Andrew Lovett Sacked!!

[ozrulestrace]

I didn't hear the specific interview on SEN this morning, but did I hear correctly former umpire Derek Humphrey-Smith is the lawyer acting on behalf of Andrew Lovett?

Challenge!!!!!!!!!

Conflict of Interest!!!!!!!

He hated us when he umpiring a Saints game (remember that game at the Western Oval one year when I was beginning to wonder if we would ever get a free kick from him)

We'll be tied up for years in litigation.

[GrumpyOne]

I didn't hear the specific interview on SEN this morning, but did I hear correctly former umpire Derek Humphrey-Smith is the lawyer acting on behalf of Andrew Lovett?

Challenge!!!!!!!!!

Conflict of Interest!!!!!!!

He hated us when he umpiring a Saints game (remember that game at the Western Oval one year when I was beginning to wonder if we would ever get a free kick from him)

We'll be tied up for years in litigation.

Good choice by Andy then.

[Mr Magic]

My understanding of this may be incorrect (I'm not a lawyer) but I think this possible scenario may have had some bearing on the reason St Kilda chose the action they did yesterday.

Lovett was suspended on full pay by St Kilda.
He was charged on Monday by the Police.
That case will be heard sometime in the future.
If Lovett remained suspended by the Saints, he would continue to receive his 7k per week contracted salary.
It would actually be in Lovett's interest to delay hearing the case until his contract with St Kilda finished (3 years) so as to continue being paid by the Club.
If that occurred, the Club could not get back the money it has paid him, if he is found guilty of the charge.

The Club may well have decided to fight an 'unfair dismissal' case down the track rather than be stuck in a never-ending (3 years) payment drain to Lovett.
It would probably work out cheaper in the long term.

[Con Gorozidis]

My understanding of this may be incorrect (I'm not a lawyer) but I think this possible scenario may have had some bearing on the reason St Kilda chose the action they did yesterday.

Lovett was suspended on full pay by St Kilda.
He was charged on Monday by the Police.
That case will be heard sometime in the future.
If Lovett remained suspended by the Saints, he would continue to receive his 7k per week contracted salary.
It would actually be in Lovett's interest to delay hearing the case until his contract with St Kilda finished (3 years) so as to continue being paid by the Club.
If that occurred, the Club could not get back the money it has paid him, if he is found guilty of the charge.

The Club may well have decided to fight an 'unfair dismissal' case down the track rather than be stuck in a never-ending (3 years) payment drain to Lovett.
It would probably work out cheaper in the long term.

yeah for sure. - even if he puts an unfair dismissal (which he probably will) - the worst they can up be up for is a payout and some mediation sessions.

so they will probably call it quits at $100 grand payout as soon as they can and do a deal on the unfair dismissal. otherwise they could end up leaking 300k + anyway by not sacking him....

as usual - everyone in this case is the loser except lawyers who win regardless.

[meher baba]

My understanding of this may be incorrect (I'm not a lawyer) but I think this possible scenario may have had some bearing on the reason St Kilda chose the action they did yesterday.

Lovett was suspended on full pay by St Kilda.
He was charged on Monday by the Police.
That case will be heard sometime in the future.
If Lovett remained suspended by the Saints, he would continue to receive his 7k per week contracted salary.
It would actually be in Lovett's interest to delay hearing the case until his contract with St Kilda finished (3 years) so as to continue being paid by the Club.
If that occurred, the Club could not get back the money it has paid him, if he is found guilty of the charge.

The Club may well have decided to fight an 'unfair dismissal' case down the track rather than be stuck in a never-ending (3 years) payment drain to Lovett.
It would probably work out cheaper in the long term.

Yep, and I also think that the public image issues around having an alleged rapist taking the club to court for illegal termination of a contract are better than having an alleged rapist on the club books being paid $7k per week in sit down money.

I don't think the club much cares about that sort of a court case: given that it is doesn't seem to be an unfair dismissal case as such (but rather a dispute about breach of contract), I think the court won't have the power to "reinstate" Lovett. So he is definitely gone forever and it just becomes a question of how much money he will get paid.

[The Craw]

My understanding of this may be incorrect (I'm not a lawyer) but I think this possible scenario may have had some bearing on the reason St Kilda chose the action they did yesterday.

Lovett was suspended on full pay by St Kilda.
He was charged on Monday by the Police.
That case will be heard sometime in the future.
If Lovett remained suspended by the Saints, he would continue to receive his 7k per week contracted salary.
It would actually be in Lovett's interest to delay hearing the case until his contract with St Kilda finished (3 years) so as to continue being paid by the Club.
If that occurred, the Club could not get back the money it has paid him, if he is found guilty of the charge.

The Club may well have decided to fight an 'unfair dismissal' case down the track rather than be stuck in a never-ending (3 years) payment drain to Lovett.
It would probably work out cheaper in the long term.

As I have mentioned on another thread......

St Kilda couldn't sack him then. Lovett was under investigation. If they had it could have been deemed as prejudicial to the case.

Therefore St Kilda had to hold on until charges we either laid or dismissed.

Lovett was going to be sacked regardless, he broke is contractual obligations. It had nothing to do with the rape charge

[plugger66]

My understanding of this may be incorrect (I'm not a lawyer) but I think this possible scenario may have had some bearing on the reason St Kilda chose the action they did yesterday.

Lovett was suspended on full pay by St Kilda.
He was charged on Monday by the Police.
That case will be heard sometime in the future.
If Lovett remained suspended by the Saints, he would continue to receive his 7k per week contracted salary.
It would actually be in Lovett's interest to delay hearing the case until his contract with St Kilda finished (3 years) so as to continue being paid by the Club.
If that occurred, the Club could not get back the money it has paid him, if he is found guilty of the charge.

The Club may well have decided to fight an 'unfair dismissal' case down the track rather than be stuck in a never-ending (3 years) payment drain to Lovett.
It would probably work out cheaper in the long term.

As I have mentioned on another thread......

St Kilda couldn't sack him then. Lovett was under investigation. If they had it could have been deemed as prejudicial to the case.

Therefore St Kilda had to hold on until charges we either laid or dismissed.

Lovett was going to be sacked regardless, he broke is contractual obligations. It had nothing to do with the rape charge

And you believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. It had everything to do with the rape case they just cant say that obviously.

[matrix]

nahh nahh nah nah
nahhh nahhh nahhh nah

hell yeahhhhhh

goodbye

[markp]

So he is definitely gone forever and it just becomes a question of how much money he will get paid.

Yup, and better that 7k a week going towards the lawyers in the interim than him.

[matrix]

+1

[suss]

It's a shame he wasn't charged and fined/convicted for the drunk and disorderly incident that happened earlier on.

I think everyone was happy at the time but in hindsight, it would have solved the breach problem the club is currently faced with.

[Con Gorozidis]

My understanding of this may be incorrect (I'm not a lawyer) but I think this possible scenario may have had some bearing on the reason St Kilda chose the action they did yesterday.

Lovett was suspended on full pay by St Kilda.
He was charged on Monday by the Police.
That case will be heard sometime in the future.
If Lovett remained suspended by the Saints, he would continue to receive his 7k per week contracted salary.
It would actually be in Lovett's interest to delay hearing the case until his contract with St Kilda finished (3 years) so as to continue being paid by the Club.
If that occurred, the Club could not get back the money it has paid him, if he is found guilty of the charge.

The Club may well have decided to fight an 'unfair dismissal' case down the track rather than be stuck in a never-ending (3 years) payment drain to Lovett.
It would probably work out cheaper in the long term.

As I have mentioned on another thread......

St Kilda couldn't sack him then. Lovett was under investigation. If they had it could have been deemed as prejudicial to the case.

Therefore St Kilda had to hold on until charges we either laid or dismissed.

Lovett was going to be sacked regardless, he broke is contractual obligations. It had nothing to do with the rape charge

saints sacking him could still be viewed as prejudicial cos court case hasnt concluded (or even started) which is why they emphasised at the press conference that they are sacking him for breaches of contract around general misconduct - not because of the charge (even though they sacked him the day after the charge - which ALs lawyers will definitely use to say his case has already been prejudiced and he cant get a fair trial etc etc- but this is no longer the saints problem but the DPP's). To counter this - the saints even gave detail as to what the misconduct was (not contacting officials etc etc).

so the club is effectively saying to AL and the public:

"regardless of guilt or innocence on this matter - on which we have no opinion - we have reasonable grounds for dismissal based on general misconduct "

[Con Gorozidis]

Yes...I can just see the "Saints in early season turmoil" cheap shot headlines now should we lose Fri night.

Id really like to beat the Pies now..for the added message of "we're not distracted" it would send to the football world.

dunno about that. its nab cup. who gives a flog. lets not be distracted. lets carry on with business as usual.

and business as usual is not giving a flog about nab cup - not "sticking it up" people.
heck if we are worried about "sticking it up" people in the nab cup we really have lost our way.

lets just focus on doing what we need to do to get to september and beyond. thats all. the "football world" will judge us in september - not february - as will i. stick to the plan - and dont be sucked into emotional short termism about "sticking it up" people in february.

there is only 1 way to really stick it up em. win a flag in sept . feb practice game will be very very quickly forgotten if we lose in round 1 of the real thing..

[meher baba]

Yes...I can just see the "Saints in early season turmoil" cheap shot headlines now should we lose Fri night.

Id really like to beat the Pies now..for the added message of "we're not distracted" it would send to the football world.

dunno about that. its nab cup. who gives a flog. lets not be distracted. lets carry on with business as usual.

and business as usual is not giving a flog about nab cup - not "sticking it up" people.
heck if we are worried about "sticking it up" people in the nab cup we really have lost our way.

lets just focus on doing what we need to do to get to september and beyond. thats all. the "football world" will judge us in september - not february - as will i. stick to the plan - and dont be sucked into emotional short termism about "sticking it up" people in february.

there is only 1 way to really stick it up em. win a flag in sept . feb practice game will be very very quickly forgotten if we lose in round 1 of the real thing..

Nope, I reckon saint66au is on the money with this comment. Our brand needs a little bit of a boost right now.

Sure, the NAB cup doesn't count for all that much and will be quickly forgotten if we lose, but I reckon it would be a boost for our understrength team to win well against Luke Ball's new club.

The last thing our club needs ATM is anything that reinforces the view starting to be hinted at in the media that we are on the crest of a downhill slide which will lead to us failing to make the GF again (or worse). The idea that we are vulnerable will lift the teams playing us, and will create a vicious circle.

[markp]

What are the odds for the Saints to win the NAB cup?

I think we'll be keen to make a statement... of the football variety.

[Con Gorozidis]

Yes...I can just see the "Saints in early season turmoil" cheap shot headlines now should we lose Fri night.

Id really like to beat the Pies now..for the added message of "we're not distracted" it would send to the football world.

dunno about that. its nab cup. who gives a flog. lets not be distracted. lets carry on with business as usual.

and business as usual is not giving a flog about nab cup - not "sticking it up" people.
heck if we are worried about "sticking it up" people in the nab cup we really have lost our way.

lets just focus on doing what we need to do to get to september and beyond. thats all. the "football world" will judge us in september - not february - as will i. stick to the plan - and dont be sucked into emotional short termism about "sticking it up" people in february.

there is only 1 way to really stick it up em. win a flag in sept . feb practice game will be very very quickly forgotten if we lose in round 1 of the real thing..

Nope, I reckon saint66au is on the money with this comment. Our brand needs a little bit of a boost right now.

Sure, the NAB cup doesn't count for all that much and will be quickly forgotten if we lose, but I reckon it would be a boost for our understrength team to win well against Luke Ball's new club.

The last thing our club needs ATM is anything that reinforces the view starting to be hinted at in the media that we are on the crest of a downhill slide which will lead to us failing to make the GF again (or worse). The idea that we are vulnerable will lift the teams playing us, and will create a vicious circle.

every bit of footy media i hear/read (which is a lot) are tipping a saints/dogs GF and a resurgent hawks.

most people seem to have dogs, saints, pies hawks in their top 4. with cats and crows next best.

if anything the media is talking about a decline for the cats.

[SainterK]

I hadn't read this article before now, and it actually clarifies it very well.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -o8wy.html

[suss]

Here's one Caro wrote that I don't think has been posted (at least I hope not):

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/b ... -o96a.html

I think she's pretty spot on.

She mentions the squash court too (!) but doesn't completly dig the boots in.

[Sainterman]

I hadn't read this article before now, and it actually clarifies it very well.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -o8wy.html

I am really quite surprised the contents of this letter are being leaked to the press. I would have thought this would remain confidential between Lovett's legal team and St Kilda. I thought the club were at pains not to go into such a level of detail as it could prejudice the rape case?

[stinger]

.
It would actually be in Lovett's interest to delay hearing the case until his contract with St Kilda finished (3 years) so as to continue being paid by the Club.
If that occurred, the Club could not get back the money it has paid him, if he is found guilty of the charge.

.

you're not seriously suggesting that are you.....?

[stinger]

Here's one Caro wrote that I don't think has been posted (at least I hope not):

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/b ... -o96a.html

I think she's pretty spot on.

She mentions the squash court too (!) but doesn't completly dig the boots in.

"The Saints' closing written orders to Lovett are that he should return all club property as a matter of haste, and discontinue identifying himself as in any way part of the football club.

To anyone who has laid eyes on this summary, it is obvious that this is what St Kilda wants regardless of the outcome of Lovett's criminal case.

The club is prepared to risk being sued if it means it can be rid of him.

Fresh correspondence is already being penned"



says it all really...

[stinger]

I hadn't read this article before now, and it actually clarifies it very well.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -o8wy.html

I am really quite surprised the contents of this letter are being leaked to the press. I would have thought this would remain confidential between Lovett's legal team and St Kilda. I thought the club were at pains n

obviously not being leaked by st kilda....

[The Craw]

My understanding of this may be incorrect (I'm not a lawyer) but I think this possible scenario may have had some bearing on the reason St Kilda chose the action they did yesterday.

Lovett was suspended on full pay by St Kilda.
He was charged on Monday by the Police.
That case will be heard sometime in the future.
If Lovett remained suspended by the Saints, he would continue to receive his 7k per week contracted salary.
It would actually be in Lovett's interest to delay hearing the case until his contract with St Kilda finished (3 years) so as to continue being paid by the Club.
If that occurred, the Club could not get back the money it has paid him, if he is found guilty of the charge.

The Club may well have decided to fight an 'unfair dismissal' case down the track rather than be stuck in a never-ending (3 years) payment drain to Lovett.
It would probably work out cheaper in the long term.

As I have mentioned on another thread......

St Kilda couldn't sack him then. Lovett was under investigation. If they had it could have been deemed as prejudicial to the case.

Therefore St Kilda had to hold on until charges we either laid or dismissed.

Lovett was going to be sacked regardless, he broke is contractual obligations. It had nothing to do with the rape charge

And you believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. It had everything to do with the rape case they just cant say that obviously.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -o8wy.html

To anyone who has laid eyes on this summary, it is obvious that this is what St Kilda wants regardless of the outcome of Lovett's criminal case.

enough said junior !

[plugger66]

My understanding of this may be incorrect (I'm not a lawyer) but I think this possible scenario may have had some bearing on the reason St Kilda chose the action they did yesterday.

Lovett was suspended on full pay by St Kilda.
He was charged on Monday by the Police.
That case will be heard sometime in the future.
If Lovett remained suspended by the Saints, he would continue to receive his 7k per week contracted salary.
It would actually be in Lovett's interest to delay hearing the case until his contract with St Kilda finished (3 years) so as to continue being paid by the Club.
If that occurred, the Club could not get back the money it has paid him, if he is found guilty of the charge.

The Club may well have decided to fight an 'unfair dismissal' case down the track rather than be stuck in a never-ending (3 years) payment drain to Lovett.
It would probably work out cheaper in the long term.

As I have mentioned on another thread......

St Kilda couldn't sack him then. Lovett was under investigation. If they had it could have been deemed as prejudicial to the case.

Therefore St Kilda had to hold on until charges we either laid or dismissed.

Lovett was going to be sacked regardless, he broke is contractual obligations. It had nothing to do with the rape charge

And you believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. It had everything to do with the rape case they just cant say that obviously.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -o8wy.html

To anyone who has laid eyes on this summary, it is obvious that this is what St Kilda wants regardless of the outcome of Lovett's criminal case.

enough said junior !

You can have that article and I will go with Patrick Smith. Now you go back to that Get Smart episode. You might learn something.

[Eastern]

I hadn't read this article before now, and it actually clarifies it very well.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -o8wy.html

What Samantha Lane "FORGOT" to mention in the article was that the former employee requested that any/all correspondence from the club be made through his legal team !!