Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
sainterinsydney wrote:True, but what happens if the charges are dropped? In my eye Lovett should then be allowed to play again. I think it would grossly unjust to not only the fans but Lovett himself if he was ostracised following the charges being dropped. I expect to see Lovett playing if no charges are laid; if charges are laid, then I would expect him to face serious scrutiny.
Also, I don't care if certain players might hate or dislike him. All clubs have animosity between certain players. I would expect him to then be allowed to prove himself on the field.
That's why it's odd that the senior coach hasn't been in contact with him.
Quite clearly, Lovett aint playing for the Saints.
If there was a hope in hell, the senior coach would have been on conatct with him, you'd think.
sainterinsydney wrote:True, but what happens if the charges are dropped? In my eye Lovett should then be allowed to play again. I think it would grossly unjust to not only the fans but Lovett himself if he was ostracised following the charges being dropped. I expect to see Lovett playing if no charges are laid; if charges are laid, then I would expect him to face serious scrutiny.
Also, I don't care if certain players might hate or dislike him. All clubs have animosity between certain players. I would expect him to then be allowed to prove himself on the field.
Are you serious? You don't care that players who barely know Lovett don't want to play with him?
Have you played team sport before? Lovett has come to the club with no established relationships or loyalties from any of the players. He has virtually no support system. How could you even expect him to feel confident or comfortable enough to play decent footy in that environment, knowing half the squad are dubious about you, and the other half simply don't want you?
Only Jason Akermamis can play good footy under those circumstances....
The basis of the grievance is that Lovett has been denied the full opportunity to fulfil his obligations under his employment contract.
It comes down to a question of what steps are necessary to allow a person to fulfil the obligation to make themself available for selection as an AFL footballer.
The action taken by St Kilda, to provide Lovett with personal training sessions, fund a gym membership and maintain contact and support with him through this process suggest strongly that they are allowing him to fulfil his contractual obligiations, just in a different environment to the every day workings of the club.
Moods wrote:
Have you played team sport before? Lovett has come to the club with no established relationships or loyalties from any of the players. He has virtually no support system. How could you even expect him to feel confident or comfortable enough to play decent footy in that environment, knowing half the squad are dubious about you, and the other half simply don't want you?
Only Jason Akermamis can play good footy under those circumstances....
The story was at the time of recruiting him that some players weren't happy about him being at the club.
Which may well be why Lovett is taking action against the 'suspension'.
Oh really, thanks dodgy, would never have occurred to me!
Surely you're then extremely disappointed with the club handling the situation this way then?
Hmmm, been a very shaky 5 months from the footy dept.
Maybe they need some more of your fantastic Corporate Knowledge
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Injuries cost L.hayes his pre season lately???
God you are really funny RF.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
Oh no, he's 'taking action' against the Saints... must mean we are in the wrong again... just like with Eddy and Mick being forced to set the record straight.
markp wrote:Oh no, he's 'taking action' against the Saints... must mean we are in the wrong again... just like with Eddy and Mick being forced to set the record straight.
markp wrote:Oh no, he's 'taking action' against the Saints... must mean we are in the wrong again... just like with Eddy and Mick being forced to set the record straight.
markp wrote:Oh no, he's 'taking action' against the Saints... must mean we are in the wrong again... just like with Eddy and Mick being forced to set the record straight.
markp wrote:Oh no, he's 'taking action' against the Saints... must mean we are in the wrong again... just like with Eddy and Mick being forced to set the record straight.
markp wrote:Oh no, he's 'taking action' against the Saints... must mean we are in the wrong again... just like with Eddy and Mick being forced to set the record straight.
Huh?
What?
I was unsure of what your post meant.
Do you know what this thread is about?
Yes.
Which is why I posted on it.
But when you mentioned something about Eddy and Malthouse, you threw me.
I can't see how that relates to this.
markp wrote:Oh no, he's 'taking action' against the Saints... must mean we are in the wrong again... just like with Eddy and Mick being forced to set the record straight.
Huh?
What?
I was unsure of what your post meant.
Do you know what this thread is about?
Yes.
Which is why I posted on it.
But when you mentioned something about Eddy and Malthouse, you threw me.
I can't see how that relates to this.
markp wrote:Oh no, he's 'taking action' against the Saints... must mean we are in the wrong again... just like with Eddy and Mick being forced to set the record straight.
Huh?
What?
I was unsure of what your post meant.
Do you know what this thread is about?
Yes.
Which is why I posted on it.
But when you mentioned something about Eddy and Malthouse, you threw me.
I can't see how that relates to this.
markp wrote:Oh no, he's 'taking action' against the Saints... must mean we are in the wrong again... just like with Eddy and Mick being forced to set the record straight.
Huh?
What?
I was unsure of what your post meant.
Do you know what this thread is about?
Yes.
Which is why I posted on it.
But when you mentioned something about Eddy and Malthouse, you threw me.
I can't see how that relates to this.
Ah... I see.
Do you mind explaining it to me?
It means I'm very disappointed with the way the club has handled both situations.
Which may well be why Lovett is taking action against the 'suspension'.
Oh really, thanks dodgy, would never have occurred to me!
Surely you're then extremely disappointed with the club handling the situation this way then?
Hmmm, been a very shaky 5 months from the footy dept.
Why?
Grand Final week onwards, we've appeared very shaky from a footy dept. perspective.
Injuries in GF week, blowing the GF badly, losing Ball for zilch, recruiting Lovett.....
Not great.
Up in membership, team is optimistic, captain is enjoying his first preseason in ages, Ross Goddard and Joey have extended contracts, Gilbert Mini Blake Dal been added to the leadership group...
Hmmm, been a very shaky 5 months from the footy dept.
I think you'll find they've been anything but shaky - all decisions have been stood by pretty firmly. The club seems to be running in a very professional and consistent manner. I can't find fault with any descision even recruiting AL, it was a completely justifiable move - the club is a business run by professionals - we're on a forum with many strange and unconventional punters, including your fine self.
I've never seen a bad St.Kilda player - that's just how they are.
