Lovett lodges notice of grievance with club

samoht · Post: # 877202Post **samoht** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:13am

Why would Lovett want to willingly destroy his final chance at AFL football and just choose to go from bad to worse ?

He can't be that dumb .. could he ?

.. and if Lovett is such a loose cannon , did a team mate he spent the night out with provide the gun powder and the fuse ?

chook23 · Post: # 877203Post **chook23** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:14am

meher baba wrote:
degruch wrote:
kos wrote:lovett may be innocent.
i was recently informed by a source that lovetts statement to the police was in a way a role reversal of the incident and a case of mistaken identity.
WTF? Can you run this scenario past us Kos? It sounds intriguing...possibly a bit Taratino-esque.
Not the good old "she raped me" defence!! I've heard it all before: even if the defence has some merit, it doesn't excuse him for putting himself in the situation in the first place.
If it is meant to have been a case of mistaken identity involving the other Saints player in the flat, then we must be dealing with a very serious case of eyesight impairment!

Could you explain why you have said this...the highlighted text

GrumpyOne · Post: # 877205Post **GrumpyOne** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:16am

samoht wrote:Why would Lovett want to willingly destroy his final chance at AFL football and just choose to go from bad to worse ?

Money.
He can't be that dumb .. could he ?

Can't afford not to be.

.. and if Lovett is such a loose cannon , did Gram provide the gun powder and the fuse ?

Read the Hypothetical Thread.

meher baba · Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:18am

chook23 wrote:
meher baba wrote:
degruch wrote:
kos wrote:lovett may be innocent.
i was recently informed by a source that lovetts statement to the police was in a way a role reversal of the incident and a case of mistaken identity.
WTF? Can you run this scenario past us Kos? It sounds intriguing...possibly a bit Taratino-esque.
Not the good old "she raped me" defence!! I've heard it all before: even if the defence has some merit, it doesn't excuse him for putting himself in the situation in the first place.
If it is meant to have been a case of mistaken identity involving the other Saints player in the flat, then we must be dealing with a very serious case of eyesight impairment!
Could you explain why you have said this...the highlighted text

To borrow Grumpy One's "hypothetical" approach. ...

Say I had a person working for me who was inclined to hang out in bars and get into knife fights with other people and thereby embarass my organisation. So I read him the riot act and tell him to keep his nose clean.

Then I hear that he has been arrested for murdering someone in a pub fight. But his defence is that he was simply standing at the bar, waving his knife around aimlessly in the air, and somebody walked into it and impaled himself on it.

Even if this defence was true, I'd be pretty unimpressed that - after what I'd said to him - he was standing in a pub waving a knife around in the air.

samoht · Post: # 877208Post **samoht** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:27am

and if a team mate provided the knife and the impalee ?

degruch · Post: # 877209Post **degruch** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:28am

samoht wrote:and if Gram provided the knife and the impalee ?

...and it was dark...

meher baba · Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:29am

Hey degruch and samoht, I reckon you might seriously want to edit your posts.

degruch · Post: # 877211Post **degruch** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:30am

meher baba wrote:Hey degruch and samoht, I reckon you might seriously want to edit your posts.

Hypothetically MB, hypothetically...

chook23 · Post: # 877212Post **chook23** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:36am

meher baba wrote:
chook23 wrote:
meher baba wrote:
degruch wrote:
kos wrote:lovett may be innocent.
i was recently informed by a source that lovetts statement to the police was in a way a role reversal of the incident and a case of mistaken identity.
WTF? Can you run this scenario past us Kos? It sounds intriguing...possibly a bit Taratino-esque.
Not the good old "she raped me" defence!! I've heard it all before: even if the defence has some merit, it doesn't excuse him for putting himself in the situation in the first place.
If it is meant to have been a case of mistaken identity involving the other Saints player in the flat, then we must be dealing with a very serious case of eyesight impairment!
Could you explain why you have said this...the highlighted text
To borrow Grumpy One's "hypothetical" approach. ...

Say I had a person working for me who was inclined to hang out in bars and get into knife fights with other people and thereby embarass my organisation. So I read him the riot act and tell him to keep his nose clean.

Then I hear that he has been arrested for murdering someone in a pub fight. But his defence is that he was simply standing at the bar, waving his knife around aimlessly in the air, and somebody walked into it and impaled himself on it.

Even if this defence was true, I'd be pretty unimpressed that - after what I'd said to him - he was standing in a pub waving a knife around in the air.

hmm a little different answer than I thought.....................

was he waving his donger around at the pub!!!

Gram and the 2 girls went back to Grams place at a reasonable hour etc....I believe 12.30am......should he(Lovett) have been at the Pub..........

What happened then is STILL ONLY an allgation

bigred · Post: # 877213Post **bigred** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:38am

LOL

So in future, hypothetically of course. Accused rapists could use the "its not my fault, there was a woman there" defence?

Or the:

"its not my fault, my workmate brought a female friend along" defence.

What a load of twaddle.

degruch · Post: # 877214Post **degruch** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:44am

bigred wrote:LOL

So in future, hypothetically of course. Accused rapists could use the "its not my fault, there was a woman there" defence?

Or the:

"its not my fault, my workmate brought a female friend along" defence.

What a load of twaddle.

It'd be funny if it was a joke, but somebody's probably tried it already. I'm sorry I brought it up...lets forget we ever saw Kos' post.

BAM! (shhhh) · Wed 03 Feb 2010 11:02am

So, no further information than the grievance being laid then?

Really, no surprise here folks - due process, presumption of innocence, Lovett OUGHT be doing this, unless he's planning to plead - and perhaps even if he is.

The AFLPA HAS to represent him in this - that's why he pays his membership fees.

I have no trouble with the way the Saints have handled the PR on this, and one way or another, this is the first step is resolving the footy side of the equation.

So much of this is unprecedented, controversial, and conflicted that we can expect that right up until the moment that a judge provides final clarity, the parties will be divesting themselves of decisions (and opportunities to make both legal and PR blunders) wherever possible.

St. Luke · Post: # 877222Post **St. Luke** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 11:11am

Perhaps he should never have been dismissed until he was actually charged?? Is that too soft of an approach? All I can say, most definately, is the Lovett issue is a real, fair dinkum mess, with clearly only one person to blame - Lovett himself! His priors have only helped condemn him!

Joey · Post: # 877223Post **Joey** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 11:14am

Latest news is there was a meeting with the club about the grievance.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/a ... 5826070478

degruch · Post: # 877240Post **degruch** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 11:31am

St. Luke wrote:Perhaps he should never have been dismissed until he was actually charged??

He hasn't been dismissed, only suspended pending the outcome of police investigations...proper and sensible action by the club. When and if he is ever charged, it will be a different story.

stinger · Post: # 877246Post **stinger** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 11:37am

saint66au wrote:Is it not possible that Lovetts contract may have had a "D1ckhead" clause? ie step out of line and we'll throw the book at you as we see fit?

The comparisions to the M&M case are beginning to annoy me. AL did not come to this club a cleanskin. Far from it.

one would have hoped so...but i recall someone saying that it didn't....

saintsRrising · Wed 03 Feb 2010 12:31pm

St. Luke wrote:Perhaps he should never have been dismissed until he was actually charged??

You wish is granted..as he has not been dismissed.

He is only suspended.

Eastern · Post: # 877297Post **Eastern** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 12:32pm

In the interim St Kilda is paying Andrew Lovett up to $25,000 per month (based on a $300,000pa performance based contract) !!

chook23 · Post: # 877301Post **chook23** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 12:41pm

Eastern wrote:In the interim St Kilda is paying Andrew Lovett up to $25,000 per month (based on a $300,000pa performance based contract) !!

should that be NON performance contract (base) before.........

St. Luke · Post: # 877333Post **St. Luke** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 1:59pm

Yeah, yeah, suspended.

But it's sounding more like an impending dismissal isn't it? Lovett, guilty or not has been severely tarnished. Does anyone believe that if he isn't charged (however long that may take) that the relationship between the club and Lovett hasnâ€™t been irreparably damaged? Not to mention his supposedly already rocky relationship (as has been reported at various times) with the playing group.

DK27 · Post: # 877335Post **DK27** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 2:05pm

In these matters the police will gather evidence and if the case is not clear cut, can take up to a year usually to press charges.

Once charges are laid, they have 1 year to proceed with the court case. It has been known in cases like this for the police to press charges to send a message to the wrong doer, then drop the charges after almost a year for lack of evidence. This sends a clear message to the wrong doer but doesn't waste valuable court time.

This could drag of for a long, long time.

Cheers.

degruch · Post: # 877337Post **degruch** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 2:10pm

St. Luke wrote:Not to mention his supposedly already rocky relationship (as has been reported at various times) with the playing group.

That's been reported on here, but not by anyone officially...sounds like a convenient rumour made up Saintsational posters to validate an argument to me. They were all out on the town that night, so doesn't sound too rocky to me either.

plugger66 · Post: # 877341Post **plugger66** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 2:14pm

degruch wrote:
St. Luke wrote:Not to mention his supposedly already rocky relationship (as has been reported at various times) with the playing group.
That's been reported on here, but not by anyone officially...sounds like a convenient rumour made up Saintsational posters to validate an argument to me. They were all out on the town that night, so doesn't sound too rocky to me either.

Who is all. Most had gone home if they lived interstate and plenty of others from Melbourne werent out either. having said that i dont think there were any ptoblems with players before this incident. After it i reckon there are plenty.

karnaby · Post: # 877347Post **karnaby** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 2:19pm

All along I've been quietly hoping that there might be some way that this could work out so that he could end up playing and the club could get some of the value it hoped to get when they gave up pick 16 for him. I always believed that, football wise, he could be a useful contributor to the team.

This morning I read some hearsay on bf: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthrea ... 77&page=28 that really makes me think that I had my rose coloured glasses on all the time

My mates were down at phillip island two weekends ago. Guess who they saw? At the local pub off their face the one and only Andrew Lovett. Apparently he was ordering drinks from the bar without queuing up etc. Had girls hanging off him and was barely able to stand by the end of the night from all reports. The bloke is a headcase

Allegedly.

degruch · Post: # 877348Post **degruch** » Wed 03 Feb 2010 2:19pm

plugger66 wrote:
degruch wrote:
St. Luke wrote:Not to mention his supposedly already rocky relationship (as has been reported at various times) with the playing group.
That's been reported on here, but not by anyone officially...sounds like a convenient rumour made up Saintsational posters to validate an argument to me. They were all out on the town that night, so doesn't sound too rocky to me either.
Who is all. Most had gone home if they lived interstate and plenty of others from Melbourne werent out either. having said that i dont think there were any ptoblems with players before this incident. After it i reckon there are plenty.

Typo...remove all. And I would agree with your last sentence...there'd be some bridge building to be done if he is retained by the club after this.