He is gone...rumour

Milton66 · Post: # 870944Post **Milton66** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 11:13am

Gawn.

Dis Believer · Sun 10 Jan 2010 11:51am

Did I detect a change in the landscape in that article? An offhand reference to the fact that he's expected to be charged on summons by the end of the month? First I have heard of that being mentioned. I am not familiar with the normal course of events in a situation like this, but is it possible for the police reporter at the paper to have already had a nod and a wink from one of his "contacts" within Victoria Police that they will be expecting to lay charges?

chook23 · Post: # 870951Post **chook23** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 11:57am

True Believer wrote:Did I detect a change in the landscape in that article? An offhand reference to the fact that he's expected to be charged on summons by the end of the month? First I have heard of that being mentioned. I am not familiar with the normal course of events in a situation like this, but is it possible for the police reporter at the paper to have already had a nod and a wink from one of his "contacts" within Victoria Police that they will be expecting to lay charges?

has been mentioned before in previous articles.........

Mr Magic · Post: # 870953Post **Mr Magic** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 12:11pm

Michael Gleeson from The Age has said a similar thing (charges to be laid by end of the month) at least twice in the last week in his radio spot on SEN.

Enrico_Misso · Sun 10 Jan 2010 12:21pm

I would like to know the "process" the club followed to waste a first round pick on this serial piece of scum?

When the alarm bells rang over recruiting Ben Cousins they had the sense to say no.

But when the alarm bells were screaming about Andrew Rapitt someone pressed the override button.

Why?
Who?

chook23 · Post: # 870957Post **chook23** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 12:31pm

Enrico_Misso wrote:I would like to know the "process" the club followed to waste a first round pick on this serial piece of scum?

When the alarm bells rang over recruiting Ben Cousins they had the sense to say no.

But when the alarm bells were screaming about Andrew Rapitt someone pressed the override button.

Why?
Who?

some real smart typing in your post????

Saints43 · Post: # 870958Post **Saints43** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 12:32pm

Jay Clark - Herald Sun wrote:Lovett's ban is a major disruption to his preparations as it is unknown if or where he will train.

Unknown if he will train?

Does he mean the club doesn't know if and where he'll be training? Or that Jay and I don't know?

If there was any chance he was playing this season wouldn't there be a club trainer or contracted trainer working with him to ensure that he is doing the required amount of work?

chook23 · Post: # 870960Post **chook23** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 12:34pm

Saints43 wrote:
Jay Clarke - Herald Sun wrote:Lovett's ban is a major disruption to his preparations as it is unknown if or where he will train.
Unknown if he will train?

If there was any chance he was playing this season wouldn't there be a club trainer or contracted trainer working with him to ensure that he is doing the required amount of work?

typical jorno line (without the facts) saints43

Eastern · Post: # 870962Post **Eastern** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 12:54pm

Saints43 wrote:
Jay Clark - Herald Sun wrote:Lovett's ban is a major disruption to his preparations as it is unknown if or where he will train.
Unknown if he will train?

Does he mean the club doesn't know if and where he'll be training? Or that Jay and I don't know?

If there was any chance he was playing this season wouldn't there be a club trainer or contracted trainer working with him to ensure that he is doing the required amount of work?

I suspect that the club has already made its decision, and that decision WAS to SACK HIM. When Michael Nettlefold fronted the cameras on Christmas Eve he stated that Lovett would have "No contact whatsoever" with the club (IMO this would also include club staff and vfl affiliate) whilst suspended. IMO he has already been sacked and the club is just waiting on the formalities from Victoria Police and possibly contractual advice from the AFL before announcing same.

I also believe that damage to the club because of this issue has been kept to a minimum because of the way in which it has been handled !!

borderbarry · Sun 10 Jan 2010 12:56pm

If he is going to be charged with Rape, he could be summonsed, but more likely taken into custody and bail set. There are not that many more serious charges on our statutes. If a lesser charge, which is quite possible, a summons would suffice.

saintly · Post: # 870969Post **saintly** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 1:36pm

Eastern wrote:
Saints43 wrote:
Jay Clark - Herald Sun wrote:Lovett's ban is a major disruption to his preparations as it is unknown if or where he will train.
Unknown if he will train?

Does he mean the club doesn't know if and where he'll be training? Or that Jay and I don't know?

If there was any chance he was playing this season wouldn't there be a club trainer or contracted trainer working with him to ensure that he is doing the required amount of work?
I suspect that the club has already made its decision, and that decision WAS to SACK HIM. When Michael Nettlefold fronted the cameras on Christmas Eve he stated that Lovett would have "No contact whatsoever" with the club (IMO this would also include club staff and vfl affiliate) whilst suspended. IMO he has already been sacked and the club is just waiting on the formalities from Victoria Police and possibly contractual advice from the AFL before announcing same.

I also believe that damage to the club because of this issue has been kept to a minimum because of the way in which it has been handled !!

Eastern i suspect you're right.

the way the saints have gone abut this has kept discruption to a minimum. Unlike the days/weeks of the milne& montagna doings!

i hope the saints and AFL has had legal advice about whether they can sack him! I also hope that if the police charge Lovett, the Saints deal with him and sack him quickly.

stinger · Post: # 870973Post **stinger** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 2:23pm

borderbarry wrote:If he is going to be charged with Rape, he could be summonsed, but more likely taken into custody and bail set. There are not that many more serious charges on our statutes. If a lesser charge, which is quite possible, a summons would suffice.

you guys miss this article did you???

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,,26 ... 09,00.html

"Police poised to charge Essendon recruit Andrew Lovett with rape

By David Hastie
January 10, 2010

The AFL career of troubled St Kilda recruit Andrew Lovett, 27, looks all but over, with Victoria Police set to charge him this month over the alleged rape of a woman.

Police sources said officers last week finished collecting statements and intended to charge Lovett on summons in the coming weeks, most likely with rape. "

..it's not if...it's when....

Quixote · Post: # 870976Post **Quixote** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 2:31pm

^^^ A very similar article to that appeared in today's print edition of the Sunday Sun.

The only difference being it stated that, on the night, Lovett initially denied the allegations, but when the police arrived, he broke down in front of them and the teammates present.

I'm terribly sorry, but, G-A-W-N.

saintsRrising · Sun 10 Jan 2010 2:34pm

I have mainly refrained from the Lovett threads.

But I think it is pretty clear now that he will be charged.

So whether guilty or innocent his AFL career is over.

saintly · Post: # 870981Post **saintly** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 2:41pm

saintsRrising wrote:I have mainly refrained from the Lovett threads.

But I think it is pretty clear now that he will be charged.

So whether guilty or innocent his AFL career is over.

If he is charge (and it looks more and more likely to be when not if) that the Saints move quickly to sack him, otherwise Jeldwen and other sponsors logo's will be all in the front pages of newspapers , i doubt that they would like that.

chook23 · Post: # 870982Post **chook23** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 2:41pm

Quixote wrote:^^^ A very similar article to that appeared in today's print edition of the Sunday Sun.

The only difference being it stated that, on the night, Lovett initially denied the allegations, but when the police arrived, he broke down in front of them and the teammates present.

I'm terribly sorry, but, G-A-W-N.

The article I read
says

After denying any wrongdoing, it is understood Lovett broke down in front of team-mates before police arrived at the scene

WHY SAY the only difference it stated that, on the night etc...................not true

again why say it said that in your thread?

unless it is different in different editions?????

stinger · Post: # 870988Post **stinger** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 2:47pm

Quixote wrote:^^^ A very similar article to that appeared in today's print edition of the Sunday Sun.

The only difference being it stated that, on the night, Lovett initially denied the allegations, but when the police arrived, he broke down in front of them and the teammates present.

I'm terribly sorry, but, G-A-W-N.

yep......a highly prejudicial hearsay statement that should never have appeared in the press.....i might add...

Quixote · Post: # 870989Post **Quixote** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 2:49pm

chook23 wrote:
Quixote wrote:^^^ A very similar article to that appeared in today's print edition of the Sunday Sun.

The only difference being it stated that, on the night, Lovett initially denied the allegations, but when the police arrived, he broke down in front of them and the teammates present.

I'm terribly sorry, but, G-A-W-N.
The article I read
says

After denying any wrongdoing, it is understood Lovett broke down in front of team-mates before police arrived at the scene

WHY SAY the only difference it stated that, on the night etc...................not true

again why say it said that in your thread?

Huh??

I'm going from memory of the article. Essentially it's the same thing - Lovett denied wrongdoing and broke down. Whatever. The fact that he broke down is the point being made. Yeah it's a bit different that this happened BEFORE police arrived, but that's semantics. I'd imagine he knew they were coming and he knew he was in the chit.

For what it's worth, without knowing the full scope of the whole situation, I actually feel really sorry for Andrew Lovett, and I sincerely hope he can get over this.

Oh - and that WAS the only difference in the articles. 'Cept the Fox article has month old quotes, where the Sun didn't.

Take your vitamins bro.

chook23 · Post: # 870991Post **chook23** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 2:50pm

stinger wrote:
Quixote wrote:^^^ A very similar article to that appeared in today's print edition of the Sunday Sun.

The only difference being it stated that, on the night, Lovett initially denied the allegations, but when the police arrived, he broke down in front of them and the teammates present.

I'm terribly sorry, but, G-A-W-N.
yep......a highly prejudicial hearsay statement that should never have appeared in the press.....i might add...

in the article I read stinger... does not say what Quixote has typed

stinger · Post: # 870998Post **stinger** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 2:55pm

chook23 wrote:
stinger wrote:
Quixote wrote:^^^ A very similar article to that appeared in today's print edition of the Sunday Sun.

The only difference being it stated that, on the night, Lovett initially denied the allegations, but when the police arrived, he broke down in front of them and the teammates present.

I'm terribly sorry, but, G-A-W-N.
yep......a highly prejudicial hearsay statement that should never have appeared in the press.....i might add...
in the article I read stinger... does not say what Quixote has typed

does in the melbourne hun though....

chook23 · Post: # 871000Post **chook23** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 2:58pm

stinger wrote:
chook23 wrote:
stinger wrote:
Quixote wrote:^^^ A very similar article to that appeared in today's print edition of the Sunday Sun.

The only difference being it stated that, on the night, Lovett initially denied the allegations, but when the police arrived, he broke down in front of them and the teammates present.

I'm terribly sorry, but, G-A-W-N.
yep......a highly prejudicial hearsay statement that should never have appeared in the press.....i might add...
in the article I read stinger... does not say what Quixote has typed
does in the melbourne hun though....

re read it stinger and compare..........a fair difference

stinger · Post: # 871010Post **stinger** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 3:10pm

chook23 wrote:
stinger wrote:
chook23 wrote:
stinger wrote:
Quixote wrote:^^^ A very similar article to that appeared in today's print edition of the Sunday Sun.

The only difference being it stated that, on the night, Lovett initially denied the allegations, but when the police arrived, he broke down in front of them and the teammates present.

I'm terribly sorry, but, G-A-W-N.
yep......a highly prejudicial hearsay statement that should never have appeared in the press.....i might add...
in the article I read stinger... does not say what Quixote has typed
does in the melbourne hun though....
re read it stinger and compare..........a fair difference

yeah....i didn't read what was posted here properly...sorry.....you are spot on...still....the hun shouldn't have printed what it did...interestingly..if you click on the hun and look for the link..it comes up with the fox version....

still.....he's flowered i reckon.....as far as the saints go.....leave the courts decision up to them......

desertsaint · Sun 10 Jan 2010 3:17pm

Just glad this fella never actually took the field in a saints jumper.
And hope this issue will mean that Lyon et al realise there should
be certain standards besides on field ability that a potential recruit
needs to fulfill.
Lovett has tainted footballers, the saints, and his people.
There's been a lot of indigenous footballers donating their time in a campaign aimed at lowering violence against women in the territory.
Class acts like Clarke and Davies.
How must they be feeling.

stinger · Post: # 871014Post **stinger** » Sun 10 Jan 2010 3:22pm

desertsaint wrote:Just glad this fella never actually took the field in a saints jumper.
And hope this issue will mean that Lyon et al realise there should
be certain standards besides on field ability that a potential recruit
needs to fulfill.
Lovett has tainted footballers, the saints, and his people.
There's been a lot of indigenous footballers donating their time in a campaign aimed at lowering violence against women in the territory.
Class acts like Clarke and Davies.
How must they be feeling.

yep....apart from the damage done to the girl.....that's the fall- out from this whole sorry affair.....