Saints' big call unravels

[FrediKanoute]

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.

What I'm getting at is that Lovett really didn't have the kind of options most of us have in regards choosing our employers. Footballers don't and whilst they are handsomely rewarded for this lack of choice players are shunted around and traded during trade week often with minimal input. Simply he didn't have a choice that it was the Saints who came banging down the door for his services and he didn't have a choice in the matter that the decision to recruit him wasn't completely unanimous.

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.

Its a lot more than regrettable. In terms of crimes, probably the only worse crime than rape is kiddie fiddling. From a social perspective its like have BO and Halitosis, people, particularly women just don't want to be around you. On top of this though is the fact that he simply cannot ply his trade. Most of us would at least be able to work (assuming we were not held on remand) up until the court case. The Saints actions have increased the level of ostracisement at a time when perhaps assisting, not tolerating, Lovett in the matter may be more constructive. Its a classic case of covering their *rse's!

[Remi Moses]

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

[EasternWest]

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?

Whoa whoa whoa Fredi I can't believe you got away with this one.

I'd say in the fullness of time the circumstances and events will become common knowledge, and guilt/innocence will be very clear cut.

You make some good arguments, but your credibility took a hit with this one.

[EasternWest]

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

Agree. They've clearly made their mind up and are prepared to risk the fallout of cutting away now. They know that the flack will be much worse if/when a guilty verdict is found.

[LostDoggy]

I don't think St.Kilda see him as guilty just think they see him as bad news. They don't want the bad publicity. I agree that the reasons made up for the sacking are BS but no doubt the underlying factor is none of the other players want him.

[aker39]

I don't think St.Kilda see him as guilty just think they see him as bad news. They don't want the bad publicity. I agree that the reasons made up for the sacking are BS but no doubt the underlying factor is none of the other players want him.

Which is not reason enough to terminate someones contract.

I really can't see how the Saints could win an unfair dismissal case, especially when they have publicly said that it had nothing to do with the rape charge. Surely the other breaches are not sufficient enough to terminate a $1 million contract.

[Mantis]

I really can't see how the Saints could win an unfair dismissal case, especially when they have publicly said that it had nothing to do with the rape charge. Surely the other breaches are not sufficient enough to terminate a $1 million contract.

I heard Derek Humphrey-Smith (lawyer & former AFL umpire) on SEN this morning who is representing Lovett. He alluded to the fact that St.Kilda had no claims to terminate his clients contract and sounded reasonably confident that they had strong claims to press on with legal proceedings to claim an unfair disimissal.

[Swoop]

Everyone knows the rape charge has played a factor in the termination of Lovett's contract despite St Kilda protecting themselves legally by referring to other incidents. The question is, are the minor misdemeanours enough to warrant contract termination? My personal opinion is no.

This will be the sticking point around the whole issue and it will be very interesting to see how the whole saga plays out legally because no doubt regardless of the outcome in the rape charge he would have a legal case to mount for unfair dismissal.

[Jasper]

St Kilda will clearly have to offer a monetary settlement of some sort.
If he wants reinstatement, Ross Lyon & the leadership group would clearly not play him, so it's not worth bothering.

[Go_Dogs]

I heard Derek Humphrey-Smith (lawyer & former AFL umpire) on SEN this morning who is representing Lovett. He alluded to the fact that St.Kilda had no claims to terminate his clients contract and sounded reasonably confident that that had strong claims to press on with legal proceedings to claim an unfair disimissal.

Whilst I understand what you're saying, the fact is he tarnished their brand, their business.

If Ernst and Young, or Minter Ellison or some professional firm hired a senior person on a large salary, and that person, through their own actions, damaged the reputation of the firm, then they'd get walked. Based on what we know, he has missed training sessions, been caught out at late night drinking sessions, and been arrested and charged with rape.

I don't care who the employer is, ANY employer would sack the individual concerned. No questions asked.

I'm sure the St Kilda footy club would have had their own legal advice prior to making the decision, but it will be interesting to see what unfolds from here.

[LostDoggy]

Which is not reason enough to terminate someones contract.

I really can't see how the Saints could win an unfair dismissal case, especially when they have publicly said that it had nothing to do with the rape charge. Surely the other breaches are not sufficient enough to terminate a $1 million contract.

As Mantis has said, this is the line Lovett and his management are taking, and will be taking the matter to court.

As for timing, of course it was due to the rape charge, but legally the Saints cannot say so, yet once he was charged, their hands were tied according to the hastily drafted AFL 'Ben Cousins' individual conduct policy (or whatever its called) which states that a charge that may lead to jail-time is enough to constitute 'bringing the game into disrepute' and a club is strongly obliged by that policy to release the player concerned (although the policy is not clear about the terms of release -- did I mention it was hastily drafted?) --

so ironically, the Saints are obliged by AFL policy to sack Lovett but cannot LEGALLY say so, which means that the AFL policy doesn't actually line up with the legal system (so you have to lie to comply -- did I mention that it was hastily... yep.)

It is a monumental cock-up by all concerned --

• Lovett for putting himself in this position in the first place (the cops took their time to get their facts straight before charging him so you would think they would have a pretty tight case), especially after continuously screwing up since he's arrived at Moorabbin
• The Saints for drafting a well-known dumbass
• The AFL for their knee-jerk and badly thought through policy-making

You would have to think that Lovett has a legal case against the Saints, but the Saints can easily turn around and point the finger at the AFL for its un/quasi/pseudo-legal policy, claiming that they were between a rock and a hard place. The AFL has simply made the bed for itself with its slippery slope and inconsistent positions on everything (they might as well have policies called 'this one is for Superstars', 'this one is for everyone not named Nick Riewoldt' etc.), one only hopes they are made to lie in it.

[aker39]

Whilst I understand what you're saying, the fact is he tarnished their brand, their business.

If Ernst and Young, or Minter Ellison or some professional firm hired a senior person on a large salary, and that person, through their own actions, damaged the reputation of the firm, then they'd get walked. Based on what we know, he has missed training sessions, been caught out at late night drinking sessions, and been arrested and charged with rape.

I don't care who the employer is, ANY employer would sack the individual concerned. No questions asked.

I'm sure the St Kilda footy club would have had their own legal advice prior to making the decision, but it will be interesting to see what unfolds from here.

How has missing a training session or his drinking tarnished the clubs reputation. It may have tarnished the players reputation, but not the club. (You could argue that Ross Lyon's reputation has been tarnished for being stupid enough to recruit him.)

In relation to the rape charge, the club has stated that that was not a factor in terminating Lovett.

I'm not a lawyer, maybe someone on here is, but as I stated earlier, I can't see how the saints could terminate someones $1 million contract because he turned up late for training and was drunk.

[Mantis]

Whilst I understand what you're saying, the fact is he tarnished their brand, their business.

If Ernst and Young, or Minter Ellison or some professional firm hired a senior person on a large salary, and that person, through their own actions, damaged the reputation of the firm, then they'd get walked. Based on what we know, he has missed training sessions, been caught out at late night drinking sessions, and been arrested and charged with rape.

I don't care who the employer is, ANY employer would sack the individual concerned. No questions asked.

I'm sure the St Kilda footy club would have had their own legal advice prior to making the decision, but it will be interesting to see what unfolds from here.

While I agree on the points raised, the timing of this sacking is extremely 'suss'.

The whole issue of missing training sessions will be a sticking point. The bloke has been suspended for just over 6 weeks from all 'official' training and from reports has met all requirements please upon him for training away from the group. Shouldn't he have been sacked some 6 weeks ago if the issue was with him missing training?

To me it seems that St.Kilda have placed Lovett in the too hard basket and have decided to cut ties rather than to see it through. I guess the courts will now decide if this course of action was just.

[aker39]

so ironically, the Saints are obliged by AFL policy to sack Lovett but cannot LEGALLY say so, which means that the AFL policy doesn't actually line up with the legal system (so you have to lie to comply -- did I mention that it was hastily... yep.)

My understanding is if the AFL stood Lovett down under their policy, that the club is still obliged to pay the player under his contract until any charges have been heard.

But the AFL did not stand him down under this policy, and St Kilda did not stand him down under this policy, they terminated him for his indiscretions, not the rape charge.

[aker39]

Shouldn't he have been sacked some 6 weeks ago if the issue was with him missing training?

That is exactly right. Seeing as the club has said that the rape charge is not part of their reasoning for sacking him, what has happened between the 24th December and now.

Nothing. (Except of course for a rape charge being laid.)