Thanks Thanks:  1
Likes Likes:  20
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 85

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,664
    Post Thanks / Like

    Saints' big call unravels

    Mike Sheahan - Herald Sun - 16 February

    IT is a mere 11 weeks since St Kilda took a decision it hoped, maybe even believed, would be the difference between winning and losing the 2010 premiership.

    After losing the '09 grand final by just 12 points, the Saints relinquished their first selection in the national draft (selection 16) to Essendon for Andrew Lovett. It was a big call, an adventurous, risky call, with a player with a downside as obvious as his considerable talent.

    There are those of us who must own up to endorsing the deal on the basis of Lovett's pace and flair, despite his turbulent history at Windy Hill, but the stakes were much higher for St Kilda.

    "We'll all be judged, all of us, in the fullness of time," coach Ross Lyon said of the contentious decision to take four recycled players, headed by Lovett.

    Article in full...
    85, 92, 97, 98, 08, 09, 10... Break the curse!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,900
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    Ross Lyon screwed by his own arrogant assholery? The Saints throwing away Luke Ball and pick 16 for nothing in return? A so-called 'Premiership Favourite' now faced with the very real prospect of complete distrust in the locker room between a coach and the players whom he rid one of their favourite sons of (Ball) while replacing him with a player none of them wanted, a decision that has come to nothing but grief?

    Love-itt.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Essendon
    Posts
    2,310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    The Age is reporting that the saints have sacked Lovett

    http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...0216-o6le.html
    For those who were always the underdogs and wore it as a badge of honour.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    East of the West
    Posts
    9,036
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    Hard to know what to think about this. Happy to see Saints struggling as they are probably the biggest threat this season, but not happy about the circumstances. Lovett, St. Kilda and their fans, and the unfortunate girl that is the alleged victim are all losers in this case.

    Too serious IMO to take cheap shots at the Saints.

    I will say, their conviction in sacking him surely indicates that they are privy to far more detail than those of us on the outside are.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,900
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    Interesting. Had no choice though, couldn't keep him.

    They aren't going to be able to replace him are they? Player sacked pre-season with criminal charges..you would think thats their loss, but would they be allowed to bring up a rookie..anyone aware?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,624
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    Quote Originally Posted by alexxx View Post
    Interesting. Had no choice though, couldn't keep him.

    They aren't going to be able to replace him are they? Player sacked pre-season with criminal charges..you would think thats their loss, but would they be allowed to bring up a rookie..anyone aware?
    They've made the decision to initially stand him down, and now to terminate the contract. He hasn't ben forced off the field through injury.

    By my understanding of Rookie List rules. They're 1 short for the rest of the year.

    Interesting quote from the Statement on the Saints website:
    St Kilda CEO Michael Nettlefold said, “During Andrew’s short tenure with the Club, on a number of occasions he engaged in actions that were failures to comply with our standards of expected behavioral conduct. These failures related to his training commitments and a failure to contact Club Officials in a situation where he should have done so.

    “We simply could not ignore such breaches. Nor could we ignore the damage being done to St Kilda’s reputation and decided unanimously as a Club to terminate Andrew Lovett’s employment with the Saints.

    “This is undoubtedly a difficult time for all concerned, most particularly Andrew and the woman who brought the complaint to Victoria Police.
    The rape charge clearly wasn't a one-off behaviour-wise. Plenty must have happened behind closed doors.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    14,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    Yes they didn't sack him becaause of the rape cahrge!!!Hmmmm sure you didn'tLittle bit of hypocrosy at work here charged with rape [We'll go with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty line] then we'll sack him citing off field discretions. Little bit to convenient i'd imagine

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,022
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    On a number of occasions he turned up late to training and did not present himself in great condition at his initial training sessions.

    I think it's intimated in that quote that he didn't inform them of the charges/allegations quickly enough which is definitely something which would upset the Board.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,374
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    Quote Originally Posted by Remi Moses View Post
    Yes they didn't sack him becaause of the rape cahrge!!!Hmmmm sure you didn'tLittle bit of hypocrosy at work here charged with rape [We'll go with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty line] then we'll sack him citing off field discretions. Little bit to convenient i'd imagine
    They needed to do this because although he has been charged he still hasn't been found guilty. They can't come out and say "he has been terminated because he raped a girl" because they could be then looking down the barrel of a massive defamation lawsuit. At the same time they want to have washed their hands of him before a seemingly likely guilty verdict has been read and the circus continues.

    I have to say, apart from the initial saga of actually recruiting him I think the Saints have done a pretty good job in the way they have dealt with this. Essendon not so much in the case with Hurley.

    If nothing else it is excellent to see that gone are the days of dodgy payments under the table to keep victims quiet. Well hopefully anyway.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    14,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    Quote Originally Posted by The Adelaide Connection View Post
    They needed to do this because although he has been charged he still hasn't been found guilty. They can't come out and say "he has been terminated because he raped a girl" because they could be then looking down the barrel of a massive defamation lawsuit. At the same time they want to have washed their hands of him before a seemingly likely guilty verdict has been read and the circus continues.

    I have to say, apart from the initial saga of actually recruiting him I think the Saints have done a pretty good job in the way they have dealt with this. Essendon not so much in the case with Hurley.

    If nothing else it is excellent to see that gone are the days of dodgy payments under the table to keep victims quiet. Well hopefully anyway.
    My point is Why didn't they sack him weeks ago if they're citing training indescretions and non attendance ?Let's not dance around it,Stkilda see him guilty. Hopefully payments under the table are of a bygone era

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuck in the middle with you
    Posts
    8,201
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    No sympathy whatsoever for Lovett or the Saints. Only feel for the alleged victim. If I was a Saints player (heaven forbid!) I'd be p***ed off that they used a spot on their list, and a truckload of cash to get a player the others didn't want, and got rid of one who was mostly well-liked. And now it's bitten them on the bum. Would dent my faith in the powers-that-be, that's for sure.

    If found guilty, Lovett will have plenty of time to think things through - something it seems he's not very good at.
    [B][COLOR="#0000CD"]Our club was born in blood and boots, not in AFL focus groups.[/COLOR][/B]

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewP6 View Post
    No sympathy whatsoever for Lovett or the Saints. Only feel for the alleged victim. If I was a Saints player (heaven forbid!) I'd be p***ed off that they used a spot on their list, and a truckload of cash to get a player the others didn't want, and got rid of one who was mostly well-liked. And now it's bitten them on the bum. Would dent my faith in the powers-that-be, that's for sure.

    If found guilty, Lovett will have plenty of time to think things through - something it seems he's not very good at.
    Perversely I do have some sympathy for him. An individual is entitles to expect to be treated s innocent until proven guilty and in sexual assault/rape cases guilt and innocence are never clear cut. He may well be guilty, but that is something for the courts to decide not for his employer.

    I think the Saints have jumped the gun and cocked this one up. The suspending indefinitely pending resolution of the matter is one thing, but sacking a player before he has had a chance to defend himself in court is another completely. What if Lovett is found not guilty? Under AFL rules he is effectively denied the opportunity to work/ply his trade until he is drafted by a club.

    No wonder players are arguing for free agency when at a crisis point in their lives theiy are hung out to dry by their team mates. Question I ask is if golden boy Reidwolt had been in Lovett's shoes would the Saints have acted in the same way?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuck in the middle with you
    Posts
    8,201
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    Quote Originally Posted by FrediKanoute View Post
    Perversely I do have some sympathy for him. An individual is entitles to expect to be treated s innocent until proven guilty and in sexual assault/rape cases guilt and innocence are never clear cut. He may well be guilty, but that is something for the courts to decide not for his employer.
    Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty. But he has been found guilty of a number of other offences, so he's no Boy Scout. He was extremely lucky to have been picked up at all, and since arriving at Moorabbin, arrives late to training, and in an unfit state. No way I'd want to keep someone like that on the books.

    Quote Originally Posted by FrediKanoute View Post
    I think the Saints have jumped the gun and cocked this one up. The suspending indefinitely pending resolution of the matter is one thing, but sacking a player before he has had a chance to defend himself in court is another completely. What if Lovett is found not guilty? Under AFL rules he is effectively denied the opportunity to work/ply his trade until he is drafted by a club.
    They were very careful in their statement not to use his arrest/rape charge as a reason for the sacking (although in reality I'm sure it played a part!) so I actually think they played it pretty well. As stated, they had plenty of ammunition to use against him.

    Quote Originally Posted by FrediKanoute View Post
    No wonder players are arguing for free agency when at a crisis point in their lives theiy are hung out to dry by their team mates. Question I ask is if golden boy Reidwolt had been in Lovett's shoes would the Saints have acted in the same way?
    Lovett is a grown man, who only had Saints teammates because the higher powers wanted him there - the players didn't. As an adult, he has no one but himself to blame for his actions - both proven and alleged. He has to face the music, so to speak. As for Saint Nick, I'd like to think he'd be open to the same sort of scrutiny - but then again, the Saints hierarchy thought it'd be a good idea to go after Lovett, so who knows?
    [B][COLOR="#0000CD"]Our club was born in blood and boots, not in AFL focus groups.[/COLOR][/B]

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewP6 View Post
    Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty. But he has been found guilty of a number of other offences, so he's no Boy Scout. He was extremely lucky to have been picked up at all, and since arriving at Moorabbin, arrives late to training, and in an unfit state. No way I'd want to keep someone like that on the books.


    They were very careful in their statement not to use his arrest/rape charge as a reason for the sacking (although in reality I'm sure it played a part!) so I actually think they played it pretty well. As stated, they had plenty of ammunition to use against him.



    Lovett is a grown man, who only had Saints teammates because the higher powers wanted him there - the players didn't. As an adult, he has no one but himself to blame for his actions - both proven and alleged. He has to face the music, so to speak. As for Saint Nick, I'd like to think he'd be open to the same sort of scrutiny - but then again, the Saints hierarchy thought it'd be a good idea to go after Lovett, so who knows?
    On your first 2 points, anyone who believes that the rape charge wasn't the catalyst for the sacking is kidding themselves. Why wait until charges have been laid? Why not sack Lovett when he was arrested? Why not sack Lovett when he was late to training? Coincidence? Unlikely. he has been sacked because of this charge.

    Correct Lovett is a grown man and talented player in a tiny industry whcih employs 700 or so playing personel. The Saints chased him, got him. What choice did he really have? Don't forget that once Essendon and the Saints had done the deal Lovett's options were significantly reduced. I don't buy the loggerheads theory between Lyon and the players. yes there would have been reservations, but once the decision was made it was the players responsibility to ensure that Lovett became part of the group. Its hard to believe that he was that unpopular given he was at a teammates house the night the alleged incident happened.

    Lovett is no saint (pardon the pun) and probably guilty (who knows), but that in no way means he should be denied access to due process. What if he is found not guilty? How do we redress firstly the stain on his character and secondly the fact that his professional career is in tatters. That is what due process is designed to protect.....

    From where I sit, the Saints have made a monumental cock up of the whole situation from start to finish.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuck in the middle with you
    Posts
    8,201
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Saints' big call unravels

    Quote Originally Posted by FrediKanoute View Post
    On your first 2 points, anyone who believes that the rape charge wasn't the catalyst for the sacking is kidding themselves. Why wait until charges have been laid? Why not sack Lovett when he was arrested? Why not sack Lovett when he was late to training? Coincidence? Unlikely. he has been sacked because of this charge.
    Yes, most likely, but publicly, it wasn't mentioned. And, as with legal verdicts, we can only take their word. Sure, they used the rape charges as the final straw, but they have plenty of other reasons to justify the sacking - and that's all they have to publicly do.

    Quote Originally Posted by FrediKanoute View Post
    Correct Lovett is a grown man and talented player in a tiny industry whcih employs 700 or so playing personel. The Saints chased him, got him. What choice did he really have? Don't forget that once Essendon and the Saints had done the deal Lovett's options were significantly reduced. I don't buy the loggerheads theory between Lyon and the players. yes there would have been reservations, but once the decision was made it was the players responsibility to ensure that Lovett became part of the group. Its hard to believe that he was that unpopular given he was at a teammates house the night the alleged incident happened.
    Not sure of your point here - wherever Lovett went, he had the choice to conform, and make the effort to adhere to team structures and rules. And it seems he couldn't or wouldn't do that (turning up late, not being ready to train etc). So that gives the club reason to believe he isn't fully committed to the cause. The players can't be forced to welcome someone into the fold when that someone has numerous black marks against their name - trust has a big part to play. They can't be babysitters. Maybe he was at a teammates house because they were trying to make him a part of the group. They can only do so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by FrediKanoute View Post
    Lovett is no saint (pardon the pun) and probably guilty (who knows), but that in no way means he should be denied access to due process. What if he is found not guilty? How do we redress firstly the stain on his character and secondly the fact that his professional career is in tatters. That is what due process is designed to protect.....
    From where I sit, the Saints have made a monumental cock up of the whole situation from start to finish.
    He'll get his day in court, and if found not guilty, he'll walk out a free man. The stain on his character (stemming from the current charge) is obviously regrettable, but his character was tarnished before any of this came up. And that was his own doing.
    [B][COLOR="#0000CD"]Our club was born in blood and boots, not in AFL focus groups.[/COLOR][/B]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •