Saints' big call unravels [Archive] - Whitten Oval Online Forum

The Coon Dog

16-02-2010, 06:04 AM

Mike Sheahan - Herald Sun - 16 February

IT is a mere 11 weeks since St Kilda took a decision it hoped, maybe even believed, would be the difference between winning and losing the 2010 premiership.

After losing the '09 grand final by just 12 points, the Saints relinquished their first selection in the national draft (selection 16) to Essendon for Andrew Lovett. It was a big call, an adventurous, risky call, with a player with a downside as obvious as his considerable talent.

There are those of us who must own up to endorsing the deal on the basis of Lovett's pace and flair, despite his turbulent history at Windy Hill, but the stakes were much higher for St Kilda.

"We'll all be judged, all of us, in the fullness of time," coach Ross Lyon said of the contentious decision to take four recycled players, headed by Lovett.

Article in full... (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/saints-big-call-unravels/story-e6frf9ox-1225830680204)

LostDoggy

16-02-2010, 10:08 AM

Ross Lyon screwed by his own arrogant assholery? The Saints throwing away Luke Ball and pick 16 for nothing in return? A so-called 'Premiership Favourite' now faced with the very real prospect of complete distrust in the locker room between a coach and the players whom he rid one of their favourite sons of (Ball) while replacing him with a player none of them wanted, a decision that has come to nothing but grief?

Love-itt.

aker39

16-02-2010, 02:44 PM

The Age is reporting that the saints have sacked Lovett

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/lovett-sacked-by-st-kilda-20100216-o6le.html

EasternWest

16-02-2010, 03:55 PM

Hard to know what to think about this. Happy to see Saints struggling as they are probably the biggest threat this season, but not happy about the circumstances. Lovett, St. Kilda and their fans, and the unfortunate girl that is the alleged victim are all losers in this case.

Too serious IMO to take cheap shots at the Saints.

I will say, their conviction in sacking him surely indicates that they are privy to far more detail than those of us on the outside are.

LostDoggy

16-02-2010, 05:58 PM

AndrewP6

16-02-2010, 06:50 PM

westdog54

16-02-2010, 07:02 PM

Interesting. Had no choice though, couldn't keep him.

They aren't going to be able to replace him are they? Player sacked pre-season with criminal charges..you would think thats their loss, but would they be allowed to bring up a rookie..anyone aware?

They've made the decision to initially stand him down, and now to terminate the contract. He hasn't ben forced off the field through injury.

By my understanding of Rookie List rules. They're 1 short for the rest of the year.

Interesting quote from the Statement on the Saints website:

St Kilda CEO Michael Nettlefold said, “During Andrew’s short tenure with the Club, on a number of occasions he engaged in actions that were failures to comply with our standards of expected behavioral conduct. These failures related to his training commitments and a failure to contact Club Officials in a situation where he should have done so.

“We simply could not ignore such breaches. Nor could we ignore the damage being done to St Kilda’s reputation and decided unanimously as a Club to terminate Andrew Lovett’s employment with the Saints.

“This is undoubtedly a difficult time for all concerned, most particularly Andrew and the woman who brought the complaint to Victoria Police.

The rape charge clearly wasn't a one-off behaviour-wise. Plenty must have happened behind closed doors.

Remi Moses

16-02-2010, 09:07 PM

jazzadogs

16-02-2010, 09:36 PM

On a number of occasions he turned up late to training and did not present himself in great condition at his initial training sessions.

I think it's intimated in that quote that he didn't inform them of the charges/allegations quickly enough which is definitely something which would upset the Board.

The Adelaide Connection

16-02-2010, 09:37 PM

Yes they didn't sack him becaause of the rape cahrge!!!Hmmmm sure you didn't:rolleyes:Little bit of hypocrosy at work here charged with rape [We'll go with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty line] then we'll sack him citing off field discretions. Little bit to convenient i'd imagine

They needed to do this because although he has been charged he still hasn't been found guilty. They can't come out and say "he has been terminated because he raped a girl" because they could be then looking down the barrel of a massive defamation lawsuit. At the same time they want to have washed their hands of him before a seemingly likely guilty verdict has been read and the circus continues.

I have to say, apart from the initial saga of actually recruiting him I think the Saints have done a pretty good job in the way they have dealt with this. Essendon not so much in the case with Hurley.

If nothing else it is excellent to see that gone are the days of dodgy payments under the table to keep victims quiet. Well hopefully anyway.

FrediKanoute

16-02-2010, 09:58 PM

No sympathy whatsoever for Lovett or the Saints. Only feel for the alleged victim. If I was a Saints player (heaven forbid!) I'd be p***ed off that they used a spot on their list, and a truckload of cash to get a player the others didn't want, and got rid of one who was mostly well-liked. And now it's bitten them on the bum. Would dent my faith in the powers-that-be, that's for sure.

If found guilty, Lovett will have plenty of time to think things through - something it seems he's not very good at.

Perversely I do have some sympathy for him. An individual is entitles to expect to be treated s innocent until proven guilty and in sexual assault/rape cases guilt and innocence are never clear cut. He may well be guilty, but that is something for the courts to decide not for his employer.

I think the Saints have jumped the gun and cocked this one up. The suspending indefinitely pending resolution of the matter is one thing, but sacking a player before he has had a chance to defend himself in court is another completely. What if Lovett is found not guilty? Under AFL rules he is effectively denied the opportunity to work/ply his trade until he is drafted by a club.

No wonder players are arguing for free agency when at a crisis point in their lives theiy are hung out to dry by their team mates. Question I ask is if golden boy Reidwolt had been in Lovett's shoes would the Saints have acted in the same way?

AndrewP6

16-02-2010, 10:16 PM

Perversely I do have some sympathy for him. An individual is entitles to expect to be treated s innocent until proven guilty and in sexual assault/rape cases guilt and innocence are never clear cut. He may well be guilty, but that is something for the courts to decide not for his employer.

Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty. But he has been found guilty of a number of other offences, so he's no Boy Scout. He was extremely lucky to have been picked up at all, and since arriving at Moorabbin, arrives late to training, and in an unfit state. No way I'd want to keep someone like that on the books.

I think the Saints have jumped the gun and cocked this one up. The suspending indefinitely pending resolution of the matter is one thing, but sacking a player before he has had a chance to defend himself in court is another completely. What if Lovett is found not guilty? Under AFL rules he is effectively denied the opportunity to work/ply his trade until he is drafted by a club.

They were very careful in their statement not to use his arrest/rape charge as a reason for the sacking (although in reality I'm sure it played a part!) so I actually think they played it pretty well. As stated, they had plenty of ammunition to use against him.

No wonder players are arguing for free agency when at a crisis point in their lives theiy are hung out to dry by their team mates. Question I ask is if golden boy Reidwolt had been in Lovett's shoes would the Saints have acted in the same way?

Lovett is a grown man, who only had Saints teammates because the higher powers wanted him there - the players didn't. As an adult, he has no one but himself to blame for his actions - both proven and alleged. He has to face the music, so to speak. As for Saint Nick, I'd like to think he'd be open to the same sort of scrutiny - but then again, the Saints hierarchy thought it'd be a good idea to go after Lovett, so who knows?:confused:

FrediKanoute

16-02-2010, 10:35 PM

Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty. But he has been found guilty of a number of other offences, so he's no Boy Scout. He was extremely lucky to have been picked up at all, and since arriving at Moorabbin, arrives late to training, and in an unfit state. No way I'd want to keep someone like that on the books.

They were very careful in their statement not to use his arrest/rape charge as a reason for the sacking (although in reality I'm sure it played a part!) so I actually think they played it pretty well. As stated, they had plenty of ammunition to use against him.

Lovett is a grown man, who only had Saints teammates because the higher powers wanted him there - the players didn't. As an adult, he has no one but himself to blame for his actions - both proven and alleged. He has to face the music, so to speak. As for Saint Nick, I'd like to think he'd be open to the same sort of scrutiny - but then again, the Saints hierarchy thought it'd be a good idea to go after Lovett, so who knows?:confused:

On your first 2 points, anyone who believes that the rape charge wasn't the catalyst for the sacking is kidding themselves. Why wait until charges have been laid? Why not sack Lovett when he was arrested? Why not sack Lovett when he was late to training? Coincidence? Unlikely. he has been sacked because of this charge.

Correct Lovett is a grown man and talented player in a tiny industry whcih employs 700 or so playing personel. The Saints chased him, got him. What choice did he really have? Don't forget that once Essendon and the Saints had done the deal Lovett's options were significantly reduced. I don't buy the loggerheads theory between Lyon and the players. yes there would have been reservations, but once the decision was made it was the players responsibility to ensure that Lovett became part of the group. Its hard to believe that he was that unpopular given he was at a teammates house the night the alleged incident happened.

Lovett is no saint (pardon the pun) and probably guilty (who knows), but that in no way means he should be denied access to due process. What if he is found not guilty? How do we redress firstly the stain on his character and secondly the fact that his professional career is in tatters. That is what due process is designed to protect.....

From where I sit, the Saints have made a monumental cock up of the whole situation from start to finish.

AndrewP6

16-02-2010, 11:06 PM

On your first 2 points, anyone who believes that the rape charge wasn't the catalyst for the sacking is kidding themselves. Why wait until charges have been laid? Why not sack Lovett when he was arrested? Why not sack Lovett when he was late to training? Coincidence? Unlikely. he has been sacked because of this charge.

Yes, most likely, but publicly, it wasn't mentioned. And, as with legal verdicts, we can only take their word. Sure, they used the rape charges as the final straw, but they have plenty of other reasons to justify the sacking - and that's all they have to publicly do.

Correct Lovett is a grown man and talented player in a tiny industry whcih employs 700 or so playing personel. The Saints chased him, got him. What choice did he really have? Don't forget that once Essendon and the Saints had done the deal Lovett's options were significantly reduced. I don't buy the loggerheads theory between Lyon and the players. yes there would have been reservations, but once the decision was made it was the players responsibility to ensure that Lovett became part of the group. Its hard to believe that he was that unpopular given he was at a teammates house the night the alleged incident happened.

Not sure of your point here - wherever Lovett went, he had the choice to conform, and make the effort to adhere to team structures and rules. And it seems he couldn't or wouldn't do that (turning up late, not being ready to train etc). So that gives the club reason to believe he isn't fully committed to the cause. The players can't be forced to welcome someone into the fold when that someone has numerous black marks against their name - trust has a big part to play. They can't be babysitters. Maybe he was at a teammates house because they were trying to make him a part of the group. They can only do so much.

Lovett is no saint (pardon the pun) and probably guilty (who knows), but that in no way means he should be denied access to due process. What if he is found not guilty? How do we redress firstly the stain on his character and secondly the fact that his professional career is in tatters. That is what due process is designed to protect.....
From where I sit, the Saints have made a monumental cock up of the whole situation from start to finish.

He'll get his day in court, and if found not guilty, he'll walk out a free man. The stain on his character (stemming from the current charge) is obviously regrettable, but his character was tarnished before any of this came up. And that was his own doing.

The Adelaide Connection

16-02-2010, 11:24 PM

He'll get his day in court, and if found not guilty, he'll walk out a free man. The stain on his character (stemming from the current charge) is obviously regrettable, but his character was tarnished before any of this came up. And that was his own doing.

The more i think about it the more I think that this is probably my one bone of contention. I think St.Kilda had done a pretty good job handling it all but FK's posts made me reassess their decision to fire him in the days before his court case.

They may have some pretty solid inside knowledge that he is guilty, but they would have had this all along so why not fire him in the first place? Probably because they were waiting to see if he got charged and now that he has been they needed to act to distance themselves from any media storm following the court case.

You could argue that it was a smart move on their behalf but they have effectively put a guilty noose around his neck and this may even influence his hearing. This was a move they have undoubtedly made for selfish "damage control" reasons and the sacking should not have come until a judgement is made on his sentence.

He may be guilty and in which case it doesn't matter so much and he gets what he deserves, but imagine if he is not guilty (and I don't mean found not guilty, if he actually is)? What it would have done is perhaps compromised his ability to get a fair trial and put him through hell when he didn't deserve it.

FrediKanoute

17-02-2010, 04:05 AM

Not sure of your point here - wherever Lovett went, he had the choice to conform, and make the effort to adhere to team structures and rules. And it seems he couldn't or wouldn't do that (turning up late, not being ready to train etc). So that gives the club reason to believe he isn't fully committed to the cause. The players can't be forced to welcome someone into the fold when that someone has numerous black marks against their name - trust has a big part to play. They can't be babysitters. Maybe he was at a teammates house because they were trying to make him a part of the group. They can only do so much.

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.

He'll get his day in court, and if found not guilty, he'll walk out a free man. The stain on his character (stemming from the current charge) is obviously regrettable, but his character was tarnished before any of this came up. And that was his own doing.

Its a lot more than regrettable. In terms of crimes, probably the only worse crime than rape is kiddie fiddling. From a social perspective its like have BO and Halitosis, people, particularly women just don't want to be around you. On top of this though is the fact that he simply cannot ply his trade. Most of us would at least be able to work (assuming we were not held on remand) up until the court case. The Saints actions have increased the level of ostracisement at a time when perhaps assisting, not tolerating, Lovett in the matter may be more constructive. Its a classic case of covering their *rse's!

Remi Moses

17-02-2010, 05:48 AM

They needed to do this because although he has been charged he still hasn't been found guilty. They can't come out and say "he has been terminated because he raped a girl" because they could be then looking down the barrel of a massive defamation lawsuit. At the same time they want to have washed their hands of him before a seemingly likely guilty verdict has been read and the circus continues.

I have to say, apart from the initial saga of actually recruiting him I think the Saints have done a pretty good job in the way they have dealt with this. Essendon not so much in the case with Hurley.

If nothing else it is excellent to see that gone are the days of dodgy payments under the table to keep victims quiet. Well hopefully anyway.

My point is Why didn't they sack him weeks ago if they're citing training indescretions and non attendance ?Let's not dance around it,Stkilda see him guilty. Hopefully payments under the table are of a bygone era

EasternWest

17-02-2010, 07:58 AM

EasternWest

17-02-2010, 08:02 AM

My point is Why didn't they sack him weeks ago if they're citing training indescretions and non attendance ?Let's not dance around it,Stkilda see him guilty. Hopefully payments under the table are of a bygone era

Agree. They've clearly made their mind up and are prepared to risk the fallout of cutting away now. They know that the flack will be much worse if/when a guilty verdict is found.

LostDoggy

17-02-2010, 08:48 AM

aker39

17-02-2010, 08:59 AM

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.

Which is not reason enough to terminate someones contract.

I really can't see how the Saints could win an unfair dismissal case, especially when they have publicly said that it had nothing to do with the rape charge. Surely the other breaches are not sufficient enough to terminate a $1 million contract.

Mantis

17-02-2010, 09:09 AM

I really can't see how the Saints could win an unfair dismissal case, especially when they have publicly said that it had nothing to do with the rape charge. Surely the other breaches are not sufficient enough to terminate a $1 million contract.

I heard Derek Humphrey-Smith (lawyer & former AFL umpire) on SEN this morning who is representing Lovett. He alluded to the fact that St.Kilda had no claims to terminate his clients contract and sounded reasonably confident that they had strong claims to press on with legal proceedings to claim an unfair disimissal.

Swoop

17-02-2010, 09:33 AM

Everyone knows the rape charge has played a factor in the termination of Lovett's contract despite St Kilda protecting themselves legally by referring to other incidents. The question is, are the minor misdemeanours enough to warrant contract termination? My personal opinion is no.

This will be the sticking point around the whole issue and it will be very interesting to see how the whole saga plays out legally because no doubt regardless of the outcome in the rape charge he would have a legal case to mount for unfair dismissal.

Jasper

17-02-2010, 09:36 AM

St Kilda will clearly have to offer a monetary settlement of some sort.
If he wants reinstatement, Ross Lyon & the leadership group would clearly not play him, so it's not worth bothering.

Go_Dogs

17-02-2010, 09:39 AM

I heard Derek Humphrey-Smith (lawyer & former AFL umpire) on SEN this morning who is representing Lovett. He alluded to the fact that St.Kilda had no claims to terminate his clients contract and sounded reasonably confident that that had strong claims to press on with legal proceedings to claim an unfair disimissal.

Whilst I understand what you're saying, the fact is he tarnished their brand, their business.

If Ernst and Young, or Minter Ellison or some professional firm hired a senior person on a large salary, and that person, through their own actions, damaged the reputation of the firm, then they'd get walked. Based on what we know, he has missed training sessions, been caught out at late night drinking sessions, and been arrested and charged with rape.

I don't care who the employer is, ANY employer would sack the individual concerned. No questions asked.

I'm sure the St Kilda footy club would have had their own legal advice prior to making the decision, but it will be interesting to see what unfolds from here.

LostDoggy

17-02-2010, 09:43 AM

Which is not reason enough to terminate someones contract.

I really can't see how the Saints could win an unfair dismissal case, especially when they have publicly said that it had nothing to do with the rape charge. Surely the other breaches are not sufficient enough to terminate a $1 million contract.

As Mantis has said, this is the line Lovett and his management are taking, and will be taking the matter to court.

As for timing, of course it was due to the rape charge, but legally the Saints cannot say so, yet once he was charged, their hands were tied according to the hastily drafted AFL 'Ben Cousins' individual conduct policy (or whatever its called) which states that a charge that may lead to jail-time is enough to constitute 'bringing the game into disrepute' and a club is strongly obliged by that policy to release the player concerned (although the policy is not clear about the terms of release -- did I mention it was hastily drafted?) --

so ironically, the Saints are obliged by AFL policy to sack Lovett but cannot LEGALLY say so, which means that the AFL policy doesn't actually line up with the legal system (so you have to lie to comply -- did I mention that it was hastily... yep.)

It is a monumental cock-up by all concerned --

Lovett for putting himself in this position in the first place (the cops took their time to get their facts straight before charging him so you would think they would have a pretty tight case), especially after continuously screwing up since he's arrived at Moorabbin
The Saints for drafting a well-known dumbass
The AFL for their knee-jerk and badly thought through policy-making

You would have to think that Lovett has a legal case against the Saints, but the Saints can easily turn around and point the finger at the AFL for its un/quasi/pseudo-legal policy, claiming that they were between a rock and a hard place. The AFL has simply made the bed for itself with its slippery slope and inconsistent positions on everything (they might as well have policies called 'this one is for Superstars', 'this one is for everyone not named Nick Riewoldt' etc.), one only hopes they are made to lie in it.

aker39

17-02-2010, 09:46 AM

Whilst I understand what you're saying, the fact is he tarnished their brand, their business.

If Ernst and Young, or Minter Ellison or some professional firm hired a senior person on a large salary, and that person, through their own actions, damaged the reputation of the firm, then they'd get walked. Based on what we know, he has missed training sessions, been caught out at late night drinking sessions, and been arrested and charged with rape.

I don't care who the employer is, ANY employer would sack the individual concerned. No questions asked.

I'm sure the St Kilda footy club would have had their own legal advice prior to making the decision, but it will be interesting to see what unfolds from here.

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.

Mantis

17-02-2010, 09:51 AM

Whilst I understand what you're saying, the fact is he tarnished their brand, their business.

If Ernst and Young, or Minter Ellison or some professional firm hired a senior person on a large salary, and that person, through their own actions, damaged the reputation of the firm, then they'd get walked. Based on what we know, he has missed training sessions, been caught out at late night drinking sessions, and been arrested and charged with rape.

I don't care who the employer is, ANY employer would sack the individual concerned. No questions asked.

I'm sure the St Kilda footy club would have had their own legal advice prior to making the decision, but it will be interesting to see what unfolds from here.

While I agree on the points raised, the timing of this sacking is extremely 'suss'.

The whole issue of missing training sessions will be a sticking point. The bloke has been suspended for just over 6 weeks from all 'official' training and from reports has met all requirements please upon him for training away from the group. Shouldn't he have been sacked some 6 weeks ago if the issue was with him missing training?

To me it seems that St.Kilda have placed Lovett in the too hard basket and have decided to cut ties rather than to see it through. I guess the courts will now decide if this course of action was just.

aker39

17-02-2010, 09:51 AM

so ironically, the Saints are obliged by AFL policy to sack Lovett but cannot LEGALLY say so, which means that the AFL policy doesn't actually line up with the legal system (so you have to lie to comply -- did I mention that it was hastily... yep.)

My understanding is if the AFL stood Lovett down under their policy, that the club is still obliged to pay the player under his contract until any charges have been heard.

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.

aker39

17-02-2010, 09:53 AM

Shouldn't he have been sacked some 6 weeks ago if the issue was with him missing training?

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.)

LostDoggy

17-02-2010, 09:56 AM

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

17-02-2010, 10:08 AM

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

17-02-2010, 10:29 AM

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. :D

EasternWest

17-02-2010, 10:30 AM

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

17-02-2010, 10:37 AM

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

17-02-2010, 10:47 AM

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

17-02-2010, 10:54 AM

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

17-02-2010, 03:14 PM

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

17-02-2010, 06:03 PM

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

17-02-2010, 07:34 PM

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

17-02-2010, 08:49 PM

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

17-02-2010, 08:50 PM

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

FrediKanoute

17-02-2010, 09:58 PM

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

18-02-2010, 12:25 AM

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

18-02-2010, 09:33 AM

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?

Swoop

18-02-2010, 10:13 AM

Remi Moses

18-02-2010, 03:01 PM

If I have to hear the term ''Saints Footy'' ''Due Dilligence'' one more time In the mortal words of Wallace ''I'll spew up''Never heard so much PR spin and Bull****.Heard some hilarious content on the Saints Propoganda network [SEN} last night one of their overnight presenters claimed Stkilda did the right thing asking Knights his thoughts on the Saints picking up Lovett! Stay tuned for more propoganda:confused:
Footnote: I see we got a bunk up on their fan website

GVGjr

18-02-2010, 06:00 PM

Footnote: I see we got a bunk up on their fan website

I'm assuming you are talking about saintsational? Very good website and I don't mind logging on for a read.

LostDoggy

19-02-2010, 10:48 AM

Footnote: I see we got a bunk up on their fan website

A 'bunk up'? Sorry, RM, I'm not familiar with the term, care to elaborate? :)

Swoop

19-02-2010, 01:09 PM

A 'bunk up'? Sorry, RM, I'm not familiar with the term, care to elaborate? :)
Yeah, I'm not sure if I should be proud or taking offence :)

Remi Moses

20-02-2010, 01:23 AM

A 'bunk up'? Sorry, RM, I'm not familiar with the term, care to elaborate? :)

poster just said out site was balanced and fair in the Lovett drama! Mind you the next post was making some unfunny joke on the income levels of our supporters! If we get someone from Sainsational on here we could arrange a scheme of arrangement for payment like say 8 cents in the Dollar.

GVGjr

23-02-2010, 06:09 PM

Please only discuss the facts of this as they have been reported. We cannot have speculation with the source of this being a friend of a friend etc.

It's a serious charge and we cannot discuss any rumours about innocence or otherwise.

azabob

13-10-2022, 10:23 PM

Reports Brett Ratten sacked.

EasternWest

13-10-2022, 10:37 PM

Reports Brett Ratten sacked.

Solid work reviving a thread that hasn't seen the light of day in twelve years aza.

GVGjr

13-10-2022, 10:40 PM

Geoff Walsh doesn't stuff around does he.

bornadog

13-10-2022, 10:43 PM

Saints to part ways with Ratten after review (https://www.afl.com.au/news/856948/)

BRETT Ratten is set to depart as St Kilda coach.

AFL.com.au understands the Saints are set to part ways with Ratten, having gone through a recent review of the club's football operations.

It comes just months after he signed a two-year extension with the Saints in July through to the end of 2024.

Ratten had been St Kilda coach for three full seasons since taking over from Alan Richardson, steering the club into the finals in 2020 but missing the top eight in the following two years.

It follows a quiet Continental Tyres AFL Trade Period for the club, which just missed out in its pursuit of Collingwood free agent Jordan De Goey.

Ratten was in his second stint as a senior coach, having led Carlton from 2007-12 before he was cut by the Blues, where he was a champion midfielder.

Dancin' Douggy

13-10-2022, 10:44 PM

What the????

kruder

13-10-2022, 10:47 PM

List is bloody awful feel for rats a little.

jazzadogs

13-10-2022, 10:52 PM

This thread got a bigger bump than Jake Carlisle.

bornadog

13-10-2022, 10:52 PM

List is bloody awful feel for rats a little.

Cordy won't be happy

Scraggers

13-10-2022, 10:52 PM

So who coaches?
Bucks ?
Harvey ?
Hayes ?
Yze ?
McVeigh ?
Lyon ??

GVGjr

13-10-2022, 10:57 PM

List is bloody awful feel for rats a little.

I don't mind Ratten but I recall a couple of stories of what he did to Montgomery at Carlton so there is another side of him.
I'm not sure if this has been led by Geoff Walsh but it's quick and decisive action.

GVGjr

13-10-2022, 10:57 PM

So who coaches?
Bucks ?
Harvey ?
Hayes ?
Yze ?
McVeigh ?
Lyon ??

Lade?

Scraggers

13-10-2022, 11:01 PM

Lade?

I hope not, he just got here

bornadog

13-10-2022, 11:03 PM

Lade?

I hope not, he just got here

First thing I thought of? Wil he apply for the role?

jeemak

13-10-2022, 11:09 PM

Cordy won't be happy

Maybe it was one of the boom recruit's demands.......

jeemak

13-10-2022, 11:10 PM

We should give Ratten a job. Gun assistant.

jazzadogs

13-10-2022, 11:11 PM

This thread got a bigger bump than Justin Koschitzke.

kruder

13-10-2022, 11:13 PM

Lade would be unlikely to get it they need a fresh start. I'm not sure who is in their list and recruitment area but they need to go also if they have been involved in the suga hit that occurred. Like many I've been banging on for a few years now, they are in no mans land, a road to no where.

Some of the negativity on our performance of the trade period needs to be put into perspective, Sammy did a great job with the cards he was dealt and we have a good enough list to be there when the whips are cracking. We absolutely needed a change, some new blood, keep the kids rolling in and more support for Bevo.

If talk about having Naughty, Marra, Darcy, Lobb and Weightman in a forward line doesn't get you excited, I'm not sure what does.

Dry Rot

13-10-2022, 11:15 PM

So who coaches?
Bucks ?
Harvey ?
Hayes ?
Yze ?
McVeigh ?
Lyon ??

Laidley.

bornadog

13-10-2022, 11:24 PM

According to The Age, David Noble headed the review.

GVGjr

13-10-2022, 11:44 PM

According to The Age, David Noble headed the review.

He also headed the review that appointed Geoff Walsh who was the one who got rid of him at North.
Sound like a scene for Ewing Oil.

hujsh

14-10-2022, 12:33 AM

So who coaches?
Bucks ?
Harvey ?
Hayes ?
Yze ?
McVeigh ?
Lyon ??

Depends which one of them they appoint to head the committee to determine who gets the job.

macca

14-10-2022, 12:50 AM

Bring back Lyon

Im kidding

Let them continue in no mans land

EasternWest

14-10-2022, 07:23 AM

This thread got a bigger bump than Jake Carlisle.

This thread got a bigger bump than Justin Koschitzke.

Please keep going.

jazzadogs

14-10-2022, 08:08 AM

Please keep going.

This thread bumps harder than Brian Lake on flopsy Riewoldt in the prelim.

EasternWest

14-10-2022, 11:04 AM

This thread bumps harder than Brian Lake on flopsy Riewoldt in the prelim.

https://i.postimg.cc/GmqHQySf/more-beach.gif (https://postimages.org/)

Jeanette54

14-10-2022, 10:54 PM

Laidley.

Now there's an AFLW coach just waiting to happen.

jazzadogs

15-10-2022, 01:00 AM

Now there's an AFLW coach just waiting to happen.

Nah.

GVGjr

15-10-2022, 09:18 AM

Thought this was an interesting move by the Saints given their distractions. They've certainly been looking at a number of area's to explain their inconsistent performances.

St Kilda hired former North Melbourne list boss Glenn Luff to analyse the Saints’ playing list as part of the club’s review into the football program.

News Corp can reveal Luff presented to a working committee led by president Andrew Bassat that included new chief executive Simon Lethlean, board member Jason Blake and ex-Kangaroos coach David Noble.

Luff, who is now a golf operations manager at Bundoora Park after resigning mid-year from North Melbourne, also spent 17 years at Champion Data as an AFL analyst.

The review has already resulted in the shock sacking of coach Brett Ratten, who was believed to be safe when the process began in August after he re-signed for another two years only a month earlier.

St Kilda will announce that decision in a media conference at its Moorabbin headquarters on Friday morning.

Veteran administrator Geoff Walsh was appointed as executive general manager of football in early October and charged with overseeing all facets of the men’s football program.

The state of the Saints’ list has been a constant talking point, especially after a quiet trade period that saw them miss out on No.1 target Jordan De Goey but retain young gun Hunter Clark despite him wanting to move to North Melbourne.

James Gallagher became St Kilda’s list manager two months before the 2018 trade period, then executed an aggressive recruiting raid a year later that delivered Bradley Hill, Paddy Ryder, Dougal Howard, Dan Butler and Zak Jones.

Dan Hannebery also arrived only months into Gallagher’s tenure, a high-priced move that spectacularly backfired, including only 18 games in four injury-riddled seasons before he retired this year.

Gallagher explained after the trade period the Saints were deliberately not heavily involved, with a focus on retention and bringing “A-grade talent” through the draft.

But he admitted on Thursday the list was not good enough to compete for a premiership.

Club great Nick Riewoldt supported St Kilda’s football department review and called for the list and recruiting strategy to be “looked at and pulled apart”.

Another former star, Leigh Montagna, also previously urged the Saints to trade some senior stars and “reset”, suggesting Hill, Jones and “maybe” Jack Billings or Jade Gresham could be sent to rival clubs.

“(The review is) absolutely necessary, particularly around the list structure and recruiting strategy moving forward,” Riewoldt said on Fox Footy in August.

“This is a really critical time for St Kilda, the next 12 to 24 months, because if you look at the previous strategy; they’ve gone down the path of bringing in mature-aged players, which has elevated them to an average team –and that’s about it.

“But if you look below that, at the young talent who are going to form the elite core of this club for the next five to 10 years, there isn’t much there.

“And so what is the strategy? Because it’s no good topping up with (Dan) Hannebery and Hill and Jones and these guys when you haven’t got the organic growth coming from underneath.”

jazzadogs

15-10-2022, 11:12 AM

I understand that Luff is well respected in footy circles, but it's interesting to me that they've got 2 or 3 people who were just involved in the Norf trainwreck to review their operations.

If Luff presented that their list is good enough and Ratten should have had better results, then I disagree with his analysis.

Happy Days

15-10-2022, 11:18 AM

Luff, who is now a golf operations manager at Bundoora Park after resigning mid-year from North Melbourne, also spent 17 years at Champion Data as an AFL analyst.

Come on. That's just tee ball for Cornes right there.

bornadog

15-10-2022, 11:21 AM

Swoop

15-10-2022, 11:43 AM

During trade period they offered Hunter Clarke, plus their first round pick for North's 3rd. This of course was rejected.

Other than that only Cordy was traded for.

I think their list is suffering because they used up many draft picks over the years on various trades that didn't work for them. Hannerbury was the biggest blunder and Hill never reached his potential.

Spot on. Their mature age recruits should have been the icing on the cake but they were missing the foundation.

They don't have a solid core to add in those players around them. Depressingly for them, they probably need to go back to the draft and build around King and Steele.

Once they've got that core of talent is when they should be looking to compliment them with some extra polish. They tried to be aggressive which is great but they misread their list and are now paying for it.