plugger66 wrote:The Craw wrote:plugger66 wrote:Firstly he was sacked because a the rape charge.
No he wasn't. He was sacked because he broke his contract. He was gone regardless, charged or not charged.
What happened on that night and the subsequent events following, in addition to the numerous misdemeanors before that, culminated in his sacking.
Even if he is cleared of charges, it won't change anything....he...broke ...his...contract.
End of storey.
He was not sacked until after charges were laid / not laid as it would have been deemed as prejudicial to the investigation and subsequent hearing if in fact he was charged. Which as we all know now that he has now been charged?
How you can argue that sacking him after the charges have been laid is beyond me.
St Kilda has categorically stated that his termination was in relation to Lovett not meeting contractual obligations.
Why do you think Lovett’s lawyers have gone the bullying angle?
That is the only avenue they have to try and get a monitory settlement.
How much money has the tooth fairy given you over the years. Why would sacking a player effect a criminal court case? He was sacked because of the rape charge. All the other things were incidental. he havent even trained with us for 8 weeks so how did he break any rules in that time. The club have rightly said there were other reasons as well as the incident on 24 December.
Ok this is the last time I will explain it to you junior….. Firstly he was excluded from training after the 24th December, which was his last infringement, added to the other misdemeanors before this date, culminated in his sacking.
The police advised that they were investigating an alleged sexual assault. Therefore, if St Kilda acted immediately after that indiscretion, give or take a few days as it was over the Christmas break, it could have been construed, at trial, as an assumption of guilt from the St Kilda football club even before the case had gone to trial. Lawyers acting on behalf of Lovett could have used this as a trial by media and a presumption of guilt, thus not giving Lovett the normal course of rightful justice.
Between the date the allegation was raised until the date Lovett was formally charged, nothing had be said by anyone except for St Kilda standing him down indefinitely and being excluded from training with the playing group with full pay.
So as soon as charges were laid, and even if they were not, St Kilda rightfully declared its hand in relation to its stance on Lovett.
There is now way Lovett’s lawyers can argue that Lovett will not receive a fair trial. And rightly so. Natural justice hopefully will take its course.In addition there has been a legal document submitted and conveniently leaked stating thus.
So I really do not know what else is needed.
Maybe give Patrick Smith a call and see what he thinks.
