Batten down the hatches :( RUMOUR

[Legendary]

This is the rumour that he believes that he can still sue St Kilda for unlawful termination?

I.e. his lawyer feels he can prove that the allegation of rape (of which he has since been found innocent) was the determining factor in St Kilda's decision to chose to sack him?

There is an issue of exactly what the settlement contract looked like - i.e. the agreement between Lovett and St Kilda when we paid him something like $500k.


If that agreement is not watertight there are potential liabilities for the club.


We have on our board a lawyer who specialises as a partner at a Melbourne law firm in employment law matters.

IF we have not covered our backsides on this one, I would be very surprised.


This rumour has been floating around for a while though, and nothing has come of it. If Lovett was preparing to issue over this, I am surprised he has not done it ... which means that it must be a close call ... which means that I would be very confident of defending any claim he decides to make.

[Enrico_Misso]

Well no doubt the incompetent insipid Alwaysaway Board will throw more money at him.
Just like they did at the sl*t.

That's how they solve everything - give in and throw money away.

[Bernard Shakey]

If he's planning on nominating for the draft, the last thing prospective clubs would want to see is him taking any action whatsoever against any AFL club. Would end his chances forever, unless of course, he knows nobody will pick him up anyway.

[saintsRrising]

Ross seemed to like gambling on Rookies stepping up to fill the youth breach

:

Not many teams win flags without rookies these days.

What was it again, when WCE won their last flag. 12 in the team?


Would love to have had the Cats recruiter this last ten years. Whenever they could eliminate strategic advantages and rely on talent vs talent they won.

The Hawks with clever strategies pinched one against theme.
Our gameplan knocked them out last year.

Make no mistake...we need a strategic coach next year, or we are done before we have started.

[BigMart]

SR

We almost won two grand finals mainly because

Of tim watson for getting us quality....GT for allowing the quality to develop from a young age....and ross for setting up a strong GP

A star core group from
2001-2003 draft gave us our entire leadership group of which any team would be a challenger

Our recruiting and development moreso since 2004 has been shoddy and shortsighted...
In 2009 it was a debarcle

[bozza1980]

Didn't somebody bring up that there were further allegations that were brought up during whilst he was awaiting trial?

A complaint from when he was at Essendon? they just had to keep it quiet because it could ahve unfairly effected his current trial?

Surely anything more that does come out of it couldn't impact St Kilda in any meaningful way.

he was being investigated for another sexual assault alleged to have taken place whilst he was at the bummers....

This issue is directly aimed at the Saints & relates to his termination.

Lovett's people may well be investigating all avenues for a quick buck for their client.

Unfortunately for them, they have already received the last cent they ever will receive out of St Kilda.

His management team with the assistance of the AFLPA have already negotiated a settlement with the club. This was very public at the time and his manager also confirmed in the wake of Lovett's acquital.

End of story.

[Ice Wolf]

I think the verdict in the criminal case doesn't matter, If Lovett was to sue us it would be in civil court and it could likely be found that the rape did occur on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt and club was therefore within its rights to sack him.

I would doubt the idiot would want to risk that.

[bozza1980]

This is the rumour that he believes that he can still sue St Kilda for unlawful termination?

I.e. his lawyer feels he can prove that the allegation of rape (of which he has since been found innocent) was the determining factor in St Kilda's decision to chose to sack him?

His lawyer needs to do much more than prove that St Kilda sacked him as a result of these accusations

As the level of proof required for criminal prosecution is much higher than the level of proof required for dismissal, being found not guilty of the crime in a court of law does not instantly make it an unlawful grounds for termination.

An employer only needs to have a reasonable presumption of the persons guilt for it to be grounds for dismissal.

These are the reasons why it is hard to argue with the club's reasonable presumption of guilt:

1/ The OPP to lay the charges had to belive they had a case that would deliver a guilty verdicy

2/ To even be tried, the courts had to find that there was a prima facie case

3/ A number of St Kilda players were witnesses for the prosecution

For Lovett's lawyer to prove St Kilda unlawfully terminated him, he would need to:

1/ Prove that St Kilda sacked him purely on the allegations of rape

2/ Prove his innocence beyond all reasonable doubt

He might be able to prove number 1, but (and this is in no way a commentary on Lovett's guilt or innocence) he has zero chance of proving point number 2.

There is an issue of exactly what the settlement contract looked like - i.e. the agreement between Lovett and St Kilda when we paid him something like $500k.


If that agreement is not watertight there are potential liabilities for the club.


We have on our board a lawyer who specialises as a partner at a Melbourne law firm in employment law matters.

IF we have not covered our backsides on this one, I would be very surprised.


This rumour has been floating around for a while though, and nothing has come of it. If Lovett was preparing to issue over this, I am surprised he has not done it ... which means that it must be a close call ... which means that I would be very confident of defending any claim he decides to make.

It will be an absolute disgrace if the club paid Lovett $500,000+ and it had not protected itself from future legal issues regarding this issue.

[markp]

It will be an absolute disgrace if the club paid Lovett $500,000+ and it had not protected itself from future legal issues regarding this issue.

Impossible. Surely....

[matrix]

if it has?
im joining barks on the get rid of the board crusade

and im bringing a pitchfork

[barks4eva]

It will be an absolute disgrace if the club paid Lovett $500,000+ and it had not protected itself from future legal issues regarding this issue.

Impossible. Surely....

Nah, you could absolutely guarantee it!

[IluvHarvey]

It will be an absolute disgrace if the club paid Lovett $500,000+ and it had not protected itself from future legal issues regarding this issue.

Impossible. Surely....

Nah, you could absolutely guarantee it!

How? Where is your proof?

[older saint]

I think the verdict in the criminal case doesn't matter, If Lovett was to sue us it would be in civil court and it could likely be found that the rape did occur on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt and club was therefore within its rights to sack him.

I would doubt the idiot would want to risk that.

Agreed as STK was very clear at the time that his dismissal was not due to the charges but due to the numerous training and other breaches, hence protecting itself from a not guilty verdict.

[Thinline]

I do not doubt what Plugger14 'heard' but I know people very close to the previous mediation process.

Lovett signed away any right to further action against pretty much anyone when he accepted his settlement.

There is nothing. He has nothing. He is nothing.

Anything else is nonsensical and ill-informed innuendo.

[Junction Oval]

Thinline said :

do not doubt what Plugger14 'heard' but I know people very close to the previous mediation process.
Lovett signed away any right to further action against pretty much anyone when he accepted his settlement.
There is nothing. He has nothing. He is nothing.
Anything else is nonsensical and ill-informed innuendo.

Well that matter seems to be settled. Now, "let's get on with the Footy."

[PLUGGER14]

I do not doubt what Plugger14 'heard' but I know people very close to the previous mediation process.

Lovett signed away any right to further action against pretty much anyone when he accepted his settlement.

There is nothing. He has nothing. He is nothing.

Anything else is nonsensical and ill-informed innuendo.

I defended the club to this fella. More than happy for nothing to come of this.

[The Redeemer]

I do not doubt what Plugger14 'heard' but I know people very close to the previous mediation process.

Lovett signed away any right to further action against pretty much anyone when he accepted his settlement.

There is nothing. He has nothing. He is nothing.

Anything else is nonsensical and ill-informed innuendo.

I defended the club to this fella. More than happy for nothing to come of this.

I trust Plugger14's sources although I find it all a little odd.

[stinger]

Didn't somebody bring up that there were further allegations that were brought up during whilst he was awaiting trial?

A complaint from when he was at Essendon? they just had to keep it quiet because it could ahve unfairly effected his current trial?

Surely anything more that does come out of it couldn't impact St Kilda in any meaningful way.