Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Animal Enclosure wrote: Everyone can see this except for Caroline Wilson, Jon Ralph, Mike Sheahan and GrumpyOne.
Says something when the two most respected football commentators are on the same thought line as me. They must have their inside sources, I am just a spectator looking on.
Not bad company to be in IMHO.
Except I wouldn't pay too much attention to what journos say. It is their nature to oppose. Patrick Smith is the king of it - never writes a positive story about anything. If the Saints hadn't sacked Lovett I have no doubt the majority of the stories would have been about how we were prepared to (disgracefully) overlook his discretions and criminal charges purely in pursuit of a flag.
Journos who don't write hard-hitting controversial stories simply aren't gonna rise up the ladder which is why they're prepared to go off half cocked in the pursuit of a scoop (hello Hutchie!)
So while you're entitled to your opinion; which by the way I totally disagree with, I would not take too much comfort in the fact some journos have similar views.
I said two respected journos... who mentioned Fat Pryck?
I referred to Fat Pryck as the king of it but all the high profile journos, regardless of who they are, do it.
Animal Enclosure wrote: Everyone can see this except for Caroline Wilson, Jon Ralph, Mike Sheahan and GrumpyOne.
Says something when the two most respected football commentators are on the same thought line as me. They must have their inside sources, I am just a spectator looking on.
Not bad company to be in IMHO.
Except I wouldn't pay too much attention to what journos say. It is their nature to oppose. Patrick Smith is the king of it - never writes a positive story about anything. If the Saints hadn't sacked Lovett I have no doubt the majority of the stories would have been about how we were prepared to (disgracefully) overlook his discretions and criminal charges purely in pursuit of a flag.
Journos who don't write hard-hitting controversial stories simply aren't gonna rise up the ladder which is why they're prepared to go off half cocked in the pursuit of a scoop (hello Hutchie!)
So while you're entitled to your opinion; which by the way I totally disagree with, I would not take too much comfort in the fact some journos have similar views.
I said two respected journos... who mentioned Fat Pryck?
I referred to Fat Pryck as the king of it but all the high profile journos, regardless of who they are, do it.
All journo's have ulterior motives in what they write... & most write stories aimed at the lowest common denominator (ie the average Collingwood supporter).
If you are not able to read between the lines of the St Kilda statement announcing Lovett's sacking & find the real reason for his axing then you're struggling.
If you're happy to look for conspiracies, good luck to you.
It's pretty clear in my book why the decision was made. Yes it will probably cost the club money as the court system just loves rewarding those of dubious character in our society. Scumbags like Humphrey-Smith will make Lovett look like an innocent victim in his sacking.
Our club has more to focus on than that & made the decision to minimise the disruption to that focus.
I support the clubs decision to sack Lovett....I think they had to...didn't have much option really as many on here have said. I think they know it will probably end up costing them money (a settlement), but they will think that is worth it to be rid of him. They will also be wanting to minimize disruption as much as possible...which will be very hard if the trial end up in season and players (Gram?, Fisher?) are called to give evidence.
What I do disagree with is how the club has acted in regards to the grievance tribunal. To sack him and then say - oh he not a player now so we don't have to go to the tribunal was not a good look, churlish behavior on behalf of the club. Everyone is entitled to appeal a decision made against them from their employer, especially places which are strongly unionized. I work for the government, and if something was to happen to my employment, I would have the chance to challenge that decision...I would not have to go to court...I would have access to appeal under the mechanisims in place in that work place, even if my employment was terminated, or negatively impacted. I think its the same for Lovett. He has the right to challenge the decision under the rules which govern his employment..ie the collective bargaining agreement. You can't just say "You're sacked..., bad luck..the rules we all agree to don't apply to you anymore so take us to court..". Very disappointed in that. I think it shows the club in a bad light. As I said, I completely support the club's decision to sack him, but he must be allowed to challenge that decision under the terms of his employment. As much as he has allegedly done a terrible thing, he still has rights.
"At the end of the day, a coach and a fitness adviser doesn't make a good football team, they're not the only ones who got us to two Grand Finals." Lenny Hayes. 27/9/2011.
I only raised for comparative interest. It has little relevance to the Lovett case other than it is another high profile sportsman getting owned by the law.
GO, pulling the race card was poor form, and if you actually believe what your saying then I suspect you live life under a tin foil hat.
AS for innocent until proven guilty, the club has stated categorically that he was not sacked for being charged. The guy has a list of priors and had been at the club 6 weeks and already tangled with the police TWICE, and hasn't played a gme for us. Hell he hardly even trained with us.
COmparisons with other players don't carry any weight because whovever you compare him to already had runs on the board via their service to the club. So yes Frase urinated in a bar, but had prior history of proven deicated training and performance on the field and had demonstrated by his actions a desire to meet the standards expected of the club, despite an occasional minor infraction.
This bloke has demonstrated nothing other than the ability to cause trouble, and all too often seemingly with bad outcomes for the females around him.
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
I haven't followed the thread so apologies if I have duplicated or there are other similar warped minds like mine to say:
I reckon there's a fair chance he might have done something wrong but I know he's innocent until ...................... but sorry
I really hope he runs foul of the law again in a more mediocre way.
I mean gets drunk but doesn't hurt people by his actions.
But alas,
Our Andrew will now be a pillar of society (and doesn't he look good in a suit).
This will be the first time in about 8 years where:
There will be no drinking.
No Social Interaction with fellow boisterous friends
Donations and gratuities to Derek Humphrey Smith charities will be applauded.
The hardest thing for Andrew right now is that he has to pull his head in until he gets off the charges. Maybe his legal coaches (Good luck Derek) will have more success than his football coaches.
But can Andrew be a mild civil minded upstanding member of our community for possibly 18 months until all hearings are heard.
The only carrot is the $ for Andrew right now.
Pity really. Imagine (If he was guilty) he came clean & opened his soul. But rather than sit behind legal and football managers, he called a press conference off his own bat and talked the truth about the events of the night of the 24th of December.
That would take REAL guts because he would be owning up to his mistakes. Would he have the courage if he was guilty?
If he is innocent, steady as she goes.
Apologies for the diatribe.
Back to positions
I once spent a year in Adelaide, I think it was on a Sunday.
bigred wrote:As far as I am concerned, I think the club did the right thing giving Lovett the lemon & sars.
They should also be doing everything that they can to minimise any financial damages that could come out of it.
Just out of interest...
An NFL player, Michael Vick. A gun....You may remember the bloke who got busted fighting pit bulls. Served jail time for it.
This bloke was on 100+ million dollar contracts. He signed a ten year deal for 136 million. Plus had a Nike contract worth 80million. Huge money.
Of course, when he went down, all this was pulled from under him. He ended up OWING his club over 20 million and they bankrupted him.
Sorry, but it is really the only similar kind of case that I can think of. Google the bloke. This guy cocqued up good and proper.
Strangely enough, no one blinked an eye when he was dumped by all and sundry....
carlscum's john nicholls did hard gaol time......kept on playing for them after he got out of pentridge......too big and mean to tease about it ,,,so basically forgotten by all.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
SainterK wrote:Step back from the situation, this isn't Saints v Andrew Lovett....
As far as the AFLPA goes, how a 'grievience tribunal' hearing between the club and Andrew is possibly going resolve anything?
No offence to their self importance, but this is a matter for the courts, not a players association.
Of course it is a matter for the players association however they are in a bind because our players would be happy AL is gone. You do the grievience thing first and hopeully the courts dont even have to get involved.
SainterK wrote:Step back from the situation, this isn't Saints v Andrew Lovett....
As far as the AFLPA goes, how a 'grievience tribunal' hearing between the club and Andrew is possibly going resolve anything?
No offence to their self importance, but this is a matter for the courts, not a players association.
Of course it is a matter for the players association however they are in a bind because our players would be happy AL is gone. You do the grievience thing first and hopeully the courts dont even have to get involved.
SainterK wrote:Step back from the situation, this isn't Saints v Andrew Lovett....
As far as the AFLPA goes, how a 'grievience tribunal' hearing between the club and Andrew is possibly going resolve anything?
No offence to their self importance, but this is a matter for the courts, not a players association.
Of course it is a matter for the players association however they are in a bind because our players would be happy AL is gone. You do the grievience thing first and hopeully the courts dont even have to get involved.
Courts not get involved?
It has happened before and it may happen again. A better option than going straight to court especially as all the same people will be involved.
saintnick12 wrote:
What I do disagree with is how the club has acted in regards to the grievance tribunal. To sack him and then say - oh he not a player now so we don't have to go to the tribunal was not a good look, churlish behavior on behalf of the club. Everyone is entitled to appeal a decision made against them from their employer, especially places which are strongly unionized. I work for the government, and if something was to happen to my employment, I would have the chance to challenge that decision...I would not have to go to court...I would have access to appeal under the mechanisims in place in that work place, even if my employment was terminated, or negatively impacted. I think its the same for Lovett. He has the right to challenge the decision under the rules which govern his employment..ie the collective bargaining agreement. You can't just say "You're sacked..., bad luck..the rules we all agree to don't apply to you anymore so take us to court..". Very disappointed in that. I think it shows the club in a bad light. As I said, I completely support the club's decision to sack him, but he must be allowed to challenge that decision under the terms of his employment. As much as he has allegedly done a terrible thing, he still has rights.
The above paragraph should be compulsory reading before anybody posts on a Lovett thread.
saintnick12 wrote:
What I do disagree with is how the club has acted in regards to the grievance tribunal. To sack him and then say - oh he not a player now so we don't have to go to the tribunal was not a good look, churlish behavior on behalf of the club. Everyone is entitled to appeal a decision made against them from their employer, especially places which are strongly unionized. I work for the government, and if something was to happen to my employment, I would have the chance to challenge that decision...I would not have to go to court...I would have access to appeal under the mechanisims in place in that work place, even if my employment was terminated, or negatively impacted. I think its the same for Lovett. He has the right to challenge the decision under the rules which govern his employment..ie the collective bargaining agreement. You can't just say "You're sacked..., bad luck..the rules we all agree to don't apply to you anymore so take us to court..". Very disappointed in that. I think it shows the club in a bad light. As I said, I completely support the club's decision to sack him, but he must be allowed to challenge that decision under the terms of his employment. As much as he has allegedly done a terrible thing, he still has rights.
The above paragraph should be compulsory reading before anybody posts on a Lovett thread.
SainterK wrote:Step back from the situation, this isn't Saints v Andrew Lovett....
As far as the AFLPA goes, how a 'grievience tribunal' hearing between the club and Andrew is possibly going resolve anything?
No offence to their self importance, but this is a matter for the courts, not a players association.
Of course it is a matter for the players association however they are in a bind because our players would be happy AL is gone. You do the grievience thing first and hopeully the courts dont even have to get involved.
It'll be a hilarious situation if the grievance tribunal rules in favour of Lovett and demands his reinstatement to St Kilda. We would then probably see the AFLPA, acting on behalf of the 41 members it has at St Kilda taking the grievance tribunal to The Grievance Tribunal over it's decision to force St Kilda (and it's players) to be associated with lovett.
(along the lines of the action the VAFA undetook years ago when a guy with HIV wanted to play and the other players didn't want to play against him?)
Maybe it's time for the Saints players who are members of the AFLPA to start demanding that their union act on their behalf?
If I were a Saints player I could conceivably mount an argument that my reputation is being tarnished by being associated with an alleged rapist, and therefore the AFLPA by forcing Lovett to remain a Saint is in fact damaging me.
Maybe it's time for the Saints delegate(s) (do we have one now that Luke Ball is gone?) to start demanding of the AFLPA that they do their duty and look after the 41 players who remain Saints?
True Believer wrote:GO, pulling the race card was poor form, and if you actually believe what your saying then I suspect you live life under a tin foil hat.
AS for innocent until proven guilty, the club has stated categorically that he was not sacked for being charged. The guy has a list of priors and had been at the club 6 weeks and already tangled with the police TWICE, and hasn't played a gme for us. Hell he hardly even trained with us.
I'll withdraw the race card, because I think I have discovered what the club is concealing, and it has nothing to do with race.
The club was backed into a corner, and as a result has manufactured an outcome.
Considering the circumstances, I may have done the same, wrong as it may be.
We are on the cusp of winning our second only premiership; sacking Lovett preserved the chance for that to be achieved.
This might be seen as a backflip from me, but everythings relative.
True Believer wrote:GO, pulling the race card was poor form, and if you actually believe what your saying then I suspect you live life under a tin foil hat.
AS for innocent until proven guilty, the club has stated categorically that he was not sacked for being charged. The guy has a list of priors and had been at the club 6 weeks and already tangled with the police TWICE, and hasn't played a gme for us. Hell he hardly even trained with us.
I'll withdraw the race card, because I think I have discovered what the club is concealing, and it has nothing to do with race.
The club was backed into a corner, and as a result has manufactured an outcome.
Considering the circumstances, I may have done the same, wrong as it may be.
We are on the cusp of winning our second only premiership; sacking Lovett preserved the chance for that to be achieved.
This might be seen as a backflip from me, but everythings relative.
Andrew Lovett 'backed the Club into a corner' by doing what he wasn't supposed to do, and not doing what he was supposed to do.
Others around him who have reacted accordingly are not to blame for this situation we (the Club) find ourselves in.
Only Andrew Lovett is to blame for this situation.
SainterK wrote:Step back from the situation, this isn't Saints v Andrew Lovett....
As far as the AFLPA goes, how a 'grievience tribunal' hearing between the club and Andrew is possibly going resolve anything?
No offence to their self importance, but this is a matter for the courts, not a players association.
Of course it is a matter for the players association however they are in a bind because our players would be happy AL is gone. You do the grievience thing first and hopeully the courts dont even have to get involved.
It'll be a hilarious situation if the grievance tribunal rules in favour of Lovett and demands his reinstatement to St Kilda. We would then probably see the AFLPA, acting on behalf of the 41 members it has at St Kilda taking the grievance tribunal to The Grievance Tribunal over it's decision to force St Kilda (and it's players) to be associated with lovett.
(along the lines of the action the VAFA undetook years ago when a guy with HIV wanted to play and the other players didn't want to play against him?)
Maybe it's time for the Saints players who are members of the AFLPA to start demanding that their union act on their behalf?
If I were a Saints player I could conceivably mount an argument that my reputation is being tarnished by being associated with an alleged rapist, and therefore the AFLPA by forcing Lovett to remain a Saint is in fact damaging me.
Maybe it's time for the Saints delegate(s) (do we have one now that Luke Ball is gone?) to start demanding of the AFLPA that they do their duty and look after the 41 players who remain Saints?
I have no problem with the tribunal hearing the case. Lets face it if they dont hear cases from sacked players when will they ever hear a case. They will not rule that we have to take him back but hopefully will rule on a payout figure so maybe it doesnt get to the courts.
SainterK wrote:I just cannot see how you can seperate the issues, how can you have a sitting with the AFLPA and the charge of rape not be brought up?
Once someone can explain it to me, I may be able to absorb how a players association is qualified to pass judgment on the alleged crime.
I am not being sarcastic, but to me, it's just not as simple as some are making out.
When we sacked him we said it had nothing to do with the rape charge.
This matter was to be brought before the Grievance Tribunal before the rape charge was laid, with Lovett claiming he should be able to train with the group. After we sacked we said he's no longer a player therefore can't go before the tribunal, which is a gross clutching at straws by StKFC.
SainterK wrote:I just cannot see how you can seperate the issues, how can you have a sitting with the AFLPA and the charge of rape not be brought up?
Once someone can explain it to me, I may be able to absorb how a players association is qualified to pass judgment on the alleged crime.
I am not being sarcastic, but to me, it's just not as simple as some are making out.
When we sacked him we said it had nothing to do with the rape charge.
This matter was to be brought before the Grievance Tribunal before the rape charge was laid, with Lovett claiming he should be able to train with the group. After we sacked we said he's no longer a player therefore can't go before the tribunal, which is a gross clutching at straws by StKFC.
He was still 'accused' at the time, and while the club did say that it was not the charge that resulted in the sacking, the club did admit that our image and brand had suffered and it influenced the the action taken.
I just think it would be brought up, and the tribunal is just not the forum for it to be discussed IMO.
