Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298158 |
|
There are all sorts of accusations flying around this situation... they go both ways, for what it's worth.
Regardless of the nature of the accusations, the aggrieved party deserves a fair hearing, not just summary punishment. If the aggressor has a decent case, they will have nothing to fear in a fair hearing.
From the outside, there doesn't seem to have been a shred of fairness.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298159 |
|
How clumsy and incompetent is St Kilda?
From the first thought of wanting to trade for Lovett to right now. It just defies belief.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298161 |
|
Stevedore, let me hasten to add that I'm not defending Lovett's civil conduct (about which I'm in no position to comment). I'm defending his industrial rights.
St Kilda, or any other two-bit outfit, can go blow itself to hell before we should allow a bloke's industrial rights to be compromised in the interests of a 'brand'.
Let the courts make a decision on Lovett's civil conduct. But in the meantime St Kilda should be made to honour the contract it signed with its employee.
Tough doo-doo if it now thinks it was a bad decision to hire that employee in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298162 |
|
A contract must state specific obligations - if it doesn't, then there can't be a breach of something simply implied. Otherwise, there would be no need for one - a handshake would do. I don't think St Kilda gave him any other option than to get a lawyer and contest the sacking.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298164 |
|
That's the post that nails the issue for me, Wiz.
Back to footy matters, i heard with the extra room in the cap St Kilda are looking at Laurence Angwin as a back up for the injury prone Michael Gardiner.
Not done yet, just need to do the diligence, you know back ground checks and stuff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298167 |
|
Of course the upside for us is that we get to play the Deaf Cheats in Round 4 after a 3-game winning streak, by which time the Cheats ought to have well and truly imploded off-field so that Sooky Diddums won't just be crying during the game — he'll be crying in the team bus all the way to the ground.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298168 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298169 |
|
But Wiz and hypen that is my point - a contract is a two-way agreement - and Lovett failed to satisfy his side of the bargain.
I fully agree that companies should not be allowed to ride roughshod over their employees - I'm as fervently in favour of employees' rights as anyone. But with those rights come responsibilities, and the company must have the ability to sever contracts with those who don't honour the terms of their contract.
Mentioned in the linked article are:
"Individual Conduct Policy" [which] "gives the competition's governing body the power to stand down a player charged with a serious offence",
"clause five in the players' Code of Conduct pertaining to potential dismissal as a result of serious or persistent breaches of the code"
"a section of the Standard Player Contract regarding player dismissal"
So I'm afraid that Lovett is no innocent party who is suffering the ire of an autocratic employer. He must have been aware that he was bound by codes of conduct. On several counts he clearly contravened those codes of conduct, so he must suffer the consequences. Saints are well within their rights.
In fact, who's the winner, really? Lovett doesn't play, but he still picks up his million-odd dollar pay.
And yes, the Saints were unutterably stupid to pick him up in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298170 |
|
The key point, as you say Stevedore, is St Kilda's unutterable stupidity.
The matter deserves investigation though, for the sake of due process. We don't know the facts... we know the player is charged but we don't know the details of his contract.
Unfortunately, there's a victim involved. While we all shake our heads, point and laugh, it would do us good to be mindful of that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298175 |
|
I don't disagree, Stevedore. But at the moment the only fact that appears not to be in dispute is that Lovett was late for training. There's no precedent for allowing an AFL employer to sack a bloke for that.
Of course, there is a very, very serious civil charge hanging over Lovett's head. But what's wrong here is that St Kilda's used the charge — not the verdict, but the charge, the allegation — against Lovett in its decision to sack him.
For that, I reckon St Kilda ought to be charged.
(Mind you, long before the latest incident, I reckon St Kilda ought to have been charged. With being St Kilda.)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298179 |
|
Has anyone considered why Essendon were so keen to get rid of Lovett in the first place? They had massive issues with him, notice how his former captain came out in support of St Kilda's decision last week as well? and asked why no one talked to him about Lovett before they wasted a draft pick?
He has 3 times the issues of the Wiz and I back St Kilda's decision every day of the week!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 4 Days ago
Re:St Kilda Logic
|
#298189 |
|
Stevedore, your first quote seems to suggest that the AFL can dismiss Lovett, not the Saints.
If the Saints have the power to do that, then there is no issue because Lovett has indeed been charged with a serious offense and the Saints would be well within their rights to axe him.
|
|
|
|
|
