Andrew Lovett - suspended indefinately

[JeffDunne]

Assuming it doesnt tip you over the salary cap.....which it probably would if you had to bring an extra two years salary at 350 pa into this year.

Why would his entire contract be included this year?

Timmid, do you understand anything in relation to cap rules?

Even if a court ordered it to be paid in full now (which I doubt), it doesn't change the cap implications.

Geez you talk crap.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If he's proven to be non-guilty then that will be different, but the Saints simply can't have Lovett in the club right now.

And what if, like Milne and Montagna, no charges are laid due to lack of evidence?

What if Gram still refuses to play with Lovett then? How should the club handle that dilemma fairly?

StKilda need the cops to lay charges. Without that they are stuck in limbo.

 

[Falchoon]

StKilda need the cops to lay charges. Without that they are stuck in limbo.

which is what the indefinite suspension is there for.

 

[FuManchu]

Same reason we didn't 'elaborate' when Luke Ball was dropped from the team.

Lyon and the team have rules in place that aren't for public consumption. Doesn't matter who you are if you don't follow them you pay the price.

Lovett was read the riot act before his first incident.

St Kilda have nothing to worry about here. Worst that happens for us is we have to pay out his contract. Despite what moronic Collingwood supporters might think, St Kilda in recent times has gone beyond our contractual obligations to ensure players were paid what they were promised (even giving up list spots to allow it to happen). If we need to pay him to rid ourselves of a problem, we'll do it.

The AFL might have a problem though with their standard contract under the CBA (which allows St Kilda to do what they are doing). Even then, worst that happens for them is that he's released back into the system so he can be drafted next year.

If Lovett takes this to court, it is the AFL that have an issue, not St Kilda.

Its not that black and white that St Kilda would be exempt from any legal action.

Firstly, they are the employer, so therefore there are obligations as such. The AFL is like an industry body, an albeit, heavy handed industry body, who dictates employee terms and conditions to the clubs, but do they actually have any legal hold over the way the clubs act? Are there any legal implications in this case for the AFL as they are not the employer? It could be argued as independent employers, the clubs could tell the AFL to shove it and act as they see fit. ( we all know they wont at this stage). I am sure it would be argued that the clubs do not have to comply with the industry body if the industry body condones restrictive practices.

We all know the AFL's salary cap and drafting rules are just one litigious player away from being blown away in court and it will happen one day. But in this case, Lovett's only recourse is against the club. The club in turn probably have very little to go the AFL for, even tho they have to stay within AFL guidlelines over so many issues. Maybe the club might have a restrictive practices case against the AFL, but no club seems keen to push that one so far. It would be interesting to know what legal hold the AFL have over the clubs if they choose not to comply with their guidelines over a whole range of matters.

 

[Atomboy]

And what if, like Milne and Montagna, no charges are laid due to lack of evidence?

What if Gram still refuses to play with Lovett then? How should the club handle that dilemma fairly?

StKilda need the cops to lay charges. Without that they are stuck in limbo.

There were no legal implications in the Wayne Carey case, his teammates simply refused to play with the guy.

As a result, the club moved him on.

I imagine the Saints would be quite happy to pay Lovett his contractual entitlements and arrange a trade for him.

Collingwood would be happy to take him for pick 90 ?

 

[the emergency]

timmy from thomastown, are you sick of being wrong yet? or would you prefer to continue down the beaten track of self destruction...

 

[Nardz]

There were no legal implications in the Wayne Carey case, his teammates simply refused to play with the guy.

As a result, the club moved him on.

I imagine the Saints would be quite happy to pay Lovett his contractual entitlements and arrange a trade for him.

Collingwood would be happy to take him for pick 90 ?

wayne carey and the kangaroos parted ways mutually. if it wasnt mutual the non-compliant party would have rights to raise some legal questions.

 

[yeah-nah]

Why would his entire contract be included this year?

Timmid, do you understand anything in relation to cap rules?

Even if a court ordered it to be paid in full now (which I doubt), it doesn't change the cap implications.

Geez you talk crap.

Whats the TPP rule? I cant recall a situation where a player has been sacked in year 1 of a 2 or 3 year deal. Is there a precedent?

Regarding any payout, obviously it comes down to the behavioural clauses in the standard Player Contract and whether AL is deemed to have met these or not. Id have thought the AFL would be the final decision maker on that and a court would only get involved if either of the aggrieved parties decided to take legal action. Aints wouldnt go down that road, Lovett might. At any rate, the AFLPAs position on his behaviour and whether they think he has met his behavioural obligations, is pretty clear given theyve chosen the Grievances road.

A fascinating balls up really.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Whats the TPP rule? I cant recall a situation where a player has been sacked in year 1 of a 2 or 3 year deal. Is there a precedent?.

The rule on Bigfooty at least is you sledge whoever it is that has raised it as possibly an issue, rather than do any research and find out the actual rule so we are all in the know.

 

[yeah-nah]

The rule on Bigfooty at least is you sledge whoever it is that has raised it as possibly an issue, rather than do any research and find out the actual rule so we are all in the know.

In fairness, Jeff and the Ainst boys have been busy chasing up ALs contract clause on drinking that meant he copped a 2nd and final strike.

Arent the AFLPA a bunch of bozos for backing AL when he breached the behavioural clause in his contract.

 

[yaco55]

In fairness, Jeff and the Ainst boys have been busy chasing up ALs contract clause on drinking that meant he copped a 2nd and final strike.

Arent the AFLPA a bunch of bozos for backing AL when he breached the behavioural clause in his contract.

I am struggling to see what behavioural clauses Lovett has broken.

The charge of public drunkenness has been dropped by the Police.

The other allegation is being investigated by the police.

 

[al ain pie]

Why would his entire contract be included this year?

Timmid, do you understand anything in relation to cap rules?

Even if a court ordered it to be paid in full now (which I doubt), it doesn't change the cap implications.

Geez you talk crap.

 

[The Fireman]

Al ain pie would you like to explain why you think Jeff Dunne is talking crap or would you like to look like a peanut by putting up old and unfunny graphics.?

 

[Falchoon]

the kettle should be reflective, not black.

 

[al ain pie]

Al ain pie would you like to explain why you think Jeff Dunne is talking crap or would you like to look like a peanut by putting up old and unfunny graphics.?

because everybody is making assumptions and passing it off as fact.

i hope those peanuts are salty..................mmmmmmmmmmm salty peanuts

 

[greenred]

Why would his entire contract be included this year?

Timmid, do you understand anything in relation to cap rules?

Even if a court ordered it to be paid in full now (which I doubt), it doesn't change the cap implications.

Geez you talk crap.

Does anyone have the rules on this? Are there provisions for sacked or deregistered players? Given the Cousins situation and now Lovett and Stokes finding themselves in trouble, the AFL may need to look at some amendments.

Tyson Stenglein had to wait to 'retire' until after the national draft so that his payout went into the 2010 cap, not 2009. If the Saints payout Lovett now, surely it has to go into the 2010 cap under current rules?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Does anyone have the rules on this? Are there provisions for sacked or deregistered players? Given the Cousins situation and now Lovett and Stokes finding themselves in trouble, the AFL may need to look at some amendments.

Tyson Stenglein had to wait to 'retire' until after the national draft so that his payout went into the 2010 cap, not 2009. If the Saints payout Lovett now, surely it has to go into the 2010 cap under current rules?

Exactly, there are plenty of cases like this, Fosdike for example.

It would be nice if somebody knew the exact salary cap rules in relation to players "retiring" before their contracts end.

 

[The Fireman]

because everybody is making assumptions and passing it off as fact.

i hope those peanuts are salty..................mmmmmmmmmmm salty peanuts

Ok can you prove they are only assumptions? If not you may as well be a cannibal.

 

[StFly]

Does anyone have the rules on this? Are there provisions for sacked or deregistered players? Given the Cousins situation and now Lovett and Stokes finding themselves in trouble, the AFL may need to look at some amendments.

Tyson Stenglein had to wait to 'retire' until after the national draft so that his payout went into the 2010 cap, not 2009. If the Saints payout Lovett now, surely it has to go into the 2010 cap under current rules?

First and foremost it should be known that the AFLPA which in effect governs the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) which in turn governs the TPP also have associated codes which may be invoked given the circumstances involved (Responsible use of Alcohol policy, illicit drugs policy & Player code of conduct being key 3) which are then independent of actual contractual agreements between club and player.

In either case the CBA spanning 2007 - 2011 dictates under section 12.5 of the Termination of contract clause that contractual payments shall not apply to a Player;

(a) who, by his agreement, is involved in a pre-draft transfer between AFL Clubs which result in a transfer and such Player being listed with the transferee Club;

(b) who has retired;

(c) whose conduct was terminated as a result of serious misconduct or repeated misconduct by the Player; or

(d) who has agreed in writing with his AFL Club to otherwise terminate his contract.

Nothing in this sub-paragraph 12.5 shall be construed as preventing a Player from negotiating and reaching an agreement with an AFL Club on a termination payment from the transferor Club.

Page 93 of the CBA taken off the AFLPA site here

Of note are points C and D, and that should Lovett be found guilty of rape he will have constituted serious or grievous misconduct to thereby have his contract terminated without pay. Should he not be found guilty and the Club still wish to fire him his contract may be deemed null and void with a termination payment should both parties agree to it, or the Club could argue that mere association with rape and constant intoxication proves repeated misconduct classing.

of note also is that 2010 TPP is set to 7.95m (3.2% up on 2009) and 2011 will see a rise to $8,212,500 as noted on the AFLPA here

You would assume that Cousins outing himself as a drug addict would be in violation of the various codes of conduct in regards to illicit drug usage and would also constitute serious misconduct, similar story should Stokes prove to be guilty of trafficking, however as per usual much would depend on legal ramification or contact between players and clubs / the AFL.

By the by, enjoy reading those 122 pages if you want, I think my eyes are about to start bleeding.

 

[Ants]

If he's found guilty, then St Kilda are absolutely in the right. But if he's not found guilty, then the "rape" incident isn't an incident - and then at most he's had one incidence of misconduct. So I don't think the Saints would have the ability under that clause to fire him. Being charged may also count under serious misconduct, but you would imagine Lovett would challenge it if he was charged but then found not guilty.


As to the treatment of player payments, its pretty simple. The AFL does not want to create a situation where (as an example) St Kilda give Hayes a 10 year cotract, "fire" him after 5 years, and payout the full 10 years while only paying the first 5 in the salary cap. Obviously what I've given is the extreme example, but you can see what the AFL is trying to avoid - clubs getting around the salary cap. This is what led to Voss being on the list an extra year after he truly retired, and some of the things with Fosdike and Stenglein.

So if the Saints sack Lovett without cause, then his entire salayr will count towards the 2010 salary cap. It would of course be his base salary, but still it might mean they exceeded the cap which would result in penalties. So from a St Kilda POV, if they truly never want him to play again they need him to be charged.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

So if the Saints sack Lovett without cause, then his entire salayr will count towards the 2010 salary cap. It would of course be his base salary, but still it might mean they exceeded the cap which would result in penalties. So from a St Kilda POV, if they truly never want him to play again they need him to be charged.

Nice summary

JD, do you understand anything in relation to cap rules?

 

[greenred]

First and foremost it should be known that the AFLPA which in effect governs the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) which in turn governs the TPP also have associated codes which may be invoked given the circumstances involved (Responsible use of Alcohol policy, illicit drugs policy & Player code of conduct being key 3) which are then independent of actual contractual agreements between club and player.

In either case the CBA spanning 2007 - 2011 dictates under section 12.5 of the Termination of contract clause that contractual payments shall not apply to a Player;

Page 93 of the CBA taken off the AFLPA site here

Of note are points C and D, and that should Lovett be found guilty of rape he will have constituted serious or grievous misconduct to thereby have his contract terminated without pay. Should he not be found guilty and the Club still wish to fire him his contract may be deemed null and void with a termination payment should both parties agree to it, or the Club could argue that mere association with rape and constant intoxication proves repeated misconduct classing.

of note also is that 2010 TPP is set to 7.95m (3.2% up on 2009) and 2011 will see a rise to $8,212,500 as noted on the AFLPA here

You would assume that Cousins outing himself as a drug addict would be in violation of the various codes of conduct in regards to illicit drug usage and would also constitute serious misconduct, similar story should Stokes prove to be guilty of trafficking, however as per usual much would depend on legal ramification or contact between players and clubs / the AFL.

By the by, enjoy reading those 122 pages if you want, I think my eyes are about to start bleeding.

The CBA only outlines the payments that are required to be made to players. The AFL sets the rules on the salary cap, not the AFLPA.

From the AFL Player Rules, we have

10.21 Lump Sum Payments on Termination of Contracts
Unless otherwise determined by the Investigations Manager, all lump sum
payments to a Player on termination of his Contract of Service shall be
deemed to be Football Payments to the Player in the year in which such
contract was terminated.

I don't know if this would be relevant to a hypothetical sacking or not, but there is some leeway for the AFL to change the rules.

 

[greenred]

So if the Saints sack Lovett without cause, then his entire salayr will count towards the 2010 salary cap. It would of course be his base salary, but still it might mean they exceeded the cap which would result in penalties. So from a St Kilda POV, if they truly never want him to play again they need him to be charged.

He may also be entitled to payments for match payments he has missed out on.

Does a charge release them from the contract, or make any changes to the AFL rulings?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

From the AFL Player Rules, we have

10.21 Lump Sum Payments on Termination of Contracts
Unless otherwise determined by the Investigations Manager, all lump sum
payments to a Player on termination of his Contract of Service shall be
deemed to be Football Payments to the Player in the year in which such
contract was terminated..

Jeff Dunne,

Geez you talk crap

TfT proven correct yet again.

 

[Ants]

He may also be entitled to payments for match payments he has missed out on.

Does a charge release them from the contract, or make any changes to the AFL rulings?

Don't know. It might, it might not. The other unknown is what Gram knows and has told the Saints. They might argue they have a case to sack Lovett "on the balance of probabilities", which is far easier than what the Police have to prove. Kind of how OJ Simpson lost the civil case despite winning the criminal case.


The other kicker is the Peverill situation held over 2009. He took EFC to court on the basis he had been denied senior matches due to his age, not his performance, and therefore that since his contract was geared towards match payments he had been discriminated against. That was decided out of court via a settlement. You would think Lovett if not found guilty would have a similar case if sacked. So St Kilda might be liable not just for the base pay, but also match payments. However, I don't think with Pev those counted in the salary cap, so I imagine the same would be the case with Lovett.