Saints' big call unravels

[LostDoggy]

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.

I agree with you, aker39.

They didn't say they did (again, because of the loopholes and liability issues everywhere in the policy), but you would have to imagine that there was some pressure brought to bear behind the scenes after the rape charge was laid. Did I mention that the AFL HQ's reactions are generally prefaced by the adjective 'knee-jerk'?

ps. the tuckshop at Echuca Primary is run better than this supposedly professional competition. One way or another, one has to love the AFL HQ's name (the organisation, not the sport) being dragged through the mud and the distraction this has to be for the Saints.

[LostDoggy]

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.)

There was one thing. Lovett initiated a grievance charge against the Saints under the AFL/AFLPA grievance-resolution procedure policy.

The ONE point apart from the sacking yesterday that the Saints (and indirectly the AFL) were at pains to point out was that they would no longer be required to face this procedure as Lovett is no longer an AFL player, so it would seem that they were looking for any excuse to avoid having to be dragged through the grievance tribunal.

[Of course, the only reason they were facing it in the first place was that Lovett's legal team decided not to take the matter through the legal system, but now that the grievance tribunal has been ruled out, they have no choice but to go back to the courts. I think it's fair to say that we're not dealing with a bunch of geniuses here.]

[Go_Dogs]

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.

Those particular incidents perhaps haven't tarnished the clubs reputation, but the club is his employer. They have strict policies in place to govern the behaviour of their employees. As an employee, he has breached his duty.

If you turned up to a business meeting late and drunk, would your employer be happy? I'd suggest not.

At the end of the day, the terms and conditions of his contract will play a part, as will other evidence that no doubt will come to light as the matter gets taken further. I tend to think the answer is somewhere in the middle, and a settlement will be reached - more so just to get closure, quickly. If it went to Court, I think the Saints have a fairly good chance, but without knowing all the facts it's hard to speculate.



I'm not a lawyer yet, but come April I will be.

[EasternWest]

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.

I think they do. If we are to believe what we have read, and I know you can't always, but there seems to be a fair amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest that he confessed to them, before realising his snafu and clamming up.

No doubt they see him as bad news also, but I reckon they firmly believe he's guilty.

[aker39]

If you turned up to a business meeting late and drunk, would your employer be happy? I'd suggest not.

My employer would not be happy


Would they terminate my $1 million contract?

I'd suggest not.

[Go_Dogs]

My employer would not be happy


Would they terminate my $1 million contract?

I'd suggest not.

What if your contract was subject to certain conditions as a result of your previous employer sacking you because of the very same issues? There comes a point where maintaining someone with a chequered past becomes untenable. If it was an isolated, once-off incident fine - you get some counselling and some stern words. When you are a repeat offender on his uptenth chance, I'm not convinced the response would be the same.

Either way, we'll watch with interest what happens here. It could open a big can of worms.

[LostDoggy]

I think they do. If we are to believe what we have read, and I know you can't always, but there seems to be a fair amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest that he confessed to them, before realising his snafu and clamming up.

No doubt they see him as bad news also, but I reckon they firmly believe he's guilty.

Saints have 2 other accused rapists on their book. They trust them but not Lovett? They aren't even making a judgement on the rape case nor do they care really. If their players won't play with Lovett then they have no choice but to sack him.
I would expect anyone sacked on a contract to seek a pay out, as atm he is innocent til proven guilty and these so called other reasons aren't clear or seem similar to other players indiscretion at other clubs where they were just fined.

[EasternWest]

Saints have 2 other accused rapists on their book. They trust them but not Lovett? They aren't even making a judgement on the rape case nor do they care really. If their players won't play with Lovett then they have no choice but to sack him. I would expect anyone sacked on a contract to seek a pay out, as atm he is innocent til proven guilty and these so called other reasons aren't clear or seem similar to other players indiscretion at other clubs where they were just fined.

I didn't say that. I don't know the ins and outs of the Milne/Montagna case, but if what's going around is to be believed, then they have his (admittedly since retracted) confession to go on.

The question, if there remains doubt, is why wont they play with him?

On a side note, I wonder if the alleged victim in this instance will be able to claim/civilly sue him if he gets a payout from the Saints? I'd assume so.

[LostDoggy]

The question, if there remains doubt, is why wont they play with him?

They didn't want him in the first place. They tried and obviously lost their trust. Doesn't mean the club/playing group think he is guilty. Means they think he is a dick.

On a side note, I wonder if the alleged victim in this instance will be able to claim/civilly sue him if he gets a payout from the Saints? I'd assume so.

I doubt it. Its a separate case? I suspect if found guilty in court then the Saints can claim their money back.

[ledge]

As an employee of a big company I can be sacked if I go out, get drunk and do something unruly wearing my employers uniform, its that easy.
If Lovett was wearing anything of the clubs gear at the time it is representing the club, thus sackable.
I would imagine this would be the case in most employers contracts.
Of course if your a big name player clubs will try not to sack you but trade you so they get something back, Lovett would not be touched by any other club now so a sacking is the go.
The rape charge? innocent until found guilty is my opinion.

[LostDoggy]

A joke of a situation. What happened to the presumption of innocence?
They say it's unrelated to the rape, but they sack him so soon after he is charged?
Like others have said, he should have been suspended until he either got off or got found guilty and it's up to the courts, not the St Kilda board to decide if he's guilty.

[chef]

IMO they should have waited until he was found guilty in a court of law.

[FrediKanoute]

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.

Well maybe.....but if you go through a text book on the rules of evidence a vast number of leading cases on points of law like admissibility, heresay, expert etstimony etc are drawn out of cases involving sexual assaults and paedeophilia. That would suggest that you often have 2 very different versions of events.

I'm not for one monute suggesting that Lovett many not be guilty, but I am saying that I think pulling the trigger in the manner in which the Saints have done it isn't entirely fair either.

[Sockeye Salmon]

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.

That's not true.

No-one can get traded against their will. A player must sign the trade forms. Certainly some players will be traded without wanting to go, but if the alternative is the dole queue you might agree to sign.

That's no different to any other job, though. If your boss tells you you're not up to scratch and you have to go, you very well might take a job somewhere not ideal but at least it's a job.

They're just in a specialised field.

[The Pie Man]

I was under the impression Lovett asked to be traded - at least that's the theme of an SEN interview Knights gave just after the season finished...and that they were happy to assist Andrew find a new club.

Would Essendon have extended his contract if he didn't ask to be traded?