Andrew Lovett - suspended indefinately

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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.

Thats the problem, you cant just sack a guy because you dont like him any more. He needs to have done something wrong. At the moment he has had one drinking incident - the rest is subject to investigation.

Its doubly complicated if you dont have the salary cap room to pay out his contract.

 

[FuManchu]

Thats the problem, you cant just sack a guy because you dont like him any more. He needs to have done something wrong. At the moment he has had one drinking incident - the rest is subject to investigation.

Its doubly complicated if you dont have the salary cap room to pay out his contract.

Players get delisted all the time.

St Kilda would have a behavioural clause in every player's contract that they can impose, just as they have already done in this case, as he is only under police investigation and not charged with anything. So, they obviously are on solid ground so far, without any charges as yet. As I inferred, cop the crap from the AFLPA and the player, wear the costs, for the sake of harmony within the playing group. Because the alternatives for the club are far worse if he is unwanted by the playing group.

 

[X_box_X]

I haven't read a lot of this thread, but what chance is there that Lovett is playing next year? He hasn't committed anything worse than Cousins has, and clearly has some talent to make a club take a risk on him, surely?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I haven't read a lot of this thread, but what chance is there that Lovett is playing next year? He hasn't committed anything worse than Cousins has, and clearly has some talent to make a club take a risk on him, surely?

Are you sure?

 

[X_box_X]

Are you sure?

No, I'm not sure because I don't stalk him. I'm sure he has done something pretty bad, but that hasn't come out yet. I also reckon something Cousins previously got up to, that is worse than what has been reported, is being kept a massive secret to avoid putting the game into further disrepute.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Players get delisted all the time.

Not usually with three years remaining on a pretty generous contract.

 

[Nardz]

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.

without knowing or commenting on the current rules - i would say the common sense approach would be for the pay out to be spread into the cap over the period of time remaining on his contract.

at the VERY least his current contract should stay in the cap..

but someone posted earlier something about any payout being included in the cap of the year the payout with made - if that is the case then you're well and truly f%&@d

 

[FuManchu]

Not usually with three years remaining on a pretty generous contract.

Its not a matter of 'usually', its a matter of whether the club can delist players when they see fit and I bet they can no matter the length of the contract remaining.

St Kilda erred in hindsight in taking Lovett, they will pay some price for sure if they delist him, or even if they maintain him on the list and not play him, but in the end, if they feel his presence is destabilising, then they are best copping the crap from him than destabilising the entire playing list.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Its not a matter of 'usually', its a matter of whether the club can delist players when they see fit and I bet they can no matter the length of the contract remaining. .

Yes but like I keep saying and you keep ignoring, they will have to find an additional 700k salary cap room over and above his 2010 salary to fund his payout. It may well happen but it wont come without a price. Thats a lot of list pruning needed to fund a delistment.

And that is why players "usually" arent delisted with more than a year left on their contracts.

 

[greenred]

Its not a matter of 'usually', its a matter of whether the club can delist players when they see fit and I bet they can no matter the length of the contract remaining.

Unless there are any dramatic changes in the case (and given Stokes has only been given a tap on the hand for being charged with drug trafficking, it would take more than a charge) St Kilda have given themselves no room to move. Lovett can't be sacked mid-season (or before the season starts) without very good cause. He should be in his prime as a footballer and currently, St Kilda are denying him the opportunity to pursue his trade. At the very least, if St Kilda are not willing to consider bringing him back into the fold (pending further developments) he should be released to play in the VFL/WAFL/SANFL etc at a club of his choice.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

without knowing or commenting on the current rules - i would say the common sense approach would be for the pay out to be spread into the cap over the period of time remaining on his contract.

at the VERY least his current contract should stay in the cap..

but someone posted earlier something about any payout being included in the cap of the year the payout with made - if that is the case then you're well and truly f%&@d

Post 472 on page 32

 

[FuManchu]

Yes but like I keep saying and you keep ignoring, they will have to find an additional 700k salary cap room over and above his 2010 salary to fund his payout. It may well happen but it wont come without a price. Thats a lot of list pruning needed to fund a delistment.

And that is why players "usually" arent delisted with more than a year left on their contracts.

hardly ignoring it, you just are not reading what I am saying.

I have said that they will cop some crap from the player and by that I meant a payout.

As for being released, they may do that, but what club is going to take him on, even if no charges are laid now? He has dug his own grave by past indiscretions, the current one that is under investigation is the iciing that smothered the cake, even if its proven to be false.

 

[JUBJUB]

I haven't read a lot of this thread, but what chance is there that Lovett is playing next year? He hasn't committed anything worse than Cousins has, and clearly has some talent to make a club take a risk on him, surely?

If he's done what the woman has claimed he did to her then he's done a 1000 times worse than what Cousins has ever done.If he hasn't done that dirty deed then no he hasn't done any worse than Cousins.

 

[JeffDunne]

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.

You weren't and you are.

Why would I apologise?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Because you were wrong

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.

According to the rules if Lovett was to be paid of his contract, out the entire amount owing hits the salary cap on the day the contract is terminated.

Its not that hard to admit you're wrong from time to time. I wont hold my breath waiting for the apology though, you wouldnt be man enough to go that far.

 

[JeffDunne]

Because you were wrong

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.

According to the rules if Lovett was to be paid of his contract, out the entire amount owing hits the salary cap on the day the contract is terminated.

Its not that hard to admit you're wrong from time to time. I wont hold my breath waiting for the apology though, you wouldnt be man enough to go that far.

Timmid, as usual, you're trying too hard. Must have some real physiological short-comings you're trying to overcome.

What on earth does that clause have to do with Lovett's legal action against St Kilda?

St Kilda haven't - and won't - sack Lovett. That is unless he has more to worry about than football.

Lovett's challenge is to his suspension. His FULLY PAID suspension.

 

[yaco55]

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.

I suggest that if Lovett is charged the initial Magistrates Court hearing will be heard in the first half of the year but the actual trial in the County Court will be in 2011.

 

[yaco55]

Could StKilda only play Lovett at sandringham and try to trade him at the end of the year.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Just a comment on the whole salary cap saga!

i'd be pretty confident that if st kilda were to sack lovett - the afl or the investigations manager - would give special dispensation to st kilda.

this happened recently with nick stevens i believe - carlton thought they may have to keep him listed - so as to not breach 2009 - however all was given the green light - i believe this to be the case - though happy to be proven wrong

 

[Bart Wilson]

Could StKilda only play Lovett at sandringham and try to trade him at the end of the year.

Youd hope so... but geez he'd be the highest VFL player ever yeah??

As a saints supporter I hope he never comes back... Its been a blunder yes but im glad we are taking risks and going for it. So far most of the risks (r.lyon's) have come off so we were bound to have one bad one. I just think of what Dawson, Gardiner, King, Schnieder, Ray have given us and still hope Dempster, Walsh Peake and Smith will provide more justice of risks this year for the saints.

Lovett coming back to the saints because WE have to take him back (due to no legal charges) will be a travesty and seriously could derail the season and this IS the season for the saints. I'm sure the club wont let that happen - only way they would is if there is major salary cap and AFLPA pressure like stated above.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Timmid, as usual, you're trying too hard. Must have some real physiological short-comings you're trying to overcome.

What on earth does that clause have to do with Lovett's legal action against St Kilda?

St Kilda haven't - and won't - sack Lovett. That is unless he has more to worry about than football.

Lovett's challenge is to his suspension. His FULLY PAID suspension.

Try and keep up. I'm not arguing about his grievance, I'm arguing about the salary cap implictations of paying out his contract. I was responding to your posts which said

Worst that happens for us is we have to pay out his contract.
and
If we need to pay him to rid ourselves of a problem, we'll do it.

To which I politely reminded you that you'd have massive salary cap issues should you go down this path.

Which I am right about.

 

[Falchoon]

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.

I see Noel Ashby has just been acquitted, I'll await his reinstatement.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I see Noel Ashby has just been acquitted, I'll await his reinstatement.

He'll be suing for plenty, dont you worry about that.

 

[Falchoon]

He'll be suing for plenty, dont you worry about that.

..

 

[JeffDunne]

Try and keep up. I'm not arguing about his grievance, I'm arguing about the salary cap implictations of paying out his contract. I was responding to your posts which said

Worst that happens for us is we have to pay out his contract.
and
If we need to pay him to rid ourselves of a problem, we'll do it.

To which I politely reminded you that you'd have massive salary cap issues should you go down this path.

Which I am right about.

Seriously, you really do try too hard.

I was talking about a court order to pay out his contract not us doing it by choice. Why would we?

It is a completely difference situation to renegotiating a payout and it would have more consequences for the AFL than it would our cap exposure (which wouldn't change).