Lovett lodges notice of grievance with club

[kos]

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.

apologies for taking my time with a response.

believe what you want about the lovett case im just relaying info i received from a person involved in the media.

the story goes lovett gram and friends out having drinks, the night kicks on at grams apartment when lovett calls it a night and crashes in grams bedroom.
shortly after he gets a visitor who initiates contact and lovett willingly participates untill the so called victim realises her error.
the commotion then starts and she calls jack anthony and cries rape, who then panics and calls the police. the rest we all know.

i think it is a believable story its a case of his word against hers.
lovett may have committed a crime, we dont know that.
there is always 2 sides to a story and we have already crucified him.

[S.A Saint]

Andrew Lovett has every right to be training with the club. He has not been charged with an offence and it is looking increasingly likely that he will not be. Was there ever anything in it? Ignore the pitiful rumours that have been spread around on this forum. Lovett wants to be vindicated and wants to play footy with the Saints. Prove I'm wrong.

Not if the coach and leadership group don't want him there, which they don't.

Not if he is suspended by the club for alleged rape.

Think its pretty clear that he has no right to train with the club at this time.

That may change if the allegation is dropped. But I think he has already blown his chance with the Saints.

its interesting thou that he is receiving weekly training and is completing weekly time trials....make of that what you want, but i think that there is still a good chance that if all the charges are dropped that he will play for us...

Yes, I suspect that is simply covering all the bases.

If the allegation is dropped, the club will want him fit for a possible return. I still think its unlikely though, given the anti-Lovett sentiment from the players and coach.

i think that is all speculation about the coach and players not wanting him at the club...they may not be happy with his antics but if he is proven to be not guilty then im sure they would take him back unless otherwise stated...

[plugger66]

Andrew Lovett has every right to be training with the club. He has not been charged with an offence and it is looking increasingly likely that he will not be. Was there ever anything in it? Ignore the pitiful rumours that have been spread around on this forum. Lovett wants to be vindicated and wants to play footy with the Saints. Prove I'm wrong.

How do you know he has every right. Have you been involved the Saints process on AL. He is getting paid but the club feel he may have done something else that is a disgrace. That is why he is suspended. And I dont know where you come up with the statement that he is increasingly likely not to be charged. Unless you are a police officer involved with the case that is pure guess work.

[saintlee]

Andrew Lovett has every right to be training with the club. He has not been charged with an offence and it is looking increasingly likely that he will not be. Was there ever anything in it? Ignore the pitiful rumours that have been spread around on this forum. Lovett wants to be vindicated and wants to play footy with the Saints. Prove I'm wrong.

Not if the coach and leadership group don't want him there, which they don't.

Not if he is suspended by the club for alleged rape.

Think its pretty clear that he has no right to train with the club at this time.

That may change if the allegation is dropped. But I think he has already blown his chance with the Saints.

Who runs the Club?

The Coach?

The Leadership Group?

Nope. The Elected Board.

Players and coach are merely employees.

In my organisation, the employees do not dictate to me who works and who doesn't.

If Lovett is not charged, he should be back in the main training group and up for selection. About time the Board grew some balls and told the players that they do not run the club.

I never said the coach or leadership group suspended him, I said the club suspended him. By that I was referring to the board. Thought that was pretty clear. The board made the decision to suspend him, so they did "show some balls" as you put it, and made the decision.

Incidently, I think the coach does run the club as far as on-field matters go, the board's role is basically governance and administration. Where the Lovett situation sits is somewhere in-between.

[GrumpyOne]

Andrew Lovett has every right to be training with the club. He has not been charged with an offence and it is looking increasingly likely that he will not be. Was there ever anything in it? Ignore the pitiful rumours that have been spread around on this forum. Lovett wants to be vindicated and wants to play footy with the Saints. Prove I'm wrong.

Not if the coach and leadership group don't want him there, which they don't.

Not if he is suspended by the club for alleged rape.

Think its pretty clear that he has no right to train with the club at this time.

That may change if the allegation is dropped. But I think he has already blown his chance with the Saints.

Who runs the Club?

The Coach?

The Leadership Group?

Nope. The Elected Board.

Players and coach are merely employees.

In my organisation, the employees do not dictate to me who works and who doesn't.

If Lovett is not charged, he should be back in the main training group and up for selection. About time the Board grew some balls and told the players that they do not run the club.

I never said the coach or leadership group suspended him, I said the club suspended him. By that I was referring to the board. Thought that was pretty clear. The board made the decision to suspend him, so they did "show some balls" as you put it, and made the decision.

Incidently, I think the coach does run the club as far as on-field matters go, the board's role is basically governance and administration. Where the Lovett situation sits is somewhere in-between.

You said the Coach and the Leadership Group don't want him there. It's none of their business. They are there to coach and play respectively, not to try and run the club.

Somebody should ask Roo if he made any threats to the Board if Lovett wasn't suspended when he was.

[plugger66]

Andrew Lovett has every right to be training with the club. He has not been charged with an offence and it is looking increasingly likely that he will not be. Was there ever anything in it? Ignore the pitiful rumours that have been spread around on this forum. Lovett wants to be vindicated and wants to play footy with the Saints. Prove I'm wrong.

Not if the coach and leadership group don't want him there, which they don't.

Not if he is suspended by the club for alleged rape.

Think its pretty clear that he has no right to train with the club at this time.

That may change if the allegation is dropped. But I think he has already blown his chance with the Saints.

Who runs the Club?

The Coach?

The Leadership Group?

Nope. The Elected Board.

Players and coach are merely employees.

In my organisation, the employees do not dictate to me who works and who doesn't.

If Lovett is not charged, he should be back in the main training group and up for selection. About time the Board grew some balls and told the players that they do not run the club.

I never said the coach or leadership group suspended him, I said the club suspended him. By that I was referring to the board. Thought that was pretty clear. The board made the decision to suspend him, so they did "show some balls" as you put it, and made the decision.

Incidently, I think the coach does run the club as far as on-field matters go, the board's role is basically governance and administration. Where the Lovett situation sits is somewhere in-between.

You said the Coach and the Leadership Group don't want him there. It's none of their business. They are there to coach and play respectively, not to try and run the club.

Somebody should ask Roo if he made any threats to the Board if Lovett wasn't suspended when he was.

It is still a footy club not a business in the true sense and I go along with the coach running the club. i am involved in the board on an Amateur club and if the coach doesnt want a player then we dont get him. I think it is pretty safe to assume that the board suspended him because the coach wanted him suspended. Who runs the club on field. The coach 100%. And the players have a huge say these days otherwise why have leadership groups. Who suspended Steve Johnson. The leadership group.

[saintlee]

You said the Coach and the Leadership Group don't want him there. It's none of their business. They are there to coach and play respectively, not to try and run the club.

Somebody should ask Roo if he made any threats to the Board if Lovett wasn't suspended when he was.

I disagree. If they don't want him there, which is what we've been told, that is a major problem - if only from a on-field perspective.

Also, I am sure the coach was brought into the board's decision making process, even if he didn't have the final word.

Not sure what your last statement regarding Rooey is getting at....are you suggesting Rooey tried to manipulate the board?

[GrumpyOne]

You said the Coach and the Leadership Group don't want him there. It's none of their business. They are there to coach and play respectively, not to try and run the club.

Somebody should ask Roo if he made any threats to the Board if Lovett wasn't suspended when he was.

I disagree. If they don't want him there, which is what we've been told, that is a major problem - if only from a on-field perspective.

Also, I am sure the coach was brought into the board's decision making process, even if he didn't have the final word.

Not sure what your last statement regarding Rooey is getting at....are you suggesting Rooey tried to manipulate the board?

IMO the club acted in undue haste and contrary to the rules of natural justice.

No way would the prominent employment lawyer on the board have advised them that the suspension was the legal thing to do.

Made a can of worms a whole lot wrigglier.

IMO someone threatened the board with something a whole lot worse that a Lovett suspension.

Roo should distance himself from any involvement.

[plugger66]

You said the Coach and the Leadership Group don't want him there. It's none of their business. They are there to coach and play respectively, not to try and run the club.

Somebody should ask Roo if he made any threats to the Board if Lovett wasn't suspended when he was.

I disagree. If they don't want him there, which is what we've been told, that is a major problem - if only from a on-field perspective.

Also, I am sure the coach was brought into the board's decision making process, even if he didn't have the final word.

Not sure what your last statement regarding Rooey is getting at....are you suggesting Rooey tried to manipulate the board?

IMO the club acted in undue haste and contrary to the rules of natural justice.

No way would the prominent employment lawyer on the board have advised them that the suspension was the legal thing to do.

Made a can of worms a whole lot wrigglier.

IMO someone threatened the board with something a whole lot worse that a Lovett suspension.

Roo should distance himself from any involvement.

I will have a guess that the clun know a hell of a lot more than what has been said publicly

[ace]

What a bloody farce.

It'll be an even bigger farce if no charges are laid or if they are, he's eventually found not guilty.

It will be a huge issue if no charges are laid but if they are and he is found not guilty I dont think that will be as big an issue. Firstly a payout will have be settled upon by then you would think and secondly not guilty doesnt actually mean innocent.

Er No Plugger, under Australia's system of justice everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
If you are not charged you remain innocent
If you are charged and found not guilty, you are innocent.

Innocent doesn't mean you didn't do it, it means they can't or didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lovett has been banned from training and playing with the club despite him being innocent (at least for the time being).

The problem for the club is they can't claim he did something wrong unless they also can prove it and if the can prove it they can't reveal it ahead of a potential court case.

At this point in time all that has happened is a woman has claimed but so far has not proven that he did something seriously wrong.
Until it is proven he has not breached anything under his contract that justifies his suspension.
A player can not be expected to control false allegations by others and all allegations are false until proven in a court of law.

The AFLPA is backing him to ensure that he and other players are not punished unfairly by clubs.
Lovett obviously claims to be innocent.
If Lovett remains innocent he will have been punished unfairly.

PS he may be a d**khead but that is not an offence in law or a breach of the standard AFL contract.

I am pretty sure that the AFL isnt a court of law other wise Ben Cousins would have sued them. Should Stokes be allowed to play as he is innocent until proven guilty. No of course not. If OJ was a Saints players should he be allowed to play because he was found not guilty. No of course not.

The AFL doesnt need the same rules as criminal courts just as cival courts have different rules.

AFL contracts ARE legal documents and they ARE enforceable by law.

If the AFL or an AFL club breaches a contract a player can enforce that contract through the courts or seek compensation for breach of contract.

Before doing that a player can elect to use the AFL and club grievance procedures.
Lovett has elected to follow this path first.

[GrumpyOne]

You said the Coach and the Leadership Group don't want him there. It's none of their business. They are there to coach and play respectively, not to try and run the club.

Somebody should ask Roo if he made any threats to the Board if Lovett wasn't suspended when he was.

I disagree. If they don't want him there, which is what we've been told, that is a major problem - if only from a on-field perspective.

Also, I am sure the coach was brought into the board's decision making process, even if he didn't have the final word.

Not sure what your last statement regarding Rooey is getting at....are you suggesting Rooey tried to manipulate the board?

IMO the club acted in undue haste and contrary to the rules of natural justice.

No way would the prominent employment lawyer on the board have advised them that the suspension was the legal thing to do.

Made a can of worms a whole lot wrigglier.

IMO someone threatened the board with something a whole lot worse that a Lovett suspension.

Roo should distance himself from any involvement.

I will have a guess that the clun know a hell of a lot more than what has been said publicly

Perhaps they do, but their undue haste and the fact that Lovett still hasn't been charged suggests that it is not an open and shut case, and someone was pointing a loaded gun at the Board for them to come to that decision when they did.

[SENsei]

You said the Coach and the Leadership Group don't want him there. It's none of their business. They are there to coach and play respectively, not to try and run the club.

Somebody should ask Roo if he made any threats to the Board if Lovett wasn't suspended when he was.

I disagree. If they don't want him there, which is what we've been told, that is a major problem - if only from a on-field perspective.

Also, I am sure the coach was brought into the board's decision making process, even if he didn't have the final word.

Not sure what your last statement regarding Rooey is getting at....are you suggesting Rooey tried to manipulate the board?

IMO the club acted in undue haste and contrary to the rules of natural justice.

No way would the prominent employment lawyer on the board have advised them that the suspension was the legal thing to do.

Made a can of worms a whole lot wrigglier.

IMO someone threatened the board with something a whole lot worse that a Lovett suspension.

Roo should distance himself from any involvement.

Maybe you mean the AFL acted in haste, not necessarily the club. Not that I agree with that assessment either. I think the right decision was made.

But it was not entirely St Kilda's decision. IMO. AFL would've said 'get rid of him'.

[ace]

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.

apologies for taking my time with a response.

believe what you want about the lovett case im just relaying info i received from a person involved in the media.

the story goes lovett gram and friends out having drinks, the night kicks on at grams apartment when lovett calls it a night and crashes in grams bedroom.
shortly after he gets a visitor who initiates contact and lovett willingly participates untill the so called victim realises her error.
the commotion then starts and she calls jack anthony and cries rape, who then panics and calls the police. the rest we all know.

i think it is a believable story its a case of his word against hers.
lovett may have committed a crime, we dont know that.
there is always 2 sides to a story and we have already crucified him.

You may be shedding more light on the story than was in the bedroom.
Are you suggesting she thought she was getting bonked by a white but then when she realised he was a black she went to Anthony for advice.
Did she go to Jack Anthony because he is black and white.

[Solar]

You said the Coach and the Leadership Group don't want him there. It's none of their business. They are there to coach and play respectively, not to try and run the club.

Somebody should ask Roo if he made any threats to the Board if Lovett wasn't suspended when he was.

I disagree. If they don't want him there, which is what we've been told, that is a major problem - if only from a on-field perspective.

Also, I am sure the coach was brought into the board's decision making process, even if he didn't have the final word.

Not sure what your last statement regarding Rooey is getting at....are you suggesting Rooey tried to manipulate the board?

IMO the club acted in undue haste and contrary to the rules of natural justice.

No way would the prominent employment lawyer on the board have advised them that the suspension was the legal thing to do.

Made a can of worms a whole lot wrigglier.

IMO someone threatened the board with something a whole lot worse that a Lovett suspension.

Roo should distance himself from any involvement.

I will have a guess that the clun know a hell of a lot more than what has been said publicly

Perhaps they do, but their undue haste and the fact that Lovett still hasn't been charged suggests that it is not an open and shut case, and someone was pointing a loaded gun at the Board for them to come to that decision when they did.

Thats assuming that the suspension and the extra training and gym membership has contravined the contract lovett and the club signed. My money is on the club in this IMO if it went to court. Apart from not allowing the player into the club how have they effected his contract with the club?

BTW alot of what is said on here skirts close to the truth but we need to be very careful because there is the women who has made the claim, the other parties at the scene and lovett to remember. My worries would be for the other player/s and the women personally. Gram must be devistated about the situation.

The club needs to keep dotting the i's over this issue. Lovett playing for this club finished last year, this is about money IMO

[ace]

The club needs to send a circular clay tablet enscribed with egyptian hieroglyphs to the DPP.

The police have had more than enough time to have interviewed everyone of any interest and assembled all the evidence. Their report should be sitting in a pile of files at the DPP's office.

The legal system does not act until they get around to it.
The clay tablet may speed up the DPP' consideration, thats what a round tuit is for.

[ace]

If something like this is lodged, it would be hard to ever see Lovett and the SKFC getting on harmoniously, regardless of the outcome.
Even if found 'not guilty', one could almost imagine Lovett walking out on the club anyway - after all this, would the club ever want Lovett to play for them, and Lovett want to play for the club???

Play for 5 more years, a million after tax, invest the proceeds.
An extra $50,000 income per year for the rest of his life.

Of course he wants to play.

Just like M&M, he would have to suffer the sledging of opponents and opposition fans.
Whether he has the mind set to endure that without reacting is dubious.

[kos]

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.

apologies for taking my time with a response.

believe what you want about the lovett case im just relaying info i received from a person involved in the media.

the story goes lovett gram and friends out having drinks, the night kicks on at grams apartment when lovett calls it a night and crashes in grams bedroom.
shortly after he gets a visitor who initiates contact and lovett willingly participates untill the so called victim realises her error.
the commotion then starts and she calls jack anthony and cries rape, who then panics and calls the police. the rest we all know.

i think it is a believable story its a case of his word against hers.
lovett may have committed a crime, we dont know that.
there is always 2 sides to a story and we have already crucified him.

You may be shedding more light on the story than was in the bedroom.
Are you suggesting she thought she was getting bonked by a white but then when she realised he was a black she went to Anthony for advice.
Did she go to Jack Anthony because he is black and white.

maybe it wasnt the colour that made her realise, you get what im saying!

[santazzi]

You said the Coach and the Leadership Group don't want him there. It's none of their business. They are there to coach and play respectively, not to try and run the club.

Somebody should ask Roo if he made any threats to the Board if Lovett wasn't suspended when he was.

I disagree. If they don't want him there, which is what we've been told, that is a major problem - if only from a on-field perspective.

Also, I am sure the coach was brought into the board's decision making process, even if he didn't have the final word.

Not sure what your last statement regarding Rooey is getting at....are you suggesting Rooey tried to manipulate the board?

IMO the club acted in undue haste and contrary to the rules of natural justice.

No way would the prominent employment lawyer on the board have advised them that the suspension was the legal thing to do.

Made a can of worms a whole lot wrigglier.

IMO someone threatened the board with something a whole lot worse that a Lovett suspension.

Roo should distance himself from any involvement.

I will have a guess that the clun know a hell of a lot more than what has been said publicly

I will have a guess that if the club "knows a hell of a lot more than what has been said publicly" so will the police. And he will have been chaged by now............

[plugger66]

You said the Coach and the Leadership Group don't want him there. It's none of their business. They are there to coach and play respectively, not to try and run the club.

Somebody should ask Roo if he made any threats to the Board if Lovett wasn't suspended when he was.

I disagree. If they don't want him there, which is what we've been told, that is a major problem - if only from a on-field perspective.

Also, I am sure the coach was brought into the board's decision making process, even if he didn't have the final word.

Not sure what your last statement regarding Rooey is getting at....are you suggesting Rooey tried to manipulate the board?

IMO the club acted in undue haste and contrary to the rules of natural justice.

No way would the prominent employment lawyer on the board have advised them that the suspension was the legal thing to do.

Made a can of worms a whole lot wrigglier.

IMO someone threatened the board with something a whole lot worse that a Lovett suspension.

Roo should distance himself from any involvement.

I will have a guess that the clun know a hell of a lot more than what has been said publicly

I will have a guess that if the club "knows a hell of a lot more than what has been said publicly" so will the police. And he will have been chaged by now............

Well if he hasnt be charged why isnt he cleared. It takes time with these sort of cases.

[Eastern]

Be patient folks.

I have a feeling that there will be some movement on this issue as early as next week !!

[saintspremiers]

Be patient folks.

I have a feeling that there will be some movement on this issue as early as next week !!

Why next week?

Because the AGM is on and would tie in nicely with that for it to be finalised/settled.

Surely Lovett will get paid out this year - I guess the outstanding issue is how much (if any) of year 2 and 3 get paid.

[bozza1980]

You said the Coach and the Leadership Group don't want him there. It's none of their business. They are there to coach and play respectively, not to try and run the club.

Somebody should ask Roo if he made any threats to the Board if Lovett wasn't suspended when he was.

I disagree. If they don't want him there, which is what we've been told, that is a major problem - if only from a on-field perspective.

Also, I am sure the coach was brought into the board's decision making process, even if he didn't have the final word.

Not sure what your last statement regarding Rooey is getting at....are you suggesting Rooey tried to manipulate the board?

IMO the club acted in undue haste and contrary to the rules of natural justice.

No way would the prominent employment lawyer on the board have advised them that the suspension was the legal thing to do.

Made a can of worms a whole lot wrigglier.

IMO someone threatened the board with something a whole lot worse that a Lovett suspension.

Roo should distance himself from any involvement.

I disagree that the club acted in defiance of natural justice and that their actions are worlds apart from how other organisations would deal with a similar scenario.

He has been suspended on full pay while he is the subject of a major criminal investigation. If you think this is an odd scenario you might want to check out these stories:

Senior public servant suspended pending investigation
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/ ... 526361.htm

Soccer player suspended pending investigatio
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009 ... estigation

Basketballer suspended pending investigation
http://au.sports.yahoo.com/news/article ... n-incident

Teacher suspended on full pay while investigations take place
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... _suspended

This just a few but I think you'll find what the club has done is indeed legal.

No can of worms here or defiance of natural justice, He retains his right to earn a wage, he retains the presumption of innocence. He has been suspended based purely on the fact that he is the centre of a criminal investigation. This decision has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence.

What actually is in defiance of his right to natural justice is the constant speculation, and the media constant reporting the fact that he is expected to be charged shortly.

Anyway, that's my two cents....

[Thinline]

Re above I would have thought the suspended ON FULL PAY part would deny the right to moan about natural justice issues... but what would I know...

[rodgerfox]

Did I read correctly that Lyon hasn't had any contact with Lovett since the 'incident'?

Wow. Surely that couldn't be right?

[saint66au]

Did I read correctly that Lyon hasn't had any contact with Lovett since the 'incident'?

Wow. Surely that couldn't be right?

Yawnnnnnn