-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Saints Walking a Fine Line
- Thread starter Pevers-Legend
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The point is that your club has taken on Fev knowing his history so maybe your club should be punished?
I am just trying to point out some of the hypocrisies here.
I know I'm going back to the situation with his girlfriend, but no one right in the head bombards someone with text messages. Threatens to kill them and stalks them. I don't care what their sob story is.
invinciBlues
Norm Smith Medallist
So, your happy with how your club has been handling this?
Buckle in, because its only going to get worse. Even if Lovett is convicted of rape, he still has a case of unfair dismissal against st kilda. They went on public record saying that the charges are not the reason, no matter if it is bullshit.
st kilda needs to kowtow to the AFL and lower its chin and most importantly, stop making enemies.
You can label me with whatever names you like, it doesnt change the fact that the writing is on the wall and your club is acting petulant.
I know what you're saying, but even in this current situation I don't think Fevola has done anything wrong - convenient to say of course. But I'd be defending anyone in the AFL if they were against someone managed by Max Markson.
When Fev breaks rules at Brisbane we could well be punished, considering the times he's upset the AFL on a bigger stage.
Few things...
There is a victim in all of this, and it's not Andrew
The article does go onto say that the Saints are happy to meet with the Lovett camp today.
There is a victim in all of this, and it's not Andrew
The article does go onto say that the Saints are happy to meet with the Lovett camp today.
Defacto
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 21, 2008
- 22,930
- 17,129
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
i think we've missed the point.
st kilda has stated they wanted to see the findings in writting on why andrew lovett case should be heard. the afl pa has yet to provide this, why is it taking so long to write up the findings?
as a member i am happy the saints arent going to this tribunal until they getting written confirmation on why lovetts case was allowed to go to the tribunal. when they get it i am happy for them to attended but this should be taken one step at a time and not rushed.
st kilda has stated they wanted to see the findings in writting on why andrew lovett case should be heard. the afl pa has yet to provide this, why is it taking so long to write up the findings?
as a member i am happy the saints arent going to this tribunal until they getting written confirmation on why lovetts case was allowed to go to the tribunal. when they get it i am happy for them to attended but this should be taken one step at a time and not rushed.
Defacto
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 21, 2008
- 22,930
- 17,129
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
bloody hell.
there is a contracted grievance procedure and it clearly states that AFL clubs are bound by the agreement. Clause 2 CBA
the fines are defined as 50 units, i'm going to assume a unit is $1000. clause 32 CBA
as far as i can see, St Kilda do not have a leg to stand on here. they are bound to follow the process as set out in the CBA. i'd be interested to see the advice that tells St Kilda how they can avoid the process and possibly cost themselves, court costs, liquidated damages and paying out the contract.
the fines are defined as 50 units, i'm going to assume a unit is $1000. clause 32 CBA
as far as i can see, St Kilda do not have a leg to stand on here. they are bound to follow the process as set out in the CBA. i'd be interested to see the advice that tells St Kilda how they can avoid the process and possibly cost themselves, court costs, liquidated damages and paying out the contract.
Defacto
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 21, 2008
- 22,930
- 17,129
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
theyre meeting today
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
Actually - there are two alleged victims - one criminal and one civil - and yes one is Andrew
http://www.afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/policies/cba 2007-2011 final.pdf
clause 33.3 (a) - (d) assuming that has been followed they don't have supply reasons, it's a contracted process. there isn't a commital hearing to work out whether Lovett has a case, it is the final part of the process to get a result.
If St Kilda have not participated in that process or the process hasn't concluded to the satisfaction one of the parties, see 33.3 (c & d). it goes to a Grievance Tribunal.
- Banned
- #88
A negotiated settlement would be the best way forward for everyone.
We are not wakling a fine line. The legal represenatives for our club know exactly what they are doing. Good. Why should we be bound by an AFL directive that is typically only gaing to favour this revolting "player"-especially when he is not emplyed by the club. This is no longer, a dispute between employer and employee. Hopefully we can get to a court where there is still some common sense (I do hope that it's not before a Hulls appointed judge-where the only pre-requisite is a mental disorder, one where anyone who commits a crime is the "victim" of something)
As for the AFLPA they are a friggin joke. Our players resoundingly supported the sacking of this degenerate, yet the AFLPA are quite happy to have our leadership group, hauled up to give evidence and humiliated by Lovett's camp. Another reason why we are avoiding this farce. Let's make no mistake which "player" the AFLPaBulldust Association is "supporting"
As for the AFLPA they are a friggin joke. Our players resoundingly supported the sacking of this degenerate, yet the AFLPA are quite happy to have our leadership group, hauled up to give evidence and humiliated by Lovett's camp. Another reason why we are avoiding this farce. Let's make no mistake which "player" the AFLPaBulldust Association is "supporting"
You seem to have a fair amount of your posts edited by the Mods and even have threads removed....i think that is fair to assume that you are nothing but a troll...and a poor one at that.
Why even send lawyers to argue that this case shouldnt be held under the grievance tribunal if they had no intention of ever abiding by the decision if they lost. By argueing the case there to begin with they have recognized the grievance tribunal, now they just look like a kid throwing their toys out of the pram because they lost
If Lovett turned up, im guessing the AFL did too with just 1 empty place. St Kilda. Saints fans thinking that wouldnt pissoff the AFL and AFLPA have rocks in their heads.
I expect the AFL contacted the Saints after their no show and informed them a fine would be coming their way and they had better be there next time
If Lovett turned up, im guessing the AFL did too with just 1 empty place. St Kilda. Saints fans thinking that wouldnt pissoff the AFL and AFLPA have rocks in their heads.
I expect the AFL contacted the Saints after their no show and informed them a fine would be coming their way and they had better be there next time
- Banned
- #93
You seem to have a fair amount of your posts edited by the Mods and even have threads removed....i think that is fair to assume that you are nothing but a troll...and a poor one at that.
Youre right fireman why let the facts speak...........when you can sprout selfindulgent crap
or is foschini and morwood and stkilda challenging the system and ultimately resulting in what was it 14 cents in the dollar payouts to loyal club servants incorrect? or not factual?
A stupid challenge sent your club to the wall it may do it again.
but as i said in a later post offer him 22c he might take it.
Defacto
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 21, 2008
- 22,930
- 17,129
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
one serious question. if the saints hold out and lovett is then found quilty of rape would they have to give lovett a dime?
Which Saints fans would that be? Do you know of any?
My browsers screwing up so i cbfd finding & posting the ones earlier in this thread that said the AFL would be advising them and giving their actions behind the scenes approval
Firstly, i dont see how the Saints can hold out without copping massive penaltys from the AFL, there is only one footy related organisation that can bend the AFL over and thats the AFLPA, if they are behind Lovett and abiding by the CBA and St Kilda arent, the AFL will sanction St Kilda independent of any claim Lovett may have against them
Secondly by completely saying the termination has nothing to do with him being up on a rape charge, i dont see how any future result in the criminal case can be a factor from here on in
Your the one that has his posts edited by the mods, so I guess that makes you the one that is talking crap.
More crap from you, that has absolutely no connection or similarity to what is happening today.
Different club these days or haven't you noticed? The club back in those days was always on the edge of bankruptcy so More crap from you.
If it would remove the trolls like yourself from BF I might offer full $
- Jun 4, 2007
- 951
- 77
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Don't care about Lovett.
Just don't want a precedent set where a club can terminate a contract because a player seemingly puts on a few kgs during the off season. Saints should have worded the reasons for termination better.
Just don't want a precedent set where a club can terminate a contract because a player seemingly puts on a few kgs during the off season. Saints should have worded the reasons for termination better.
why would a court be a better place to solve this than at the grievance tribunal? is it because it actually is a better place or the saints believe they have a better chance of winning. i would have thought that the grievance tribunal would be better because its within the context of this sport.We are not wakling a fine line. The legal represenatives for our club know exactly what they are doing. Good. Why should we be bound by an AFL directive that is typically only gaing to favour this revolting "player"-especially when he is not emplyed by the club. This is no longer, a dispute between employer and employee. Hopefully we can get to a court where there is still some common sense (I do hope that it's not before a Hulls appointed judge-where the only pre-requisite is a mental disorder, one where anyone who commits a crime is the "victim" of something)
As for the AFLPA they are a friggin joke. Our players resoundingly supported the sacking of this degenerate, yet the AFLPA are quite happy to have our leadership group, hauled up to give evidence and humiliated by Lovett's camp. Another reason why we are avoiding this farce. Let's make no mistake which "player" the AFLPaBulldust Association is "supporting"
Sounds like the Saints think they have breached AFL agreements and hence want this assessed in a court.
i would think that running a couple of slow laps is like having a slow day at work. not good and probably worth a warning if its too bad but to sack him?
Similar threads
