Lovett lodges notice of grievance with club

[Bernard Shakey]

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.

Which means they think he's guilty.

[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.

Which means they think he's guilty.

No, they think he could be guilty.

[saintlee]

Another article on this:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/s ... 5837266010

The interesting part:

"Hutchison did not want to comment when approached about yesterday's cancellation, but later sent an email to McDonald saying St Kilda neither accepted the grievance tribunal's direction, nor was it bound by its process.

The Saints have offered to meet the Lovett camp today for a "general discussion" outside the set CBA process."

[InkerSaint]

"Lovett's agent Alex McDonald said last night running time trials was not one of Lovett's strengths."

Hahahahahaha, WTF?

[saintlee]

"Lovett's agent Alex McDonald said last night running time trials was not one of Lovett's strengths."

Nor is abiding by club standards

[GrumpyOne]

"Lovett's agent Alex McDonald said last night running time trials was not one of Lovett's strengths."

Nor is abiding by club standards

Hard to get over the perception that those standards may have been set retrospectively.

[Legendary]

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.

I agree with the sentiment, but Levin, whilst representing St Kilda's interests in the matter, is not actually acting on our behalf.

RigbyCooke would no doubt have someone working on it whose area of expertise is employment law (although this is also Levin's speciality, they would no doubt have other solicitors with expertise in this area).

Further to that, St Kilda is actually briefing a barrister in this matter. Experienced unfair dismissal advocate Rohan Millar is acting for the Saints.

Levin is not representing himself, and both the legal resources of RigbyCooke and the counsel of Mr Millar would have significant influence on our decision.


My reading is that the club's legal position is sound, they are confident in their actions, and they would prefer this to be heard in a court of law.

I also lend some weight to the theory that the more time that now passes, the more expensive Lovett's own legal bill becomes, and the greater pressure on him to ask for a financial settlement.

[mbogo]

Well I hope all our legal eagles are working pro-bono or whatever it is -given we are now being skinned to the tune of 50K pw or pcm + whatever we will owe Lovett.
And if he gets off completely or found "innocent" .. I reckon $2.5M

[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)?

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

Certainly,
Whilst Lovett was under indefinite suspension the Saints were continuing to pay him his weekly salary (reputed to be 7k per week).
He (his legal team) could delay his rape case until his 3 year contract ahd finished by which time the Saints would have paid him out 1 million dollars with absolutely no chance of ever recovering any of that money, because he was still an employee.

[GrumpyOne]

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...........

Certainly,
Whilst Lovett was under indefinite suspension the Saints were continuing to pay him his weekly salary (reputed to be 7k per week).
He (his legal team) could delay his rape case until his 3 year contract ahd finished by which time the Saints would have paid him out 1 million dollars with absolutely no chance of ever recovering any of that money, because he was still an employee.

The principle however is do the Saints have the right to dismiss an employee and refuse to be accountable for their actions.

If they are sure of their grounds, there would be no problem defending those grounds.

[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)?

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

Certainly,
Whilst Lovett was under indefinite suspension the Saints were continuing to pay him his weekly salary (reputed to be 7k per week).
He (his legal team) could delay his rape case until his 3 year contract ahd finished by which time the Saints would have paid him out 1 million dollars with absolutely no chance of ever recovering any of that money, because he was still an employee.

The principle however is do the Saints have the right to dismiss an employee and refuse to be accountable for their actions.

If they are sure of their grounds, there would be no problem defending those grounds.

No, in the appropriate forum (whatever that happens to be).

Don't forget that Lovett originally lodged his grievance over the CLub not allowing him to train with them.
The CLub then sacked him adn apparently he's trying to use the Grievance Tribunal to run an 'unfair/wrongful dismissal case.

I heard a lawyer on talkback this morning state that St Kilda had no option but to not turn up yesterday because the written verdict of th Grievance Tribunal wasn't due to be handed down until today, and if they'd attended they would have prejudiced any future case against the Tribunal's ruling of last week.
nothing sinister about it.
nothing underhanded
nothing immoral
nothing illegal

Just playing the game legally.

Why is it that one side of the argument can say/do anything with impunity whilst the other side is criticised for whatever action they do/don't take?

[quidnunc]

For Grumpy Ones benefit:

The normal course of action for police is to prosecute when they believe a charge is likely to be sustanined by the Courts, as in contrast to a person could be guilty.

Not passing judgment, just stating fact.

Cheers!

[sunsaint]

I heard a lawyer on talkback this morning state that St Kilda had no option but to not turn up

was that StKilda's lawyer???

[saintly]

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.

I agree with the sentiment, but Levin, whilst representing St Kilda's interests in the matter, is not actually acting on our behalf.

RigbyCooke would no doubt have someone working on it whose area of expertise is employment law (although this is also Levin's speciality, they would no doubt have other solicitors with expertise in this area).

Further to that, St Kilda is actually briefing a barrister in this matter. Experienced unfair dismissal advocate Rohan Millar is acting for the Saints.

Levin is not representing himself, and both the legal resources of RigbyCooke and the counsel of Mr Millar would have significant influence on our decision.


My reading is that the club's legal position is sound, they are confident in their actions, and they would prefer this to be heard in a court of law.
I also lend some weight to the theory that the more time that now passes, the more expensive Lovett's own legal bill becomes, and the greater pressure on him to ask for a financial settlement.

sounds like you know whats going on in regards to the laywers.

why is it better for the saints to go to court, and waist alot of time , money, possibly bad publicity and players maybe derailed? rather then hear it at a grevance tribunal?

[GrumpyOne]

Thank you MM and Quiddy for your input.

No pre-judgement, no supposition, no emotive claptrap, just factual posts.

[GrumpyOne]

New development.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -pvs3.html

For those of you sure that there is something else that the Saints are concealing about the whole incident, the hint is in the last paragraph.

[Mr Magic]

I heard a lawyer on talkback this morning state that St Kilda had no option but to not turn up

was that StKilda's lawyer???

No, Just a random talkback caller.

[The Craw]

The Saints have said it could provide substantial evidence demonstrating that Lovett brought the club into disrepute and broke various team rules irrespective of the rape charge, while the Lovett camp remains equally determined that the Saints' decision to sack him contravened employment law and the AFL's collective bargaining agreement.

No dispute in relation to Lovett braking various team rules irrespective of the rape charge, this is a contractual thing....interesting....very interesting.

[dals_da_bomb]

thank you for providing that link GO.

wondring what everyone thinks is a reasonable payout for Lovett?

[GrumpyOne]

thank you for providing that link GO.

wondring what everyone thinks is a reasonable payout for Lovett?

I think we could go another 30 pages on that subject alone.

If we can get out of the contract for anything up to one years payments, its a good result for us.

[ace]

Guilty, innocent, it is all irrelevant now.
Bottom line is Lovett will never play for St Kilda - too much has transpired for there ever to be a reconciliation no matter the outcome of the rape case.
Under some circumstances he may be able to play for a rival club but not ours.

That means from a club supporters view point it is simply a matter of how much or how little the club has to pay out to a player who has never played in a St Kilda jumper.

[vacuous space]

wondring what everyone thinks is a reasonable payout for Lovett?

$50K per game he played for us before his implosion.

[Leo.J]

wondring what everyone thinks is a reasonable payout for Lovett?

He can keep his cap and tracksuit.

[Bernard Shakey]

wondring what everyone thinks is a reasonable payout for Lovett?

He can keep his cap and tracksuit.

No way. This idiot has nothing whatsoever to do with the St Kilda Football Club.

[satchmo]

If, hypothetically, the club acted due to evidence that they had re: the charge, and were forced to concede this prior to the trial...could that cause a mis-trial?