Andrew Lovett - suspended indefinately

[greenred]

Well I suspect St Kilda have a right to suspend him if he has been charged or convicted etc but at the moment (and not saying that won't change), he has not been charged let alone convicted.

I suspect Lovett has a case here as you can't just suspend someone without charges or even doing anything wrong that they can prove.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Saints are made to take him back. Lovett is just going through the process. Lets not forget under the Capuano rulings you can't sack a player midseason so if charges aren't laid or he is not convicted the Saints will have Andrew Lovett playing with them. The AFL rules on this are very specific.

I don't think forcing him back to St Kilda is the right answer for anyone. If they don't want him anymore, they should simply be forced to release him, allowing him to play in another league and an agreement on payment should be reached between the two parties (or by AFL mediation if required). If or when he is charged, the AFL can deal with the situation.

The nitty gritty of his place on the list and salary cap issues for the Saints would also need to be assessed. The only way I can see for them to get any leniency on these is for him to be charged with an offence significant enough for him to be deregistered by the AFL, but I'm not certain this would even change anything?

 

[hurls22]

A pity you wasted it on Mark Williams

Willi

Gained: Mark Williams (Hawthorn) and Pick 24 and 33
Lost: Jay Nash, Andrew Lovett and Pick 16

Take that every day of the week champ.

 

[panthers]

Remember in this country you are innocent till proven guilty and St Kilda should remember the old saying , people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Yes they should should'nt they. Be careful when you throw them bedford

 

[panthers]

Two blokes still there that could consider themselves lucky?

which two blokes are you talking about hurls22? any charges laid? hmmm

 

[greenred]

which two blokes are you talking about hurls22? any charges laid? hmmm

No charges have been laid in the Lovett case either, yet he's the only one suspended and not welcome at the club?

 

[sainter35]

Pick 16 = thankyou very much. Coupled with the Nash deal again EFC are the big winners.

Yep your classy club handled the whole Lovett situation with aplomb - you should all be wrapt yeah?

 

[yeah-nah]

I guess I was right all along. I predicted this would get sticky for the Aints, and it has.

 

[Murraj1966]

No ones saying we don't want him to play for us should he be found innocent, that's bullshit, he's a great player and would be very handy. But until everything's sorted one way or the other it's better to err on the side of safety.

 

[dan0z]

I guess I was right all along. I predicted this would get sticky for the Aints, and it has.

you legend!

 

[Murraj1966]

I guess I was right all along. I predicted this would get sticky for the Saints, and it has.

Edited for typo.

Don't worry buddy you'll learn to type one day

 

[mollyfud]

Well I suspect St Kilda have a right to suspend him if he has been charged or convicted etc but at the moment (and not saying that won't change), he has not been charged let alone convicted.

I suspect Lovett has a case here as you can't just suspend someone without charges or even doing anything wrong that they can prove.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Saints are made to take him back. Lovett is just going through the process. Lets not forget under the Capuano rulings you can't sack a player midseason so if charges aren't laid or he is not convicted the Saints will have Andrew Lovett playing with them. The AFL rules on this are very specific.

Not sure about the AFL but Legally the courts can't force the Saints to take him back (from my First year business law, hehe). From the extremely little knowledge I have, about the most they could do is have them for breach of contract and/or loss of earn potiental.

 

[Dojo]

I guess I was right all along. I predicted this would get sticky for the Aints, and it has.

You should really apply for the Victoria Police, given your ability to predict accusations of sexual assault. You can be present before they happen and determine the outcome!

May I have this saturdays Tattslotto numbers?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Willi

Gained: Mark Williams (Hawthorn) and Pick 24 and 33
Lost: Jay Nash, Andrew Lovett and Pick 16

Take that every day of the week champ.

Its marginally in Essendon's favour, but thats all. You've effectively given up pick 16 for Mark Williams - quite expensive really - , and gained a couple of decent draft picks, but in a pretty weak year.

On the other side you got rid of one dud who you would have delisted anyway, and one cancer, as well of course as pick 16.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

No ones saying we don't want him to play for us should he be found innocent, that's bullshit, he's a great player and would be very handy. But until everything's sorted one way or the other it's better to err on the side of safety.

The inconsistencies in the way StKilda managed this case compared to Milne/Montagna has been mentioned in todays press story. Clearly that is going to form part of Lovett's grievance case, in that he feels victimised when other players in the past have not been suspended pending the outcome of a police investigation.

 

[AngelEyes]

Not sure about the AFL but Legally the courts can't force the Saints to take him back (from my First year business law, hehe). From the extremely little knowledge I have, about the most they could do is have them for breach of contract and/or loss of earn potiental.

The courts can enforce performance of a contract. The Capuano rulings became part of standard AFL contracts so clubs just couldn't sack someone on full pay for no reason. Its more than just about the money - its playing at an elite level and match conditioning etc. I would have thought that this would have value in itself on top of AFL payments. He may also be paid per game too in which he has very strong argument that they are unfairly damaging his right to play and earn match payments.

The Courts may not enforce performance of the contract but its possible.

 

[St DAC]

The inconsistencies in the way StKilda managed this case compared to Milne/Montagna has been mentioned in todays press story. Clearly that is going to form part of Lovett's grievance case, in that he feels victimised when other players in the past have not been suspended pending the outcome of a police investigation.

We no longer hang people for stealing a loaf of bread either.

Times change ... if a year is a long time in football, that was 6 years ago.

 

[AngelEyes]

I don't think forcing him back to St Kilda is the right answer for anyone. If they don't want him anymore, they should simply be forced to release him, allowing him to play in another league and an agreement on payment should be reached between the two parties (or by AFL mediation if required). If or when he is charged, the AFL can deal with the situation.

The nitty gritty of his place on the list and salary cap issues for the Saints would also need to be assessed. The only way I can see for them to get any leniency on these is for him to be charged with an offence significant enough for him to be deregistered by the AFL, but I'm not certain this would even change anything?

I doubt St Kilda will get any special exemption regarding to salary cap. If anything the AFL will make an example of them in order to warn clubs off recruiting players with bad characters. And in reality, why is it anyones fault other than St Kildas for recruiting him.

 

[The Fireman]

I doubt St Kilda will get any special exemption regarding to salary cap. If anything the AFL will make an example of them in order to warn clubs off recruiting players with bad characters. And in reality, why is it anyones fault other than St Kildas for recruiting him.

That it is one of the dumbest things I have seen on here.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

We no longer hang people for stealing a loaf of bread either.

Times change ... if a year is a long time in football, that was 6 years ago.

I'm just reporting what I read.

If Milne and Montagna were NOT suspended pending a rape investigation - not even for a day - , Lovett may be wondering, why wasnt he offered the same level of support from the club.

6 years might be a long time in football - but in matters of alleged sexual assault, I hardly think your flippant loaf of bread comment is really very appropriate. Sexual assault is no considered more or less heinous today than it was six years ago.

 

[The Fireman]

I'm just reporting what I read.

If Milne and Montagna were NOT suspended pending a rape investigation, Lovett may be wondering, why wasnt he offered the same level of support from the club.

6 years might be a long time in football - but in matters of alleged sexual assault, I hardly think your flippant loaf of bread comment is really very appropriate. Sexual assault is no considered more or less heinous today than it was six years ago.

Even Lovett would realize all that happened under a different regime I just wonder why you can't comprehend that? Maybe I know.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Even Lovett would realize all that happened under a different regime I just wonder why you can't comprehend that? Maybe I know.

So what if it was a different regime? Its the same club and the same legal entity.

From Lovett's point of view - and no doubt from the point of view of the AFLPA - it is irrelevant that the Coach and President have been replaced over time.

 

[Falchoon]

The inconsistencies in the way StKilda managed this case compared to Milne/Montagna has been mentioned in todays press story. Clearly that is going to form part of Lovett's grievance case, in that he feels victimised when other players in the past have not been suspended pending the outcome of a police investigation.

A bloke with a history and zero brownie points gets treated differently.

Blow me down.

 

[St DAC]

I hardly think your flippant loaf of bread comment is really very appropriate. Sexual assault is no considered more or less heinous today than it was six years ago.

Learn to read. I in no way compared sexual assault to a loaf of bread.

What I meant (obviously you need it spelt out for you) was that just because 6 years ago we didn't suspend M & M doesn't automatically mean Lovett should not have been suspended. M & M had no poor record of behaviour; Lovett did, and had just had his butt kicked for over-indulgence of alcohol. This was his second strike in a few weeks. As well, we have a new sheriff in town since then; RL has a very stringent view on player behaviour.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

M & M had no poor record of behaviour;

They were accused of rape. Its hardly relevant that they had a clean record to that point. Rape is serious.

Similarly Lovett is accused of rape.

The fact that he has a minor prior for drinking too much is hardly grounds for treating him more harshly. Do you seriously think that without that drinking "strike" that Lovett would be training with StKilda right now? Of course he wouldnt. His drinking incident is totally irrelevant to this situation.


(And dont start talking about his previous form at Essendon. He came to StKilda with a clean slate).

 

[The Fireman]

So what if it was a different regime? Its the same club and the same legal entity.

From Lovett's point of view - and no doubt from the point of view of the AFLPA - it is irrelevant that the Coach and President have been replaced over time.

You have never had much cred Timmy but you really are going downhill, different regimes at clubs make a massive different and everyone would realize that including Lovett.