Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
St Kilda Logic
|
#298120 |
www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/24/2...4.htm?section=justin
Lawyers for sacked St Kilda midfielder Andrew Lovett will front the AFL grievance tribunal on Tuesday to argue that the club was wrong in sacking him last week.
St Kilda claim that Lovett's grievance case should be stopped because he is no longer an AFL-listed player.
If you sack him, he can't complain about it because he's been sacked.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298121 |
|
Why wouldn't they have waited for a judicial ruling before sacking him? What if he is found to be not guilty, what then?
The argument no-one wanted him around the club does not give you leverage to tear up a contract. They should pay him out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298122 |
|
I think their point is that it is no longer an AFL matter. If he has a grievance he needs to bring a civil suit against them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298123 |
|
That's like shooting someone then using the defence that they can't be a victim because they are dead.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298125 |
|
I'd say it's an AFL matter, and a St Kilda matter, until the courts say otherwise.
What a bunch of smokers, strokers, tokers and jokers. Everyone laughs at the Tiges and our early efforts but then the Saints load the table with something so stupendously ridiculous that simple folk like the neighbours can't comprehend it's vast and amazing scope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298127 |
|
Unfair dismissal? That's surely out of the AFL's bailiwick.
I reckon Lovett knows that he received all due warnings and wouldn't stand a chance in an unfair dismissal case.
How can you say no-one wanted him around the club? They'd only just recruited him - hadn't even played a game. They knew he was potential trouble, he knew he was potential trouble, and so they gave him conditions of good behaviour which he repeatedly failed to adhere to.
No case to answer m'lud.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298129 |
|
So any time an AFL club wants to screw someone over, they just sack them and force them into the courts to take up an unfair dismissal claim. Why set up a grievances tribunal if you can get rid of the aggrieved so easily?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298130 |
|
I'm no T Percy QC... (and I thank God for that!) but surely the fact that Lovett's grievance is the unfair dismissal which lead to the fact the he is now an unlisted AFL player is perfect grounds for the AFL Grievance tribunal to hear the case
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298131 |
|
where's yossarian when you need him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298134 |
|
No comment on whether he has a case or not but I do believe the AFL should be involved in this issue.
They are after all the AFL. Time to earn ya pay Big D.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298136 |
|
Sorry for being thick, but I fail to see what role the AFL plays here.
There is nothing to suggest he was "just sacked". I get the message that SK issued warnings and that he continued to get into trouble after the point of no return. The nature of the case is irrelevant. He could have rinsed a shop window with the contents of his bladder or eaten one too many Mars bars. If they told him not to and made it clear that he has n chances, then they are justified in dismissing him on the (n + 1)th infringement. Them's the rules.
What happened in the Benny case? I can't remember whether he did the AFL grievance or unfair dismissal thing. Any other AFL grievance cases?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298137 |
|
Well, if you got the message then why bother hearing what Lovett has to say. St Kilda have always been a club who are brutally honest with the facts.
If it's all cut and dried, if St Kilda are completely satisfied that they acted appropriately and don't owe Lovett a cent, why wouldn't they want to put their case to the grievances tribunal and put the facts out there to be judged.
The reason they set up tribunals like this is so the player is able to put his point of view across without having to take on a large corporation through the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
