Why would the club? Twist in Andrew Lovett row

[St Michele]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victor ... 5868895951


I am amazed that they would think it is ok to quiz the alleged victim in this incident. Do they not think she has been through enough??

I know it is all about saving money but it disappoints me after all they have said all along this was not the reason they let him go.

[saintspremiers]

Whatever gets the best outcome for our club is what I'd like to see, be it right or wrong in everyday life/non footy cases.

This ultimately about us winning the flag (and saving money means more money to be spent on footy!) - how we get there, I don't care, be it immoral or not.

[saintnick12]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victor ... 5868895951


I am amazed that they would think it is ok to quiz the alleged victim in this incident. Do they not think she has been through enough??

I know it is all about saving money but it disappoints me after all they have said all along this was not the reason they let him go.

I don't know whether they would actually put her on the stand in the civil case of ours, but the fact that they might , as well as the involvement of the players been brought into question, seems to be enough to convince the authorities that his criminal trial could be impacted by this so they don't want the criminal trial to go ahead.
They obviously feel they have a better chance of winning the civil case if he has been found guilty in the criminal case first so they don't want to do anything to jepordize that. I think there is a lot of legal wrangling going on behind the scenes. Just because they said they were going to call her as a witness doesn't mean they actually would have. It was in the clubs interest to have along list of witnesses involved in both cases.

[saintbrat]

the difficulty would appear to be that the reasons for the sacking - whilst not the alleged offence are deeply entwined within the situation.
his reaction and behaviours around the same time.

and it may be the reporting of the DPP's request/ case that is just slightly off in detail.

[St Michele]

the difficulty would appear to be that the reasons for the sacking - whilst not the alleged offence are deeply entwined within the situation.
his reaction and behaviours around the same time.

and it may be the reporting of the DPP's request/ case that is just slightly off in detail.

I hope so as being a mother of 3 daughters and having helped a few friends though situations like this. I just feel they have forgotton the impact this event would have had on this person's life going to trial is hard enough let alone having to face up to a civil action not really related to the event.

[Mr Magic]

the difficulty would appear to be that the reasons for the sacking - whilst not the alleged offence are deeply entwined within the situation.
his reaction and behaviours around the same time.

and it may be the reporting of the DPP's request/ case that is just slightly off in detail.

I hope so as being a mother of 3 daughters and having helped a few friends though situations like this. I just feel they have forgotton the impact this event would have had on this person's life going to trial is hard enough let alone having to face up to a civil action not really related to the event.

I think you're either misreading the article or misunderstanding St Kilda's posiion in the case.

The case is being brought by Lovett (and his legal team) becasue they want teh Grievance Tribunal to hear their argument against St Kilda BEFORE the criminal case agasint him is heard.

St Kilda has maintained that should not happen.
The Grievance Tribunal ruled that it couldnot hear the case before the criminal case.

Lovett (through his legal team) has gone to the Supreme Court to force the Grievance Triunal to hear the case.
The Victorian DPP has now formally advised the Supreme Court that he wants the Criminal Case heard first.

This is all a ploy by Lovett's legal team to try adn maximize the amount of money they can force St Kilda to pay him for sacking him.

St Kilda's defense is that it acted correctly. If a hearing is held where they are forced to list why their actions were correct it would/might include testimony of people who were involved (or witnessed) specific events. If those events also were part of Lovett's criminal case then of course that would be a problem to the prosecutors.

On a side issue,
I also note that the headline of the article spells St Kilda as
Saint Kilda
which is a shocking mistake fo whoever allowed it.

[degruch]

Seems to me that the Lovett camp would be quite happy to push to have the greivance tribunal case heard first, knowing that much of the evidence St Kilda will use to their advantage will not be able to be presented for fear of compromising the legal case. A calculated move, the Saints have to cover their arse where possible.

[markp]

It's only right and proper that this matter should be dealt with after the trial, as the club wants... and if that happens you would think there would be no reason for the girl to give evidence. But if it was to be dealt with before the trial, then obviously she may need to.

It's a no-brainer... after the trial is surely what will happen.

[Mr Magic]

Seems to me that the Lovett camp would be quite happy to push to have the greivance tribunal case heard first, knowing that much of the evidence St Kilda will use to their advantage will not be able to be presented for fear of compromising the legal case. A calculated move, the Saints have to cover their arse where possible.

They seemingly have no other options.
Unless the Criminal case turns out to be nothing but 'trumped up' charges there is every possibility that he will ahve 'run out' of money well before the Civil case gets to be heard if it is left until after the Criminal one.

The Grievance Tribunal case is nothing more than Lovett's attempt to secure as big a payout as he can from st Kilda for sacking him.

Remember this case started out as one against St Kilda for suspending him indefinitely and thus not allowing him to earn 'bonus payments' as stipulated in his player contract. It morphed into this current case once he was sacked.

It appears from the reports that everybody involved in the Criminal proceedings, other than Lovett and his lawyers, believe the Criminal case should be heard first.
That has been St Kilda's line consistantly.

[degruch]

Exactly MM. With respect to the OP, it's AL's cash grab that is forcing the club into this situation, so they're to blame for any pressure the victim may be under at this stage. After all, AL is the reason the whole mess has been foist upon the community in the first place!

[St Michele]

the difficulty would appear to be that the reasons for the sacking - whilst not the alleged offence are deeply entwined within the situation.
his reaction and behaviours around the same time.

and it may be the reporting of the DPP's request/ case that is just slightly off in detail.

I hope so as being a mother of 3 daughters and having helped a few friends though situations like this. I just feel they have forgotton the impact this event would have had on this person's life going to trial is hard enough let alone having to face up to a civil action not really related to the event.

I think you're either misreading the article or misunderstanding St Kilda's posiion in the case.

The case is being brought by Lovett (and his legal team) becasue they want teh Grievance Tribunal to hear their argument against St Kilda BEFORE the criminal case agasint him is heard.

St Kilda has maintained that should not happen.
The Grievance Tribunal ruled that it couldnot hear the case before the criminal case.

Lovett (through his legal team) has gone to the Supreme Court to force the Grievance Triunal to hear the case.
The Victorian DPP has now formally advised the Supreme Court that he wants the Criminal Case heard first.

This is all a ploy by Lovett's legal team to try adn maximize the amount of money they can force St Kilda to pay him for sacking him.

St Kilda's defense is that it acted correctly. If a hearing is held where they are forced to list why their actions were correct it would/might include testimony of people who were involved (or witnessed) specific events. If those events also were part of Lovett's criminal case then of course that would be a problem to the prosecutors.

On a side issue,
I also note that the headline of the article spells St Kilda as
Saint Kilda
which is a shocking mistake fo whoever allowed it.[/quotM
Must have misunderstood/ misread what was going on.

[ozrulestrace]

The criminal case always comes ahead of the civil case.

It's logical that how can they decide the civil matter when it's partly going to be decided by what happens in the criminal court and the charges.

Once the criminal court makes its decision it may not even get to the civil court.

[plugger66]

The criminal case always comes ahead of the civil case.

It's logical that how can they decide the civil matter when it's partly going to be decided by what happens in the criminal court and the charges.

Once the criminal court makes its decision it may not even get to the civil court.

That is true when both cases are about the same incident. These are completely different incidents. It isnt the woman suing Lovett.

Having said that I would think the Civil case will be held over.

[StSteven]

Whatever gets the best outcome for our club is what I'd like to see, be it right or wrong in everyday life/non footy cases.

This ultimately about us winning the flag (and saving money means more money to be spent on footy!) - how we get there, I don't care, be it immoral or not.

.....and an attitude like that would doom the club to mediocrity (or less) forever.

[Bernard Shakey]

Whatever gets the best outcome for our club is what I'd like to see, be it right or wrong in everyday life/non footy cases.

This ultimately about us winning the flag (and saving money means more money to be spent on footy!) - how we get there, I don't care, be it immoral or not.

Wonderful attitude to life.

Footy, a flag, money, morality, who cares?

Do you have, or have intentions of having, a family? Don't!

[rexy]

So if I am reading it right, the DPP is saying that we can not involve the alleged victim of the legal case against Lovett, in the civil case against us, as it would perdjiduce his legal case?

Therefore arent they, in a way, acknowledging the fact that the legal case must be heard first? I know it is not their intention, but wouldnt that be the logical outcome to what they are saying?

[saintspremiers]

Whatever gets the best outcome for our club is what I'd like to see, be it right or wrong in everyday life/non footy cases.

This ultimately about us winning the flag (and saving money means more money to be spent on footy!) - how we get there, I don't care, be it immoral or not.

Wonderful attitude to life.

Footy, a flag, money, morality, who cares?

Do you have, or have intentions of having, a family? Don't!

I do have a family.

So aren't you jealous of West Coasts drugged up flag?

Aren't you jealous of any other club that's won a flag through dodgy means?

FFS get a grip - we have won only ONE farking flag in over a hundred years.

Go take your Grant Thomas High Moral ground somewhere else thank you very much!

[rexy]

Well, this is going to degenerate from here isnt it.

May I suggest this thread just gets closed now?

[saintspremiers]

Well, this is going to degenerate from here isnt it.

May I suggest this thread just gets closed now?

NO!

bout time we got some degeneration.....would take us to a similar level to the players

[Bernard Shakey]

Whatever gets the best outcome for our club is what I'd like to see, be it right or wrong in everyday life/non footy cases.

This ultimately about us winning the flag (and saving money means more money to be spent on footy!) - how we get there, I don't care, be it immoral or not.

Wonderful attitude to life.

Footy, a flag, money, morality, who cares?

Do you have, or have intentions of having, a family? Don't!

I do have a family.

So aren't you jealous of West Coasts drugged up flag?

Aren't you jealous of any other club that's won a flag through dodgy means?

FFS get a grip - we have won only ONE farking flag in over a hundred years.

Go take your Grant Thomas High Moral ground somewhere else thank you very much!

Glad to see you've got your priorities right. Have a wonderful life.

[saintspremiers]

Whatever gets the best outcome for our club is what I'd like to see, be it right or wrong in everyday life/non footy cases.

This ultimately about us winning the flag (and saving money means more money to be spent on footy!) - how we get there, I don't care, be it immoral or not.

Wonderful attitude to life.

Footy, a flag, money, morality, who cares?

Do you have, or have intentions of having, a family? Don't!

I do have a family.

So aren't you jealous of West Coasts drugged up flag?

Aren't you jealous of any other club that's won a flag through dodgy means?

FFS get a grip - we have won only ONE farking flag in over a hundred years.

Go take your Grant Thomas High Moral ground somewhere else thank you very much!

Glad to see you've got your priorities right. Have a wonderful life.

You too.

I hope we never a win a flag and you are happy also.

[eel33]

Back to the topic.....If I were on Lovett's legal team, I'd be looking at doing whatever I could to compromise the DPP's case. What better way than to try all possible avenues to bring Crown witnesses into a civil proceeding, and then be able to claim that the criminal trial was prejudiced by this. The money he is claiming is one thing, but possibly more important to him is to walk away without conviction and gaol time.

[Mr Magic]

Back to the topic.....If I were on Lovett's legal team, I'd be looking at doing whatever I could to compromise the DPP's case. What better way than to try all possible avenues to bring Crown witnesses into a civil proceeding, and then be able to claim that the criminal trial was prejudiced by this. The money he is claiming is one thing, but possibly more important to him is to walk away without conviction and gaol time.

Which is precisely why
the Club
the Police
the DPP
the Grievance Tribunal

have all stated that teh Criminal Case should take precedence
There are only one group trying to push the opposing view adn that is Lovett and his legal team. ZI wonder if they'd be doing all this if the AFLPA weren't funding it?

What happens if they lose the Supreme Court action and have costs awarded against them?
Who's going to pay the costs of everybody else - the AFLPA?

[GrumpyOne]

I seem to remember way back in the early days of this sad saga, that the Club said the alleged rape had nothing to do with the sacking.

Now they are saying that they will call the alleged victim to testify in the civil case.

What else is she going to testify about other than the alleged rape?

The presumption that St Kilda have sacked him because of the alleged rape would surely influence a jury in his trial, should it pass the committal hearing in August.

AL has continually protested his innocence, yet was sacked by the club without being able to mount a defence to the charge. Unfair dismissal in anyone's book.

The club has been forced to play dirty pool in this matter, forced on it by the ill-conceived sacking of AL, which was in turn forced upon it by the alleged victim's relationship with a player.

The result is a grab for money by AL, not entirely expected, and the club's determination to use every dirty legal trick in the book to avoid it.

Both sides will come out of this with manure on their boots.

[markp]

I seem to remember way back in the early days of this sad saga, that the Club said the alleged rape had nothing to do with the sacking.

The presumption that St Kilda have sacked him because of the alleged rape would surely influence a jury in his trial, should it pass the committal hearing in August.

Maybe that's why they claimed it had nothing to do with the allegation.

Maybe the Club has been trying to do the right thing.