Lovett on Rape Charge

[older saint]

NOt so much the point just a little bit of double standards because people have grown fond of others their situation seems to be washed away.

No, the point is Lovett HAS BEEN CHARGED.

No double standard and nothing to do with being fond of anyone.

But why wasn't M&M charged?

Was there hush money?

I dunno, we will never know, best we just forget about that one, it was years ago and it's done and dusted now, and they are both now cleanskins, with a very good track record since that event.

Anyway, back on topic, I'm glad we finally have some movement in this.

Time to sack Lovett, or as others have said, the AFL should deregister the prick.

As far as the club is concerned, he is gone, regardless of the court case.

The cops would rarely charge someone on rape without some decent evidence........please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

I agree I want him gone from the club also but not at the cost or future salary cap and other issues because the club has to pay unfair dismissal if he is found not guilty.
This has to be as much as financial decision as a emotional one and as stated in my first post i really hope the AFL deregisters him to make things easier for all.

[mbogo]

I think the AFL should deregister him pending his court appearance.
Then perhaps we could pick up a rookie.
The lawyers probably have work to do sorting out how/if and how much he should get paid in the interim.
What a mess!
In the possible event that he is found not guilty it probably gets worse, as there is restraint of trade legislation or something I think.

[joffaboy]

What a fkn mess and the buck has to stop at Lyon.

He is responsible for this stuff up. If he takes the kudo's for the good trading over the past three years, he has to take the critisism.

What a bloody debacle

[bigred]

What a fkn mess and the buck has to stop at Lyon.

He is responsible for this stuff up. If he takes the kudo's for the good trading over the past three years, he has to take the critisism.

What a bloody debacle

Surely you are extracting the urine..

[Dr Spaceman]

What a fkn mess and the buck has to stop at Lyon.

He is responsible for this stuff up. If he takes the kudo's for the good trading over the past three years, he has to take the critisism.

What a bloody debacle

I haven't heard RL try to deflect the blame nor do I expect him to. He made the call (which I and many others supported) and I'm sure he'll accept responsibility for what has transpired.

But as well as that he'll get on with the job he's been entrusted with, ie season 2010.

[bob__71]

What a fkn mess and the buck has to stop at Lyon.

He is responsible for this stuff up. If he takes the kudo's for the good trading over the past three years, he has to take the critisism.

What a bloody debacle

It seems there is only one person who needs a finger pointing at him. And it seems that is already happening.

[meher baba]

Age/Caro...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -o2xp.html

St Kilda looking to sack Lovett
CAROLINE WILSON
February 16, 2010

ANY flimsy hope Andrew Lovett held of resuming an AFL career looks finished. St Kilda was working through last night to find the best of several legal avenues to dismiss the footballer charged late yesterday on one count of rape. Whether or not the Saints succeed they appear determined to cut him no matter the outcome.

The leadership group at St Kilda do not want the former Essendon midfielder at the club, the board do not want to be associated with him and everyone concerned must be wondering just how it was they traded a first-round draft pick for a player with Lovett's personal history.



Hun/Ralph...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/s ... 5830680065

Saint Kilda recruit Andrew Lovett charged with rape but fights to resume his AFL career

Mark Buttler, Jon Ralph From: Herald Sun February 16, 2010 12:00AM


AFL star Andrew Lovett will fight for his footballing future after being charged with rape.

Lovett - already on an indefinite suspension from the Saints - will face court on Friday after being served with a summons by investigators on Monday.

But next week he will take the battle to resume his career to an AFL grievance tribunal hearing.

Lovett, who signed a three-year, $1 million deal with St Kilda, is earning up to $7000 a week from the club despite his suspension.

The Caro article was presumably based on a leak and therefore means that the club is having trouble working out how they might sack him but are keen to be seen to be publicly trying to do so!!

BTW, this comment is a rather selective version of history.

Forced to examine its social responsibility following the allegations faced by two St Kilda footballers Stephen Milne and Leigh Montagna - who were never charged - the AFL spent three years attempting to instigate a policy dealing with inappropriate behaviour towards women.

My recollection is that the whole shebang started with a Four Corners report which I don't think mentioned M&M, but concentrated on an incident involving an AFL player in London, plus the Heuskes/Burgoyne/O'Loughlin allegations (which involved the $200k settlement of a civil suit I mentioned earlier).

I imagine that the M&M allegations might of put the ABC journo onto the trail of these other incidents, but they were never charged with anything FFS and the women involved have never come forward publicly in the way that the woman in the Heuskes/Burgoyne/O'Loughlin incident did!!

And I wish people on here would stop suggesting that the women involved in the M&M incident were "paid off". That is tantamount to accusing people at the club (Butterss, Waldron, Thomas and others) of committing a major criminal act.

The woman in the Heuskes, etc. case was "paid off" legally through an out-of-court settlement of a civil suit. John Elliott, as part of his attempts to take vengeance against the universe for his current problems (even though he was personally responsible for all of them), has accussed Carlton of "paying off" women who claim to have been raped. But you can't take anything that guy says seriously.

But that allegation has never been made against our club and, while there are a lot of things I will believe in this world, I actually don't believe that our club has ever sunk so low as to pay off witnesses to a criminal act.

[meher baba]

What a fkn mess and the buck has to stop at Lyon.

He is responsible for this stuff up. If he takes the kudo's for the good trading over the past three years, he has to take the critisism.

What a bloody debacle

First of all, I don't think Lyon has ever tried to take the kudos for recruitment decisions at our club. The only guy I ever see trying to big-note himself in the media about those is the (suddenly rather invisible) Matthew Drain.

I'm not even sure of the name of ouremployee who is actually supposed to be responsible for recruitment: he certainly doesn't have JB's profile.

I don't think Lyon has to take full responsibility for recruiting Lovett any more than I think Thomas had to take responsibility for decisions to recruit Brooks, Watts, etc. I'm not aware of any club (including ours) where the coach has ever personally signed a contract with a player. The Board and the CEO are ultimately responsible for this. If they let the coach take a major role in recruitment/contracting arrangements, they are still fully responsible for the outcomes.

The only nagging problems I have with the whole process are

1) The thought that, once we thought we would get Lovett, we became totally happy to let Ball go (because the contract we offered Ball and the one we agreed with Lovett were - as far as I can tell - approximately of the same value).

2) The comment by Drain that we were happy to take a punt with AL because Walsh was as good as a first round draft pick (I'll reserve judgement until I see him, but reports from the intra-club suggest that he is going to require a fair bit more development to become an AFL footballer than would your average first round pick: anyway, I don't think we need a Walsh-type player as much as we needed a Ball-type or a Lovett-type).

I still think the punt with Lovett was worth taking: if it had worked out well, you'd all be abusing the hell out of BigMart for having said it was a lousy idea. Some recruitment decisions work, others don't.

As I have always said, and will continue to say, my main concern is with the decision to let Ball go. But, as most posters on here seem to believe that we did actually everything we reasonably could do to hang onto Ball, I can only expect to get abused for expressing that thought again.

[bozza1980]

I agree I want him gone from the club also but not at the cost or future salary cap and other issues because the club has to pay unfair dismissal if he is found not guilty.

No the club is not guilty of unfair dismissal if he is subsequently found Not Guilty. A Not Guilty finding is the liteteral Get out of Jail Free Card but it is not enough on it's own to prove unfair dismissal.

So if you will I will now speak in the hypothetical.

In a case in which the employee is suspected of a criminal offence, the real issue is whether the employer genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that the employee was guilty of the offence in question and not, as in a criminal court, whether it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the employee is guilty of the particular matter with which charged.

At the end of the day being found Not Guilty does not in and of itself alone prove the employer did not have reasonable grounds to assume his guilt. A criminal court does not delve into a persons innocence, it purely answers whether someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and as such a not guilty finding doesn't in and of itself prove a persons innocence.

In my non-professional view, if an employee was charged with a serious offence, considering that the police force and the DPP believe they can achieve a conviction (hence the charge) it could be argued that the employer on this alone had reasonable grounds to believe his guilt.

[bozza1980]

And I wish people on here would stop suggesting that the women involved in the M&M incident were "paid off". That is tantamount to accusing people at the club (Butterss, Waldron, Thomas and others) of committing a major criminal act.

I agree.

You can't alledge something out of thin air and then begin referencing it as an alledged act.

[markp]

Lyon to players; "OK, you guys couldn't kick straight in the GF, I f*kd up and traded for Lovett... all we can do now is put it behind us, put our heads down, and let our football do the talking by focusing all our rage on the opposition, with such unrelenting fury from the very first bounce, that they will literally p*ss themselves at the prospect of facing us again... first up, the filth."


Just bounce that ball....

[meher baba]

In a case in which the employee is suspected of a criminal offence, the real issue is whether the employer genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that the employee was guilty of the offence in question and not, as in a criminal court, whether it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the employee is guilty of the particular matter with which charged.....

....In my non-professional view, if an employee was charged with a serious offence, considering that the police force and the DPP believe they can achieve a conviction (hence the charge) it could be argued that the employer on this alone had reasonable grounds to believe his guilt.

You're on the right track: decisions to terminate employment only need to be on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt: although there was, I think, a High Court decision a decade or so ago that said that - if you are actually sacking someone rather than, say, demoting them or reducing their salary - you need a "stronger" balance of probabilities than usual (the implication being that 51/49 wasn't quite enough in these cases: a senior government lawyer I know once expressed the view to me about this particular decision that it was "the scientific proof we have all been waiting for that the law actually is an ass").

However, there is a principle of "double jeopardy" at stake which would most likely mean that the club will have to sack Lovett for something other than "being charged with a criminal offence" (ie, because otherwise the club looks like it is finding him guilty before the court has done so).

I would have thought that the most promising route to take is that being out at pubs late at night and picking up girls and taking them back somewhere is a breach of whatever personal undertaking he would have been asked to give to the club after the "caught drinking" incident of a few weeks before. But now I'm just speculating.

[saintsRrising]

I still think the punt with Lovett was worth taking:

All I ask of my club is to take reasoned decisions on things all linking into improving the performance of the team. I believe they have done so with Lovett. Sure this decision has now not paid off.

With Lovett as a footballer he was exactly what the team structure required. So I can fully understand the club taking a punt on him despite his off-field track record.

IMO they did not consider Lovett a certainty and that is why they picked up both Lovett and Peake. Our "extra pace and breaking the lines" eggs are now all in the Peake basket.

Past punts of players with issues have had mixed fortunes. Gardi has knuckled under whereas Steve Lawrence for example continued on his merry way. Like Lovett he used up repeated chances and never woke up.

[meher baba]

I still think the punt with Lovett was worth taking:

All I ask of my club is to take reasoned decisions on things all linking into improving the performance of the team. I believe they have done so with Lovett. Sure this decision has now not paid off

Yep, I agree. The reasoning presumably was that we had a big gap in our lineup for a Lovett-type player (as opposed, for instance, to Fergus Watts, who was a type of player we didn't really need).

Hopefully Peake will work out and will fill the gap that we hoped Lovett would fill.

[terry smith rules]

What a fkn mess and the buck has to stop at Lyon.

He is responsible for this stuff up. If he takes the kudo's for the good trading over the past three years, he has to take the critisism.

What a bloody debacle

ridiculous comment, when does personal responsiblity enter your world of reasoning

[maverick]

All you can do is ask yourself, would you make the trade knowing what you know, at the time.

Some on here have been vocally for and against him from day 1, fair enough to both sides.

I have always been on the side of trading for him.
It has turned out to be an error, fair enough, but if the club sat back and recruited no one but a draft pick with this on offer I would be annoyed.

Hindsight proves me wrong however.

Rather have tried and failed than not tried at all.

[Thinline]

Andrew Lovett himself was the ONLY reason his trade here did not work out.

He is (was) a genius footballer. Extraordinary talent.

But he and on he has placed himself in positions that are likely to be anything but dire in terms of consequence.

Surely no one can reasonably suggest that the club is in some way culpable for the way this has transpired?

[joffaboy]

Are you lot thick?

I am saying Lyon is responsible for recruiting him, not for his alleged rape.

FFS

[suss]

Lyon to players; "OK, you guys couldn't kick straight in the GF, I f*kd up and traded for Lovett... all we can do now is put it behind us, put our heads down, and let our football do the talking by focusing all our rage on the opposition, with such unrelenting fury from the very first bounce, that they will literally p*ss themselves at the prospect of facing us again... first up, the filth."


Just bounce that ball....

Summed up beautifully.

[bozza1980]

However, there is a principle of "double jeopardy" at stake which would most likely mean that the club will have to sack Lovett for something other than "being charged with a criminal offence" (ie, because otherwise the club looks like it is finding him guilty before the court has done so).

I understand what you are saying it could be seen as being pre-judicial.

I guess my argument, which may well be wrong, is that the charge, which points to the police and dpp belive of his guilt, that the club by extension could argue that this is sufficient.

By extension in my mind it wouldn't any more or less pre-judicial than the charge itself. As I said before these are the guesses of a man with no real legal experience, so may well be wrong.

It is definitely a delicate matter and one that warrants the sort of legal advice I'm sure the club is getting. I guess we all await the decision.

[Batnoe]

So Lyon got him to the club....

It's not Lyon's fault that Lovett Raped someone

Does Lyon live in the players back pocket?!


You can try all you want, if someone has a problem and are sick in the head they will do it anyway

Look at Gambling/Drinking/Drugs

Yeah, they probably know they shouldnt do it and people tell them not to.... But they still do...

Does this mean that if you had any of those people are your work that it is your fault?

[IluvHarvey]

I'll take the same stance that I have since day one of this saga.
I will fully back the decision of the club as i'm sure that their Lawyers are far more experienced than myself.

[plugger66]

I still think the punt with Lovett was worth taking:

All I ask of my club is to take reasoned decisions on things all linking into improving the performance of the team. I believe they have done so with Lovett. Sure this decision has now not paid off.

With Lovett as a footballer he was exactly what the team structure required. So I can fully understand the club taking a punt on him despite his off-field track record.

IMO they did not consider Lovett a certainty and that is why they picked up both Lovett and Peake. Our "extra pace and breaking the lines" eggs are now all in the Peake basket.

Past punts of players with issues have had mixed fortunes. Gardi has knuckled under whereas Steve Lawrence for example continued on his merry way. Like Lovett he used up repeated chances and never woke up.

You keep saying this about Lovett and Peake but I reckon and hope it is crap. Why werent they sure about Lovett. Did they know this could happen. i reckon they were very sure and that is why they used pick 16. Didnt work out. Thats life.

[Dis Believer]

I don't know why there is such pre-occupation with his guilt or innocence??
If found guilty he would be incarcerated and therefore in breach of contract, and sacked.

However his behaviour already fits the position of bringing his employers brand into disrepute irrelevant of his guilt or innocence. His behaviour has placed him in situations where this could occur, that makes him responsible and sackable. Game over.

CLUB PRESS STATEMENT:
The St Kilda Football Club has relied on specific clauses within Andrew Lovett’s Standard Playing Contract and the AFL Players Code of Conduct, to permit termination of contract for breach of such clauses.

Following Andrew’s previous arrest in November 2009, a recent Victoria Police investigation and the subsequent rape charge brought against Andrew, the Club formed the view that Andrew’s conduct had brought the Saints into disrepute under his Standard Playing Contract, which entitled the Club to terminate his employment.

The Club would like to emphasise that all people charged with a criminal offence are entitled to the presumption of innocence. The Saints’ decision is not based on whether or not Andrew Lovett is innocent or guilty of the charge. That was not part of the Club’s decision making process and is for the Court to decide."

You're all still all fluffing around the edges. His behaviour brought the employers brand into disrepute, to a level that was sackable, from the moment he was charged. Apart from the impact on the alleged victim, everything else is irrelevant. WE, the club, recruited a guy with a history (as with Gardy), and he f**ked up, and we sacked him. Just hope the girl can make a full mental/emotional recovery.

[bergholt]

You're all still all fluffing around the edges. His behaviour brought the employers brand into disrepute, to a level that was sackable, from the moment he was charged. Apart from the impact on the alleged victim, everything else is irrelevant. WE, the club, recruited a guy with a history (as with Gardy), and he f**ked up, and we sacked him. Just hope the girl can make a full mental/emotional recovery.

wow, the "employer's brand" ahead of the kid's human rights? that's pretty cold. surely he gets due process in court despite the fact that the "brand" has been damaged. "brand" damage is complete crap.