Andrew Lovett - suspended indefinately

[St DAC]

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.

No doubt the Saints coaching staff will be knocking on your door as a consultant, given you know the vagaries of their list far better than they do. I'm constantly amazed at your in-depth knowledge of the Saints internals. Clearly you have great sources in the Saints inner sanctum.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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

Assuming you avoid a player strike when that occurs

 

[SaintsSeptember]

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...

BULLSHIT. If a tree falls in the forest and no-one see's it fall it still falls.

LAW = Innocent until proven guilty. Fact = Innocent unless you are not.

If everyone has a problem playing with Lovett they should all leave?

How simple is it to assume that Milne and Montagna had similar allegations so the actual event's must have been the same .... oh I see it is Timmy from Thomastown , that explains it.

StKilda football club knows more about what is going on here than anyone on this thread, and they will have paid legal advise from competant Lawyers, and they will discuss it with the AFL and probably the AFLPA as well. They will choose the best action to take, no matter what is said here.

 

[Falchoon]

Assuming you avoid a player strike when that occurs

no need for such an assumption in a best case scenario Timmy

 

[StFly]

You aren't serious, right?

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.

I'll take an apology thanks.

10.5 of the AFL Players Rules as of November 2009

10.5 Investigations Manager
The Commission may from time to time appoint an Investigations Manager. The Investigations Manager may exercise any of the powers conferred upon him under these Rules or the AFL Regulations or such other powers conferred upon or delegated to him by the Commission. The Investigations Manager shall not be an Appointee of the AFL or an Officer of any Club.

10.6 then details what Clubs do to assist the manager, 10.7 details what players do to assist.

 

[yeah-nah]

I'll take an apology thanks.

10.5 of the AFL Players Rules as of November 2009

10.6 then details what Clubs do to assist the manager, 10.7 details what players do to assist.

Investigations Manager eh? Umm, google Ken Wood. Who do you think he reports to? His job is to investigate and ensure AFL rules are being adhered to. Beyond that he decides nothing. Just makes recommendations for the AFL to decide upon.

 

[IluvHarvey]

Removed

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

no need for such an assumption in a best case scenario Timmy

I keep hearing how the players wont work with Lovett because of what's happened - especially Gram, of course.

Its fanciful to assume that if Lovett resumes midseason (or before) that everything will be peachy. Its way beyond best case scenario. Its a pipe dream. But its your fantasy, so I supposed you are entitled to it.

IMHO any early return for Lovett, while being the correct decision should no charges be laid, will be extremely fractious for StKilda.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

We've seen incident's at other clubs ( Sentana OHalpin) over less.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

We've seen incident's at other clubs ( Sentana OHalpin) over less.

Sorry, missed the story where OHailpin was sacked.

 

[Falchoon]

I keep hearing how the players wont work with Lovett because of what's happened - especially Gram, of course.

Gram's not your man.

 

[yaco55]

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.

I have had the odd run in with Timmy but what he says makes sense.

We usually have opposition posters asking for a misbehaving player to be sanctioned by his club - If not sacked - But in this case Timmy is arguing that Lovett ( in his eyes ) hasn't transgressed enough to be sacked - but StKilda supporters want him sacked.

Strange indeed !

 

[JeffDunne]

Since I've been busy with other things I haven't been following this thread so I won't bother replying to individual posts.

If you haven't heard the Saints won the Superbowl!!!

Anyhow, back to this situation.

Firstly, St Kilda don't have to do anything other than pay his salary until they have a reason to tear up his contract. If that situation doesn't occur then they can can pay him all his entitlements as they fall due. St Kilda are under no obligation to play him at all.

Now the issue gets down to Lovett and his manager taking St Kilda to court. This is where the CBA in effect would be challenged. Now whether or not that would successful is an interesting debate in itself, but assuming it is, the Saints would be forced to release him and make a settlement on his contract. The contract St Kilda has with lodged with the AFL and importantly the contract that effects the salary cap calcultions would not change. This is the point others are missing and it is why it is a completely different situation to others like when Voss wanted to retire and Brisbane wanted to pay him out early. Those situations require a new contract to be lodged.

In this case, a court order wouldn't effect St Kilda's cap. It would certainly effect the AFL's player movement rules if Lovett chose to take it the next step.

The AFL would be advising St Kilda on every step because they have more to worry about than we do from any challenge in the courts.

 

[JeffDunne]

Sorry, missed the story where OHailpin was sacked.

I missed the part when anyone in this case has been sacked.

 

[Ants]

I'll take an apology thanks.

10.5 of the AFL Players Rules as of November 2009

10.6 then details what Clubs do to assist the manager, 10.7 details what players do to assist.

Well technically you are correct on this, so I admit I was wrong.

However, that is a long way from what you were talking about which was that the AFLPA might be involved. It is the AFL after all who appoint the independent investigator.

 

[Ants]

Firstly, St Kilda don't have to do anything other than pay his salary until they have a reason to tear up his contract. If that situation doesn't occur then they can can pay him all his entitlements as they fall due. St Kilda are under no obligation to play him at all.

Now the issue gets down to Lovett and his manager taking St Kilda to court. This is where the CBA in effect would be challenged. Now whether or not that would successful is an interesting debate in itself, but assuming it is, the Saints would be forced to release him and make a settlement on his contract. The contract St Kilda has with lodged with the AFL and importantly the contract that effects the salary cap calcultions would not change. This is the point others are missing and it is why it is a completely different situation to others like when Voss wanted to retire and Brisbane wanted to pay him out early. Those situations require a new contract to be lodged.

In this case, a court order wouldn't effect St Kilda's cap. It would certainly effect the AFL's player movement rules if Lovett chose to take it the next step.

The AFL would be advising St Kilda on every step because they have more to worry about than we do from any challenge in the courts.

Not so sure about the bolded bit. I would probably have agreed with you 12 months ago, but given Pev won that case against Essendon, I'm not so sure. Of course, Pev's case was settled out of court, so no precedent was set, but the fact EFC settled obviously implied they thought he had a case.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Sorry, missed the story where OHailpin was sacked.

I was agreeing with you Timmy. You stated that an early return for Lovett would be extremely fractuous. My "OHailpin" comment was inference that things could get unpleasant should that occur.
My personal opinion is that the club will do anything within their power to avoid this sort of disruption to the playing group.

 

[Falchoon]

Not so sure about the bolded bit. I would probably have agreed with you 12 months ago, but given Pev won that case against Essendon, I'm not so sure. Of course, Pev's case was settled out of court, so no precedent was set, but the fact EFC settled obviously implied they thought he had a case.

or it implies that they don't want dirty laundry out in public
or the pay out was less than what it would cost to defend the case
or we look after our own
or..... you get the drift

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I missed the part when anyone in this case has been sacked.

I missed the part when you admitted I was right regarding salary cap rules and you apologised to me for calling me full of crap and not knowing the rules.

 

[stfan]

- but StKilda supporters want him sacked.

!

I think what most St Kilda supporters are saying is that the Club cannot take any action one way or another until the legal system makes a decision one way or another.

Plus that the Saints may consider other issues besides the possible rape/assault.

We still do not know what occurred..and when we do we will make up our minds re sacking/suspension, fining etc...

 

[StFly]

Well technically you are correct on this, so I admit I was wrong.

However, that is a long way from what you were talking about which was that the AFLPA might be involved. It is the AFL after all who appoint the independent investigator.

I tend to ramble or alter the argument somewhat from my intention, basic intention on my behalf was that it'd be self defeating for the IM to be an AFL member for in any investigation they would find in favour of the AFL and you would have corruption, the IM would have to be an external individual granted powers by either entity (AFL: Game / AFLPA: Players)

I'm happy to leave it as is though since we're rather detracting from the case, so I'll end with a my bad as well if I got a bit circular.

 

[Nardz]

BULLSHIT. If a tree falls in the forest and no-one see's it fall it still falls.

LAW = Innocent until proven guilty. Fact = Innocent unless you are not.

If everyone has a problem playing with Lovett they should all leave?

How simple is it to assume that Milne and Montagna had similar allegations so the actual event's must have been the same .... oh I see it is Timmy from Thomastown , that explains it.

StKilda football club knows more about what is going on here than anyone on this thread, and they will have paid legal advise from competant Lawyers, and they will discuss it with the AFL and probably the AFLPA as well. They will choose the best action to take, no matter what is said here.

while most of what you say there is true - the one possibility that you have to consider is that he ends up not getting convicted.

if he escapes conviction for whatever reason, than i would say it would open up a whole can of worms for the st kilda football club.

as for everyone having a problem playing with him, if he is cleared then he can argue that he has been unjustly discriminated against

it's a tricky situation

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

while most of what you say there is true - the one possibility that you have to consider is that he ends up not getting convicted.

Or not even charged........

At least if he's charged StKilda have a long time to wait and keep him on ice until the time a trial is set and concluded. That could easily be a year away leaving the Saints plenty of time to decide what to do with him.

But if the cops come out tomorrow or next week and announce "no charges to be laid" or similar due to insufficient evidence or withdrawal of allegation or whatever.......

.....thats when its extremely tricky for StKilda.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

while most of what you say there is true - the one possibility that you have to consider is that he ends up not getting convicted.

if he escapes conviction for whatever reason, than i would say it would open up a whole can of worms for the st kilda football club.

as for everyone having a problem playing with him, if he is cleared then he can argue that he has been unjustly discriminated against

it's a tricky situation

Absolutely correct. It will make the process much easier for the Saints if he is convicted of something.. anything. I'm sure that someone invloved will be advised by the police, if the case is being dropped, otherwise they will wait it out.

If Lovett makes a legal claim for compensation for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract , descrimination etc , surely such a payment/settlement would not need to go under the Salary cap. However it could also go well over and above the value of his current contract, if he successfully argues that StKilda Football Club ruined his career. It probably depends how much he wants to air his own dirty laundry as well.

 

[FuManchu]

I was agreeing with you Timmy. You stated that an early return for Lovett would be extremely fractuous. My "OHailpin" comment was inference that things could get unpleasant should that occur.
My personal opinion is that the club will do anything within their power to avoid this sort of disruption to the playing group.

Thats right, St Kilda should bite the bullet, sack him, pay him out, cop the crap they have to cop and keep the playing group happy. He might be a good player, but players like him, guilty or not, can bring down the whole unit.