So you are saying we keep him on the books for what could be at least a year and if he is found not guilty he plays. What if the club know something that may not make him guilty in the eyes of the law but also do not make him innocent.bergholt wrote:a shedload of circumstantial evidence and no actual wrongdoing, maybe?ThePunter wrote:A player has now been charged. Whether he has broken the law will now be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.
However, this player did something. He hasn't been arrested out of thin air. Something has made the police lay the charge.
sure, he may well be guilty of something. but him being charged is no proof of absolutely anything. police, like the rest of us, can make mistakes. the courts exist so that once all the evidence is collected there's a body which decides if he did anything.
this changes absolutely nothing. he was under investigation. now he's been charged. neither of those should be grounds for the termination of his employment - that would be a horrible violation of his rights. much as i want it all to go away, this just shouldn't change a thing.
Lovett on Rape Charge
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
I'm with you, still not ready to join the lynch mob. Would like to see him off our list now though...sick of seeing hedlines like 'St Kilda Star Charged with Rape'...FFS, he hasn't even played a game with us, hardly a star!chook23 wrote:I actually don't think there were that many.....Thinline wrote:So where are all the 'you wait and see the charges a gonna be dropped the cops have nuthin' to go on' types now?
pffft.
I must admit all along I was not of the view he was guilty because of his priors brigade either...their were many who had and have him guilty before court case...
I have said in many threads just let it take its course through the courts
I don't have access to the facts etc so I can't have opinion of guilt or innocence............that will be left to the jury
-
bozza1980
- Club Player
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2005 3:42pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
I see what you are saying but I disagree.suss wrote:Gotta be careful - if we sack him too soon and he's found not guilty it might cost a packet. If we suspend his pay and then wait and if he's convicted, we could escape the contract without the risk.bozza1980 wrote:I agree with you.ThePunter wrote:I'm going to make a possibly contraversial point. It may get taken down, may get me infracted, but it's a well thought out point and it needs to be said.
A player has now been charged. Whether he has broken the law will now be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.
However, this player did something. He hasn't been arrested out of thin air. Something has made the police lay the charge. I must stress that I am not suggesting that he committed the crime which with he is now charged.
As an organisation, I think St Kilda will look to hold this player to a higher standard, with regards to his employment, than a court of law will hold a person with regards to his freedom.
And that is why this player has played his last AFL game.
With regard to the courts and the like, Lovett deserves and retains the presumption of innocence as does every other person who finds themselves in his position.
At the end of the day though the burden of proof to lose your freedom is different to the burden of proof to lose your job.
This is not to say that he will lose his job, but just to say, that being found Not Guilty doesn't make your employers decision, to fire for being charged with the crime, an illegal decision.
I will be interested to see what decisions are made by the club, Lovett and/or the AFL in the coming days.
I imagine it gives the club an excuse to suspend his pay, but sacking him going over the top - legally, and not morally, of course.
But that's a guess.
I don't believe that a finding of Not Guilty, immediately makes a decision to sack him because he was charged with the offence, illegal.
Not Guilty and Innocent are two different ideas that can often be synonimous but are sometimes mutually exclusive.
I guess we will all watch what happens with interest.
Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friends.
-
mightysainters
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 1986
- Joined: Tue 16 Mar 2004 2:21pm
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
-
B W and R all over
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2220
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 3:14pm
- Location: Northcote
Milne and Montagna were never charged.
They had also built relationships of trust with the club over a couple of years by that point.
This filthy little prick on the other hand came here on his last chance and blew it in the most appalling way possible, almost immediately.
We have no duty of care to him at all. May he spend the rest of his years alternating between prison and getting in streetfights with other scum.
They had also built relationships of trust with the club over a couple of years by that point.
This filthy little prick on the other hand came here on his last chance and blew it in the most appalling way possible, almost immediately.
We have no duty of care to him at all. May he spend the rest of his years alternating between prison and getting in streetfights with other scum.
25 minutes to make a name for yourself like you've never made before.
+ 1B W and R all over wrote:Milne and Montagna were never charged.
They had also built relationships of trust with the club over a couple of years by that point.
This filthy little prick on the other hand came here on his last chance and blew it in the most appalling way possible, almost immediately.
We have no duty of care to him at all.
-
evertonfc
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7261
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 9:11pm
- Location: 'Quietly Confident' County
- Has thanked: 115 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
- Contact:
St Kilda Football Club wrote: Statement:
St Kilda Football Club has today been informed that Saints player, Andrew Lovett, has been charged by Victoria Police with one count of rape.
The Club is currently considering its position in light of these recent developments and the charges brought against its recent recruit, Andrew Lovett.
At this current time the Club is not in a position to make any further comment. The Club will update the media with relevant developments in due course.
Clueless and mediocre petty tyrant.
-
iwantmeseats
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3303
- Joined: Tue 23 May 2006 6:14pm
- Location: East Oakleigh
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 40 times
-
Moods
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4830
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 313 times
- Been thanked: 439 times
Not uncommon at all for a person to be charged, found not guilty but still be sacked by their employer. Happens all the time within VicPol as different eveidence is allowed.
For instance in a criminal trial the accused has the right to remain silent. THe onus is on the prosecution to prove the case against him. IN a matter b/w an employee and employer no such rule exists and Lovett or whoever may well be compelled to explain himself fully. Depending on the answers given and on other witnesses accounts (who may be reluctant to come fwd in a criminal trial) the club/employer would then make their decision.
It is my opinion that this is what has happened in this case, and that Lovett's papers were stamped within hours of the alleged offence taking place.
For instance in a criminal trial the accused has the right to remain silent. THe onus is on the prosecution to prove the case against him. IN a matter b/w an employee and employer no such rule exists and Lovett or whoever may well be compelled to explain himself fully. Depending on the answers given and on other witnesses accounts (who may be reluctant to come fwd in a criminal trial) the club/employer would then make their decision.
It is my opinion that this is what has happened in this case, and that Lovett's papers were stamped within hours of the alleged offence taking place.
Just a reminder: we all value this forum, so could everyone please be careful what you say... make it clear where appropriate that your comments are opinion... and don't make any potentially damaging allegations which could endanger the site. It's tricky when we decide to have conversations about such topics, but I just thought it might be a helpful reminder.
"Don't give up, never give up" - Robert Harvey.
-
bigcarl
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18520
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1847 times
- Been thanked: 825 times
well said. in actual fact you can say very little publicly once a person has been charged as the concern is it could prejudice a fair trial.markinUSA wrote:Just a reminder: we all value this forum, so could everyone please be careful what you say... make it clear where appropriate that your comments are opinion... and don't make any potentially damaging allegations which could endanger the site. It's tricky when we decide to have conversations about such topics, but I just thought it might be a helpful reminder.
saintly wrote:i wonder if he can now be sacked? he still may be found innocent. so it will be interesting as what the saints will do.markp wrote:Can we sack him now?St Kilda Football Club is expected to release a statement this afternoon on the player’s future.
Yup, will be interesting....
I'm glad the saints indefinately suspened him. at least the we have not been relying on him over the preseason.
you either get found guilty or not guilty in this country.....no-one gets found to be innocent......he's gone though...so forget him.....saints have no intention of ever playing him.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5083
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 250 times
- Been thanked: 270 times
I don't know why there is such pre-occupation with his guilt or innocence??
If found guilty he would be incarcerated and therefore in breach of contract, and sacked.
However his behaviour already fits the position of bringing his employers brand into disrepute irrelevant of his guilt or innocence. His behaviour has placed him in situations where this could occur, that makes him responsible and sackable. Game over.
If found guilty he would be incarcerated and therefore in breach of contract, and sacked.
However his behaviour already fits the position of bringing his employers brand into disrepute irrelevant of his guilt or innocence. His behaviour has placed him in situations where this could occur, that makes him responsible and sackable. Game over.
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
-
bozza1980
- Club Player
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2005 3:42pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
I agree.True Believer wrote:I don't know why there is such pre-occupation with his guilt or innocence??
If found guilty he would be incarcerated and therefore in breach of contract, and sacked.
However his behaviour already fits the position of bringing his employers brand into disrepute irrelevant of his guilt or innocence. His behaviour has placed him in situations where this could occur, that makes him responsible and sackable. Game over.
I don't think they'll have much trouble if they choose to sack him.
Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friends.
-
cwrcyn
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4219
- Joined: Fri 15 Sep 2006 10:35am
- Location: earth
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1383 times
The other distracting part of this is that other St Kilda players will be likely be asked to give evidence in court.
That will be a real first for the AFL. Demetriou and co. will be in quite a spin over the potential damage to the AFL's brand.
I expect them to support us wholeheartedly in our handling of this.
.
That will be a real first for the AFL. Demetriou and co. will be in quite a spin over the potential damage to the AFL's brand.
I expect them to support us wholeheartedly in our handling of this.
.
-
Milan Faletic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6090
- Joined: Fri 11 Mar 2005 9:18pm
What a terribly difficult position for the club to be in.
We live in a world where perception is reality and that is not to say that Lovett is guilty or not guilty. However, courts exist because they offer all citizens to chance to be heard in a fair and unprejudicial forum. Even that institution can be tainted by corruption and bias.
So what do the Saints do? Lovett is not a 2 or 3 year player, or even a one game player. IMHO their legal advice has been to not attach his name to the club in any way, hence the lack of his name on the published player list at the Intra Club Game and other notable absences of support by the club.
How long will the court case take? If he is found not guilty, does the club take him back? What is written in his contract? The club has to tread very carefully and has to appease many groups of people, both in the Football Industry as well as general society. Many people have opinions but only a handful of people, maybe only two people, actually know the facts.
Personally, I think it's bloody tragic because he is exactly the type of player we need and IMHO like all Saints supporters, we wish he could just be on the park playing footy.
I don't envy the club's situation.
We live in a world where perception is reality and that is not to say that Lovett is guilty or not guilty. However, courts exist because they offer all citizens to chance to be heard in a fair and unprejudicial forum. Even that institution can be tainted by corruption and bias.
So what do the Saints do? Lovett is not a 2 or 3 year player, or even a one game player. IMHO their legal advice has been to not attach his name to the club in any way, hence the lack of his name on the published player list at the Intra Club Game and other notable absences of support by the club.
How long will the court case take? If he is found not guilty, does the club take him back? What is written in his contract? The club has to tread very carefully and has to appease many groups of people, both in the Football Industry as well as general society. Many people have opinions but only a handful of people, maybe only two people, actually know the facts.
Personally, I think it's bloody tragic because he is exactly the type of player we need and IMHO like all Saints supporters, we wish he could just be on the park playing footy.
I don't envy the club's situation.