Lovett lodges notice of grievance with club

[Mr Magic]

The question is should Lovett be covered by the same sort of employment laws we are covered by, or is it different because his job is playing footy?

The Saints are only in this position because the leadership group gave them an ultimatum, and with the best team ever to put on the jumper, premierships were at stake. Footy success was put higher than moral correctness.

If we had finished on the bottom of the ladder, the whole matter would have been done and dusted by now.

Grumps, you're like 'a dog with a bone' on this.
What is concerning is that you've obviously heard 'something' which you are now stating as fact.

How do you know that St Kilda's actions are due only to an 'ultimatum' from the leadership group' (at least you've now widened the 'culprits' from the captain to the leadership group).

What makes you so sure that the reasons St Kilda gave for terminating his contract were false?

Why do you appear to have a fixation with the rights of Andrew Lovett to the complete detriment of everybody else at St Kilda?

According to the Club, Lovett breached clauses of his contract, so they sacked him. Why is that so impossible for you to believe?

Why are you so much more concerned about Andrew Lovett than other Saints players who may well have been affected by his actions?

What am I missing here?
Why aren't the reasons for your position obvious to me?

All will out in time MM.

I was wrong to accuse the captain. I was only focussing on one person with the power to issue an ultimatum to the club. A group of the club leaders on the field have the equivalent power to the franchise player.

What I have found out is that the club was in a no-win situation, and took the course of action they did to salvage the season. If you need evidence, look at the "no it wasn't/yes it was" stance on the alledged rape being the reason for Lovett's dismissal. They have been scrambling for a reason since day 1. Remember, he has not been found guilty of anything.

I am like a dog with a bone because the truth has been concealed. There is good reason for that; the complainant must be protected. When it is revealed, probably not before the trial, there will be a rapid intake of breath from all of us when it all makes sense.

Grumps,
I have no idea who the complainant is, but have always assumed that she is someone close to the other players.
Irregardless, the fact is that something happened that night with Lovett and the Club has chosen to act the way it did, AFTER taking into account all considerations.

By your own admission they cannot do much publicly without being 'charged' with prejudicing Lovett.

I'm still unsure what it is you actually want them to do?
Reward Lovett?

'Roll over' whilst his legal team 'manages' him to collect the most they can from St Kilda so that he is in the position to pay them the massive legal fees they will no doubt be charging him?

Because that is what his argument(s) (via his leal mouthpiees) are all about - maximising his payout.
Why shouldn't the Club be actively working to minimize the costs to themeselves?

[bozza1980]

I'm still trying to figure out why this story is being reported the way it is.

Can someone please tell me how a player who was arrested for drunk and disordely conduct and then charged with sexual assault within a very busy 4 months, can be considered to have done anything other than bring his employer into disrepute??

If he has brought the club into disrepute, which is as obvious as the nose on my face, regardless of his guilt or innocence he has committed a dismissable offence.

I know I am sounding like a broken record here, but a few seasons ago a player was deregistered by the AFL, after being sacked by his club on suspicions of drug use.

In the Lovett case the suspicions are arguably greater as the Victorian Police and Department of Public Prosecutions believe there is enough evidence to convict him of the crime.

Yet we have the media acting as voice pieces for his representatives slandering our club, a club that he has already brought into disrepute, and the AFL, an organisiation regularly prepared to comment on the drying of wet paint, strangely quiet.

In my mind his legal team are desperate to have the case heard at the AFL grievance tribunal because they believe this is the body most likely to support their client.

At the end of the day his guilt or innocence in relation to the charge is irrelevant, he is guilty of bringing our club. It is a sorry, sorry chapter in our club's history and the sooner this sorry individual's presence no longer hangs over our club the better.

[GrumpyOne]

[

I'm still unsure what it is you actually want them to do?
Reward Lovett?

Pay him a reasonable amount of money, and get rid of the diversion to what can be a really good season.

Its a dirty business, and everyone involved is going to get splashed with the mud that will be flying around.

Cut our losses and get on with playing football.

[Eastern]

[

I'm still unsure what it is you actually want them to do?
Reward Lovett?

Pay him a reasonable amount of money, and get rid of the diversion to what can be a really good season.

Its a dirty business, and everyone involved is going to get splashed with the mud that will be flying around.

Cut our losses and get on with playing football.

It could be that those we have entrusted to run the club believe (and can prove) that the former member of our playing list is entitled to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!

[oneteam]

It could be that those we have entrusted to run the club believe (and can prove) that the former member of our playing list is entitled to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!

Yes, or that what he is asking is way beyond what we can afford to pay , or should pay given his strengths and weaknesses of his case.

I presume it did not settle because he asked more than the club thought was sensible.

Grumpy is naive. The "just settle it" approach does not work in real life...there has to be a limit - does the club "just settle" for a million dollars, or 700k? 500k? 300k?

What if our Qc is being ignored by Lovetts lawyer? Does our club just say - oh well, let's just pay what ever Lovetts lowest offer is?

Join the real world grumpy

[degruch]

It could be that those we have entrusted to run the club believe (and can prove) that the former member of our playing list is entitled to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!

Yes, or that what he is asking is way beyond what we can afford to pay , or should pay given his strengths and weaknesses of his case.

I presume it did not settle because he asked more than the club thought was sensible.

Well, he is asking for double the flat rate for his 3 year contract, based on the inclusion of performance and B&F bonus. Considering he has broken his contract in regard to behaviour and training issues (as far as the club's concerned), he's drawing a long bow thinking any performance or B&F bonus would be owing to him. Indeed, the club would be of the opinion they shouldn't pay him a red cent more than they have to date.

I agree. The gloves are off...fight dirt with dirt.

[Waltzing St Kilda]

THE SIX CHANCES OF ANDREW LOVETT

St Kilda offers a three-year, million dollar contract to a player with a very chequered past; a player his former club is desperately trying to unload. To secure him, a valuable first-round draft pick is given up. Second chance.

Within weeks, player is arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct. Papers gloat. St Kilda however declines to penalise him (though the leadership group issues a stern lecture). Third chance.

Player turns up to training overweight and performs poorly (last?) in the time trials. This from a player specifically recruited for his pace. This from a prize recruit joining a team tilting at a premiership. Another stern lecture, nothing else. Fourth chance.

Hours after hearing the coach's warning to stay out of trouble over Christmas, player is accused of rape at a teammate's apartment. Papers gloat again. Television news repeatedly shows the club shield behind the word "RAPE", along with footage of player in a training guernsey featuring the club's principal sponsor. St Kilda however declines to sack the player immediately; they merely suspend him. Fifth chance.

Rather than accepting his suspension manfully, player issues a "letter of grievance" to the club, thus undermining the authority of the coach and leadership group (before he's even played a game). The club again declines to sack him immediately. Sixth chance.

Player is officially charged with rape. End of story. No more chances.

Under the circumstances, it's perverse that the player should expect any pay-out. That he's (reportedly) seeking more than a year's pay is simply preposterous.

[Thinline]

Under the circumstances, it's perverse that the player should expect any pay-out. That he's (reportedly) seeking more than a year's pay is simply preposterous.

Perhaps true enough, but most of the time the cost of making a point simply outweighs the practical relevance of the point in question.

[GrumpyOne]

Giving up any further discussions on this matter.

Too many posters are willing to declare him guilty before he has been proven guilty.

Don't understand it.

All say that racism is not a factor.

Yet this guy has been hung, drawn and quartered without anyone hearing his side of the story?

Why?

Haven't any of you been accused by an employer of something you did not do?

The Club have now said it was the rape charge that was the catalyst for his sacking. But there is a chance he could be innocent. Maybe a slim chance, I dunno, but still a chance.

Of course he is asking for everything through his solicitors, be stupid to make your opening offer the offer you are willing to settle for. Standard wage negotiation tactic... cannot read anything into his character from that.

But he cannot ply his trade elsewhere until the Saints come to an agreement with him re his contract. Its in the AFL/AFLPA agreement.

He has done wrong things in the past, both with the Bombers and us. He may be guilty of rape, but there is a long way to go for that to be proven. Has the club the right to completely destroy this human being as part of its process?

Something is wrong with the club's thinking. I might not be living in the real world as someone suggested, but if we are destroying Andrew Lovett on the basis of an accusation, I'd prefer to give the real world a miss.

I don't care who or what he is..... it's not farking fair.

[SainterK]

Personally, I am glad the club had the presence of mind to call in his management for the second of the two meetings to discuss concerns in relation to his upholding the ideals of the club and commitment to his training.

Grumpy, hasn't the club said all along that the charge itself has brought the St Kilda brand into disrepute, I am sure that was said in the initial press conference and has been part of the clubs stance all along?

Lovett's name coupled with the St Kilda football club, has been for all the wrong reasons, very hard to deny that.

[Dr Spaceman]

Giving up any further discussions on this matter.

Too many posters are willing to declare him guilty before he has been proven guilty.

Don't understand it.

All say that racism is not a factor.

Yet this guy has been hung, drawn and quartered without anyone hearing his side of the story?

Why?

Haven't any of you been accused by an employer of something you did not do?

The Club have now said it was the rape charge that was the catalyst for his sacking. But there is a chance he could be innocent. Maybe a slim chance, I dunno, but still a chance.

Of course he is asking for everything through his solicitors, be stupid to make your opening offer the offer you are willing to settle for. Standard wage negotiation tactic... cannot read anything into his character from that.

But he cannot ply his trade elsewhere until the Saints come to an agreement with him re his contract. Its in the AFL/AFLPA agreement.

He has done wrong things in the past, both with the Bombers and us. He may be guilty of rape, but there is a long way to go for that to be proven. Has the club the right to completely destroy this human being as part of its process?

Something is wrong with the club's thinking. I might not be living in the real world as someone suggested, but if we are destroying Andrew Lovett on the basis of an accusation, I'd prefer to give the real world a miss.

I don't care who or what he is..... it's not farking fair.

While there is a level of racism throughout the world, and therefore there may be some involved in this issue, I would say it is not the major factor with most posters here.

You take Lovett's record, both at the Bombers and his short time with us, and apply that to a blonde haired caucasian player and most here would hold exactly the same views as they currently do. It's about a player who was given a chance crapping on that chance, the club and all the supporters. If we'd taken Fevola and he stuffed up, or BBBBH and he'd stuffed up, we'd all be saying the same thing.

It's Lovett's actions not his race that is the problem.

And in fact I think there may be some reverse racism here. I mean talking about us destroying this human being. If he was a non aboriginal from Mentone would you still have that view? Are AFL clubs supposed to keep players on their lists, regardless of what those players may do, because sacking them may destroy them?

[rodgerfox]

THE SIX CHANCES OF ANDREW LOVETT

St Kilda offers a three-year, million dollar contract to a player with a very chequered past; a player his former club is desperately trying to unload. To secure him, a valuable first-round draft pick is given up. Second chance.

Within weeks, player is arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct. Papers gloat. St Kilda however declines to penalise him (though the leadership group issues a stern lecture). Third chance.

Player turns up to training overweight and performs poorly (last?) in the time trials. This from a player specifically recruited for his pace. This from a prize recruit joining a team tilting at a premiership. Another stern lecture, nothing else. Fourth chance.

Hours after hearing the coach's warning to stay out of trouble over Christmas, player is accused of rape at a teammate's apartment. Papers gloat again. Television news repeatedly shows the club shield behind the word "RAPE", along with footage of player in a training guernsey featuring the club's principal sponsor. St Kilda however declines to sack the player immediately; they merely suspend him. Fifth chance.

Rather than accepting his suspension manfully, player issues a "letter of grievance" to the club, thus undermining the authority of the coach and leadership group (before he's even played a game). The club again declines to sack him immediately. Sixth chance.

Player is officially charged with rape. End of story. No more chances.

Under the circumstances, it's perverse that the player should expect any pay-out. That he's (reportedly) seeking more than a year's pay is simply preposterous.

I don't think however that any of the above legally (I'm no expert mind you) are a 'chance' to be sacked though.

[Thinline]

Giving up any further discussions on this matter.

Too many posters are willing to declare him guilty before he has been proven guilty.

Don't understand it.

All say that racism is not a factor.

Yet this guy has been hung, drawn and quartered without anyone hearing his side of the story?

Why?

Haven't any of you been accused by an employer of something you did not do?

The Club have now said it was the rape charge that was the catalyst for his sacking. But there is a chance he could be innocent. Maybe a slim chance, I dunno, but still a chance.

Of course he is asking for everything through his solicitors, be stupid to make your opening offer the offer you are willing to settle for. Standard wage negotiation tactic... cannot read anything into his character from that.

But he cannot ply his trade elsewhere until the Saints come to an agreement with him re his contract. Its in the AFL/AFLPA agreement.

He has done wrong things in the past, both with the Bombers and us. He may be guilty of rape, but there is a long way to go for that to be proven. Has the club the right to completely destroy this human being as part of its process?

Something is wrong with the club's thinking. I might not be living in the real world as someone suggested, but if we are destroying Andrew Lovett on the basis of an accusation, I'd prefer to give the real world a miss.

I don't care who or what he is..... it's not farking fair.

What is his side of the story? What is our side of the story?

No one knows anything resembling a substantive fact.

But what we do know is that there is an issue of 'DISREPUTE' in play, an issue that is well and truly distinguishable from guilt or inncence. And when added to an apparent string of intolerable misdemeanours - equally distinguishable - a contract has been ripped up.

The rippee says the ripping was unfair.

The ripper says it was justifiable.

A dispute exists as a result.

No more no less.

On the rape issue both sides are silent becasue they should be.

Don't overcomplicate things Grump.

[Thinline]

THE SIX CHANCES OF ANDREW LOVETT

St Kilda offers a three-year, million dollar contract to a player with a very chequered past; a player his former club is desperately trying to unload. To secure him, a valuable first-round draft pick is given up. Second chance.

Within weeks, player is arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct. Papers gloat. St Kilda however declines to penalise him (though the leadership group issues a stern lecture). Third chance.

Player turns up to training overweight and performs poorly (last?) in the time trials. This from a player specifically recruited for his pace. This from a prize recruit joining a team tilting at a premiership. Another stern lecture, nothing else. Fourth chance.

Hours after hearing the coach's warning to stay out of trouble over Christmas, player is accused of rape at a teammate's apartment. Papers gloat again. Television news repeatedly shows the club shield behind the word "RAPE", along with footage of player in a training guernsey featuring the club's principal sponsor. St Kilda however declines to sack the player immediately; they merely suspend him. Fifth chance.

Rather than accepting his suspension manfully, player issues a "letter of grievance" to the club, thus undermining the authority of the coach and leadership group (before he's even played a game). The club again declines to sack him immediately. Sixth chance.

Player is officially charged with rape. End of story. No more chances.

Under the circumstances, it's perverse that the player should expect any pay-out. That he's (reportedly) seeking more than a year's pay is simply preposterous.

I don't think however that any of the above legally (I'm no expert mind you) are a 'chance' to be sacked though.

Depends on what is construed as reasonable in the circumstances and the specifics of the contract concerned.

If Lovett's contract WASN'T loaded with extra safeguards from ST K's point of view, well we are simply ridiculously naive at best and super thick at worst.

What is reasonable in the circumstances = how long is a piece of string, but everything gets taken into consideration.

My take on Lovett's lawyer's public campaigning is that he probably knows his client's apparent repeat conduct severely jeopardised his chances of saying that ST K was unreasonable in the circs. For that reason he is trying to force a mediated result or a settlement on the basis the season is starting next week and St K won't want the distraction. That the grievance tribunal barked about having jurisdiction - would they say anything else? - is more about good luck and media spin than anything else IMO.

[oneteam]

If Lovett's contract WASN'T loaded with extra safeguards from ST K's point of view, well we are simply ridiculously naive at best and super thick at worst.

.

Thin, club is not allowed to do that. The CBA is public document. It says that all contracts have to be in the standard playing contract form.

Introduced years ago , to prevent clubs doing what they used to do, which was to add extra clauses in. Good idea by you , and I wish the club could do it, but they are not allowed.

also, grumpy is also wrong about Lovett not being allowed to ply his trade. He is allowed to play any footy , anywhere, except in the AFL. So wafl, vfl, sanfl, etc.

[GrumpyOne]

also, grumpy is also wrong about Lovett not being allowed to ply his trade. He is allowed to play any footy , anywhere, except in the AFL. So wafl, vfl, sanfl, etc.

I wasn't going to post in this thread any more, but I have to correct that comment.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -qnbj.html

St Kilda's decision to request that Lovett's hearing at the AFL grievance tribunal be deferred until after a rape charge has been heard threatens the player's football future as he cannot sign at another club until the complaint has been finalised.

[oneteam]

also, grumpy is also wrong about Lovett not being allowed to ply his trade. He is allowed to play any footy , anywhere, except in the AFL. So wafl, vfl, sanfl, etc.

I wasn't going to post in this thread any more, but I have to correct that comment.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -qnbj.html

St Kilda's decision to request that Lovett's hearing at the AFL grievance tribunal be deferred until after a rape charge has been heard threatens the player's football future as he cannot sign at another club until the complaint has been finalised.

They are wrong. Don't believe everything you read. That is the line that Lovetts people have been feeding samantha lane. The afl rules have no such restriction. He will be delisted at end of year by stk. But right now, he is free to play anywhere else outside the afl.

[GrumpyOne]

also, grumpy is also wrong about Lovett not being allowed to ply his trade. He is allowed to play any footy , anywhere, except in the AFL. So wafl, vfl, sanfl, etc.

I wasn't going to post in this thread any more, but I have to correct that comment.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -qnbj.html

St Kilda's decision to request that Lovett's hearing at the AFL grievance tribunal be deferred until after a rape charge has been heard threatens the player's football future as he cannot sign at another club until the complaint has been finalised.

They are wrong. Don't believe everything you read. That is the line that Lovetts people have been feeding samantha lane. The afl rules have no such restriction. He will be delisted at end of year by stk. But right now, he is free to play anywhere else outside the afl.

I don't believe every thing I read, but yours is the only denial of that statement I've read. If the AFL says he can play, I'll believe it.



oh s***..... I didn't mean to post any more on this.


Bad bad Grumpy.....

[oneteam]

So when you say you won't post, not once but twice, what you really mean you have no self control and no humility.

[GrumpyOne]

So when you say you won't post, not once but twice, what you really mean you have no self control and no humility.

I can't reply to that because I'm not posting in this thread any more.







Bugger.





Done it again.

[therabbitinthehat]

I don't think however that any of the above legally (I'm no expert mind you) are a 'chance' to be sacked though.

it would depend on whether any of those were given as written warnings. If so, you only need 3 (as an employer) to legally sack an employee for them to have their chances of an unfair dismissal claim go up in smoke.

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say that St Kilda's legal team is banking on the public reporting of the verbal warnings to him as being enough evidence of a written warning if they didn't actually put the warnings on file themselves.

The reason I am guessing this is that otherwise they would know they would be taken to the cleaners in an unfair dismissal case, and that is why they are trying to avoid the AFL Grievance Tribunal because they are pretty sure his case wouldn't stand up in a legal court.

[saintsRrising]

The reason I am guessing this is that otherwise they would know they would be taken to the cleaners in an unfair dismissal case, and that is why they are trying to avoid the AFL Grievance Tribunal because they are pretty sure his case wouldn't stand up in a legal court.

Cannot go as Unfair Dismissal case as Lovett earns too much. I cannot remember the exact amount but it is in the ballpark of $150K pa and Lovett is way above that..

[meher baba]

Regardless of whether or not unfair dismissal rules applies, any party who has a contract with another party and has that contract involuntarily terminated before it was due to be terminated undoubtedly has some rights.

Lovett will presumably continue for some time to pursue those rights through the AFL tribunal and perhaps the courts. If nothing else, continuing to maintain that his sacking was unfair will help to create a public image of Lovett as a "victim" which can't hurt his chances when he finally comes before a jury.

But he surely isn't going to be playing football again any time soon: for the Saints or anyone else.

Grumpy One apparently sees this as a great injustice.

And I would agree that, in the fantasy world that exists in the minds of some of the judges and magistrates with whom I have had dealings over the years, Lovett might be entitled to remain an employee of the Saints - and even play football for the club - until his case comes to trial (and even, if he is found guilty, until all of his avenues of appeal are exhausted).

But, in the real world in which most of us live, Lovett - after being given a number of second chances by Essendon and the Saints - has finally gotten himself into so much trouble that it is no longer tenable for him to continue his career as an AFL footballer.

I believe every other AFL club would have taken the same steps as we did (although perhaps not all of them would have chosen to take Lovett on in the first place) and they would have done the same thing whether he was white, black, yellow or green.

The problem is not his race, it's the deadly combination of his past record and the seriousness - and highly unsavoury nature - of the crime he has been accused of committing.

IMO..............

[bozza1980]

Giving up any further discussions on this matter.

Too many posters are willing to declare him guilty before he has been proven guilty.

Don't understand it.

All say that racism is not a factor.

Yet this guy has been hung, drawn and quartered without anyone hearing his side of the story?

Why?

Haven't any of you been accused by an employer of something you did not do?

The Club have now said it was the rape charge that was the catalyst for his sacking. But there is a chance he could be innocent. Maybe a slim chance, I dunno, but still a chance.

Of course he is asking for everything through his solicitors, be stupid to make your opening offer the offer you are willing to settle for. Standard wage negotiation tactic... cannot read anything into his character from that.

But he cannot ply his trade elsewhere until the Saints come to an agreement with him re his contract. Its in the AFL/AFLPA agreement.

He has done wrong things in the past, both with the Bombers and us. He may be guilty of rape, but there is a long way to go for that to be proven. Has the club the right to completely destroy this human being as part of its process?

Something is wrong with the club's thinking. I might not be living in the real world as someone suggested, but if we are destroying Andrew Lovett on the basis of an accusation, I'd prefer to give the real world a miss.

I don't care who or what he is..... it's not farking fair.

To start with you are entitiled to your opinion especially when it is as considered as yours seems to be from your post.

That said I completely disagree with you.

Andrew Lovett is guilty of bringing our club into disrepute, and as such as been sacked by the club.

As every individual in this country, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt and this right will be upheld by the courts.

This said this presumption only extends to whether or not he loses his freedom.

To lose your job you do not have to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, in fact an employer only has to have a reasonable belief of the employees guilt in a criminal matter to be entitled to dismiss them.

It can rightly be argued that the charge being laid, as this is evidence of the police and DPP's belief that they can achieve a conviction is enough to form a reasonable belief that the employee has committed the act.

Regardless of this, he has been sacked for bringing the club into disrepute, I can't see how it can be argued otherwise. Please tell me how Andrew Lovett by being arrested for drunk and disordely and charged with rape in quick time has not brought the club into disrepute?

You can't, he has.

At the end of the day whether he is guilty or innocent of the criminal charges he is guilty of the dismissable charge of bringing the club into disrepute.

[falka]

I'm sick to death of all this.

I hate how AFL clubs are talked about like normal work places, with workplace laws etc. It's not a normal workplace.

What other workplaces have 500000 people watching you each week?

What about kids that are delisted due to lack of skill.

Could they sue clubs, asking that they should have had one on one development coaches to assist them? Or at least 10 senior games in a row to prove their worth?

I know in my place of employment, even gross incompetence wont see you lose your job, it aint AFL football though

Its a cut throat business, if you dont like it, dont ever nominate for a draft.

Lovett, you had your chance, go graciously, you blew the chance.