aflpa goes into bat for lovett

[stinger]

this was in yesterday's hun......didn't see it mentioned here


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/a ... 5820991493





"It is inappropriate for the AFLPA to publicly speculate on how a particular player will be treated in the event he is the subject of a criminal charge when no such charge has been laid," he said.'


...good advice

[GrumpyOne]

this was in yesterday's hun......didn't see it mentioned here


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/a ... 5820991493





"It is inappropriate for the AFLPA to publicly speculate on how a particular player will be treated in the event he is the subject of a criminal charge when no such charge has been laid," he said.'


...good advice

Would not be surprised to see him turn out for us shortly. All depends on the fine print in his contract.

If we have to pay him, he might as well earn it, even if it is for Sandy.

[saintlee]

this was in yesterday's hun......didn't see it mentioned here


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/a ... 5820991493





"It is inappropriate for the AFLPA to publicly speculate on how a particular player will be treated in the event he is the subject of a criminal charge when no such charge has been laid," he said.'


...good advice

Would not be surprised to see him turn out for us shortly. All depends on the fine print in his contract.

If we have to pay him, he might as well earn it, even if it is for Sandy.

I just can't believe we would have to pay him out..........what other job contract would allow for this? Surely a criminal charge and/or conviction (assuming that occurs) is breaching contract conditions??

[GrumpyOne]

this was in yesterday's hun......didn't see it mentioned here


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/a ... 5820991493





"It is inappropriate for the AFLPA to publicly speculate on how a particular player will be treated in the event he is the subject of a criminal charge when no such charge has been laid," he said.'


...good advice

Would not be surprised to see him turn out for us shortly. All depends on the fine print in his contract.

If we have to pay him, he might as well earn it, even if it is for Sandy.

I just can't believe we would have to pay him out..........what other job contract would allow for this? Surely a criminal charge and/or conviction (assuming that occurs) is breaching contract conditions??

Not either yet.

Fine print.

[stinger]

no need for anyone to get their knickers in a knot.....it's as expected......the players association is a union.....it's there to look after the players interests......i would be pissed if i was a player and it didn't.....

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

The thing that concerns me is what has been written a couple of times in the HS recently, that Lovett "initially denied that anything untoward had happened" (or words to that effect), but then "broke down in front of teammates", soon after (that morning).
If by "breaking down" they mean he admitted doing what he's been accused of (which they then would have told those in charge at the club, which would explain why they were so quick to suspend him indefinitely- if that's what happened) then the club would want him out, but because it's now an "official investigation" they probably won't be able to sack him, because they'd have to give a reason for sacking him. If that reason was that he admitted raping someone, they probably wouldn't be able to say so, because it's now a "police matter" and not legally able to be discussed by the club.
So the players association may put pressure on us to let him back in the club, even if he admitted raping someone, simply because we're not legally able to say that that's what he told his teammates (and therefore be able to sack him), if that's what he said to them. So this investigation/trial may drag on till next year and we may be "forced" to keep someone at our club, who admitted to raping someone, simply because we're not able to discuss what happened/say what he told them, until a trial is over. He could then potentially sue us for not playing him, as well, I imagine, if we let him back in the club but didn't select him in the seniors.
It could become a HUGE mess.

[GrumpyOne]

The thing that concerns me is what has been written a couple of times in the HS recently, that Lovett "initially denied that anything untoward had happened" (or words to that effect), but then "broke down in front of teammates", soon after (that morning).
If by "breaking down" they mean he admitted doing what he's been accused of (which they then would have told those in charge at the club, which would explain why they were so quick to suspend him indefinitely- if that's what happened) then the club would want him out, but because it's now an "official investigation" they probably won't be able to sack him, because they'd have to give a reason for sacking him. If that reason was that he admitted raping someone, they probably wouldn't be able to say so, because it's now a "police matter" and not legally able to be discussed by the club.
So the players association may put pressure on us to let him back in the club, even if he admitted raping someone, simply because we're not legally able to say that that's what he told his teammates (and therefore be able to sack him). So this investigation/trial may drag on till next year and we may be "forced" to keep someone at our club, who admitted to raping someone, simply because we're not able to discuss what happened/say what he told them, until a trial is over. He could then potentially sue us for not playing him, as well, I imagine, if we let him back in the club but didn't select him in the seniors.
It could become a HUGE mess.

Lot of supposition and "ifs" in that post APS.

A theory..... no more, no less.

[Con Gorozidis]

The thing that concerns me is what has been written a couple of times in the HS recently, that Lovett "initially denied that anything untoward had happened" (or words to that effect), but then "broke down in front of teammates", soon after (that morning).
If by "breaking down" they mean he admitted doing what he's been accused of (which they then would have told those in charge at the club, which would explain why they were so quick to suspend him indefinitely- if that's what happened) then the club would want him out, but because it's now an "official investigation" they probably won't be able to sack him, because they'd have to give a reason for sacking him. If that reason was that he admitted raping someone, they probably wouldn't be able to say so, because it's now a "police matter" and not legally able to be discussed by the club.
So the players association may put pressure on us to let him back in the club, even if he admitted raping someone, simply because we're not legally able to say that that's what he told his teammates (and therefore be able to sack him). So this investigation/trial may drag on till next year and we may be "forced" to keep someone at our club, who admitted to raping someone, simply because we're not able to discuss what happened/say what he told them, until a trial is over. He could then potentially sue us for not playing him, as well, I imagine, if we let him back in the club but didn't select him in the seniors.
It could become a HUGE mess.

you are spot on until you say "He could then potentially sue us for not playing him, as well, I imagine"

There is no compulsion to play anyone or any element of restraint of trade
based on unproven allegations unless the club was dumb enough to say so. But selection can be based on all sorts of things - team balance, morale, attitude to traiing. So no way would AL have any legal recourse to not getting picked.

Compromise option is for him to be at Sandy for training and games until the legal proceedings and contractual situation is finalised. I reckon Sandy would be a serious option for the club now and would satisfy the AFLPA.

But he is 0% chance of playing and/or training at the Saints by the sound of it.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Indeed, Grumpy One, but it's very plausible that that's what happened, is it not? And if so, are we legally able to sack him and say what he told them that morning (if he admitted it), or would we not be able to for "legal reasons"?

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

The thing that concerns me is what has been written a couple of times in the HS recently, that Lovett "initially denied that anything untoward had happened" (or words to that effect), but then "broke down in front of teammates", soon after (that morning).
If by "breaking down" they mean he admitted doing what he's been accused of (which they then would have told those in charge at the club, which would explain why they were so quick to suspend him indefinitely- if that's what happened) then the club would want him out, but because it's now an "official investigation" they probably won't be able to sack him, because they'd have to give a reason for sacking him. If that reason was that he admitted raping someone, they probably wouldn't be able to say so, because it's now a "police matter" and not legally able to be discussed by the club.
So the players association may put pressure on us to let him back in the club, even if he admitted raping someone, simply because we're not legally able to say that that's what he told his teammates (and therefore be able to sack him). So this investigation/trial may drag on till next year and we may be "forced" to keep someone at our club, who admitted to raping someone, simply because we're not able to discuss what happened/say what he told them, until a trial is over. He could then potentially sue us for not playing him, as well, I imagine, if we let him back in the club but didn't select him in the seniors.
It could become a HUGE mess.

you are spot on until you say "He could then potentially sue us for not playing him, as well, I imagine"

There is no compulsion to play anyone or any element of restraint of trade
based on unproven allegations unless the club was dumb enough to say so. But selection can be based on all sorts of things - team balance, morale, attitude to traiing. So no way would AL have any legal recourse to not getting picked.

Compromise option is for him to be at Sandy for training and games until the legal proceedings and contractual situation is finalised. I reckon Sandy would be a serious option for the club now and would satisfy the AFLPA.

But he is 0% chance of playing and/or training at the Saints by the sound of it.

I would have thought what you said was true, too, but didn't a couple of guys just very recently successfully sue their former AFL clubs for not playing them in the seniors, when they knew they were good enough to be picked, but weren't, for various reasons (youth policy, etc)?

[stinger]

that reference to what he supposedly did in front of his team mates is highly prejudicial and should never have been reported....imhfo...

[Eastern]

I'm more interested in what the aflpa have to say if/when charges are laid. May I suggest that the silence will be deafening !!

[stinger]

I'm more interested in what the aflpa have to say if/when charges are laid !!

nothing , i presume...until/if he is convicted.....or acquitted......as it should be....

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Here is an article along the "restraint of trade" lines, from a couple of years ago: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/ben-can ... 1118046920

[GrumpyOne]

Indeed, Grumpy One, but it's very plausible that that's what happened, is it not? And if so, are we legally able to sack him and say what he told them that morning (if he admitted it), or would we not be able to for "legal reasons"?

Plausible....yes. Too many "ifs" to go further than that.

One would hope that due diligence was done drawing up his contract, as he had a history before coming to us.

If so, we would be quite in order to suspend him pending charges and eventual trial.

To sack him prior to trial could prejudice his right to a fair trial, as it would be seen as us delivering a verdict on the charges.

Whether we have to pay him depends on the fine print in his contract.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

There are a lot of "if's" there because it's a "delicate" matter and I was careful what I wrote. I imagine whoever wrote the articles also realised how delicate a matter it was and was most likely very careful to get their "facts straight" before writing it. The chances of them writing such a thing if they only got their info from a "so-so source" (or simply made it up) are pretty slim, I'd say.
JMHOFWIW

[123]

Why would anyone even care to speculate or form an opinion on lovett untill the investigation is complete and a verdict is carried out is beyond me. Let him play until he is convicted, harden the fu*ck up and if he is proven guilty sack him on the spot.

If he is proven guilty and has been misleading the club throughout 2010 sue him for damages.

[Con Gorozidis]

I would have thought what you said was true, too, but didn't a couple of guys just very recently successfully sue their former AFL clubs for not playing them in the seniors, when they knew they were good enough to be picked, but weren't, for various reasons (youth policy, etc)?

i reckon they threatened but never went ahead with it. would make an hilarious court case.

tender to the court -hard ball get statistics
please view body language video evidence.
Introduce assistance coach joe bloggs to explain the concept of 1%ers

would be hysterical to try and "prove" stuff in a legal court using footy philosophies!

[Con Gorozidis]

I would have thought what you said was true, too, but didn't a couple of guys just very recently successfully sue their former AFL clubs for not playing them in the seniors, when they knew they were good enough to be picked, but weren't, for various reasons (youth policy, etc)?

i reckon they threatened but never went ahead with it. would make an hilarious court case.

tender to the court -hard ball get statistics
please view body language video evidence.
Introduce assistance coach joe bloggs to explain the concept of 1%ers

would be hysterical to try and "prove" stuff in a legal court using footy philosophies!

[meher baba]

I would have thought that the club could suspend Lovett on full pay for as long as it liked. If the police end up deciding not to charge him, then the club can presumably instigate its own internal investigation of the event and suspend him until that is completed.

I haven't seen Lovett's contract, but I assume it contains some sort of provision for termination in the event of serious off-field misbehaviour, bringing the club into disrepute or any sort of bad conduct short of proven criminality.

If it doesn't include any such clause then, short of him being found guilty and incarcerated, I can't see how we can avoid being up for the entire three years of his contract (although perhaps we could simply refuse to pay, make him take us to court, and then successfully offer a reduced out-of-court settlement on the basis that Lovett won't want what remains of his public reputation further trashed by the evidence that we might choose to present to the court).

Really, the mind boggles at the fact that (according to the club) there weren't any specific clauses in Lovett's contract about behaviour. Maybe this is why he ended coming to us rather than rival clubs (who insisted on such a clause in his contract)?

[meher baba]

I would have thought what you said was true, too, but didn't a couple of guys just very recently successfully sue their former AFL clubs for not playing them in the seniors, when they knew they were good enough to be picked, but weren't, for various reasons (youth policy, etc)?

i reckon they threatened but never went ahead with it. would make an hilarious court case.

tender to the court -hard ball get statistics
please view body language video evidence.
Introduce assistance coach joe bloggs to explain the concept of 1%ers

would be hysterical to try and "prove" stuff in a legal court using footy philosophies!

Was one of them Michael Rix, who was going to rely on "hitout to advantage" stats as his evidence?

[borderbarry]

AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:
The thing that concerns me is what has been written a couple of times in the HS recently, that Lovett "initially denied that anything untoward had happened" (or words to that effect), but then "broke down in front of teammates", soon after (that morning).
The assumption is that he "broke down in front of team mates" and confessed all. Not bloody likely. More likely he broke down as in cried, which would be understandable, guilty or innocent.

[aussiejones]

I have a feeling (memory) that it was a standard contract because they were not allowed by the AFL /AFLPA to insert specific clauses.

The other issue is that some Saints dont want to play with Lovett.Possibly due to the 'confession' after the denial combined with his chequered history.
This could be a complication if the Saints 'have to play him' because he is contracted.(if thats true).

Question is ...presuming there is no case or he is not found guilty ...will the players want to play alongside him / does the club want him.

What then do we do with him .. offer him up at trade time ?

[meher baba]

I have a feeling (memory) that it was a standard contract because they were not allowed by the AFL /AFLPA to insert specific clauses.

The other issue is that some Saints dont want to play with Lovett.Possibly due to the 'confession' after the denial combined with his chequered history.
This could be a complication if the Saints 'have to play him' because he is contracted.(if thats true).

Question is ...presuming there is no case or he is not found guilty ...will the players want to play alongside him / does the club want him.

What then do we do with him .. offer him up at trade time ?

If he is found not guilty of criminal misconduct (or not charged), I assume that the club can still investigate him for non-criminal misconduct. If he comes through that ok, then the club has two choices IMO:

1) Try to effect a reconciliation between Lovett and the playing group.

2) Continue to pay him but leave him permanently on the sidelines (or, better still, encourage him to get on a plane a go somewhere a long way from Melbourne for the rest of the season).

[St. Luke]

Considering Lovetts colourful past, guilty or not of this impending charge, the picture being painted of him is not very pretty. Tarnished property! Why oh why?????