Lovett lodges notice of grievance with club

[yipper]

This clearly has nothing to do with race, otherwise Raph Clarke would have walked out of the club in disgust. Raph is, along with every other listed StKilda player, fully supportive of the club's actions.

An incident occurred involving a young lady well known to all our players AND well liked. She was the victim here - NOT Lovett.

Several players were present at the time and will be witnesses for the Prosecution I believe. Lovett was totally and solely to blame for his current plight, the colour of his skin is absolutely and totally irrelevant. He is simply not welcome back at StKilda FC by any of our playing list or officials. He cooked his own goose. NO other AFL club would have acted differently. And he would have been sacked by my employer as well. In fact - any employer.

[Richter]

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.

..........................

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.

Yes, he can. If he gives up on the Grievance Tribunal and takes the club to court for unfair dismissal then he can both play for another club AND attempt to gain recompense for his lost earnings at St Kilda. Using the Grievance Tribunal is only a tactic for Lovett, he can have no realistic thoughts that he could be reinstated and play for the club. Similarly, for the Saints, trying to delay the Tribunal is a tactic. I say let it play out and keep the hysterical ravings about "rights" out of it. It isn't about that, it's about legal strategy on each party's behalf.

Lovett has options. He had options on Dec 24th. Trying to turn this back on the club is muddle headed thinking.

St Kilda has already paid Andrew Lovett approx $50,000 since it was announced that he was being investigated for rape. (Dec 24th to date of charge/sacking by St Kilda (16th Feb). Fine by me if he gets off the rape charge that he should be eligible for a greater portion of compensation than this. But if he is found guilty then I for one do not want to be paying anymore money than I have to to what would then be a convicted rapist.

[saintsRrising]

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

.

Well we have a " two week rule here"...as in no point talking to any new employees in the first two weeks as many simply a are not here after that....sink or swim!!

[saintsRrising]

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.

......

Indeed...but if your earn little enough to be covered by the Unfair Dismissal Procedure the employer has to go by those Guidelines.

This will not apply with Lovett...so it will go by the Contract Provisions and AFL Players agreement which no doubt the Contract references..

[Moccha]

Police ask AFL to delay Lovett's tribunal hearing..

Looks like the Saints got their wish and Lovett will have to take what he can get

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... -qwpe.html

[ace]

Police ask AFL to delay Lovett's tribunal hearing..

Looks like the Saints got their wish and Lovett will have to take what he can get

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... -qwpe.html

Now the courts will decide.
Guilty he gets nothing.
Not guilty he gets a huge packet.
Either way he will never play for St Kilda.
He will never be a St Kilda player because he never played.

[StSteven]

Round 1 starts today and this topic is still top of the list here. I have had a gut full of it.

[plugger66]

Round 1 starts today and this topic is still top of the list here. I have had a gut full of it.

Well that post will keep it there.

[saint66au]

Police ask AFL to delay Lovett's tribunal hearing..

Looks like the Saints got their wish and Lovett will have to take what he can get

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... -qwpe.html

Now the courts will decide.
Guilty he gets nothing.
Not guilty he gets a huge packet.
Either way he will never play for St Kilda.
He will never be a St Kilda player because he never played.

Why will the courts decide? St Kilda have said all along that his dismissal is for a litany of reasons apart from him being charged with rape. His guilt or acquittal doesnt change all the other misdemeanours that lead to his sacking.

[saintspremiers]

Police ask AFL to delay Lovett's tribunal hearing..

Looks like the Saints got their wish and Lovett will have to take what he can get

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... -qwpe.html

Now the courts will decide.
Guilty he gets nothing.
Not guilty he gets a huge packet.
Either way he will never play for St Kilda.
He will never be a St Kilda player because he never played.

Why will the courts decide? St Kilda have said all along that his dismissal is for a litany of reasons apart from him being charged with rape. His guilt or acquittal doesnt change all the other misdemeanours that lead to his sacking.

That's if you believe everything you read from our club (which I hope is true!).

In any case, the cops have a fair point re the stupid sooky tribunal getting in the way of the court case.

Suck it up Lovett!

[hotdish]

Just reported on Channel 10 - whole saga to be decided upon next thursday on april 1...hopefully we don't get a bad april fools day decision and get shafted!

[saintbrat]

afl.com.au
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx
Grievance decision on Lovett due on April 1
THE AFL grievance tribunal will hand down its decision on the matter involving sacked St Kilda player Andrew Lovett next Thursday, April 1.

The tribunal sat in camera on Thursday night, after non-interested parties including the media were barred from the hearing.

The tribunal took arguments from the St Kilda Football Club, the legal team acting for Andrew Lovett, the AFLPA and the AFL.

A written submission was also received from Victoria Police due to Lovett's alleged involvement in a criminal matter.

He has been charged with rape after an incident involving a woman on December 24, 2009.

In a statement released on Thursday night, it was announced that the tribunal would consider all arguments before handing down its decision.

However, the reasons for the decision may not be made publicly available.

The statement read: "The reasons for the decision will be provided to the parties involved, and the Tribunal will give its consideration as whether those reasons will be made available to the media."


ps- I couldn't figure which parts to edit- so left the lot

[linz]

Just reported on Channel 10 - whole saga to be decided upon next thursday on april 1...hopefully we don't get a bad april fools day decision and get shafted!

What? who? where? decided what? on Channel 10?

[Teflon]

I get the feeling the AFL are behind us here....they dont want this leech playing IMHO but need to be seen to not be flouting the AFLPA and the grievance process.......so they decide...all of a sudden....to contact the Police and get their submission.......nice one

Victoria Police deputy commissioner Walshe told The Age last night that he was contacted by Anderson and asked the police view on the grievance tribunal hearing.

[ace]

Decision to be handed down on 1 April.

1. Andrew Lovett to be allowed to train with the Saints, conditional that training takes place away from Moorabbin and no saints coaches or players are present.
2. Andrew Lovett to be allowed to play in a separate AFL competition, conditional that no body else has to play with him or against him.
3. Andrew Lovett to be paid his full salary, conditional that he pay himself.

[oneteam]

Decision to be handed down on 1 April.

1. Andrew Lovett to be allowed to train with the Saints, conditional that training takes place away from Moorabbin and no saints coaches or players are present.
2. Andrew Lovett to be allowed to play in a separate AFL competition, conditional that no body else has to play with him or against him.
3. Andrew Lovett to be paid his full salary, conditional that he pay himself.

4.Derek "can't bounce to save himself" Humphrey smith to be paid his $150,000 of legal costs , conditional on it coming from his termination payments when dismissed by his law firm.

[Fidelis]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -se2k.html

"SACKED Saint Andrew Lovett looks set to take his AFL grievance tribunal claim to the Supreme Court next week with his legal team planning to appeal against the decision handed down earlier this month by Queen's Counsel Jack Rush and his panel."

The article also suggests that the Lovett camp have asked the AFLPA to help bankroll his legal costs which now stand conservatively at $150,000!

[Kate]

Someone once said that there are no winners in these situations. But I reckon a few Lawyers are smiling. Why wouldn't they tell him that he's got a case, it's dollars in the bank for them.

[Moccha]

Just goes to show how stupid Lovett is. Gets himself into trouble then rejects Saints payout for the year hoping for a 3 yr payout while meanwhile his legal bills are skyrocketing. He should cut his losses and accept the yrs payout and go out and play in the VFL to try and maximize his earnings. Everyone else sees his lawyers as leeches. It's the wood for the trees analogy!

[saintsRrising]

Someone once said that there are no winners in these situations. But I reckon a few Lawyers are smiling. Why wouldn't they tell him that he's got a case, it's dollars in the bank for them.

Agree.

Lovett could have taken the offered years salary of $300K, all fora months "work".

Now hew has blown about $150K and so even if he now accepted the $300K after paying taxes and then the lawyers he would have very little left.

Unfortunately for Lovett he has probably been ill-advised that he had a "case"....he has risked his $$$ vs the lawyers making a guaranteed $150K with chances of more.

Looks like the lawyers are no eye-ing off the pockets of the Players Association.

[older saint]

Just goes to show how stupid Lovett is. Gets himself into trouble then rejects Saints payout for the year hoping for a 3 yr payout while meanwhile his legal bills are skyrocketing. He should cut his losses and accept the yrs payout and go out and play in the VFL to try and maximize his earnings. Everyone else sees his lawyers as leeches. It's the wood for the trees analogy!

One of his lawyers is an ex umpire and you sound surprised his lawyers are leaches!

[aussiejones]

I would not be happy to see the Players Assn fund him....after all its isnt their function.

Even if he 'wins' he will loose ....the Supreme Cout aint cheap.


Sad affair all round.

[Moccha]

Andrew Hatett ups ante in pay fight with St Kilda

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/a ... 5856141208

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

the lawyers are costing this idiot a shitload of money!

[GrumpyOne]

Andrew Hatett ups ante in pay fight with St Kilda

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/a ... 5856141208

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

the lawyers are costing this idiot a shitload of money!

Hatett doesn't seem to have much of a case.... Lovett on the other hand is a different matter.

I am informed that Humphrey-Bear is running this on a no-win/no-fee basis..... he is that confident of winning. All Lovett is paying for ATM is out of pocket expences. The six figure sum quoted is including Humphrey-Bear's fees, and was deliberately leaked to put the wind up the Saints. They could end up paying out the full contract plus.

However distasteful settlement might be, it might end up being a cheaper option.

[Saintsfan]

I know about the financial negatives of this entire saga but...does anyone really care anymore now the season has started?

At least we will be able to fund any payout as we have a strong financial base et al. 10 years ago might have been interesting.