Lovett lodges notice of grievance with club

[barks4eva]

My corporate knowledge??

How would that help a footy dept?

Agree the last guy who tried that turned a belief cloud into a mushroom!

[sainterinsydney]

I wouldn't recommend playing and choosing players based on if they are liked by their fellow teammates. Imagine if Rooey was hated. I highly doubt Rossy Lyon would dump him.

I think Lyon would prefer Lovett to play then not. Lovett would make us a juggernaut--but then again I still think we would be the dominant team without him.

[sainterinsydney]

Also, I think the fans should have some say in the matter. If he is cleared, I hope everyone writes in demanding that he is allowed to play. It would be totally unjust to cut him off at the knees because of an allegation that was cleared. I think that scenario would tick me off worse than Lovett being sacked because he was charged. I can live with the man being given the boot if he engaged in wrongdoing. Keep in mind we gave up our first round draft pick for him. I wouldn't be so quick to file his walking papers yet.

[The OtherThommo]

The club and its players are probably going to be tested over this. Whichever way it goes I am sure we have the professional leadership at both levels to come out of it OK. If Lovett is not charged, or found not guilty if charged, the players are probably going to have to suck it up and deal with it. I reckon they are professional enough to cope, mete out a reasonable punishment for trouble caused and move on.

I have faith. It will not destabilise us. And, I do not believe our leadership is that arrogant to believe they have the authority to usurp a process properly applied. Forget the crap prescribed in the press - if Lovett gets due process and is not sanctioned by the law, he will get a chance with us. It won't be automatic, but it will be up to him.

And, I agree with the earlier poster who was lambasted for suggesting Lovett's defence might be based on an alternative "mistaken identity/role reversal". Contrary to most others' responses, I found it plausible that his defence may be suggesting he was already ensacked when he was joined by a party who claimed a grievance morningtide, after realising a mistake. It wouldn't be the first time.

This has some way to go to play out and no assumption has any more validity than any other. And, assumption is all most are relying on.

And, to ensure no errors in interpretation, I hold no brief for anyone who is shown to be a sexual assaulter. However, I do not subscribe to unproven urban theories as proof, either.

As an aside, I am an absolute believer in the crime of sexual assault being treated as a crime of violence. It is a crime of violence. So, if the evidence so far led in the case of Michael Hurley (i.e. he hauled the cab driver out of the cab, repeatedly hit him, kicked him when he was on the ground etc) is somewhere near the money, why is he being considered for a Diversionary Program (i.e. a touch of community service, a wee bit of counselling and no conviction recorded)?

Crimes of violence are most heinous because of the legacy left with victims. If Lovett committed a crime of violence on someone less powerful tha himself, then he deserves everything that comes his way, mainly because of what the victim must carry with them because of that violence.

Why is Michael Hurley any different if he is shown to have inflicted violence upon his victim? (And don't give me past records, because Lovett doesn't have one that's admissable in court). If the Hurley evidence given at his initial court hearing (committal?) is proven, what makes his crime of violence any less than Lovett's (as yet unproven) crime of violence?

[plugger66]

The club and its players are probably going to be tested over this. Whichever way it goes I am sure we have the professional leadership at both levels to come out of it OK. If Lovett is not charged, or found not guilty if charged, the players are probably going to have to suck it up and deal with it. I reckon they are professional enough to cope, mete out a reasonable punishment for trouble caused and move on.

I have faith. It will not destabilise us. And, I do not believe our leadership is that arrogant to believe they have the authority to usurp a process properly applied. Forget the crap prescribed in the press - if Lovett gets due process and is not sanctioned by the law, he will get a chance with us. It won't be automatic, but it will be up to him.

And, I agree with the earlier poster who was lambasted for suggesting Lovett's defence might be based on an alternative "mistaken identity/role reversal". Contrary to most others' responses, I found it plausible that his defence may be suggesting he was already ensacked when he was joined by a party who claimed a grievance morningtide, after realising a mistake. It wouldn't be the first time.

This has some way to go to play out and no assumption has any more validity than any other. And, assumption is all most are relying on.

And, to ensure no errors in interpretation, I hold no brief for anyone who is shown to be a sexual assaulter. However, I do not subscribe to unproven urban theories as proof, either.

As an aside, I am an absolute believer in the crime of sexual assault being treated as a crime of violence. It is a crime of violence. So, if the evidence so far led in the case of Michael Hurley (i.e. he hauled the cab driver out of the cab, repeatedly hit him, kicked him when he was on the ground etc) is somewhere near the money, why is he being considered for a Diversionary Program (i.e. a touch of community service, a wee bit of counselling and no conviction recorded)?

Crimes of violence are most heinous because of the legacy left with victims. If Lovett committed a crime of violence on someone less powerful tha himself, then he deserves everything that comes his way, mainly because of what the victim must carry with them because of that violence.

Why is Michael Hurley any different if he is shown to have inflicted violence upon his victim? (And don't give me past records, because Lovett doesn't have one that's admissable in court). If the Hurley evidence given at his initial court hearing (committal?) is proven, what makes his crime of violence any less than Lovett's (as yet unproven) crime of violence?

Are you actually serious. Comparing Hurley with what AL could be charged with is a disgrace. You have no idea. Sexual assult on a woman is one of the worst crimes that can happen. No wonder you only come on late at night when no one can challenge such a stupid statement.

[samoht]

We don't know, without doubt, what happened with Lovett - so we can't compare him to Hurley at this stage.

There's a chance (however remote) that Lovett is innocent - and until he's proven guilty he deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially for something as serious as this - otherwise we (society) could be wrongly accusing him of a crime that could stigmatise him for life, and make him the ultimate victim.

Society would be the criminal if it passed judgement that way.

So there needs to be proof and plenty of it - and until then we should not be assuming anything about Lovett or his character - because rape is a very serious and violent crime as we all are aware - in fact so serious that we can't afford to pass judgement without absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
and by assuming - we are already accusing Lovett and can we afford to be wrong on this ?

[rodgerfox]

My corporate knowledge??

How would that help a footy dept?

Agree the last guy who tried that turned a belief cloud into a mushroom!

It's interesting isn't it?

I've read a couple of times on here that our modern footy dept. apparently runs like a standard corporate structure.


What's odd, is that it seems people think that's a good thing.

From reading this site, I thought that bringing any form of corporate anything into the footy dept. was a hangable offence!

[PJ]

It's interesting isn't it?

I've read a couple of times on here that our modern footy dept. apparently runs like a standard corporate structure.


What's odd, is that it seems people think that's a good thing.

From reading this site, I thought that bringing any form of corporate anything into the footy dept. was a hangable offence!

So what then is your opinion?

[Moods]

The club and its players are probably going to be tested over this. Whichever way it goes I am sure we have the professional leadership at both levels to come out of it OK. If Lovett is not charged, or found not guilty if charged, the players are probably going to have to suck it up and deal with it. I reckon they are professional enough to cope, mete out a reasonable punishment for trouble caused and move on.

I have faith. It will not destabilise us. And, I do not believe our leadership is that arrogant to believe they have the authority to usurp a process properly applied. Forget the crap prescribed in the press - if Lovett gets due process and is not sanctioned by the law, he will get a chance with us. It won't be automatic, but it will be up to him.

And, I agree with the earlier poster who was lambasted for suggesting Lovett's defence might be based on an alternative "mistaken identity/role reversal". Contrary to most others' responses, I found it plausible that his defence may be suggesting he was already ensacked when he was joined by a party who claimed a grievance morningtide, after realising a mistake. It wouldn't be the first time.

This has some way to go to play out and no assumption has any more validity than any other. And, assumption is all most are relying on.

And, to ensure no errors in interpretation, I hold no brief for anyone who is shown to be a sexual assaulter. However, I do not subscribe to unproven urban theories as proof, either.

As an aside, I am an absolute believer in the crime of sexual assault being treated as a crime of violence. It is a crime of violence. So, if the evidence so far led in the case of Michael Hurley (i.e. he hauled the cab driver out of the cab, repeatedly hit him, kicked him when he was on the ground etc) is somewhere near the money, why is he being considered for a Diversionary Program (i.e. a touch of community service, a wee bit of counselling and no conviction recorded)?

Crimes of violence are most heinous because of the legacy left with victims. If Lovett committed a crime of violence on someone less powerful tha himself, then he deserves everything that comes his way, mainly because of what the victim must carry with them because of that violence.

Why is Michael Hurley any different if he is shown to have inflicted violence upon his victim? (And don't give me past records, because Lovett doesn't have one that's admissable in court). If the Hurley evidence given at his initial court hearing (committal?) is proven, what makes his crime of violence any less than Lovett's (as yet unproven) crime of violence?

The only thing I agree with you on is that Hurley shouldn't be considered for a diversionary program. I'm reasonably confident that a competent magistrate will throw that suggestion out as soon as it's before him.

AS for saintinsydney's question poser that 'What if the players all hated Rooey' If this was the case I doubt he would be captain. Secondly players can have personality clashes and work through them, or even tolerate each other in a team environment. I'm not suggesting for a second that everyone has to be best buddies - contrary to what footy clubs try and manufacture for us the public. PLenty of examples of players not getting along and the team functioning ok. Macleod and Edwards at the crows the most public and obvious example.

I reckon this is a little different however. THe result in court or even police charges are irrelevant. Other players were present/in the vicinity when the alleged act happened. They know far more than any of us.

Hypothetical question to you otherthommo and sainterinsydney. If you play at a footy club and a new guy rolled up in pre-season. Being a good bloke you included him in your social activities and took him with you to the pub after training. You take him back to your house withe a couple of girls. Once back at your house all hell breaks loose and all sorts of allegations (of the most serious kind) are being levelled at the new guy. AS a result you and your housemate spend 5 hrs in a police station justifying what you were doing and answering questions from the police....
Do you feel compelled to give him the benefit of the doubt and just get on with things?

BTW - my best mate coaches a club where a very recent ex saints player plays. THe version he has provided is nothing like the wishful supposedly plausible scenario you have given. Not that you are to know that.

[joffaboy]

My corporate knowledge??

How would that help a footy dept?

Agree the last guy who tried that turned a belief cloud into a mushroom!

It's interesting isn't it?

I've read a couple of times on here that our modern footy dept. apparently runs like a standard corporate structure.


What's odd, is that it seems people think that's a good thing.

From reading this site, I thought that bringing any form of corporate anything into the footy dept. was a hangable offence!

Have you got a link to these posts?

What is a standard Corporate Structure?

[sainterinsydney]

I have a feeling that the indefinite suspension has more to do with the sponsours than players or coaches feelings. Furthermore, it allows the other players to train without distraction. The sponsours, though, I think are the main reason that he will suspended until he is cleared--if he is cleared, of course.

[rodgerfox]

I have a feeling that the indefinite suspension has more to do with the sponsours than players or coaches feelings. Furthermore, it allows the other players to train without distraction. The sponsours, though, I think are the main reason that he will suspended until he is cleared--if he is cleared, of course.

The fact that the coach hasn't had contact with him suggests that it has everything to do with the coach's feelings.

[Mr Magic]

I have a feeling that the indefinite suspension has more to do with the sponsours than players or coaches feelings. Furthermore, it allows the other players to train without distraction. The sponsours, though, I think are the main reason that he will suspended until he is cleared--if he is cleared, of course.

The fact that the coach hasn't had contact with him suggests that it has everything to do with the coach's feelings.

It doesn't suggset anything else?
No other possbile explanations spring to mind?

[rodgerfox]

I have a feeling that the indefinite suspension has more to do with the sponsours than players or coaches feelings. Furthermore, it allows the other players to train without distraction. The sponsours, though, I think are the main reason that he will suspended until he is cleared--if he is cleared, of course.

The fact that the coach hasn't had contact with him suggests that it has everything to do with the coach's feelings.

It doesn't suggset anything else?
No other possbile explanations spring to mind?

No other realistic explanations.

[Eastern]

I have a feeling that the indefinite suspension has more to do with the sponsours than players or coaches feelings. Furthermore, it allows the other players to train without distraction. The sponsours, though, I think are the main reason that he will suspended until he is cleared--if he is cleared, of course.

The fact that the coach hasn't had contact with him suggests that it has everything to do with the coach's feelings.

The 1st I've heard of this. Was it reported anywhere else? !!

[sainterinsydney]

I guess we'll just have to wait to see if any charges are laid. Nothing is going to happen until the cops have finished their investigation. Everything is just speculation at the moment. I have a feeling the case is not as black and white as some may think, judging by the length this investigation has gone on for.

[Sainterman]

My corporate knowledge??

How would that help a footy dept?

Agree the last guy who tried that turned a belief cloud into a mushroom!

It's interesting isn't it?

I've read a couple of times on here that our modern footy dept. apparently runs like a standard corporate structure.


What's odd, is that it seems people think that's a good thing.

From reading this site, I thought that bringing any form of corporate anything into the footy dept. was a hangable offence!

Ok Dodgy, why don't you tell us how it all works down at the Saints. You seem to know all when it comes to structures, be they football clubs or corporations. You even seem to know where a poster might fit in to a corporate structure, so please, outline for me in detail what the structure is at a football club, generally and then at the Saints. You are of course all knowing...so I would expect it to be a good explanation.

Oh, and if you can avoid answering this post with 50 more off topic questions it would be much appreciated!

[mbogo]

One alternative explanation re- Lyon's lack of contact might be the doubt that there will be charges laid or not. If charges are laid I can understand that Lyon does not wish to be seen by the public to be associated with AL in any way at all. By sending out an assistant coach as minder he is able to both keep an eye on fitness reports etc, without being tarnished in any way by any direct association. This would both ameliorate any concerns of other players and allow a potential reunion once counselling and any grievances are sought out and resolved.
This process would allow AL to return to the fold in time - if the legal process does not result in a conviction.
As for myself I hope AL is innocent (ie: NOT guilty) and that he ends up playing for us.
I actually think he is exactly the type of player who could perform without too much friendship being necessary - afterall he did at Essendon.
The Hurley thing BTW is truly disturbing - as is any crime of violence over someone less powerful - and to be racially motivated it just makes it worse.

[joffaboy]

My corporate knowledge??

How would that help a footy dept?

Agree the last guy who tried that turned a belief cloud into a mushroom!

It's interesting isn't it?

I've read a couple of times on here that our modern footy dept. apparently runs like a standard corporate structure.


What's odd, is that it seems people think that's a good thing.

From reading this site, I thought that bringing any form of corporate anything into the footy dept. was a hangable offence!

Ok Dodgy, why don't you tell us how it all works down at the Saints. You seem to know all when it comes to structures, be they football clubs or corporations. You even seem to know where a poster might fit in to a corporate structure, so please, outline for me in detail what the structure is at a football club, generally and then at the Saints. You are of course all knowing...so I would expect it to be a good explanation.

Oh, and if you can avoid answering this post with 50 more off topic questions it would be much appreciated!

he doesn't answer aspiring middle managers

wont even answer what his definition of a "standard"corporate structure is.

Wonder what he means horizontal collective or vertical individualistic (or any of the myriad others )

[rodgerfox]

My corporate knowledge??

How would that help a footy dept?

Agree the last guy who tried that turned a belief cloud into a mushroom!

It's interesting isn't it?

I've read a couple of times on here that our modern footy dept. apparently runs like a standard corporate structure.


What's odd, is that it seems people think that's a good thing.

From reading this site, I thought that bringing any form of corporate anything into the footy dept. was a hangable offence!

Ok Dodgy, why don't you tell us how it all works down at the Saints. You seem to know all when it comes to structures, be they football clubs or corporations. You even seem to know where a poster might fit in to a corporate structure, so please, outline for me in detail what the structure is at a football club, generally and then at the Saints. You are of course all knowing...so I would expect it to be a good explanation.

Oh, and if you can avoid answering this post with 50 more off topic questions it would be much appreciated!

?

You must have me confused with another poster.

I've been asking, and asking, and asking someone to tell me how our new 'modern footy dept.' works but no-one (especially the ones who were demanding this new 'modern footy dept.') can tell me how it works.

I'm confused as to how it works at the Saints, because one minute I'm reading that 'ROSS LYON TOOK US TO A GF', but then I read that all he does is coach. So clearly he isn't the one taking us to a flag - infact considering we have a list manager, a fitness dude and recruiters who all report into the Footy Manager (or so I'm told), and considering Ross Lyon himself reports into the Footy Manager (or so I'm told) then I'd almost say he has one of the smallest jobs in the place.

But then I read that he read Luke Ball the riot act in regards to his pay and whether or not he was going to get a contract with the club.
So I'm confused even further.

And then I read that Ross Lyon fixed the injury mess at the club. For the life of me, I can't work out how the coach would have the slightest bit of involvement in that area at all.


So still I wait to have my questions answered.

[stinger]

I guess we'll just have to wait to see if any charges are laid. Nothing is going to happen until the cops have finished their investigation. Everything is just speculation at the moment. I have a feeling the case is not as black and white as some may think, judging by the length this investigation has gone on for.

i'm told that the girl involved was actually gram's girlfriend and as far as the club's concerned lovett will never pull on a saints jumper in any official capacity again.......

..if that's the case and the club is 100 % behind gram i would think that this issue might just bind the players closer together....

[sainterinsydney]

I thought it was Jack Anthony's girlfriend? I imagine that would have been big news if it had been Gram's misses? Geez, everything is just speculation at the moment.

[Sainterman]

My corporate knowledge??

How would that help a footy dept?

Agree the last guy who tried that turned a belief cloud into a mushroom!

It's interesting isn't it?

I've read a couple of times on here that our modern footy dept. apparently runs like a standard corporate structure.


What's odd, is that it seems people think that's a good thing.

From reading this site, I thought that bringing any form of corporate anything into the footy dept. was a hangable offence!

Ok Dodgy, why don't you tell us how it all works down at the Saints. You seem to know all when it comes to structures, be they football clubs or corporations. You even seem to know where a poster might fit in to a corporate structure, so please, outline for me in detail what the structure is at a football club, generally and then at the Saints. You are of course all knowing...so I would expect it to be a good explanation.

Oh, and if you can avoid answering this post with 50 more off topic questions it would be much appreciated!

?

You must have me confused with another poster.

I've been asking, and asking, and asking someone to tell me how our new 'modern footy dept.' works but no-one (especially the ones who were demanding this new 'modern footy dept.') can tell me how it works.

I'm confused as to how it works at the Saints, because one minute I'm reading that 'ROSS LYON TOOK US TO A GF', but then I read that all he does is coach. So clearly he isn't the one taking us to a flag - infact considering we have a list manager, a fitness dude and recruiters who all report into the Footy Manager (or so I'm told), and considering Ross Lyon himself reports into the Footy Manager (or so I'm told) then I'd almost say he has one of the smallest jobs in the place.

But then I read that he read Luke Ball the riot act in regards to his pay and whether or not he was going to get a contract with the club.
So I'm confused even further.

And then I read that Ross Lyon fixed the injury mess at the club. For the life of me, I can't work out how the coach would have the slightest bit of involvement in that area at all.


So still I wait to have my questions answered.

I am really not sure what is so difficult. Facts are we played off in a GF under Lyon, it would suggest he had done something right to get us there. I would be surprised if anyone was attributing this all to Lyon.

I think the main point is that many people, working together, and seeking the input of others is what leads to a successful club. I think it is just that simple.

Some may credit this all to RL, others to a well run admin, and then a few to an overall cohesive organisation working with each other towards the one end goal.

Why is it such a big issue anyway? Is it just because of the GT v RL debate that has for so long made this forum a pretty average place? Perhaps we should all move on an focus on the now...not what GT did 5 years ago.

Perhaps this is just too simple for many though, it would mean those in the GT camp could not bait those in the RL camp and vice versa...maybe too boring for some.

[stinger]

I thought it was Jack Anthony's girlfriend? I imagine that would have been big news if it had been Gram's misses? Geez, everything is just speculation at the moment.

i think she is a former girlfriend of a collingwood player...that was reported...

...she rang anthony....that also was reported...he rang triple 0...that has also been reported...

...the girl and another came back to grams unit with gram and lovett...that has also been reported.....the information i posted above was told to me this morning and came from a club official.....i don't know if it's true or not...as i alluded to above...certainly the source of my information described her as gram's girlfriend and said the club was supporting him.....

[saint66au]

the information i posted above was told to me this morning and came from a club official

.

Was he OK with it being posted on this Forum??