Andrew Lovett - suspended indefinately

Remove this Banner Ad

Jim Boy said:
Lovett will argue the M&M precendent, which is a reasonable argument and suggest that their are other reasons why he was suspended. Its quite possible that he was suspended for other reasons. However he will probably argue that he was suspended because of sterotyping. Personally I think its more likely that he was suspended because the other players didn't want to have anything to do with him. Not really a valid reason to suspend someone, but not something that you have any real option in either - see Mitch Thorpe at Hawthorn last year.
Click to expand...
What the other players think/want is very valid. If Gram says Lovett should go then Lovett should go. I'll leave it at that at this stage.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

MarkT2 said:
What the other players think/want is very valid. If Gram says Lovett should go then Lovett should go. I'll leave it at that at this stage.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Riewoldt annoyed that they even picked him up???

I agree though, if the playing group decide that they don't want you around, then as a club you get rid of them.
 
RizzoTheRat said:
I agree with the sentiment that different management will handle situations differently. This should be self evident.

The other different factor here is that Gram was reported to be terribly distressed over the incident. Gram is obviously a long term player at the Saints with the respect of his peers. Lovett's presence at the club would have an incredibly disruptive influence.
Click to expand...

The different regime is understandable, but the other aspect is that reportedly the St Kilda players do not want Lovett around. I may be wrong, but given M&M are both still at the club now, a number of players who don't want Lovett around, would have been there at the time of the alleged M&M incident. What's changed?
 
greenred said:
The different regime is understandable, but the other aspect is that reportedly the St Kilda players do not want Lovett around. I may be wrong, but given M&M are both still at the club now, a number of players who don't want Lovett around, would have been there at the time of the alleged M&M incident. What's changed?
Click to expand...
Probably the culture of the club, like many clubs, the last 6 years have brought about a lot of changes in expectations from within the clubs and from society. 6 years might not sound much, but it has been a lot in terms of behavioural expectations within AFL circles
 
greenred said:
The different regime is understandable, but the other aspect is that reportedly the St Kilda players do not want Lovett around. I may be wrong, but given M&M are both still at the club now, a number of players who don't want Lovett around, would have been there at the time of the alleged M&M incident. What's changed?
Click to expand...
Quite a bit but since your obviously a troll theres no real point listing them all again...go try the cats maybe you will get more bites
 
greenred said:
The different regime is understandable, but the other aspect is that reportedly the St Kilda players do not want Lovett around. I may be wrong, but given M&M are both still at the club now, a number of players who don't want Lovett around, would have been there at the time of the alleged M&M incident. What's changed?
Click to expand...

I think that's a fair question. I'd say the main difference is that M&M are mates who only got themselves in trouble. Gram wasn't a participant and Lovett is the new guy.
 
SAMANTHA LANE | THE AGE | February 4 said:
Lovett, Saints moving closer to a showdown

ST KILDA'S refusal to lift its indefinite suspension of Andrew Lovett, who remains the subject of a police investigation over an alleged sexual assault, has escalated the player's grievance case, which is now in the hands of lawyers.

The AFL's general manager of operations, Adrian Anderson, who has been asked by the AFL Players Association to meet urgently over the matter, yesterday told The Age he hoped the case would be resolved simply and quickly.

Full Article
Click to expand...

of note
The Age learnt that Lovett, who received a letter from the Saints' football manager Greg Hutchison soon after the alleged sexual assault:

- Is receiving twice-weekly one-on-one skills tuition with St Kilda development coach Danny Sexton.

- Is completing a weekly time-trial around Princes Park at the club's insistence.

- Has been bought a gym membership by St Kilda.

- Has had no contact with senior coach Ross Lyon since Christmas.

Lovett is receiving his full base pay.
Click to expand...

Seems that St Kilda are doing a reasonable job of making sure he stays in good shape to play and is being fully paid.
 
I guess now would be a good time for the club to bring up the fact that AL was out drinking and (according to the Aints sheep on here) shouldnt have been/was not allowed to/thats really why he is in trouble. You will excuse me if I dont hold my breath.
 
yeah-nah said:
I guess now would be a good time for the club to bring up the fact that AL was out drinking and (according to the Aints sheep on here) shouldnt have been/was not allowed to/thats really why he is in trouble. You will excuse me if I dont hold my breath.
Click to expand...

ummm not it's not, this was previous to these allegations and was reported on at the time, they both seperate indiscretions.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gee this is going well for the Aints.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...tep-in-over-lovett-dispute-20100204-ng4g.html

Finnis, who told The Age earlier this week that St Kilda's stance appeared "manifestly excessive", considers the case to be important not only for Lovett, but for any AFL player who might find himself in a similar legal predicament. St Kilda is not elaborating on the reasoning behind its strong position with Lovett.
Click to expand...

But what about this second strike that the sheep on here have been rabitting on about? The contract clause? Shouldnt have been out drinking? Not elaborating? Why not? Maybe because its poppycock?
 
yeah-nah said:
But what about this second strike that the sheep on here have been rabitting on about? The contract clause? Shouldnt have been out drinking? Not elaborating? Why not? Maybe because its poppycock?
Click to expand...

Same reason we didn't 'elaborate' when Luke Ball was dropped from the team.

Lyon and the team have rules in place that aren't for public consumption. Doesn't matter who you are if you don't follow them you pay the price.

Lovett was read the riot act before his first incident.

St Kilda have nothing to worry about here. Worst that happens for us is we have to pay out his contract. Despite what moronic Collingwood supporters might think, St Kilda in recent times has gone beyond our contractual obligations to ensure players were paid what they were promised (even giving up list spots to allow it to happen). If we need to pay him to rid ourselves of a problem, we'll do it.

The AFL might have a problem though with their standard contract under the CBA (which allows St Kilda to do what they are doing). Even then, worst that happens for them is that he's released back into the system so he can be drafted next year.

If Lovett takes this to court, it is the AFL that have an issue, not St Kilda.
 
JeffDunne said:
St Kilda have nothing to worry about here. Worst that happens for us is we have to pay out his contract. Despite what moronic Collingwood supporters might think, St Kilda in recent times has gone beyond our contractual obligations to ensure players were paid what they were promised (even giving up list spots to allow it to happen). If we need to pay him to rid ourselves of a problem, we'll do it.
Click to expand...

Assuming it doesnt tip you over the salary cap.....which it probably would if you had to bring an extra two years salary at 350 pa into this year.
 
JeffDunne said:
Same reason we didn't 'elaborate' when Luke Ball was dropped from the team.

Lyon and the team have rules in place that aren't for public consumption. Doesn't matter who you are if you don't follow them you pay the price.

Lovett was read the riot act before his first incident.

St Kilda have nothing to worry about here. Worst that happens for us is we have to pay out his contract. Despite what moronic Collingwood supporters might think, St Kilda in recent times has gone beyond our contractual obligations to ensure players were paid what they were promised (even giving up list spots to allow it to happen). If we need to pay him to rid ourselves of a problem, we'll do it.

The AFL might have a problem though with their standard contract under the CBA (which allows St Kilda to do what they are doing). Even then, worst that happens for them is that he's released back into the system so he can be drafted next year.

If Lovett takes this to court, it is the AFL that have an issue, not St Kilda.
Click to expand...

Agree. If push comes to shove, you simply pay him out and rid yourselves of him. To accept him back into the fold now would have to cancerous to the club's morale and the entire playing group would be affected. Imagine asking Gram to play beside him. If he's proven to be non-guilty then that will be different, but the Saints simply can't have Lovett in the club right now.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Andrew Lovett - suspended indefinately

Similar threads

Taper
Andrew Dillon flags interest in bringing back State of Origin
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
164
Views
4K
Howard Littlejohn
Howard Littlejohn
Spiral_Out
AFL Must Suspend Steven May
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
135
Views
5K
matthew_s
matthew_s
nohairandfair
MRP / Trib. Harris Andrews - Elbow to Coniglio's Head
Replies
15
Views
445
Sherrinator
Sherrinator
Chief
News AFL Round 21 Milestones, Key Stats, Suspended Players, Fixture, TV Times
Replies
1
Views
457
Chief
Chief
powerrrrrrrrrrrr
Preview Andrew Dillon - CEO
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
Bjo187
Bjo187
Chief
News Round 8 - Milestones, key stats, fixtures, suspended players.
Replies
0
Views
291
Chief
Chief
Slartibartfast
Sparrow suspended
Replies
16
Views
773
Toump Ass
Toump Ass

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top