Andrew Lovett - suspended indefinately

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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).

Maybe. But under the rules any payout hits the salary cap immediately. You dont know that a court ordered payout is outside the salary cap, you're just guessing.

You may get an exemption from the AFL but under the rules as they stand and payout hits the cap on day 1 of cessation of the contract.

And to answer your question as to why would you pay him out by choice???? If there are no charges laid and therefore no grounds for dismissal, how else are you going to get rid of him? Keep him listed and suspended for three years maybe?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Maybe. But under the rules any payout hits the salary cap immediately. You dont know that a court ordered payout is outside the salary cap, you're just guessing.

You may get an exemption from the AFL but under the rules as they stand and payout hits the cap on day 1 of cessation of the contract.

And to answer your question as to why would you pay him out by choice???? If there are no charges laid and therefore no grounds for dismissal, how else are you going to get rid of him? Keep him listed and suspended for three years maybe?

So if Ross Lyon back's his company Volvo into Nick Riewoldt's Ferrari and StKilda is ordered by court to pay compensation, it has to go under the Salary Cap???

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

So if Ross Lyon back's his company Volvo into Nick Riewoldt's Ferrari and StKilda is ordered by court to pay compensation, it has to go under the Salary Cap???

You've been quite reasonable on this thread up until that silly post.

 

[yeah-nah]

For a court to rule on a payout, Lovett would have to undertake legal proceedings seeking that. But as we know, this isnt what he is seeking. He wants the suspension lifted and to play footy.

If the Grievance Panel doesnt rule in his favour, then he could take legal action to test the legality of the suspension. A payout wont even come into his claim. And he'd probably win, which is why this wont get past the Grievance Panel. Something will be negotiated. The AFL will probably bend the rules on the TPP impact, but there will be some pain for the Aints or the other clubs will arc up. Especially mine!

Participation in this thread has been worth it for the car crash analogy alone. A doozy.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

You've been quite reasonable on this thread up until that silly post.

Yeah When I thought about it I realised that if a loophole like that existed the Calton players would have been sueing their club blind for all sorts of things, and the club executives would still be smiling.

 

[JeffDunne]

For a court to rule on a payout, Lovett would have to undertake legal proceedings seeking that. But as we know, this isnt what he is seeking. He wants the suspension lifted and to play footy.

You'll probably find that's exactly what was said when the issue of a payout was first raised before Timmy started his usual pissing contest.

If the Grievance Panel doesnt rule in his favour, then he could take legal action to test the legality of the suspension. A payout wont even come into his claim. And he'd probably win, which is why this wont get past the Grievance Panel. Something will be negotiated. The AFL will probably bend the rules on the TPP impact, but there will be some pain for the Aints or the other clubs will arc up. Especially mine!

The AFL have far more to worry about than St Kilda's TPP if he successfully argues the legality of a club arbitrarily suspending a player.

Participation in this thread has been worth it for the car crash analogy alone. A doozy.

If you're talking about the ghouls that find enjoyment at anothers misfortune, then I agree.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You'll probably find that's exactly what was said when the issue of a payout was first raised before Timmy started his usual pissing contest.

It was you who said your club would, if they wanted to, pay him out to rid themselves of a problem.

I merely asked how in those circumstances you'd get around the problem of bringing an extra 700k of TPP obligations into one salary cap year without breaking the cap.

From there you attacked me for apparently not knowing the rules (and you were wrong) rather than address a perfectly reasonable question.

 

[yeah-nah]

You'll probably find that's exactly what was said when the issue of a payout was first raised before Timmy started his usual pissing contest.

Actually from what I read you raised a court ruled payout as a possible outcome. Thats just not going to happen as it is not what Lovett is seeking here. Iditiotic to even suggest it. Timmy for his part asked you why such a payout ruling (if it were to occur) would not have to be all covered in the TPP on the year it occurred. You had proved earlier in the thread that you were ignorant of the TPP rules on termination. He called you out again.

The AFL have far more to worry about than St Kilda's TPP if he successfully argues the legality of a club arbitrarily suspending a player.

Worried or not, they will enforce their TPP rules if you dont take him back. And if he is found not guilty you will either need to do that or come to the table on a payout.

On the ghouls thing, melodramatic nonsense. Need a tissue?

 

[JeffDunne]

It was you who said your club would, if they wanted to, pay him out to rid themselves of a problem.

I did?

I thought I said we'd continue to honour the payments due to him under hs contract.

I merely asked how in those circumstances you'd get around the problem of bringing an extra 700k of TPP obligations into one salary cap year without breaking the cap.

As I wasn't talking about those circumstances then why would this be an issue?

The only reason St Kilda would pay out his contract is because they were forced to do so (i.e. as a consequence of legal action). St Kilda's TPP would be the least of the AFL's concerns if that was the case.

From there you attacked me for apparently not knowing the rules (and you were wrong) rather than address a perfectly reasonable question.

Attacked you? LOL, I called you out for your usual attempts at somehow trying to turn this into a 'win' for Collingwood . . . trying too hard as usual I might add.

I did address the question, you trolled on regardless.

 

[yeah-nah]

The only reason St Kilda would pay out his contract is because they were forced to do so (i.e. as a consequence of legal action).

There you go rasing legal action on a payout again. Not gonna happen. AL wants back in, not paid off. Get it?

If the Grievance panel or a court rules he be unsuspended St Kilda would do what?

St Kilda's TPP would be the least of the AFL's concerns if that was the case..

You keep saying this like the AFL are gonna forget about enforcing their TPP rules on you because theyre so worried about .... stuff. Youre a battler Jeff.

If AL is not charged you will either take him back or pay him off. Thats the long and short of it. Either way, its a problem for the Aints.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It would still be a problem no matter where you put it on the list.

You explicitly said

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

and you were wrong.

If the contract is terminated either by mutual agreement (doubtful), club's unilateral decision (most likely), or by court order (very doubtful) , there will be cap implications in all three cases.

One minute you're saying there are no cap implications, next minute you admit you are wrong (not even knowing you've admitted you're wrong) but brush it off as "the least of our worries"

You are patently transparent, JD, I am starting to feel a bit sorry for you that you cant seem to find a way to admit that you dont know what you're talking about. Contradicting me seems to be your main objective.

 

[greenred]

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.

What exactly does that constitute? Does his contract have a base payment plus match payments, or bonus payments for reaching a certain number of games or other measure? Will Lovett be paid for that too despite St Kilda refusing to allow him to play? Given St Kilda gave up a first round draft pick for Lovett, it would be fair to assume he would have been expected to play the majority of games for them this season. Paying him only his base salary (assuming that is the structure) could be denying him the opportunity to make a lot more money.

 

[JeffDunne]

Actually from what I read you raised a court ruled payout as a possible outcome. Thats just not going to happen as it is not what Lovett is seeking here. Iditiotic to even suggest it.

I think you'll find I raised it as a consquence of subsequent legal action - not this particular claim.

Lovett is suspended from St Kilda because the standard player contract allows us to do so. It is that ultimately that's being challenged. If Lovett wins on that front then it has far broader consequences.

Timmy for his part asked you why such a payout ruling (if it were to occur) would not have to be all covered in the TPP on the year it occurred. You had proved earlier in the thread that you were ignorant of the TPP rules on termination. He called you out again.

Utter tripe.

Unless St Kilda renegotiate with Lovett there are no consequences on the TPP. In fact, if Lovett was to see this sort of claim out to it's ultimate legal end, St Kilda couldn't be fined by the AFL because St Kilda are acting under the AFL's rules.

Worried or not, they will enforce their TPP rules if you dont take him back. And if he is found not guilty you will either need to do that or come to the table on a payout.

We don't need to do a bloody thing really.

It isn't our problem, we are acting within the AFL's rules and the contract that he signed.

On the ghouls thing, melodramatic nonsense. Need a tissue?

An apt description for most St Kilda related threads since the trade period - almost all started by Collingwood supporters.

Must be wonderful to feel like a winner . . . in the offseason.

 

[yeah-nah]

I am starting to feel a bit sorry for you that you cant seem to find a way to admit that you dont know what you're talking about. Contradicting me seems to be your main objective.

At least youre not a ghoul like me. Im rather enjoying his pathetic wriggling and self contradictions.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Lovett is suspended from St Kilda because the standard player contract allows us to do so. It is that ultimately that's being challenged. If Lovett wins on that front then it has far broader consequences.

Nobody's arguing that point. Lovett still has the right to appeal of course, and should he win StKilda will have to cross those bridges at the time.

Irrespective, any termination of contract with Lovett will have massive TPP consequenses.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

At least youre not a ghoul like me. Im rather enjoying his pathetic wriggling and self contradictions.

Happy to laugh at JD's misfortune at the best of times. You dont have to do anything except throw facts in his face and he falls to pieces.

 

[yeah-nah]

Lovett is suspended from St Kilda because the standard player contract allows us to do so. It is that ultimately that's being challenged. If Lovett wins on that front then it has far broader consequences.

At the moment of course. But if he isnt charged then there is no basis to have him suspended. He is either unsuspended and is back in the fold or your lot cut a deal to pay him off and wear the TPP hit.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

At the moment of course. But if he isnt charged then there is no basis to have him suspended. He is either unsuspended and is back in the fold or your lot cut a deal to pay him off and wear the TPP hit.

Its really not that hard...

 

[The Fireman]

Its really not that hard...

he has stitched both of you up yet you are too stupid to see it.

 

[JeffDunne]

But if he isnt charged then there is no basis to have him suspended.

Remind me, why did Collingwood suspend Didak & Shaw?

When you consider Didak wasn't suspended for joy riding with a murderous thug shooting up the suburbs but was suspended for making Eddie look like a goose (not that he needs help), I'm staggered you think we need a player to be charged.

There is plenty of basis to suspend Lovett regardless of him being charged.

He is either unsuspended and is back in the fold or your lot cut a deal to pay him off and wear the TPP hit.

What tripe.

I know this whole scenario Collingwood supporters have dreamed up gives you wet undies, but there's more chance of Timmy winning an award for academic achievement than there is St Kilda coping sanctions for being over the TPP because Lovett is a ********.

Sorry to rain on your parade and take from the enjoyment you're gleening over the propsect that someone might have been r*ped.

 

[yeah-nah]

Remind me, why did Collingwood suspend Didak & Shaw?

Err, for admitting to breaching the behaviour clause in the standard AFL contract.

There is plenty of basis to suspend Lovett regardless of him being charged.

OK, thats fine, so if Lovett is not charged perhaps you can explain on what basis he can be suspended for the next 3 years?

Sorry to rain on your parade and take from the enjoyment you're gleening over the propsect that someone might have been r*ped.

Oh dear.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If no charges are forthcoming all we are left with is two alcohol related incidents and only one of them a "public" alcohol incident.

Under this scenario its reasonable to assume Lovett's suspension will have to come to an end at some stage during season 2010 -probably in the first half of the season - otherwise he will genuinely have some grievances to appeal.

You cannot indefinitely ban somebody because you dont like them any more.

So unless there are any other significant breaches of club code of ethics that we havent been told about, StKilda will have to either accept him back or pay him out, should police charges be not forthcoming.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The Vice President at StKilda is a partner in a law firm.
I trust that he has a fair idea what they can and can't get away with, and how to walk the line in-between.

Unless he is like William Shatner's character in Boston legal.

 

[Ricmel]

I trust that he has a fair idea what they can and can't get away with, and how to walk the line in-between.

Well the law is never black and white. In civil matters you cannot be certain of the outcome until it is ruled on.

Certainly under the COC within the standard contract, the Saints are currently on solid ground in terms of the suspension.

If ultimately they want to sack him then I would imagine the likely scenario is they will have to pay him out.

In terms of how that payment would be regarded by the AFL vis-a-vis the salary cap, I think sanity would prevail.

 

[JeffDunne]

OK, thats fine, so if Lovett is not charged perhaps you can explain on what basis he can be suspended for the next 3 years?

If no charges are forthcoming all we are left with is two alcohol related incidents and only one of them a "public" alcohol incident.

Can I ask, how in God's name would either of you two trolls know the details of Lovett's dealings with St Kilda? Let alone what the team rules are that he's supposed to have signed on to?

Maybe simply lying to the coach is enough to get you a lengthy suspension?

It is at your club.