Why would the club? Twist in Andrew Lovett row
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 931
- Joined: Sun 26 Aug 2007 10:06pm
- Location: Perth WA
Why would the club? Twist in Andrew Lovett row
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 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.
Michele
Goals are dreams with deadlines!!
Goals are dreams with deadlines!!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
- saintnick12
- Club Player
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 2:08pm
Re: Why would the club? Twist in Andrew Lovett row
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.St Michele wrote: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.
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.
Last edited by saintnick12 on Thu 20 May 2010 10:02am, edited 1 time in total.
"At the end of the day, a coach and a fitness adviser doesn't make a good football team, they're not the only ones who got us to two Grand Finals." Lenny Hayes. 27/9/2011.
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
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.
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.
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
![Image](http://www.saintsmembership.com.au/theme/afl-stkilda/img/how-i-want-to-be.png)
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
![Image](http://www.saintsmembership.com.au/theme/afl-stkilda/img/how-i-want-to-be.png)
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 931
- Joined: Sun 26 Aug 2007 10:06pm
- Location: Perth WA
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.saintbrat wrote: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.
Michele
Goals are dreams with deadlines!!
Goals are dreams with deadlines!!
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12775
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 785 times
- Been thanked: 425 times
I think you're either misreading the article or misunderstanding St Kilda's posiion in the case.St Michele wrote: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.saintbrat wrote: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.
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15567
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 63 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
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.
It's a no-brainer... after the trial is surely what will happen.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12775
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 785 times
- Been thanked: 425 times
They seemingly have no other options.degruch wrote: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.
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.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 931
- Joined: Sun 26 Aug 2007 10:06pm
- Location: Perth WA
I think you're either misreading the article or misunderstanding St Kilda's posiion in the case.Mr Magic wrote:St Michele wrote: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.saintbrat wrote: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.
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.
Michele
Goals are dreams with deadlines!!
Goals are dreams with deadlines!!
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2358
- Joined: Mon 09 Jun 2008 6:58pm
- Location: East of Bentleigh
That is true when both cases are about the same incident. These are completely different incidents. It isnt the woman suing Lovett.ozrulestrace wrote: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.
Having said that I would think the Civil case will be held over.
.....and an attitude like that would doom the club to mediocrity (or less) forever.saintspremiers wrote: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.
- Bernard Shakey
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11237
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 121 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
Wonderful attitude to life.saintspremiers wrote: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.
Footy, a flag, money, morality, who cares?
Do you have, or have intentions of having, a family? Don't!
Old enough to repaint, but young enough to sell
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?
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?
Maybe this year?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
I do have a family.Bernard Shakey wrote:Wonderful attitude to life.saintspremiers wrote: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.
Footy, a flag, money, morality, who cares?
Do you have, or have intentions of having, a family? Don't!
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!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
- Bernard Shakey
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11237
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 121 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
Glad to see you've got your priorities right. Have a wonderful life.saintspremiers wrote:I do have a family.Bernard Shakey wrote:Wonderful attitude to life.saintspremiers wrote: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.
Footy, a flag, money, morality, who cares?
Do you have, or have intentions of having, a family? Don't!
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!
Old enough to repaint, but young enough to sell
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
You too.Bernard Shakey wrote:Glad to see you've got your priorities right. Have a wonderful life.saintspremiers wrote:I do have a family.Bernard Shakey wrote:Wonderful attitude to life.saintspremiers wrote: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.
Footy, a flag, money, morality, who cares?
Do you have, or have intentions of having, a family? Don't!
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!
I hope we never a win a flag and you are happy also.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Sat 14 Apr 2007 10:49am
- Location: Aspendale Gardens
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12775
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 785 times
- Been thanked: 425 times
Which is precisely whyeel33 wrote: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.
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
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.
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.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
- markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15567
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 63 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
GrumpyOne wrote: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.
Maybe that's why they claimed it had nothing to do with the allegation.GrumpyOne wrote: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 the Club has been trying to do the right thing.