It would be a win/win situation for both parties if St Kilda formally advised AL that he is free to ply his trade as a footballer with another club, not in the AFL.
We would be seen as not pre-judging his rape case and allowing him to earn an income. In return, if the unfair dismissal case goes against us, it would be reasonable for us to deduct the earnings he got elsewhere in the interim from any final settlement.
If he choses not to, and stick with the case against the Saints, it would not be publically perceived favourably, and may affect the outcome of his case, in our favour.
Let Lovett play elsewhere.
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
vacuous space
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
-
GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
His solicitors are saying that he is not free to ply his trade.vacuous space wrote:Except that Lovett is claiming that he is contracted and listed. It seems he's looking for three years salary on top of being allowed to 'ply his trade' elsewhere. All this from a team that he never suited up for. I don't see the win/win at all.
If we advise to the contrary, the decision then becomes his.
If he becomes short of money, and he will, the temptation to weaken his case by playing elsewhere may become too much.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
-
Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
Yeah. Let him:vacuous space wrote:Except that Lovett is claiming that he is contracted and listed. It seems he's looking for three years salary on top of being allowed to 'ply his trade' elsewhere. All this from a team that he never suited up for. I don't see the win/win at all.
a) admit he stuffed up (doesn't have to admit to the big one), and
b) reduce his claim against us to the few weeks he pretended he wanted to extend his AFL career
Then he can play wherever he wants for whatever he wants.
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12720
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 736 times
- Been thanked: 404 times
Spot on.markp wrote:Would't advising him of such a thing only endorse his case?
He can do whatever he likes... we sacked him.
It's way too late for win/win, IMO.
We've sacked him - we have absolutely no say in what he now does or where he now plays.
To accept Grumps contention is to accept that we somehow have a 'hold' over his playing future which is totally at odds with our publicly stated case that he no longer is a Saints contracted player.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with the Saints anymore as to what Lovett now does.
I'm not sure why Grumps keeps raising this issue as if we are the ones stopping him from playing anywhere?
The only place we are stopping him from playing is at St Kilda - nowhere else. AFAIK he is free to play anywhere that will have him (other than the AFL this season)
What will be interesting is to see how long the AFLPA and Derek Humpty Dumpty continue to act on his behalf now that there is very little chance that there is a 'bottomless pit' of available money to pay for their expensive advice.
This result may very well prove to be the catalyst for Lovet (his advisors) to much more quickly come to a negotiated settlement with St Kilda.
-
vacuous space
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
Is he even trying? I know teams have been reported to be interested. I'm not sure he's genuinely interested in playing. I'm not sure what grounds we would have to stop him from playing. We're the ones trying to get rid of him. If he's not on our list, then surely he could sign elsewhere.GrumpyOne wrote:His solicitors are saying that he is not free to ply his trade.
It would strike me that if he really wants to play, he should take some sort of settlement (if one is genuinely being offered), sign to play second tier footy and get the hell out of here.
Yeah nah pleasing positive
-
GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
I'm not saying that we have a hold over him, I'm just saying we should make it plainly obvious that we do not have a hold over him.Mr Magic wrote:[We've sacked him - we have absolutely no say in what he now does or where he now plays.
To accept Grumps contention is to accept that we somehow have a 'hold' over his playing future which is totally at odds with our publicly stated case that he no longer is a Saints contracted player.
Time to put the ball in his court, to mix an appropriate metaphor.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
-
saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30068
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 707 times
- Been thanked: 1222 times
Re: Let Lovett play elsewhere.
No need to as as far as the Saints are concerned Lovett is sacked. So he is free to play elsewhere.GrumpyOne wrote:It would be a win/win situation for both parties if St Kilda formally advised AL that he is free to ply his trade as a footballer with another club, not in the AFL.
Lovett will not get $300K per year in the WAFL etc...
And his lawyers get zip...
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
Re: Let Lovett play elsewhere.
Exactly right. he could play for the WAFL tomorrow. He is choosing not to. It's part of his legal strategy. He was sacked. He can play anywhere he likes. The club has no say in it . It can't stop him, nor does he need their permission to work anywhere , including a footy club ( other than the afl until delisted in October.)saintsRrising wrote:No need to as as far as the Saints are concerned Lovett is sacked. So he is free to play elsewhere.GrumpyOne wrote:It would be a win/win situation for both parties if St Kilda formally advised AL that he is free to ply his trade as a footballer with another club, not in the AFL.
Lovett will not get $300K per year in the WAFL etc...
And his lawyers get zip...
Grumpy is the only one in the world who does not understand this. he is drinking the Lovett lawyers cordial.
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12720
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 736 times
- Been thanked: 404 times
How much plainer can it be?GrumpyOne wrote:Mr Magic wrote:[We've sacked him - we have absolutely no say in what he now does or where he now plays.
To accept Grumps contention is to accept that we somehow have a 'hold' over his playing future which is totally at odds with our publicly stated case that he no longer is a Saints contracted player.
I'm not saying that we have a hold over him, I'm just saying we should make it plainly obvious that we do not have a hold over him.
Time to put the ball in his court, to mix an appropriate metaphor.
He is sacked.
Not on our list
Is not a Saints contracted player anymore?
He's gone toi the Grievance Tribunal to stop us from sacking him.
Do you honestly think there is anybody in the football world that doesn't know he has been sacked by St Kilda, adn is therefore no longer a Saints player?
Grumps, what am I missing here?
What is it that you tfeel has not been done?
-
GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
I can't find anything in previous Saints or AFL media statements that says he can play elsewhere.Mr Magic wrote:How much plainer can it be?GrumpyOne wrote:Mr Magic wrote:[We've sacked him - we have absolutely no say in what he now does or where he now plays.
To accept Grumps contention is to accept that we somehow have a 'hold' over his playing future which is totally at odds with our publicly stated case that he no longer is a Saints contracted player.
I'm not saying that we have a hold over him, I'm just saying we should make it plainly obvious that we do not have a hold over him.
Time to put the ball in his court, to mix an appropriate metaphor.
He is sacked.
Not on our list
Is not a Saints contracted player anymore?
He's gone toi the Grievance Tribunal to stop us from sacking him.
Do you honestly think there is anybody in the football world that doesn't know he has been sacked by St Kilda, adn is therefore no longer a Saints player?
Grumps, what am I missing here?
What is it that you tfeel has not been done?
If its as plain as you say it is, why hasn't anybody in the AFL or St Kilda actually said it?
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
-
rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
It would be odd if no one wanted him - or the AFL didn't want him to play.GrumpyOne wrote:I can't find anything in previous Saints or AFL media statements that says he can play elsewhere.Mr Magic wrote:How much plainer can it be?GrumpyOne wrote:Mr Magic wrote:[We've sacked him - we have absolutely no say in what he now does or where he now plays.
To accept Grumps contention is to accept that we somehow have a 'hold' over his playing future which is totally at odds with our publicly stated case that he no longer is a Saints contracted player.
I'm not saying that we have a hold over him, I'm just saying we should make it plainly obvious that we do not have a hold over him.
Time to put the ball in his court, to mix an appropriate metaphor.
He is sacked.
Not on our list
Is not a Saints contracted player anymore?
He's gone toi the Grievance Tribunal to stop us from sacking him.
Do you honestly think there is anybody in the football world that doesn't know he has been sacked by St Kilda, adn is therefore no longer a Saints player?
Grumps, what am I missing here?
What is it that you tfeel has not been done?
If its as plain as you say it is, why hasn't anybody in the AFL or St Kilda actually said it?
The question then would have to be 'Why?'.
And his lawyers would probably find it difficult to answer that honestly and not root their whole case.
-
ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10708
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 809 times
No doubt prison wardens all over the state will want him to play for their team.
I don't think they have a draft system so it may come down to the best inducements.
I don't think they have a draft system so it may come down to the best inducements.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1034825AFL tribunal to delay Lovett hearing
14:40 AEST Thu Apr 1 2010
The AFL's grievance tribunal will hold off hearing the case of sacked St Kilda player Andrew Lovett until a rape charge against the player has been heard.
14:40 AEST Thu Apr 1 2010
The AFL's grievance tribunal will hold off hearing the case of sacked St Kilda player Andrew Lovett until a rape charge against the player has been heard.
Last edited by stinger on Thu 01 Apr 2010 4:44pm, edited 1 time in total.
.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.
-
Eastern
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14357
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:46pm
- Location: 3132
- Been thanked: 1 time
I think that "Day Release Prisoners" from........
Arrarat Prison play for Arrarat
From Duringhyle Prison play for Tatura
From Beechworth Prison play for Myrtleford etc, etc
but only if their behavoiur is such that they earn Day Release !!
Arrarat Prison play for Arrarat
From Duringhyle Prison play for Tatura
From Beechworth Prison play for Myrtleford etc, etc
but only if their behavoiur is such that they earn Day Release !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
-
barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
Re: Let Lovett play elsewhere.
Are you thick or something?GrumpyOne wrote:It would be a win/win situation for both parties if St Kilda formally advised AL that he is free to ply his trade as a footballer with another club, not in the AFL.
We would be seen as not pre-judging his rape case and allowing him to earn an income. In return, if the unfair dismissal case goes against us, it would be reasonable for us to deduct the earnings he got elsewhere in the interim from any final settlement.
If he choses not to, and stick with the case against the Saints, it would not be publically perceived favourably, and may affect the outcome of his case, in our favour.
FAIR DINKUM
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12720
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 736 times
- Been thanked: 404 times
Said what?GrumpyOne wrote:I can't find anything in previous Saints or AFL media statements that says he can play elsewhere.Mr Magic wrote:How much plainer can it be?GrumpyOne wrote:Mr Magic wrote:[We've sacked him - we have absolutely no say in what he now does or where he now plays.
To accept Grumps contention is to accept that we somehow have a 'hold' over his playing future which is totally at odds with our publicly stated case that he no longer is a Saints contracted player.
I'm not saying that we have a hold over him, I'm just saying we should make it plainly obvious that we do not have a hold over him.
Time to put the ball in his court, to mix an appropriate metaphor.
He is sacked.
Not on our list
Is not a Saints contracted player anymore?
He's gone toi the Grievance Tribunal to stop us from sacking him.
Do you honestly think there is anybody in the football world that doesn't know he has been sacked by St Kilda, adn is therefore no longer a Saints player?
Grumps, what am I missing here?
What is it that you tfeel has not been done?
If its as plain as you say it is, why hasn't anybody in the AFL or St Kilda actually said it?
That he is sacked?
It's not up to St Kilda to tell any other CLub what they should do regarding Lovett.
He's not a Saints player any more so we've got no right to tell him or anybody else what he can/cannot do, other than when it pertains to St Kilda.
As for the AFL, they haven't told him he cannot play for another AFL club in 2011 becasue he hasn't nominated himself for the draft as yet.
And that's the only way he can play AFL again - via the draft.
St Kilda have delisted him. His annual salary remains in our salary cap for this year and we have 1 lesss player on our list (cannot be replaced by an elevated rookie).
-
GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
Re: Let Lovett play elsewhere.
Obviously not as thick as some.barks4eva wrote:Are you thick or something?GrumpyOne wrote:It would be a win/win situation for both parties if St Kilda formally advised AL that he is free to ply his trade as a footballer with another club, not in the AFL.
We would be seen as not pre-judging his rape case and allowing him to earn an income. In return, if the unfair dismissal case goes against us, it would be reasonable for us to deduct the earnings he got elsewhere in the interim from any final settlement.
If he choses not to, and stick with the case against the Saints, it would not be publically perceived favourably, and may affect the outcome of his case, in our favour.
FAIR DINKUM
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
-
barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
Re: Let Lovett play elsewhere.
Judging by your OP and the absolute drivel, nonsense and garbage that you've posted ad nauseam on this subject, it's quite clear you've got NFI!GrumpyOne wrote:Obviously not as thick as some.barks4eva wrote:Are you thick or something?GrumpyOne wrote:It would be a win/win situation for both parties if St Kilda formally advised AL that he is free to ply his trade as a footballer with another club, not in the AFL.
We would be seen as not pre-judging his rape case and allowing him to earn an income. In return, if the unfair dismissal case goes against us, it would be reasonable for us to deduct the earnings he got elsewhere in the interim from any final settlement.
If he choses not to, and stick with the case against the Saints, it would not be publically perceived favourably, and may affect the outcome of his case, in our favour.
FAIR DINKUM
FAIR DINKUM
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
-
ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10708
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 809 times
St Kilda has sacked him.
How much clearer does the club have to make it.
He is free go play where ever he likes, but he is hanging around the club like a dingo around a camp fire.
Nobody wants him ahead of his court case.
Imagine the club president "We have just recruited a star player, an alleged rapist. Everyone here should be excited at this new signing. Where is everyone going?, you shouldn't desert the club".
If he wins his court case he has a strong position to get his full 3 years salary plus damages to future earnings.
If he loses his court case he will get nothing.
It is all about the money, he wanted a settlement with the club before his court case.
How much clearer does the club have to make it.
He is free go play where ever he likes, but he is hanging around the club like a dingo around a camp fire.
Nobody wants him ahead of his court case.
Imagine the club president "We have just recruited a star player, an alleged rapist. Everyone here should be excited at this new signing. Where is everyone going?, you shouldn't desert the club".
If he wins his court case he has a strong position to get his full 3 years salary plus damages to future earnings.
If he loses his court case he will get nothing.
It is all about the money, he wanted a settlement with the club before his court case.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
-
rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Re: Let Lovett play elsewhere.
I know it's none of my business, but seeing as all the Mods here are asleep at the wheel I feel obliged to stick my nose in here....barks4eva wrote:Judging by your OP and the absolute drivel, nonsense and garbage that you've posted ad nauseam on this subject, it's quite clear you've got NFI!GrumpyOne wrote:Obviously not as thick as some.barks4eva wrote:Are you thick or something?GrumpyOne wrote:It would be a win/win situation for both parties if St Kilda formally advised AL that he is free to ply his trade as a footballer with another club, not in the AFL.
We would be seen as not pre-judging his rape case and allowing him to earn an income. In return, if the unfair dismissal case goes against us, it would be reasonable for us to deduct the earnings he got elsewhere in the interim from any final settlement.
If he choses not to, and stick with the case against the Saints, it would not be publically perceived favourably, and may affect the outcome of his case, in our favour.
FAIR DINKUM
FAIR DINKUM
B4Eva, is that sort of language and nastiness really necessary?
It's obviously intended to be offensive, and to a neutral observer it certainly comes across that way.
I'm going to have to assume that this post has resulted in you being banned as per forum rules.
This is blatantly the 3rd offense (the 133rd more realistically) so whilst you're on your little forum holiday for continually breaking rules, I hope you reassess your approach to posting on here and start to show some respect and decency toward other posters when you return.
Thank you.
-
GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
Re: Let Lovett play elsewhere.
The only garbage on this site has come directly out of your dumpster B4.barks4eva wrote:Judging by your OP and the absolute drivel, nonsense and garbage that you've posted ad nauseam on this subject, it's quite clear you've got NFI!GrumpyOne wrote:Obviously not as thick as some.barks4eva wrote:Are you thick or something?GrumpyOne wrote:It would be a win/win situation for both parties if St Kilda formally advised AL that he is free to ply his trade as a footballer with another club, not in the AFL.
We would be seen as not pre-judging his rape case and allowing him to earn an income. In return, if the unfair dismissal case goes against us, it would be reasonable for us to deduct the earnings he got elsewhere in the interim from any final settlement.
If he choses not to, and stick with the case against the Saints, it would not be publically perceived favourably, and may affect the outcome of his case, in our favour.
FAIR DINKUM
FAIR DINKUM
Stop being such an attention junkie and address the OP.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.