I suppose it just depends on what it si you're trying to achieve?bozza1980 wrote:I can't see how it could possibly be any other way.Mr Magic wrote:Well on the face of it , it would appear that the advice given to St Kilda, the AFL, THe Grievance Tribunal adn everybody except Derek Humphrey Bear was correct - the Criminal Case needs to be heard first.saintlee wrote:Latest development in the saga:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/dpp-to ... 5868686740
It would be interesting to know when Derek Humphrey Bear calls the AFLPA to let them know he is avaialable to take Michael Johnson's case before the Grievance Tribunal. They may as well fund that cvase as well, to be consistant.
Afterall, he's been suspended indefinitely by the Dockers which is impinging on his ability to earn above his base salary.
Isn't that the origninal argument DHB was using to get St Kilda before teh Grievance Tribunal?
If St Kilda defence to the civil charge is calling witnesses and alleged victims of the criminal case, I can't see how the civil case can proceed.
Anyway you look at it, it prejudices the criminal case.
This has become more of a circus than it needs to be, I would have thought the best legal advice would have been to sort out the criminal charges not rack up 6 figure legal fees trying to force a civil case that can't be heard prior to the criminal case anyway.
Ridiculous.
Get the best outcome for your client
or
Build profile for yourself
Maybe you can achieve both with the one action, especially if someone is guaranteeing the legal fees, no matter how great tehy seemingly become?
In teh face of this, does it seem reasonable for the AFLPA to continue to fund Lovett's legal case in the Supreme Court?
BTW, Fremantle have now changed the Johnson suspension to a limited time (mid June?) - maybe they don't want to be caught up in a Grievance Tribunal case?