How did he "stuff up"?ralphsmith wrote: Player stuffs up badly damaging the reputation of a club and breaches contract. Is fired.
Drunk in a public place?
Fraser Gherig anyone?
What has he been found guilty of?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Simply my analogy GO. We're a business, we look after the employees we have faith in and do the right thing by us, we compensate them accordingly for that and to get the job done on the field. The AFL is littered with players who believe they've been hard done by, some have, some haven't...it's a business, anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.GrumpyOne wrote:When did we recruit robots as players?Ghost Like wrote:I think the club has made the responsible & best financial decision regarding Lovett. Ethical??? What's ethics got to do with this, perhaps that's a question that can also be aimed at Lovett.GrumpyOne wrote: If you think the club has done the responsible financial and ethical decision re Lovett, go ahead and enjoy it.
Others can see that their actions have a lot of question marks lingering around them.
As far as St Kilda is concerned, I liken the Lovett fiasco to buying a piece of machinery to help our production. We didn't even get a chance to install that piece of machinery when we started finding faults with it. We have now got rid of that machinery before it causes damage to our product and god forbid effects other perfectly good machines once it's intergrated with them. No ethics involved, just responsible decision making once a problem was identified.
I must have missed that recruiting announcement.
Humans require fairness, equity and ethical treatment. Robots require grease and oil changes.
Mate, you have no idea!!! At least 3 StKilda players were privy to the circumstances and may well end up witnesses for the prosecution. This is a rape allegation remember!! Very serious. AL Could end up in jail.GrumpyOne wrote:How did he "stuff up"?ralphsmith wrote: Player stuffs up badly damaging the reputation of a club and breaches contract. Is fired.
Drunk in a public place?
Fraser Gherig anyone?
What has he been found guilty of?
As I have said before, and are tired of repeating, there were other options.Mr Magic wrote: What would you have done with him.
'Now, now Andrew, that behaviour is unacceptable.
You've been a 'naughty boy.
Here's your weekly pay packet of $7000 and promise to be a good boy from now on!'
If he does, I'll be the first in line on visiting day to p1ss in his gravy.yipper wrote:Mate, you have no idea!!! At least 3 StKilda players were privy to the circumstances and may well end up witnesses for the prosecution. This is a rape allegation remember!! Very serious. AL Could end up in jail.GrumpyOne wrote:How did he "stuff up"?ralphsmith wrote: Player stuffs up badly damaging the reputation of a club and breaches contract. Is fired.
Drunk in a public place?
Fraser Gherig anyone?
What has he been found guilty of?
Of course they are. And it is amazing to me that you don't seem to be able to see what it is GO. The club are supporting its player(s) that was involved. They will require even more support as the trial gets under way. I repeat, it is inconceivable that the club could support 2+ players giving potentially conflicting stories in these circumstances.GrumpyOne wrote:My goldmine is just north of Kalgoorlie. Cheap investment at $1M.Eastern wrote:They haven't given me any reason NOT TO. Care to enlighten me on why I shouldn't? !!GrumpyOne wrote:So you believe everything the club has said about this situation East?Eastern wrote:Indefinate suspension rolled into Contract Termination, so YES. It's the timing and strategy of the official wording that is the only area that is clouded !!
Thats good to hear.
![]()
I don't believe that you asked that question.
The club is concealing something.... obvious as the face on your nose.
Both were St Kilda players at the time of the offence. Why are we supporting one and not the other?Richter wrote:Of course they are. And it is amazing to me that you don't seem to be able to see what it is GO. The club are supporting its player(s) that was involved. They will require even more support as the trial gets under way. I repeat, it is inconceivable that the club could support 2+ players giving potentially conflicting stories in these circumstances.GrumpyOne wrote:My goldmine is just north of Kalgoorlie. Cheap investment at $1M.Eastern wrote:They haven't given me any reason NOT TO. Care to enlighten me on why I shouldn't? !!GrumpyOne wrote:So you believe everything the club has said about this situation East?Eastern wrote:Indefinate suspension rolled into Contract Termination, so YES. It's the timing and strategy of the official wording that is the only area that is clouded !!
Thats good to hear.
![]()
I don't believe that you asked that question.
The club is concealing something.... obvious as the face on your nose.
The reason the club are not publically saying what they are concealing is because it is subjudice. IMO
Finna wrote:Ethics.....What rubbish. Ethics is a matter of perception and interpretation.
Its about football games its not a church or a government. As much as you may not it like this IS about 3 hours on the weekend x 22 plus finals and finally a grand final.
The outcome is winning football games and grand finals not to be the most ethical club.
Ridiculous..
Besides some would argue that we DID the ethical thing...Perception and interpretation.....
What do you actually want to happen when no one at the club wants him. Coaches, players and the supporters. You are argueing just for the sake of it. You even brought up the race card.GrumpyOne wrote:Both were St Kilda players at the time of the offence. Why are we supporting one and not the other?Richter wrote:Of course they are. And it is amazing to me that you don't seem to be able to see what it is GO. The club are supporting its player(s) that was involved. They will require even more support as the trial gets under way. I repeat, it is inconceivable that the club could support 2+ players giving potentially conflicting stories in these circumstances.GrumpyOne wrote:My goldmine is just north of Kalgoorlie. Cheap investment at $1M.Eastern wrote:They haven't given me any reason NOT TO. Care to enlighten me on why I shouldn't? !!GrumpyOne wrote:So you believe everything the club has said about this situation East?Eastern wrote:Indefinate suspension rolled into Contract Termination, so YES. It's the timing and strategy of the official wording that is the only area that is clouded !!
Thats good to hear.
![]()
I don't believe that you asked that question.
The club is concealing something.... obvious as the face on your nose.
The reason the club are not publically saying what they are concealing is because it is subjudice. IMO
As I said, have the club tried Lovett and found him guilty and executed him?
In a criminal matter, what gives them the right to subvert the due legal process?
Says something when the two most respected football commentators are on the same thought line as me. They must have their inside sources, I am just a spectator looking on.Animal Enclosure wrote: Everyone can see this except for Caroline Wilson, Jon Ralph, Mike Sheahan and GrumpyOne.
Because I don't agree with you, and I am willing to state it?plugger66 wrote:You are argueing just for the sake of it.
I am far from one of those supporters who believe every word. Matter of fact I hardly believe anything the club say when it is about controversial things but in this case I fail to see any options they had. No one wants to play with him and I would suggest with witnesses there may be a good reason. Give me an option they had under that scenario? There isnt one.GrumpyOne wrote:Because I don't agree with you, and I am willing to state it?plugger66 wrote:You are argueing just for the sake of it.
I still believe in the old principle of innocent till proven etc etc.
The club's track record for honesty and financial prudence is shaky.
Support them... I will. Believe every single word they say?..... Give me a break.
Except I wouldn't pay too much attention to what journos say. It is their nature to oppose. Patrick Smith is the king of it - never writes a positive story about anything. If the Saints hadn't sacked Lovett I have no doubt the majority of the stories would have been about how we were prepared to (disgracefully) overlook his discretions and criminal charges purely in pursuit of a flag.GrumpyOne wrote:Says something when the two most respected football commentators are on the same thought line as me. They must have their inside sources, I am just a spectator looking on.Animal Enclosure wrote: Everyone can see this except for Caroline Wilson, Jon Ralph, Mike Sheahan and GrumpyOne.
Not bad company to be in IMHO.
Must be the dozenth time I've been asked that question in the hundred or so pages that address the Lovett issue.plugger66 wrote:I am far from one of those supporters who believe every word. Matter of fact I hardly believe anything the club say when it is about controversial things but in this case I fail to see any options they had. No one wants to play with him and I would suggest with witnesses there may be a good reason. Give me an option they had under that scenario? There isnt one.GrumpyOne wrote:Because I don't agree with you, and I am willing to state it?plugger66 wrote:You are argueing just for the sake of it.
I still believe in the old principle of innocent till proven etc etc.
The club's track record for honesty and financial prudence is shaky.
Support them... I will. Believe every single word they say?..... Give me a break.
I said two respected journos... who mentioned Fat Pryck?Dr Spaceman wrote:Except I wouldn't pay too much attention to what journos say. It is their nature to oppose. Patrick Smith is the king of it - never writes a positive story about anything. If the Saints hadn't sacked Lovett I have no doubt the majority of the stories would have been about how we were prepared to (disgracefully) overlook his discretions and criminal charges purely in pursuit of a flag.GrumpyOne wrote:Says something when the two most respected football commentators are on the same thought line as me. They must have their inside sources, I am just a spectator looking on.Animal Enclosure wrote: Everyone can see this except for Caroline Wilson, Jon Ralph, Mike Sheahan and GrumpyOne.
Not bad company to be in IMHO.
Journos who don't write hard-hitting controversial stories simply aren't gonna rise up the ladder which is why they're prepared to go off half cocked in the pursuit of a scoop (hello Hutchie!)
So while you're entitled to your opinion; which by the way I totally disagree with, I would not take too much comfort in the fact some journos have similar views.
Yes, but only in the exercise yard.Dr Spaceman wrote:satchmo wrote:If your baby sitter is charged with kidnapping, due you need to wait for a verdict before you act?
Can she kick goals from outside 50????