Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
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.
Why is that?
His argument was that as a 'suspended indefinitely' player of the St Kilda F.C. he was entitled to be allowed to train with the rest of the players and use the facilities of the CLub. That was his 'grievance' - that he was being barred by the Club from participating.
The CLub sacked him and quite correctly (IMO) stated that since he was no longer part of the St Kilda FC he had absolutely no entitlement to train with the Club, nor use its facilities.
Therefore the grievance appeal no longer is valid
If he's now putting up a different grievance case (wrongful termination), then that's another story.
The Saints were quite correct in stating that his sacking terminated the reasons for his original appeal.
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.
Why is that?
His argument was that as a 'suspended indefinitely' player of the St Kilda F.C. he was entitled to be allowed to train with the rest of the players and use the facilities of the CLub. That was his 'grievance' - that he was being barred by the Club from participating.
The CLub sacked him and quite correctly (IMO) stated that since he was no longer part of the St Kilda FC he had absolutely no entitlement to train with the Club, nor use its facilities.
Therefore the grievance appeal no longer is valid
If he's now putting up a different grievance case (wrongful termination), then that's another story.
The Saints were quite correct in stating that his sacking terminated the reasons for his original appeal.
He was sacked by StKFC not the AFL. Why would he not be able to have a matter that was already before the AFL Grievance Tribunal heard by that tribunal?
I thought that Lovett took St Kilda to the Grievence Tribunal over his INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
The fact that St Kilda OFFICIALLY saked him in the interim creates a whole NEW situation. IMHO his ONLY Grievence now would be for UNFAIR DISMISSAL, and that is a matter for the Courts as it comes under Federal/State Government Laws.
I have also noticed that Lovett's spokesperson, Derek Humphry-Smith has pushed that this is NOT an UNFAIR DISMISSAL CASE.
Again, my opinion is that Lovett's team want to go to the Grievence Tribunal, but are very reluctant to go through the Courts. When I try to look at why, I keep coming up with the same answer;
Their chances are better at the Grievence Tribunal. Whether it's timing or whether it's evidence remains to be seen.
Somewhere, some time the Lawyers one one side or the other are going to bite off more than they can chew. The main area of contention now is WHICH SIDE? !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
Eastern wrote:I thought that Lovett took St Kilda to the Grievence Tribunal over his INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
The fact that St Kilda OFFICIALLY saked him in the interim creates a whole NEW situation. IMHO his ONLY Grievence now would be for UNFAIR DISMISSAL, and that is a matter for the Courts as it comes under Federal/State Government Laws.
I have also noticed that Lovett's spokesperson, Derek Humphry-Smith has pushed that this is NOT an UNFAIR DISMISSAL CASE.
Again, my opinion is that Lovett's team want to go to the Grievence Tribunal, but are very reluctant to go through the Courts. When I try to look at why, I keep coming up with the same answer;
Their chances are better at the Grievence Tribunal. Whether it's timing or whether it's evidence remains to be seen.
Somewhere, some time the Lawyers one one side or the other are going to bite off more than they can chew. The main area of contention now is WHICH SIDE? !!
I would have thought sacking is a fair reason to go to the grievence tribunal. Its sounds like a grievence to me. I would think that eventually both parties will settle on a figure hopefully without the courts involved.
Eastern wrote:I thought that Lovett took St Kilda to the Grievence Tribunal over his INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
The fact that St Kilda OFFICIALLY saked him in the interim creates a whole NEW situation. IMHO his ONLY Grievence now would be for UNFAIR DISMISSAL, and that is a matter for the Courts as it comes under Federal/State Government Laws.
I have also noticed that Lovett's spokesperson, Derek Humphry-Smith has pushed that this is NOT an UNFAIR DISMISSAL CASE.
Again, my opinion is that Lovett's team want to go to the Grievence Tribunal, but are very reluctant to go through the Courts. When I try to look at why, I keep coming up with the same answer;
Their chances are better at the Grievence Tribunal. Whether it's timing or whether it's evidence remains to be seen.
Somewhere, some time the Lawyers one one side or the other are going to bite off more than they can chew. The main area of contention now is WHICH SIDE? !!
I would have thought sacking is a fair reason to go to the grievence tribunal. Its sounds like a grievence to me. I would think that eventually both parties will settle on a figure hopefully without the courts involved.
Agreed, but I am of the opinion that it is now OUTSIDE the boundries of the Grievence Tribunal !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
Eastern wrote:I thought that Lovett took St Kilda to the Grievence Tribunal over his INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
The fact that St Kilda OFFICIALLY saked him in the interim creates a whole NEW situation. IMHO his ONLY Grievence now would be for UNFAIR DISMISSAL, and that is a matter for the Courts as it comes under Federal/State Government Laws.
I have also noticed that Lovett's spokesperson, Derek Humphry-Smith has pushed that this is NOT an UNFAIR DISMISSAL CASE.
Again, my opinion is that Lovett's team want to go to the Grievence Tribunal, but are very reluctant to go through the Courts. When I try to look at why, I keep coming up with the same answer;
Their chances are better at the Grievence Tribunal. Whether it's timing or whether it's evidence remains to be seen.
Somewhere, some time the Lawyers one one side or the other are going to bite off more than they can chew. The main area of contention now is WHICH SIDE? !!
I would have thought sacking is a fair reason to go to the grievence tribunal. Its sounds like a grievence to me. I would think that eventually both parties will settle on a figure hopefully without the courts involved.
Agreed, but I am of the opinion that it is now OUTSIDE the boundries of the Grievence Tribunal !!
Because we sacked him. Thats seems unfair otherwise clubs could just sack someone to get out of going to the tribunal.
Eastern wrote:I thought that Lovett took St Kilda to the Grievence Tribunal over his INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
The fact that St Kilda OFFICIALLY saked him in the interim creates a whole NEW situation. IMHO his ONLY Grievence now would be for UNFAIR DISMISSAL, and that is a matter for the Courts as it comes under Federal/State Government Laws.
I have also noticed that Lovett's spokesperson, Derek Humphry-Smith has pushed that this is NOT an UNFAIR DISMISSAL CASE.
Again, my opinion is that Lovett's team want to go to the Grievence Tribunal, but are very reluctant to go through the Courts. When I try to look at why, I keep coming up with the same answer;
Their chances are better at the Grievence Tribunal. Whether it's timing or whether it's evidence remains to be seen.
Somewhere, some time the Lawyers one one side or the other are going to bite off more than they can chew. The main area of contention now is WHICH SIDE? !!
I would have thought sacking is a fair reason to go to the grievence tribunal. Its sounds like a grievence to me. I would think that eventually both parties will settle on a figure hopefully without the courts involved.
Agreed, but I am of the opinion that it is now OUTSIDE the boundries of the Grievence Tribunal !!
Because we sacked him. Thats seems unfair otherwise clubs could just sack someone to get out of going to the tribunal.
I'm not full bottle on UNFAIR DISMISSAL LAWS, but I thought that any mediation would need to be "In Court" or "Court Appointed" !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
Eastern wrote:I thought that Lovett took St Kilda to the Grievence Tribunal over his INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
The fact that St Kilda OFFICIALLY saked him in the interim creates a whole NEW situation. IMHO his ONLY Grievence now would be for UNFAIR DISMISSAL, and that is a matter for the Courts as it comes under Federal/State Government Laws.
I have also noticed that Lovett's spokesperson, Derek Humphry-Smith has pushed that this is NOT an UNFAIR DISMISSAL CASE.
Again, my opinion is that Lovett's team want to go to the Grievence Tribunal, but are very reluctant to go through the Courts. When I try to look at why, I keep coming up with the same answer;
Their chances are better at the Grievence Tribunal. Whether it's timing or whether it's evidence remains to be seen.
Somewhere, some time the Lawyers one one side or the other are going to bite off more than they can chew. The main area of contention now is WHICH SIDE? !!
I would have thought sacking is a fair reason to go to the grievence tribunal. Its sounds like a grievence to me. I would think that eventually both parties will settle on a figure hopefully without the courts involved.
Agreed, but I am of the opinion that it is now OUTSIDE the boundries of the Grievence Tribunal !!
Because we sacked him. Thats seems unfair otherwise clubs could just sack someone to get out of going to the tribunal.
I'm not full bottle on UNFAIR DISMISSAL LAWS, but I thought that any mediation would need to be "In Court" or "Court Appointed" !!
I would have thought you could mediate in a toilet if you wanted to as long as bothparties eventually sign off on the agreement.
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.
Why is that?
His argument was that as a 'suspended indefinitely' player of the St Kilda F.C. he was entitled to be allowed to train with the rest of the players and use the facilities of the CLub. That was his 'grievance' - that he was being barred by the Club from participating.
The CLub sacked him and quite correctly (IMO) stated that since he was no longer part of the St Kilda FC he had absolutely no entitlement to train with the Club, nor use its facilities.
Therefore the grievance appeal no longer is valid
If he's now putting up a different grievance case (wrongful termination), then that's another story.
The Saints were quite correct in stating that his sacking terminated the reasons for his original appeal.
He was sacked by StKFC not the AFL. Why would he not be able to have a matter that was already before the AFL Grievance Tribunal heard by that tribunal?
Because apparently you need to be employed by St Kilda to be able to train with them and use their faciilities.
Isn't that their argument?
He can go to the Grievance Tribunal and argue that it's 'unfair' and 'bullying' that he's not allowed to train with the rest of the players whilst he's suspended, and St Kilda can just respond that he's not employed by the Club, 'so what are we doing here?'
Does the Grievance Tribunal have the power to overturn the Saints decision to sack him?
If not, then surely he needs to go to whatever Court does have that power before he can proceed with a case against St Kilda, in front of a Grievance Tribunal, for not allowing him to train with the rest of the playing group.
Doesn't it sound logical that he needs to resolve his status as a Saints player before he can argue that as a Saints player he's being unfairly treated/bullied?
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.
Lovett Post of the Year... no doubt.
Good post but clearly incorrect.
Why is it clearly incorrect?
Your subsequent posts you seem to be agreeing with me that he has the right to have his case heard at the grievance tribunal.
As I said, I agree with the club taking the action they did to sack him and how they have handled this. I just think the refusing to go to the grievance tribunal because he is sacked is just not fair and paints the club in a poor light. I also agree with you that its most likely that we will end up having to pay something out. And I think the club knows this too. Of course they are trying to avoid or limit that as much as possible.
As you said in a later post, if it was that easy to just sack a player and then deny them the right to challenge the decision, then lots of clubs before us would have done it. Employees are accoutable for their actions, but so are employers. I dont' for a second deny it was the right decision, but Lovett has every right to challenge it...even if his arguement is rubbish, (which it is), that is his right. To be heard.
"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.
saintnick12 wrote: I just think the refusing to go to the grievance tribunal because he is sacked is just not fair and paints the club in a poor light.
He still has avenues to air his grievance, it's just that the grievance tribunal is not appropriate because he is an ex employee. At least that is the way it is supposed to work.
Poor andrew. god help him if they have to select a jury.
saintnick12 wrote: I just think the refusing to go to the grievance tribunal because he is sacked is just not fair and paints the club in a poor light.
He still has avenues to air his grievance, it's just that the grievance tribunal is not appropriate because he is an ex employee. At least that is the way it is supposed to work.
Poor andrew. god help him if they have to select a jury.
So you are saying as soon as you are sacked you cant go to the tribunal. That makes no sense at all. Surely if you are sacked you have a grievence with the club and should be able to go there otherwise clubs couls just sack someone with a grievence.
February 28, 2010
HAVING lost its bid to avoid the AFL's Grievance Tribunal by sacking Andrew Lovett before his case could be heard, St Kilda now must surely cut its losses and settle with the troubled and troubling footballer before his sorry story derails the Saints' entire season.
A settlement of around $300,000 on top of what it has already paid Lovett, along with his grievance-related legal costs, would probably be acceptable to both parties - not that either is admitting as much now. And the AFL would probably find a way to place those legal costs outside the Saints' Total Player Payments.
Very good article by Caro.
I agree with her.
We need to make this go away. We can't have the players and coaches giving evidence which would happen whether it is the grievence tribunal or the courts. Its bad enough that some will have to give evidence in the criminal trial. It says a lot that the chairman of the tribunal has advised both parties to settle.
While we could probably prove our case in court, is it worth it?
This years money is already set aside for him and included in the salary cap. Its bad, but doesn't cost us anything extra. And if as she said we are able to put the legal fees outside the salary cap, then in salary cap terms we are no worse off. Of course we are paying him for nothing, but when you sign such a player to a three year deal, you do so with some risk involved.
He doesn't deserve it, but give him his one year payment and make it go away. Of course, it will be up to him. If he opts to pursue it further we will have no option as that is his right. But hopefully he will be advised to take what we offer rather than risk getting nothing.
"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.
There was a small bit on the back page of the sport in the Hun today claiming the final straw was Lovett skipped a medical test with a 'throat infection', only to be seen out and about at the St Kilda festival the next day
credit where credit due...good article by caro....this time she is on the money too.....pay the pr!ck out...now...then say good riddance.....bad bad rubbish....
.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.
goodie wrote:There was a small bit on the back page of the sport in the Hun today claiming the final straw was Lovett skipped a medical test with a 'throat infection', only to be seen out and about at the St Kilda festival the next day
Saw that..he told the Club he would be "out of action" til Monday
In today's Herald Sun - it's reported Lovett's appearance at the St Kilda festival was the final straw after he dodged a medical test the day before.
He told the Saints he had a throat infection and was out of action until the Monday.
The club is still leaking stuff to justify its sacking decision.
The truth is still out there.
And let me guess - it's a racially motivated truth...
You have an appropriate avatar GO, you're like a dog with a bone on this, the only problem is that when you stand up you're going to realise you've been gnawing on your own hind leg...........
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!
