Andrew Lovett - suspended indefinately

[StFly]

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.

It's a collective agreement through negotiations between two entities;

In 2006, a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (2007 - 2011) was negotiated with the AFL. The key principles of the five year agreement focused on delivering stability and opportunity, ahead of a crucial period where the game will push for unprecedented national growth. Key features of the CBA include, an overall salary cap increase of 25% over the five years of the agreement (7% in 2007 & 2008, 4% in 2009, 3% in 2010 and 3% in 2011), $35 million to the Player Retirement Account, $25 million to personal services, education & training and health & welfare initiatives, 10% increase to first & second year draftees, 15% increase to rookie list players, players to share in over $1 million of Finals Series prize money, allocation of approximately $2 million to a Past Player Health and Well Being Fund, and a revenue sharing arrangement enabling AFL Players to share in AFL revenues in excess of AFL financial forecasts.

The AFLPA effectively represent and control the players, the AFL Commission the game, one cannot exist without the other and there have been numerous cases since about 1950 where players have gone on strike through the AFLPA the AFL has refused to recognise it, recognise it and then done a yo-yo with;

"no you do not exist, we refuse you!"
*player strike*
"Ok VFLPA we recognise you now!"
"no you do not exist, we refuse you! We are now the AFL"
*player strike*
"Ok AFLPA we recognise you now!"

What that rule is basically saying is that an investigations officer will investigate the legitimacy of any termination of contract issued by clubs. It does not say which branch this officer will come from, nor does it even make mention if it will be a member of the AFL in any event. Furthermore, that particular point only indicates a payment upon termination, I'm pretty sure I highlighted the words shall not include contract payments, and that lump sum payments were only indiicated in point d of the quoted section.

But then, as if people read that crap huh? So with that being the case, I hereby dub myself the King of France!

 

[yaco55]

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.

Ants

I believe that Lovett's public drunkenness charge from November has been dropped by the Police.

Does that mean that Lovett has no incidents of misconduct - Nothwithstanding the ongoing Police investigation.

 

[Ants]

Ants

I believe that Lovett's public drunkenness charge from November has been dropped by the Police.

Does that mean that Lovett has no incidents of misconduct - Nothwithstanding the ongoing Police investigation.

Doubtful. I suspect if he was drunk then getting the attention was sufficient, it probably didn't need charges. Drinking seems to fall into its own category, as shown by the numerous times players have been fined/suspended after drinking issues despite no charges being laid. Think of all the Carlton/Fev stuff late last year, I don't think there was a single charge out of that but it was clearly misconduct.

 

[Ants]

It's a collective agreement through negotiations between two entities;

The AFLPA effectively represent and control the players, the AFL Commission the game, one cannot exist without the other and there have been numerous cases since about 1950 where players have gone on strike through the AFLPA the AFL has refused to recognise it, recognise it and then done a yo-yo with;

"no you do not exist, we refuse you!"
*player strike*
"Ok VFLPA we recognise you now!"
"no you do not exist, we refuse you! We are now the AFL"
*player strike*
"Ok AFLPA we recognise you now!"

What that rule is basically saying is that an investigations officer will investigate the legitimacy of any termination of contract issued by clubs. It does not say which branch this officer will come from, nor does it even make mention if it will be a member of the AFL in any event. Furthermore, that particular point only indicates a payment upon termination, I'm pretty sure I highlighted the words shall not include contract payments, and that lump sum payments were only indiicated in point d of the quoted section.

But then, as if people read that crap huh? So with that being the case, I hereby dub myself the King of France!

You aren't serious, right?

There is a collective bargaining agreement between the AFL and the AFLPA. That is completely distinct from the AFL's rules on the TPP (although those rules might be changed as a result of negotiations). It is clear the AFL is the ones who investigate, just as it is clear there have been circumstances like this in the past - Voss, Stenglein etc.

 

[bombermick]

I doubt the Saints would be able to fire him for repeated misconduct, since he only just joined the club. You would think anything he did with Essendon would be irrelevant, since they took him on knowing his foibles. No, the only way St. Kilda get rid of him is for him to be charged.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I doubt the Saints would be able to fire him for repeated misconduct, since he only just joined the club. You would think anything he did with Essendon would be irrelevant, since they took him on knowing his foibles. No, the only way St. Kilda get rid of him is for him to be charged.

Not if you believe some of the nuffies on this board who think you can give a guy a strike before they have even signed on the dotted line. Of course his history at Essendon is irrelevant. Its a clean slate.

Without a police charge StKilda are stuck with Lovett. Even if they wanted to pay him out - and why would Lovett agree to that anyway? - hey wouldnt have the cap room to fit an extra 700k into this year's salary cap.

 

[bombermick]

Not if you believe some of the nuffies on this board who think you can give a guy a strike before they have even signed on the dotted line. Of course his history at Essendon is irrelevant. Its a clean slate.

Without a police charge StKilda are stuck with Lovett. Even if they wanted to pay him out - and why would Lovett agree to that anyway? - hey wouldnt have the cap room to fit an extra 700k into this year's salary cap.

It's an incredibly messy situation, with no winners. St. Kilda really need for him to be charged. Otherwise they keep paying a guy who the other members of the club simply refuse to play with. Back to Essendon for pick 90 next year?

 

[al ain pie]

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

prove to me that all that you say is fact and l will no longer assume you are talking crap

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It's an incredibly messy situation, with no winners. St. Kilda really need for him to be charged. Otherwise they keep paying a guy who the other members of the club simply refuse to play with. Back to Essendon for pick 90 next year?

The only way StKilda will be able to trade him to anybody will be if they subsidise most of his salary. Its very unlikely he'll play at another club. Even at minimum wage he's too much of a risk.

He'll either resume his career with StKilda when the dust settles (if no charges are forthcoming) or its all over.

 

[bombermick]

The only way StKilda will be able to trade him to anybody will be if they subsidise most of his salary. Its very unlikely he'll play at another club. Even at minimum wage he's too much of a risk.

He'll either resume his career with StKilda when the dust settles (if no charges are forthcoming) or its all over.

I was obviously being just a little factitious. The only way he may possibly get to another club is if he is not charged, or is and they don't stick. If he's not charged but Gram and the rest of his teammates refuse to play for him, the Saints may decide to get something, anything for him. Who knows if Essendon would take him back? Probably not, considering we were so desperate to get rid of him.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Wow, getting rid of work choices has really been a big thing, if you can now only sack someone if they are convicted of a criminal charge!

Of course any payment to him will be in the Salary Cap, but:
he could be paid in two lumps in the same year's as his original contract stipuated.

Not sure of the legality, but if he wanted a lump sum, could a deal be done with a financial company, where Saints pay said company in annual installments, and the third party pay's Lovett up front?

 

[EssendonPride]

Wow, getting rid of work choices has really been a big thing, if you can now only sack someone if they are convicted of a criminal charge!

1.Of course any payment to him will be in the Salary Cap, but:
he could be paid in two lumps in the same year's as his original contract stipuated.

2.Not sure of the legality, but if he wanted a lump sum, could a deal be done with a financial company, where Saints pay said company in annual installments, and the third party pay's Lovett up front?

1.I'm pretty sure if that was to happen, he would need to be kept on the list for those years. Isn't that why you guys have Allan on your rookie list after he retired?

2. I'd say that would be seen as a circumvention of the Salary Cap (And he'd need to be kept on the list anyway).

The Clause stated earlier suggests an "Investigation Manager" may decide on the outcome regardless, which may be something that gets looked into should the need arise.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Wow, getting rid of work choices has really been a big thing, if you can now only sack someone if they are convicted of a criminal charge!

Of course any payment to him will be in the Salary Cap, but:
he could be paid in two lumps in the same year's as his original contract stipuated.

Not sure of the legality, but if he wanted a lump sum, could a deal be done with a financial company, where Saints pay said company in annual installments, and the third party pay's Lovett up front?

Perhaps you need to read the thread, especially the post where the clause clearly stipulates that any outstanding cointractual obligations will hit the salary cap on the day the comntract is terminated, irrespective of when the cash is actually paid.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

1.I'm pretty sure if that was to happen, he would need to be kept on the list for those years. Isn't that why you guys have Allan on your rookie list after he retired?.

Exactly, they couldn't afford to pay him out at the end of 2009 because it would have tipped them over the salary cap. They were forced to retain him. The only option they had was to drop him to the rookie list and take the minimal cap relief that provided (70k from memory). Its also why they were forced to keep Leigh Fisher on theor rookie list and why there were forced to delist Matt Maguire when ideally it would have been proper to give him one more year to complete his recovery from serious injury.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Exactly, they couldn't afford to pay him out at the end of 2009 because it would have tipped them over the salary cap. They were forced to retain him. The only option they had was to drop him to the rookie list and take the minimal cap relief that provided (70k from memory). Its also why they were forced to keep Leigh Fisher on theor rookie list and why there were forced to delist Matt Maguire when ideally it would have been proper to give him one more year to complete his recovery from serious injury.

Why would another year be proper? You get to decide this do you? Maguire had a proper pre-season and no complications with his recovered injury during 2009. But after bagging StKilda's handling of Ball and Lovett, you suggest that we should keep someone on the list for sentimental reasons?

I think it's telling that one of Maguire's team mates in the Zebra's (similar height, playing a similar position ) was drafted. They could have kept Maguire on the list and passed on pick 77.

 

[yeah-nah]

So where are we at?

Given the time thats passed a charge seems unlikely.

There are trickles of info that the players and a certain players good friend arent in Lovetts corner. Also coach Egg on his Face hasnt spoken to AL since the 'incident'. A return to the fold seems unlikely.

Any termination would likely mean a payout given the AFLPAs stand via the Grievance Procedure. The mysterious 2nd strike appears to be a figment of the St Kilda sheep imagination.

A payout would need to be included in the 2010 cap according to AFL rules, unless something can be negotiated with the AFL. If it cant be St Kilda would blow their cap in a big way. Even if it can be, The Aints 2011 TPP would be under serious pressure.

It appears headed for the tricky situation predicted earlier in this thread by some of the more astute members of this forum and denied by some of our less astute red, white and black wooly friends.

Its juicy.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Why would another year be proper? You get to decide this do you? Maguire had a proper pre-season and no complications with his recovered injury during 2009. But after bagging StKilda's handling of Ball and Lovett, you suggest that we should keep someone on the list for sentimental reasons?

I think it's telling that one of Maguire's team mates in the Zebra's (similar height, playing a similar position ) was drafted. They could have kept Maguire on the list and passed on pick 77.

Time will tell but history shows one preaseason isnt usually enough when you';ve had a long lay-off. After the way Dawson botched the Gf and with thr retirement of Hudghton I would have thought Maguire would have been a more than handy back-up.

Hell you drafted Pattison who at best if a fourth ruck option and arguably fifth or sixth - surely Maguire is more likely to be required as a back-up defender and potential first 22 player than Pattison is ever likely to be needed in the ruck.

Methinks the main reason StKilda burned Maguire is because they couldnt fit him in the salary cap and/or they needed to make cap room for Andrew Lovett.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It appears headed for the tricky situation predicted earlier in this thread by some of the more astute members of this forum and denied by some of our less astute red, white and black wooly friends.

Its juicy.

Cheers for that.

JD remains noticeable by his absence.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No doubt that the police will advise the parties involved if and when they decide that charges will not be pressed.
The Saints will wait for this. They obviously will be in a better position to terminate Lovett if charges are pressed, and more so if he is convicted.

Worst case for the club is they don't want him, they pay out the contract + damages, and Lovett stay's on the list for a couple of years without being there.
However if it can be substantiated that Lovett has taken any action that can cause the situation with his team mates to be untenable, I would consider that the Saints would have a case to reduce the payment.

 

[Falchoon]

Cheers for that.

JD remains noticeable by his absence.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict his attention was elsewhere today.

 

[yeah-nah]

Worst case for the club is they don't want him, they pay out the contract + damages, and Lovett stay's on the list for a couple of years without being there.

You people are really quite naive.

Call it a hunch, call it an already established Grievance Process, but I dont think Lovett and the AFLPA are going to agree to this. It would preclude him from being able to play in Darwin, WA or some other league. Besides, if you pay him out in 2010, you have to include it all in the TPP unless the AFL cuts you some slack in a deal. You cant sack him and also keep him. I think absolute best case is AFL allows you 300K in 2010 and 600K in 2011. Which would mean severe TPP pressure next year.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

You people are really quite naive.

Call it a hunch, call it an already established Grievance Process, but I dont think Lovett and the AFLPA are going to agree to this. It would preclude him from being able to play in Darwin, WA or some other league. Besides, if you pay him out in 2010, you have to include it all in the TPP unless the AFL cuts you some slack in a deal. You cant sack him and also keep him.

Maybe he would need to negotiate then.


Extreme example , and I'm not claiming that this is what happened.

Some prick you work with rapes your sister and she isn't able to get enough evidence to convict him. Do you carry on at working with him regardless? Perhaps you could say it would stretch your ability to work professionally with him.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Some prick you work with rapes your sister and she isn't able to get enough evidence to convict him. Do you carry on at working with him regardless?

In that case I'd resign. I didnt see too many Saints players take exception to being forced to play with Milne and Montagna.

Innocent until proven otherwise. If anybody has a problem playing with Lovett should he not be charged, then they should leave the club, not Lovett. Lets see the strength of their moral convictions then...

 

[yeah-nah]

Maybe he would need to negotiate then.


Extreme example , and I'm not claiming that this is what happened.

Some prick you work with rapes your sister and she isn't able to get enough evidence to convict him. Do you carry on at working with him regardless? Perhaps you could say it would stretch your ability to work professionally with him.

Lovett doesnt need to negotiate anything. He has a contract, has the AFLPA right behind him and if he isnt charged has every right to expect it to be honoured. Its up to your rabble to give ground. Re your example, not charged then bad luck.

 

[Falchoon]

I think absolute best case is AFL allows you 300K in 2010 and 600K in 2011. Which would mean severe TPP pressure next year.

Absolute best case is he resumes pre midseason and adds pace and class through the Saints midfield.