Andrew Lovett - suspended indefinately

[Slattery_20]

mods please re-name thread to "Timmy fT bangs on about the same crap for 39 pages"
That, or close/delete it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

mods please re-name thread to "Timmy fT bangs on about the same crap for 39 pages"
That, or close/delete it.

Thread title will have to be followed by a number to differentiate.

 

[Falchoon]

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

I thought it was because Ed asked the media whether they'd be accusing Didak of the Kennedy assassination next, after they asked of his involvement in the Shaw mishap.

Ed doesn't like anyone else making him look like a fool.

 

[Falchoon]

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

lucky the second one didn't become "public"

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

lucky the second one didn't become "public"

If you have any information to share I'm all ears. It cant be any worse that what's already been alleged.

 

[yeah-nah]

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?

We know what you know. SFA. But this is a discussion on potential outcomes and likely courses of action. Nothing is certain. Difference is, unlike you, we dont pretend we know anything more than has been reported, and our scenarios dont involve locking Lovett up in Lyons basement for 3 years.

I thought it was because Ed asked the media whether they'd be accusing Didak of the Kennedy assassination next

Now theres an indiscretion that could justify a 3 year suspension. Luckily he didnt do it anyway. Was drunk and asleep in the back seat of a car behind the knoll when JFK was shot.

 

[yeah-nah]

Ed doesn't like anyone else making him look like a fool.

Least he had help to look stupid. During trade week, Roscoe managed to achieve that feat all on his own.

 

[Falchoon]

Least he had help to look stupid. During trade week, Roscoe managed to achieve that feat all on his own.

the proof is in the pudding

 

[yeah-nah]

the proof is in the pudding

Indeed. I outrank you on experience however.

 

[Falchoon]

Indeed. I outrank you on experience however.

you've lost me

 

[MrChristo]

That's actually pretty funny ...

...for a Collingwood supporter.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It is astonishing to think the lyon apologists on this board insist that lovett has done something else wrong - apart from the rape charges which at this point remain unsubstatiated- that on their own would give the club cause to sack him or keep him suspended for three years.

But when pressed for details, the silence is deafening.

 

[JeffDunne]

It is astonishing to think you have nothing more significant in your life than obsessing over (read trolling) St Kilda, Ross Lyon and Andrew Lovett.

But if it makes you feel like a winner Timmid, why don't you make another 100 posts on the subject today? No need to let your average slip now.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Stick to the topic JD.

When beaten in an argument, all you do is revert to abuse and deflection.

 

[Squizz]

It is astonishing to think the lyon apologists on this board insist that lovett has done something else wrong - apart from the rape charges which at this point remain unsubstatiated- that on their own would give the club cause to sack him or keep him suspended for three years.

But when pressed for details, the silence is deafening.

How do you find a way to keep upping the stupidity?

Lovett came to the club with an ordinary track record, had an incident with the police almost immediately, and proceeded (almost straight after an incident at Carlton with a follow up reminder from Lyon to pull their collective head in) to put himself in another unnecessary situation - regardless of the outcome in a criminal sense.

But you keep rabbiting on - it seems to provide amusement to others.

 

[Falchoon]

It is astonishing to think the lyon apologists on this board insist that lovett has done something else wrong - apart from the rape charges which at this point remain unsubstatiated- that on their own would give the club cause to sack him or keep him suspended for three years.

But when pressed for details, the silence is deafening.

This Lyon apologist feels misquoted.

Sack - no
3 years - no
preseason suspension as a minimum - yes

how do you know he didn't lie Timmy, precedent says that's worth August and September.

 

[Falchoon]

When beaten in an argument, all you do is revert to abuse and deflection.

is there a contest on?

no one told me

 

[JeffDunne]

When beaten in an argument . . .

You really do crack me up.

Small man syndrome by any chance Timmid?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It is astonishing to think the lyon apologists on this board insist that lovett has done something else wrong - apart from the rape charges which at this point remain unsubstatiated- that on their own would give the club cause to sack him or keep him suspended for three years.

But when pressed for details, the silence is deafening.

Spokesmen from the club including Lyon have made it clear why no information is forthcoming. Well clear to normal people anyway.

I'm not sure why you think there are Lyon apologists posting.
While I'm sure that he had a hand in the recruitment of Lovett, he would certainly not be dictating policy regarding the handling of him at this time. He would simply be acting withing the policy's given to him by the senior managment of the club.
Similarly, apart from proclaiming his innocence Lovett has not exactly been spruiking his side of the story.

Rape charges are not "something wrong", they are one possible consequence of doing something wrong.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

This doesn't help:

"A police spokeswoman yesterday confirmed that the lead investigator on the Lovett case has been on annual leave for several weeks but investigations had continued. She added that police would ''not be rushed into completing an investigation because of other civil matters''.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

It is astonishing to think you have nothing more significant in your life than obsessing over (read trolling) St Kilda, Ross Lyon and Andrew Lovett.

Yeah don't you just hate it when people bitterly obsess over a club JD?

From a Carlton point of view, the Saints deserve all the trolling they get. Especially given the way you and Fireman continually carry on.

You've been one of the most obsessive anti-Carlton posters since I've joined this site. Now the Saints are copping some flak and suddenly it's "OMG stop obsessing guys!"

Give me a break.

 

[JeffDunne]

Yeah don't you just hate it when people bitterly obsess over a club JD?

I hate it more when people obsess over an individual poster.

Frankly I find it flattering but also somewhat disturbing.

Collingwood supporters can troll us day in day out for all care, it's there mindless lack of originality that's really the annoying part. Timmid's "bump" this morning was about as juvenile as trolling gets.

Maybe it's because we're not a "traditional" rival, but Collingwood (& Carlton) supporters really struggle when trolling St Kilda. I guess you only really have results from a lifetime ago to fall back on.

St Kilda screwed up in trading for Lovett. We understand the logic behind the decision to trade for a player of his type but Essendon bent us over and drove a Mac truck through us.

Funny, I don't see Essendon supporters trolling us. Christ, they even have on-field results to back up their ownership of us.

This has turned into an unfortunate situation for all involved but it's really only gutter-snipes that try and turn this into a "win".

 

[OB1]

It is astonishing to think the lyon apologists on this board insist that lovett has done something else wrong - apart from the rape charges which at this point remain unsubstatiated- that on their own would give the club cause to sack him or keep him suspended for three years.

But when pressed for details, the silence is deafening.

I certainly wouldn't say I'm a Lyon apologist but my take on it is pretty straight forward. I believe Lovett has been banished not because he allegedly sexually assulted a woman, but because the assult happened in a teamates home/bed & involved a woman who was known to the players. I would think that the reaction from Stkilda may have been different if the incident occured at a different location & had no connection to any other players in the group.

Its a bit like the whole Carey incident. The problem wasn't that Carey had sex with a married woman, the problem was that it was his teamates wife. StKilda backed Milne & Montagna but would they have done the same if it happened in Riewoldt's place to one of Steph's friends & he knew the details of what really happened? I certainly get the impression from Stkilda's reaction that because there was another player present they know a lot more about the story than the media. I believe they have banished Lovett because the players have already decided they don't want him around & Stkilda have rightly determined the groups welfare is more important than an individual player who has brought the scorn upon himself.

Not sure if that covers your search for details but its my take on it & I'm sure its one that some Saints fans will agree with. While I don't agree with the principle of suspending Lovett before the courts have heard the case I think Stkilda has no choice but to keep him away from the rest of the group or risk major disruption & disharmony with other players. Personally I'd love for that group to be in dissarray but I can't criticise them for trying to prevent it.

 

[Atomboy]

I certainly wouldn't say I'm a Lyon apologist but my take on it is pretty straight forward. I believe Lovett has been banished not because he allegedly sexually assulted a woman, but because the assult happened in a teamates home/bed & involved a woman who was known to the players. I would think that the reaction from Stkilda may have been different if the incident occured at a different location & had no connection to any other players in the group.

Its a bit like the whole Carey incident. The problem wasn't that Carey had sex with a married woman, the problem was that it was his teamates wife. StKilda backed Milne & Montagna but would they have done the same if it happened in Riewoldt's place to one of Steph's friends & he knew the details of what really happened? I certainly get the impression from Stkilda's reaction that because there was another player present they know a lot more about the story than the media. I believe they have banished Lovett because the players have already decided they don't want him around & Stkilda have rightly determined the groups welfare is more important than an individual player who has brought the scorn upon himself.

Not sure if that covers your search for details but its my take on it & I'm sure its one that some Saints fans will agree with. While I don't agree with the principle of suspending Lovett before the courts have heard the case I think Stkilda has no choice but to keep him away from the rest of the group or risk major disruption & disharmony with other players. Personally I'd love for that group to be in dissarray but I can't criticise them for trying to prevent it.

Nice post .

As for the AFLPA and all the bleating they've done about the rights of Lovett to train with the group, what about the rights of the other 50 other AFLPA members on the list who plainly want nothing to do with him ??.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I hate it more when people obsess over an individual poster..

So do I

I wish people would just stick to the topic and simply come up with reasonable countering arguments when they disagree with somebody, rather than getting obver emotional.