Lovett lodges notice of grievance with club

[samoht]

Another couple of players were in the same boat not too long ago.

If Lovett is cleared he should play - full stop.

[GrumpyOne]

Another couple of players were in the same boat not too long ago.

If Lovett is cleared he should play - full stop.

Yes.

Pure arrogance and/or stupidity if he doesn't.

Effectively we would have lost two high ranking draft picks, (Lovett's swap pick and Luke Ball) for nothing.

Plus the residual effect of Lovett sueing the club for loss of future income that could equate to a couple of million dollars plus costs.

Plus our salary cap being farked for the period of his contract.

Swallow your pride, get him back at Sandy, probably will only be a short time before he self-destructs there.

[SENsei]

Another couple of players were in the same boat not too long ago.

If Lovett is cleared he should play - full stop.

Yes.

Pure arrogance and/or stupidity if he doesn't.

Effectively we would have lost two high ranking draft picks, (Lovett's swap pick and Luke Ball) for nothing.

Plus the residual effect of Lovett sueing the club for loss of future income that could equate to a couple of million dollars plus costs.

Plus our salary cap being farked for the period of his contract.

Swallow your pride, get him back at Sandy, probably will only be a short time before he self-destructs there.

So let's play hypothetical.....you would've kept Wayne Carey at North Melbourne?

[GrumpyOne]

Another couple of players were in the same boat not too long ago.

If Lovett is cleared he should play - full stop.

Yes.

Pure arrogance and/or stupidity if he doesn't.

Effectively we would have lost two high ranking draft picks, (Lovett's swap pick and Luke Ball) for nothing.

Plus the residual effect of Lovett sueing the club for loss of future income that could equate to a couple of million dollars plus costs.

Plus our salary cap being farked for the period of his contract.

Swallow your pride, get him back at Sandy, probably will only be a short time before he self-destructs there.

So let's play hypothetical.....you would've kept Wayne Carey at North Melbourne?

Horses for courses SEN.

When Carey was doing the horizontal square-dance with his team-mates missus, he was at the end of his career, and could barely lift two arms above his head. Lovett has a good 5-6 years ahead of him.

We do not know for certain the relationship between Gram and the complainee.

North had not thrown away another top pick to Collingwood for nothing.

Carey was caught in the act and admitted his indiscretion, Lovett is saying he is completely innocent.

Carey opted to go elsewhere at the end of his suspension, Lovett is still serving an indefinate suspension.

So, in answer to your hypothetical, I would have suspended Carey for a year, and considered him for selection the next year, implying all the while that whilst his team-mates refuse to kick it to him, he was going to have a very ordinary year that could see him dropped. Pride would mean that he would go elsewhere, as he did.

[joffaboy]

And as well as that Gram has turned bogan with his absurd tatoos.

What a douche.

[matrix]

???
grammy has some ink now?

im growing a mullet for you then joffa for finals time

[Moods]

Another couple of players were in the same boat not too long ago.

If Lovett is cleared he should play - full stop.

Yes.

Pure arrogance and/or stupidity if he doesn't.

Effectively we would have lost two high ranking draft picks, (Lovett's swap pick and Luke Ball) for nothing.

Plus the residual effect of Lovett sueing the club for loss of future income that could equate to a couple of million dollars plus costs.

Plus our salary cap being farked for the period of his contract.

Swallow your pride, get him back at Sandy, probably will only be a short time before he self-destructs there.

So let's play hypothetical.....you would've kept Wayne Carey at North Melbourne?

Horses for courses SEN.

When Carey was doing the horizontal square-dance with his team-mates missus, he was at the end of his career, and could barely lift two arms above his head. Lovett has a good 5-6 years ahead of him.

We do not know for certain the relationship between Gram and the complainee.

North had not thrown away another top pick to Collingwood for nothing.

Carey was caught in the act and admitted his indiscretion, Lovett is saying he is completely innocent.

Carey opted to go elsewhere at the end of his suspension, Lovett is still serving an indefinate suspension.

So, in answer to your hypothetical, I would have suspended Carey for a year, and considered him for selection the next year, implying all the while that whilst his team-mates refuse to kick it to him, he was going to have a very ordinary year that could see him dropped. Pride would mean that he would go elsewhere, as he did.

SEN makes a very valid point and one which I was going to make myself. IMO opinion none of Joffas reasons for keeping Lovett are relevant.

First up the fact that Carey admitted the indiscretion should go in his favour. He displayed remorse and voluntarily left the club - even though they would have kicked him out.

Very cynical JB to suggest that just b/c Carey was at the end of his career he was expendable. Valid to an extent, but Carey was still the face of the kangas and still a very important player. Apparently Carey had been flying that pre-season and was over most of his injuries.

The fact that Lovett denies the offence either goes against him or for him depending how you look at it. It could mean that he is innocent. OR it could mean he is doing anything to save his skin. Players who were present will make up their own minds. What those players present say will have more bearing on the rest of the playing group than anything Lovett says. All they know of Lovett is that he has a very chequered history and he was locked up prior to training starting.......

THe fabric of a playing group can be ripped apart if the playing group as a collective don't trust one player. THey don't have to like him, but they do have to trust him.

THe North example, to me, is the most relevant to our situation. Carey wasn't even charged with a crim offence. The playing group just lost trust in him and he knew it. IMO the playing group no longer trust Lovett and we need to cut our losses.

[Moods]

Apologies to JB - my retort is directed at Grumpy One NOT JB.

[GrumpyOne]

Apologies to JB - my retort is directed at Grumpy One NOT JB.

Cynical..... yes.......Relevant Factor.....of course.

We are running a business, not a social club.

Nothing is off the table, no card too hostile to be dealt.

[samoht]

Carey had a long association with his team mates, played many games along side them and was effectively lying to them for ages , whilst playing around with a team mates misses - and we need to remember that he was caught with her, so of course he was going to admit to it.

All the words in the world cannot seal the rift that Carey has caused .

[SENsei]

We are running a business, not a social club.

A business needs to look at the big picture. Sponsors. Membership. Not just on field. It's not as clear cut as "he's found not guilty so he plays".

[GrumpyOne]

We are running a business, not a social club.

A business needs to look at the big picture. Sponsors. Membership. Not just on field. It's not as clear cut as "he's found not guilty so he plays".

Winning clubs gain sponsors and memberships.

Everything should be focussed on winning games. Morality is a secondary consideration.

[SENsei]

We are running a business, not a social club.

A business needs to look at the big picture. Sponsors. Membership. Not just on field. It's not as clear cut as "he's found not guilty so he plays".

Winning clubs gain sponsors and memberships.

Everything should be focussed on winning games. Morality is a secondary consideration.

Disagree. North Melbourne won premierships and were still a financial basket case.

Branding is the all important consideration these days. Particularly as sponsors are hard to find.

What if, hypothetically, JeldWen said "Lovett in? We are out?"

It's not as clear cut, black and white, easy as you are saying. It can't be.

Too much at stake and too many involved.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Another couple of players were in the same boat not too long ago.

If Lovett is cleared he should play - full stop.

Yes.

Pure arrogance and/or stupidity if he doesn't.

Effectively we would have lost two high ranking draft picks, (Lovett's swap pick and Luke Ball) for nothing.

Plus the residual effect of Lovett sueing the club for loss of future income that could equate to a couple of million dollars plus costs.

Plus our salary cap being farked for the period of his contract.

Swallow your pride, get him back at Sandy, probably will only be a short time before he self-destructs there.

Interesting. I come to the same conclusion (yes he should play if cleared) for the opposite reason.

Frankly, I know of no reason for him not to that isn't currently total rumour and innuendo. Until resolved and in the open so we can find out, I don't think most of us are in a position to judge. Not guilty does not mean innocent, but it certainly doesn't equate to delist and pay out either.

On the other hand, in nthe hypothetical that he's irrevocably burned bridges since arriving, I'm not going to force him dow the players throats just because we paid a high price to get him. Sometimes 1st rounders go nowhere (Hi Barry Brooks, Fergus Watts), it's not ideal, but neither is it the end of the world. Andrew Lovett is a talented footballer, but if his presence among the group is going to do more harm than good, move the guy on.

But there's no way I'm going to be able to judge from the outside what his effect on the group would be in the event that he's anything other than guilty as charged.

So, until resolved otherwise, my thought would be: unless cleared, expect nothing from him. Should he be cleared, expect him to play. Should he not play, accept that this is a highly irregular situation, and try not to 2nd guess (yes, i know this is a forum...)

[GrumpyOne]

We are running a business, not a social club.

A business needs to look at the big picture. Sponsors. Membership. Not just on field. It's not as clear cut as "he's found not guilty so he plays".

Winning clubs gain sponsors and memberships.

Everything should be focussed on winning games. Morality is a secondary consideration.

Disagree. North Melbourne won premierships and were still a financial basket case.

Branding is the all important consideration these days. Particularly as sponsors are hard to find.

What if, hypothetically, JeldWen said "Lovett in? We are out?"

It's not as clear cut, black and white, easy as you are saying. It can't be.

Too much at stake and too many involved.

Hypothetically, I would say to JeldWen "Do you want your name prominently displayed on the next premier's jumper, to be shown every time a picture of the Saints' drought-breaking 2010 is shown? Or would you rather see someone else's name there? Remember Mr Sponsor, Lovett is innocent till proven guilty. If your name is associated with interfering with due legal process, it won't come out looking good for you".

[markp]

So, until resolved otherwise, my thought would be: unless cleared, expect nothing from him. Should he be cleared, expect him to play. Should he not play, accept that this is a highly irregular situation, and try not to 2nd guess (yes, i know this is a forum...)

Exactly... charged or not, this is absolutely a case where we should trust in the decision of the club and those armed with facts.

[GrumpyOne]

So, until resolved otherwise, my thought would be: unless cleared, expect nothing from him. Should he be cleared, expect him to play. Should he not play, accept that this is a highly irregular situation, and try not to 2nd guess (yes, i know this is a forum...)

Exactly... charged or not, this is absolutely a case where we should trust in the decision of the club and those armed with facts.

Hypothetically Mark, where would your trust of the club end?

If it was to cost the club one mill, two mill, five mill, ten mill.....?

[saintsRrising]

So, until resolved otherwise, my thought would be: unless cleared, expect nothing from him. Should he be cleared, expect him to play. Should he not play, accept that this is a highly irregular situation, and try not to 2nd guess (yes, i know this is a forum...)

Though I understand your thrust it is a very likely possibility that Lovett will not be "cleared" even if charged, or not charged.


ie

1/if charged and it goes to trial..verdict will be not guilty (note this is not clearing, just finding that thier is not evidence to declare a guilty verdict), or guilty. Public would probably take not guilty as "clearing'...but it actually does not.

2/ if not charged then again no one has "cleared" Lovett. Just determined for example that there is not sufficient evidence..


If not charged then the Saints will then, and only, make some assessment about Lovett and in this the allegations may or may not be considered in various "mis-behaviour".

The Club clearly knows more than us, as most likely does Gram. But equally it would currently be prevented from knowing all it could as it cannot put itself in a position that could prejudice any possible case.

Club and Lovett are both in Limbo.

[markp]

So, until resolved otherwise, my thought would be: unless cleared, expect nothing from him. Should he be cleared, expect him to play. Should he not play, accept that this is a highly irregular situation, and try not to 2nd guess (yes, i know this is a forum...)

Exactly... charged or not, this is absolutely a case where we should trust in the decision of the club and those armed with facts.

Hypothetically Mark, where would your trust of the club end?

If it was to cost the club one mill, two mill, five mill, ten mill.....?

If hypothetically he is not charged but was still not allowed play, and it cost the club millions... then that would only serve to indicate to me the seriousness of his misconduct.

This is not a mere transgression we are talking about, and we will probably never know all the facts... but if we did, I think it is likely the decision would be a relatively straight forward one.

I'd like nothing more than for this to all be declared a massive misunderstanding, and for Lovett to be exonerated and reinstated... but I think from that fateful day, he was gawn.

[GrumpyOne]

So, until resolved otherwise, my thought would be: unless cleared, expect nothing from him. Should he be cleared, expect him to play. Should he not play, accept that this is a highly irregular situation, and try not to 2nd guess (yes, i know this is a forum...)

Exactly... charged or not, this is absolutely a case where we should trust in the decision of the club and those armed with facts.

Hypothetically Mark, where would your trust of the club end?

If it was to cost the club one mill, two mill, five mill, ten mill.....?

If hypothetically he is not charged but was still not allowed play, and it cost the club millions... then that would only serve to indicate to me the seriousness of his misconduct.

Or the strength of the person/persons who have given the club an ultimatum?

[markp]

So, until resolved otherwise, my thought would be: unless cleared, expect nothing from him. Should he be cleared, expect him to play. Should he not play, accept that this is a highly irregular situation, and try not to 2nd guess (yes, i know this is a forum...)

Exactly... charged or not, this is absolutely a case where we should trust in the decision of the club and those armed with facts.

Hypothetically Mark, where would your trust of the club end?

If it was to cost the club one mill, two mill, five mill, ten mill.....?

If hypothetically he is not charged but was still not allowed play, and it cost the club millions... then that would only serve to indicate to me the seriousness of his misconduct.

Or the strength of the person/persons who have given the club an ultimatum?

Perhaps, but I'd hope not.

I thought as much with the Cousins decision, but have since heard things from highly credible sources that makes me wonder how even the tigers decided to take him....

[ausfatcat]

ie

1/if charged and it goes to trial..verdict will be not guilty (note this is not clearing, just finding that thier is not evidence to declare a guilty verdict), or guilty. Public would probably take not guilty as "clearing'...but it actually does not.

So he's guilty until proven guiltier? comeon

[saintsRrising]

ie

1/if charged and it goes to trial..verdict will be not guilty (note this is not clearing, just finding that thier is not evidence to declare a guilty verdict), or guilty. Public would probably take not guilty as "clearing'...but it actually does not.

So he's guilty until proven guiltier? comeon

No..just that our legal system does not find people innocent..or clear them.

It just finds them guilty or not guilty...

It would not declare Lovett "innocent" nor "clear" him.

If and when the leagl case is settled one way of the other..St Kilda will then have to make it's own consideration with respect to Lovett player or not. But for now they are in limbo (though it may well be that internally that some position on this may well have already been made...though equally it may not have)

[rodgerfox]

ie

1/if charged and it goes to trial..verdict will be not guilty (note this is not clearing, just finding that thier is not evidence to declare a guilty verdict), or guilty. Public would probably take not guilty as "clearing'...but it actually does not.

So he's guilty until proven guiltier? comeon

No..just that our legal system does not find people innocent..or clear them.

It just finds them guilty or not guilty...

It would not declare Lovett "innocent" nor "clear" him.

If and when the leagl case is settled one way of the other..St Kilda will then have to make it's own consideration with respect to Lovett player or not. But for now they are in limbo (though it may well be that internally that some position on this may well have already been made...though equally it may not have)

It won't be that simple.

The club will have to be very careful how they treat him if found 'not guilty'.

Infact they need to be very careful with are treating him right now.

[plugger66]

Firstly I expect AL to at least be charged with something but if he isnt I dont think that will mean he will play for us again. The Saints would have done a huge investigation and the result of that will decide AL fate. I trust the club will make the right decision.