Which means they think he's guilty.GrumpyOne wrote:Incorrect Bozza.... the police and the DPP consider he has a case to answer.... nothing more.bozza1980 wrote: 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.
Lovett lodges notice of grievance with club
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Bernard Shakey
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11237
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 120 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
Old enough to repaint, but young enough to sell
No, they think he could be guilty.Bernard Shakey wrote:Which means they think he's guilty.GrumpyOne wrote:Incorrect Bozza.... the police and the DPP consider he has a case to answer.... nothing more.bozza1980 wrote: 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.
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."
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
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2132
- Joined: Wed 07 Jan 2009 3:06pm
"Lovett's agent Alex McDonald said last night running time trials was not one of Lovett's strengths."
Hahahahahaha, WTF?
Hahahahahaha, WTF?
"... You want to pose a threat to the opposition in as many ways as you can, both defensively and offensively. We've got a responsibility to explore all those possibilities - and we will."
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Mon 04 Aug 2008 11:35am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 56 times
Re: lovett lodges notice of grievance
I agree with the sentiment, but Levin, whilst representing St Kilda's interests in the matter, is not actually acting on our behalf.poatina wrote: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.
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
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:40pm
- Location: Hogwarts
- Been thanked: 32 times
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
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
And if he gets off completely or found "innocent" .. I reckon $2.5M
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
This is a team game and there is no room for individuals who think they are above walking through the fire.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12754
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 764 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
Certainly,chook23 wrote:bolded area like to explain...........Mr Magic wrote: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)?
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.Mr Magic wrote:Certainly,chook23 wrote:bolded area like to explain...........Mr Magic wrote: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)?
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.
If they are sure of their grounds, there would be no problem defending those grounds.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12754
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 764 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
No, in the appropriate forum (whatever that happens to be).GrumpyOne wrote:The principle however is do the Saints have the right to dismiss an employee and refuse to be accountable for their actions.Mr Magic wrote:Certainly,chook23 wrote:bolded area like to explain...........Mr Magic wrote: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)?
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.
If they are sure of their grounds, there would be no problem defending those grounds.
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
- Club Player
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 11:29am
- Location: Merimbula
- Been thanked: 1 time
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!
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!
Was there on the outer wing as a youngster flying the flag in '66 - still loyal, still passionate!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5410
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
Re: lovett lodges notice of grievance
sounds like you know whats going on in regards to the laywers.Legendary wrote:I agree with the sentiment, but Levin, whilst representing St Kilda's interests in the matter, is not actually acting on our behalf.poatina wrote: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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1874
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 10:38pm
- Location: In a laundrette, San Francisco USA
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 54 times
No dispute in relation to Lovett braking various team rules irrespective of the rape charge, this is a contractual thing....interesting....very interesting.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.
Not Craw, CRAW!
- dals_da_bomb
- Club Player
- Posts: 910
- Joined: Sun 03 Aug 2008 7:49pm
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10734
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 819 times
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.
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.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 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: 120 times
- Been thanked: 137 times