - and certainly not international sport.
But even fewer have nothing to do with money at all.
Of course it would be the decent thing for Pietersen and his less vocal (i.e. less financially valuable) team-mates to demonstrate some loyalty to their employers and the supporters.
But they do that by giving ECB time to formulate a fair policy that balances players' responsibilities with their right to earn a living.
Monday's press conference suggested that the ECB instead want to bully its 'employees' into towing the line.
It's a crazy strategy, indefensible and unworkable in equal measure.
If the ECB is a business then Clarke is acting like the obtuse proprietor of a lone, ramshackle bric-a-brac stall making a last stand on the intended site of a new-out-of-town Tesco.
