Lovett sues for bullying

[B W and R all over]

And for Lovett to compare himself to that poor girl from the Hawthorn cafe who committed suicide...does he really think that's going to generate public sympathy.

How offensive would that be to her friends and family?

[Thinline]

For any of those claims to stand he has to first demonstrate that the sacking was unlawful. Monies lost are only lost if you can prove you were likely to have earned them in the first place.

And the more he tries to go for, the higher the bills - Supreme Court action alone will cost both sides $100,000 plus.

What kind of precedent would it set, if you could sue for being told not to turn up to work in spite of being paid your full wage?

Sounds like management and legal team greed more than anything else... let's see how far it actually goes.

Derek Humphrey Smith and his firm Lander and Rogers are extremely keen marketers. Their firm is mid-sized but growing quickly. This kind of litigation is important to them and their need for profile.

DHS, for what my opinion is worth (and having met him on several occasions in a semi-work context) is a bright spark, an articulate fella, and a pretty shrewd lawyer who understands more than most the power of media.

I would be amazed if they were doing this on anything other than a no win/no fee basis.

And I'd equally be amazed if they were doing anything other than going in all guns blazing on an ambit basis to force a settlement in circs where the club are an even sniff of coughing up to avoid (further) in-season controversy/distraction.

As tacky as airing allegations through the press may seem - massive whiff of ugly litigious Americanism about it I reckon - if I was AL's lawyer I would prob do the same. The fact that the club is unlikely to behave similarly will only help pitch us a villain in the court of public opinion.

My basic understanding of these kinds of cases is that they are often tilted towards the worker. That is there's a heavy onus on StK to show reasonable cause for it's actions.

Again - and others may want to correct me - STK would have to have a fairly comprehensive list of reasons for behaving in the way they did.

Hopefully we can show that we took reasonable steps to understand and even rectify AL's behaviour pre-criminal charge. I can only hope/assume we did.

Thinking out loud - again others will no doubt no more than I - some sort of evidence that his behaviour was unreasonably distracting would be helpful to the StK cause.

What a freakin sad, sorry debacle. No winners anywhere. Just sad, miserable, regret-laden lives in freakin' tatters.

[chook23]

For any of those claims to stand he has to first demonstrate that the sacking was unlawful. Monies lost are only lost if you can prove you were likely to have earned them in the first place.

And the more he tries to go for, the higher the bills - Supreme Court action alone will cost both sides $100,000 plus.

What kind of precedent would it set, if you could sue for being told not to turn up to work in spite of being paid your full wage?

Sounds like management and legal team greed more than anything else... let's see how far it actually goes.

Derek Humphrey Smith and his firm Lander and Rogers are extremely keen marketers. Their firm is mid-sized but growing quickly. This kind of litigation is important to them and their need for profile.

DHS, for what my opinion is worth (and having met him on several occasions in a semi-work context) is a bright spark, an articulate fella, and a pretty shrewd lawyer who understands more than most the power of media.

I would be amazed if they were doing this on anything other than a no win/no fee basis.

And I'd equally be amazed if they were doing anything other than going in all guns blazing on an ambit basis to force a settlement in circs where the club are an even sniff of coughing up to avoid (further) in-season controversy/distraction.

As tacky as airing allegations through the press may seem - massive whiff of ugly litigious Americanism about it I reckon - if I was AL's lawyer I would prob do the same. The fact that the club is unlikely to behave similarly will only help pitch us a villain in the court of public opinion.

My basic understanding of these kinds of cases is that they are often tilted towards the worker. That is there's a heavy onus on StK to show reasonable cause for it's actions.

Again - and others may want to correct me - STK would have to have a fairly comprehensive list of reasons for behaving in the way they did.

Hopefully we can show that we took reasonable steps to understand and even rectify AL's behaviour pre-criminal charge. I can only hope/assume we did.

Thinking out loud - again others will no doubt no more than I - some sort of evidence that his behaviour was unreasonably distracting would be helpful to the StK cause.

What a freakin sad, sorry debacle. No winners anywhere. Just sad, miserable, regret-laden lives in freakin' tatters.

mentioned plenty of my concerns in your post thinline.

[Solar]

I would be upset if I was the parents of the young lady who killed herself after being bullied at the hawthorne cafe. That was a terrible story and should not e used by someone up on rape to take a pot shot at their ex employee.

It's a joke and I really hope the AFL is backing the saints over this

[degruch]

Attempting to claim performance and Best & Fairest bonuses is drawing a long bow, isn't it? Important to note that nothing has been submitted yet, it's easy to say "we're gonna claim 2mil for bullying", but I'm sure his lawyers are going to be pretty busy doing...I dunno...maybe preparing a rape defense? You'd have to wonder how much AL would be prepared to pay his lawyers!

[On the Bench]

Attempting to claim performance and Best & Fairest bonuses is drawing a long bow, isn't it? Important to note that nothing has been submitted yet, it's easy to say "we're gonna claim 2mil for bullying", but I'm sure his lawyers are going to be pretty busy doing...I dunno...maybe preparing a rape defense? You'd have to wonder how much AL would be prepared to pay his lawyers!

I am not certain but he would probably have different lawyers for each of these circumstances.

Criminal Law is very different from IR Law.

[degruch]

Attempting to claim performance and Best & Fairest bonuses is drawing a long bow, isn't it? Important to note that nothing has been submitted yet, it's easy to say "we're gonna claim 2mil for bullying", but I'm sure his lawyers are going to be pretty busy doing...I dunno...maybe preparing a rape defense? You'd have to wonder how much AL would be prepared to pay his lawyers!

I am not certain but he would probably have different lawyers for each of these circumstances.

Criminal Law is very different from IR Law.

True...but both cases would be sure to drag on and be quite expensive. AFLPA are so concerned about his position, maybe they're fronting the money.

I'm sure a stunt like this will backfire, especially the comparison with the other bullying case, it's just idiotic.

[thejiggingsaint]

As I've said somewhere else on the Forum, "One story's good, until another one's told" and I will be interested to hear the FULL account of events from the ST Kilda Football Club's side of the fence. One can't help wondering just why it was that Essendon let the guy go if (as his management says) he was such a gun. It's also interesting to note that one of the "legal team" is a Mr. Humphery-Smith who from past utterances has no love for the Saints...or is the Jiggster being paranoid again? (must be all the sprite )
Matthew Lloyd has come out in support of our club so I reckon this guy Lovett has been heading toward something like this for some time now.
Obviously the guy has serious issues and is in need of professional help.

[matrix]

well the word HIS-tory is just that....

good to see ya about jigg
hopefully the sprite diet can take a week or so break come finals time when its my round

[supersaints]

I'm more pissed off with the AFL, they came out and stated they supported St Kilda's strong stance when Lovett was first suspeneded, just like they did with Geelong and Carlton, however as soon as lovett theatened legal action that pip- squeak Andrian Anderson says that its a matter between St Kilda and Lovett, they are the weekest bunch of crap, I guess Dimwitt still hasn't got over the siren-gate affair !!!!

[thejiggingsaint]

And another thing; its making this old Codger spew to see a guy with a history of violence toward women whinging about "bullying"

[Thinline]

And another thing; its making this old Codger spew to see a guy with a history of violence toward women whinging about "bullying"

Right on.

Leak that line of thinking through to the footy talking heads in the media and let 'em bandy it about for a week or two.

The sympathy train would be derailed rather quickly methinks.

[S.A Saint]

Lovett's mental health - the player went public about his battle with depression in 2006 - is raised in the notice......... whats that got to do with us....doesnt seem depressed to go out and hit the grog and party.....

Don't disagree with the general thrust of your post SAS, just that one underlined point.

There is a very close correlation between depression and over-consumption of substances.

i know were your comming from...it was probably terribly worded on my behalf cause im sick to death of him...but i dont think he was over-consuming anything and if he was still battling with it im sure it would have been known....

[stinger]

For any of those claims to stand he has to first demonstrate that the sacking was unlawful. Monies lost are only lost if you can prove you were likely to have earned them in the first place.

And the more he tries to go for, the higher the bills - Supreme Court action alone will cost both sides $100,000 plus.

What kind of precedent would it set, if you could sue for being told not to turn up to work in spite of being paid your full wage?

Sounds like management and legal team greed more than anything else... let's see how far it actually goes.

Derek Humphrey Smith and his firm Lander and Rogers are extremely keen marketers. Their firm is mid-sized but growing quickly. This kind of litigation is important to them and their need for profile.

DHS, for what my opinion is worth (and having met him on several occasions in a semi-work context) is a bright spark, an articulate fella, and a pretty shrewd lawyer who understands more than most the power of media.

I would be amazed if they were doing this on anything other than a no win/no fee basis.

And I'd equally be amazed if they were doing anything other than going in all guns blazing on an ambit basis to force a settlement in circs where the club are an even sniff of coughing up to avoid (further) in-season controversy/distraction.

As tacky as airing allegations through the press may seem - massive whiff of ugly litigious Americanism about it I reckon - if I was AL's lawyer I would prob do the same. The fact that the club is unlikely to behave similarly will only help pitch us a villain in the court of public opinion.

My basic understanding of these kinds of cases is that they are often tilted towards the worker. That is there's a heavy onus on StK to show reasonable cause for it's actions.

Again - and others may want to correct me - STK would have to have a fairly comprehensive list of reasons for behaving in the way they did.

Hopefully we can show that we took reasonable steps to understand and even rectify AL's behaviour pre-criminal charge. I can only hope/assume we did.

Thinking out loud - again others will no doubt no more than I - some sort of evidence that his behaviour was unreasonably distracting would be helpful to the StK cause.

What a freakin sad, sorry debacle. No winners anywhere. Just sad, miserable, regret-laden lives in freakin' tatters.

good summation of a very tacky situation.........i think that gram can provide the evidence you seek.....

[Richter]

Lovett's mental health - the player went public about his battle with depression in 2006 - is raised in the notice......... whats that got to do with us....doesnt seem depressed to go out and hit the grog and party.....

I'd say your extended point is that having suffered from depression in the past does not excuse him acting like a d***head and possibly breaking the law...

[barks4eva]

a guy with a history of violence toward women whinging about "bullying"

Exactly!

This guy had a history before he came and you'd think anyone on their last chance to resurrect their footy career would be on their absolute best behaviour!

So in less than six weeks after being traded to his new club he managed to get himself arrested twice and subsequently charged with rape!

After his first incident he would have been told that he is on his last chance, no more stuff ups and then a few weeks later he's alleged to have raped someone while they were sleeping!

Obviously he needs help!

FAIR DINKUM

DHS is an absolute arsewipe, if the planet was solely inhabited by clones of this guy, I'd fair dinkum do my level best to nuke the place!

[stinger]

DHS is an absolute arsewipe, if the planet was solely inhabited by clones of this guy, I'd fair dinkum do my level best to nuke the place!

something we can agree on..... ...had to happen one day....

[fingers]

I love the fact that everyone gets their day in court, innocent until proven gui.....blah blah blah, right to counsel, blah blah...spare

AL - go away. You are a d**khead. You have a history of being a d**khead. We don't want you. We tried to give you a chance at a good club and it backfired on us. So go away.

DHS - you are a snake. I never liked you on "what's your decision" or whatever it was called. You too - go away. You make Stinger and B4E agree FFS!

I am so over people's rights to do things - I don't give a toss about you anymore AL. Just leave. You beat a women, allegedly rape a woman and now you are crying foul?? PISS OFF!

You want to know what's "flimsy" DHS? - AL's character. That's flimsy.

/rant

[matrix]

apparently he can play VFL:


THE VFL has extended a football lifeline to sacked Saint Andrew Lovett.

Lovett's lawyers yesterday confirmed the Herald Sun's report that Supreme Court action was likely if the grievance tribunal did not overturn the 27-year-old's sacking.

His lawyer Derek Humphrey-Smith yesterday said St Kilda's case was "flimsy", but the grievance tribunal might never sit.

St Kilda again confirmed yesterday that it was unwilling to appear before the AFL's grievance tribunal, with chief executive Michael Nettlefold stating "(Lovett) is not a contracted player".

AFL Victoria chief executive Peter Schwab yesterday said there was no obvious impediment to Lovett playing VFL this year.

He would have to be signed by a VFL club by late March, with any rape case unlikely to start by the end of this season.


(no need to hit the link below in on slow speeds, that was the whole article above...the links only there for copyright purposes)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/a ... 5831566423

[B W and R all over]

apparently he can play VFL:

If that happens, what's the odds he gets his head kicked in when he comes up against the Zebras?

Might be a few senior Saints players requesting they get dropped that week.

[matrix]

id say itd prob draw a crowd to the first game if he does get picked up.

[degruch]

id say itd prob draw a crowd to the first game if he does get picked up.

I'd like to see see any VFL club jumps at the chance first.

[bigred]

Well, i daresay that before the decision was made on Lovett, the club would have done its work in regard to the legalities of it all.

I cant blame him for trying to defend himself, I know I would if in his shoes.

But if he just attempts to go the hack and try to get as much cash as he can off us, I hope we screw him over big time.

[stinger]

yeah...i can just see vfl clubs lining up so that they can get their name in the paper every time lovett's rape case is reported.....

[vacuous space]

I'm having a little trouble figuring this one out. Does this mean he's not actually contesting his dismissal? It would seem that this claim is somewhat tangential to his sacking. In theory, he could have filed this claim whilst still on the list, couldn't he?

If he doesn't contest his sacking, does that mean we're in the clear RE the salary cap? Or would any potential payout count toward the cap?

It seems that a lot of the legal machinations are just dancing around the elephant in the room.