Lovett lodges notice of grievance with club

[satchmo]

f*** Andrew Lovett....

Did I say that out loud...

No, you typed it. Now SHOUT IT!

f*** Andrew Lovett...

[Bernard Shakey]

f*** Andrew Lovett....

Did I say that out loud...

Not lod enough, you should have used a capital F***

[stinger]

f*** Andrew Lovett...

all in good time...they will be lining up if he gets gaol time.......

[GrumpyOne]

For what it's worth

In today's Herald Sun - it's reported Lovett's appearance at the St Kilda festival was the final straw after he dodged a medical test the day before.

He told the Saints he had a throat infection and was out of action until the Monday.

The club is still leaking stuff to justify its sacking decision.

The truth is still out there.

And let me guess - it's a racially motivated truth...

You have an appropriate avatar GO, you're like a dog with a bone on this, the only problem is that when you stand up you're going to realise you've been gnawing on your own hind leg...........

Go back a day in this thread TB, and you'll find i replied to one of your posts by saying this:

I'll withdraw the race card, because I think I have discovered what the club is concealing, and it has nothing to do with race

.

I don't know what you are talking about when you mention dogs..... That avatar is actually a picture of my mother-in-law.

[Dis Believer]

Go back a day in this thread TB, and you'll find i replied to one of your posts by saying this:

I'll withdraw the race card, because I think I have discovered what the club is concealing, and it has nothing to do with race

.

I don't know what you are talking about when you mention dogs..... That avatar is actually a picture of my mother-in-law.

Sorry GO - I haven't seen your withdrawal post.
Touche on the mother-in-law. I had a falling out with my mother-in-law after I bought her a really nice chair for Christmas and she refused to plug it in.

[Fidelis]

And just when it seemed that the club might settle this quietly, the circus moves up a notch with the Saints refusing to show up for a grievance tribunal hearing. Will this never go away?

"ST KILDA has dramatically escalated the dispute with its exiled player Andrew Lovett by yesterday controversially refusing to attend the AFL's grievance tribunal, declaring the club did not believe it should be bound by the tribunal."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -plrc.html

[bigred]

Stick it to the man!

Who gives a flower.

At least they are standing up for themselves.

[chook23]

And just when it seemed that the club might settle this quietly, the circus moves up a notch with the Saints refusing to show up for a grievance tribunal hearing. Will this never go away?

"ST KILDA has dramatically escalated the dispute with its exiled player Andrew Lovett by yesterday controversially refusing to attend the AFL's grievance tribunal, declaring the club did not believe it should be bound by the tribunal."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -plrc.html

appears on the surface almost childish not to attend...................(and possibly expensive....lot of hard yards by social club raffle sellers etc to meet the possible fine(s))

but have done it for a reason only our legals know why

[santazzi]

And just when it seemed that the club might settle this quietly, the circus moves up a notch with the Saints refusing to show up for a grievance tribunal hearing. Will this never go away?

"ST KILDA has dramatically escalated the dispute with its exiled player Andrew Lovett by yesterday controversially refusing to attend the AFL's grievance tribunal, declaring the club did not believe it should be bound by the tribunal."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -plrc.html

appears on the surface almost childish not to attend...................(and possibly expensive....lot of hard yards by social club raffle sellers etc to meet the possible fine(s))

but have done it for a reason only our legals know why

I pray and hope the "legals"know" what they are doing........I pray and hope it is not a case of making a bad decision in the first instance and making a worse one to cover the first..................

[Mr Magic]

I believe we are seeing 'hard negotiating' taking place.

It may well be that the Club is now trying to delay any hearings to put pressure on Lovett's financial position.
Whilst he was employed by the 'Saints' he was earning approx 7k per week which would have funded the myriad of lawyers he's now employed.

By terminating his employment and ceasing to pay him, Lovett now has to find the monewy to pay these lawyers from somewhere else.

If he gets into a tight enough situation (financially) he may be forced into negotiating a settlement with the Club.

I wonder if we're not seeing a little 'payback' from the Club for what they perceive was his intent to 'milk' them of the total salary by delaying the rape court case, adn then taking them before teh Grievance Tribunal for 'bullying (amongst other claims)?

[chook23]

I believe we are seeing 'hard negotiating' taking place.

It may well be that the Club is now trying to delay any hearings to put pressure on Lovett's financial position.
Whilst he was employed by the 'Saints' he was earning approx 7k per week which would have funded the myriad of lawyers he's now employed.

By terminating his employment and ceasing to pay him, Lovett now has to find the monewy to pay these lawyers from somewhere else.

If he gets into a tight enough situation (financially) he may be forced into negotiating a settlement with the Club.

I wonder if we're not seeing a little 'payback' from the Club for what they perceive was his intent to 'milk' them of the total salary by delaying the rape court case, adn then taking them before teh Grievance Tribunal for 'bullying (amongst other claims)?

bolded area like to explain...........

[Eastern]

We are all 2nd guessing what others are thinking now.

My thoughts are;

Lovett's side want it settled at the Grievence Tribunal as they see this as their best chance at getting the best result (somewhere between $300,000-$1Mill) for their man

St Kilda want it to go to Supreme Court as an Unfair Dismissal Claim as they feel they can justify the sacking, therefore handing Lovett nothing more than a very large Legal BILL !!

[WinnersOnly]

We are all 2nd guessing what others are thinking now.

My thoughts are;

Lovett's side want it settled at the Grievence Tribunal as they see this as their best chance at getting the best result (somewhere between $300,000-$1Mill) for their man

St Kilda want it to go to Supreme Court as an Unfair Dismissal Claim as they feel they can justify the sacking, therefore handing Lovett nothing more than a very large Legal BILL !!

I would suggest that the burden of proof for the LOVETT camp in a Supreme Court would be higher and harder to prove than the tribunual. I would also suggest that the AFL hierarchy would be keen to put this to bed no matter what the cost to the SAINTS, hence the tribunual decision.

Good anya SAINTS stick it to the slimy bast...s!

[saintlee]

And just when it seemed that the club might settle this quietly, the circus moves up a notch with the Saints refusing to show up for a grievance tribunal hearing. Will this never go away?

"ST KILDA has dramatically escalated the dispute with its exiled player Andrew Lovett by yesterday controversially refusing to attend the AFL's grievance tribunal, declaring the club did not believe it should be bound by the tribunal."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -plrc.html

appears on the surface almost childish not to attend...................(and possibly expensive....lot of hard yards by social club raffle sellers etc to meet the possible fine(s))

but have done it for a reason only our legals know why

Thought the same thing....seems childish and stubborn not to attend....lets hope the club knows what its doing here

[GrumpyOne]

Incredibly dirty pool being played by the Saints here.

Appears a very childish attitude to adopt.

If we carry on like this, Lovett will look more and more of a victim, and the club will lose whatever support it has at the AFL.

[poatina]

There is an old legal adage;" A solicitor who acts for himself has a fool for a client ".
The Age reports that St Skilda Vice - President Ross Levin " is a lawyer who has been handling the matter for St Kilda >"
Mr Levin is no doubt an excellent lawyer but if he is indeed "handling " this matter as a lawyer he cannot have the necessary distance from Board decisions to give dispassionate advice. Such advice might , or might not , be the same as has led to this confrontational approach , but it might not be tainted by ego or Board pressures and might take into account the realities of all facets of the situation , not just whether the Board's actions will be shown to be " right " after a long and distracting Court process.

[SainterK]

Let's be very clear, there is, and will only ever be one victim in this situation.

[GrumpyOne]

There is an old legal adage;" A solicitor who acts for himself has a fool for a client ".
The Age reports that St Skilda Vice - President Ross Levin " is a lawyer who has been handling the matter for St Kilda >"
Mr Levin is no doubt an excellent lawyer but if he is indeed "handling " this matter as a lawyer he cannot have the necessary distance from Board decisions to give dispassionate advice. Such advice might , or might not , be the same as has led to this confrontational approach , but it might not be tainted by ego or Board pressures and might take into account the realities of all facets of the situation , not just whether the Board's actions will be shown to be " right " after a long and distracting Court process.

Good point.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

And just when it seemed that the club might settle this quietly, the circus moves up a notch with the Saints refusing to show up for a grievance tribunal hearing. Will this never go away?

"ST KILDA has dramatically escalated the dispute with its exiled player Andrew Lovett by yesterday controversially refusing to attend the AFL's grievance tribunal, declaring the club did not believe it should be bound by the tribunal."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -plrc.html

appears on the surface almost childish not to attend...................(and possibly expensive....lot of hard yards by social club raffle sellers etc to meet the possible fine(s))

but have done it for a reason only our legals know why

Thought the same thing....seems childish and stubborn not to attend....lets hope the club knows what its doing here

Do people really think the AFL is best equipped to deal with this scenario?

There certainly isn't any precedent to go by, and with the tribunal having decided against St Kilda, is it a surprise that they don't show up to a mediation session? For mine, they show up if they're rolling over.

The Saints sacked the guy and don't want to pay him, after employing him for just long enough to have served 3 cups of coffee.

Of course they don't turn up.

If there's a knife fight in the schoolyard and your kid gets stabbed, you don't send your kid to a school run mediation session with the librarian, you put it through the courts.

Now of course, they have to win their court case... otherwise this is going to be an expensive exercise in principle...

[bozza1980]

I just hope the club's legal advice is sound.

It is turning into the mother of horrible messes at the moment and I don't like the AFL's deafening silence on the matter.

It is interesting how they have responded to this situation when compared to the Ben Cousins drama.

Ben Cousins when all was said and done was convicted of leaving a car on a motorway and was an accused drug addict when he was deregistered by the AFL for a year.

Andrew Lovett has been charged with a serious offence and the AFL is tacitly approving him and his dispute with the club.

So Ben Cousins was thought to have been a criminal with not enough evidence to even support a charge and was suspended from all Football for a year, Andrew Lovett is considered by the police and the DPP a rapist and the AFL supports his rights to claim money from and AFL club.

Ridiculous hypocrisy, but this is the AFL I shouldn't be so suprised.

[saintlee]

And just when it seemed that the club might settle this quietly, the circus moves up a notch with the Saints refusing to show up for a grievance tribunal hearing. Will this never go away?

"ST KILDA has dramatically escalated the dispute with its exiled player Andrew Lovett by yesterday controversially refusing to attend the AFL's grievance tribunal, declaring the club did not believe it should be bound by the tribunal."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -plrc.html

appears on the surface almost childish not to attend...................(and possibly expensive....lot of hard yards by social club raffle sellers etc to meet the possible fine(s))

but have done it for a reason only our legals know why

Thought the same thing....seems childish and stubborn not to attend....lets hope the club knows what its doing here

Do people really think the AFL is best equipped to deal with this scenario?

There certainly isn't any precedent to go by, and with the tribunal having decided against St Kilda, is it a surprise that they don't show up to a mediation session? For mine, they show up if they're rolling over.

The Saints sacked the guy and don't want to pay him, after employing him for just long enough to have served 3 cups of coffee.

Of course they don't turn up.

If there's a knife fight in the schoolyard and your kid gets stabbed, you don't send your kid to a school run mediation session with the librarian, you put it through the courts.

Now of course, they have to win their court case... otherwise this is going to be an expensive exercise in principle...

Its the expense that concerns me, the club will receive weekly fines for not attending....

Incidently, thats a poor analogy, the school principal and school councilors would be involved in mediation not the librarian

[BAM! (shhhh)]

And just when it seemed that the club might settle this quietly, the circus moves up a notch with the Saints refusing to show up for a grievance tribunal hearing. Will this never go away?

"ST KILDA has dramatically escalated the dispute with its exiled player Andrew Lovett by yesterday controversially refusing to attend the AFL's grievance tribunal, declaring the club did not believe it should be bound by the tribunal."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -plrc.html

appears on the surface almost childish not to attend...................(and possibly expensive....lot of hard yards by social club raffle sellers etc to meet the possible fine(s))

but have done it for a reason only our legals know why

Thought the same thing....seems childish and stubborn not to attend....lets hope the club knows what its doing here

Do people really think the AFL is best equipped to deal with this scenario?

There certainly isn't any precedent to go by, and with the tribunal having decided against St Kilda, is it a surprise that they don't show up to a mediation session? For mine, they show up if they're rolling over.

The Saints sacked the guy and don't want to pay him, after employing him for just long enough to have served 3 cups of coffee.

Of course they don't turn up.

If there's a knife fight in the schoolyard and your kid gets stabbed, you don't send your kid to a school run mediation session with the librarian, you put it through the courts.

Now of course, they have to win their court case... otherwise this is going to be an expensive exercise in principle...

Its the expense that concerns me, the club will receive weekly fines for not attending....

Incidently, thats a poor analogy, the school principal and school councilors would be involved in mediation not the librarian

Never encountered a school where the librarian is the councilor? Regardless, you're not putting your kid in a room with the other kid unless physically compelled to, whomever the school assigns with the best of intent.

Reality is it's a huge decision: the AFL will fine the Saints, and if they lose, they're going to have to payout the AFL.

However, I would suspect that if they were to win, the fines would go along with it.

[sainta]

Let's be very clear, there is, and will only ever be one victim in this situation.

I agree, this seems to be lost on a lot of the media. No he hasn't been found guilty at the moment but for her to pursue this and not withdraw the allegation or succumb to any hush money indicates she feels like she was violated.

[GrumpyOne]

Andrew Lovett is considered by the police and the DPP a rapist and the AFL supports his rights to claim money from and AFL club.

Ridiculous hypocrisy, but this is the AFL I shouldn't be so suprised.

Incorrect Bozza.... the police and the DPP consider he has a case to answer.... nothing more.

[GrumpyOne]

Let's be very clear, there is, and will only ever be one victim in this situation.

I agree, this seems to be lost on a lot of the media. No he hasn't been found guilty at the moment but for her to pursue this and not withdraw the allegation or succumb to any hush money indicates she feels like she was violated.

To be perfectly truthful, now that Lovett has been tried and found guilty by the court of public opinion, there is absolutely no hope that she would withdraw the allegation, no matter what the circumstances.