Stevedore,

I suspect that if you really were a stevedore, you might have a different position.

From what I can gather, you argument seems to be based on three points. Firstly, that a contract is a two-way agreement, and Lovett failed to meet the terms of his contract, so his sacking is fair; secondly, that AFL clubs have the right to sack a player charged with a serious offence; and finally, that the nature of that (alleged) serious offence(s) in Lovett's case warrants St Kilda exercising that right.

1. Whether or not St Kilda had a contractual right to sack Lovett, or whether Lovett breached the terms of his contract, is not really the point. The point is that they have sacked him, and Lovett has the right to procedurally challenge the fairness of that (a right which has been upheld).

If Lovett's right to challenge here hadn't been upheld, we would live in a society where no one could challenge their working conditions or claim their rights as workers in any way, because it would be as simple as sacking them to shut down such a challenge if they did. St Kilda were arguing that Lovett's rights as a worker were no longer his rights because he was no longer a worker because they sacked him. I find it jaw-dropping that St Kilda's lawyers even considered this as a position.

The right to challenge a perceived unfair dismissal, whether or not it actually is or isn't in the end, is an important industrial right. I wouldn't want to live in a society that prevented such a process.

2. St Kilda now also have the right to establish that they did have a contractual right to sack him. You may believe (as you said earlier) that the AFL or St Kilda contractually do have the right to sack a player once he has been charged with a serious crime, but Lovett must have the right to ask them that they establish the fairness of that decision if he so wishes (see 1, above). The crime itself is of no relevance here; this is purely an industrial matter about a contract dispute.

3. Lovett is presumed innocent of the crime of which he has been charged until proven guilty in a court of law. Another important democratic principal that needs to be upheld. At the moment, the only offence we know that Lovett is guilty off is being late to training, and not notifying St Kilda of the possibility of his facing these criminal charges earlier.

In the first case, I'd have to say it's got to be unprecedented that a player can be sacked for being late to training--most teams would struggle to find a team long-term if this was a norm. In the case of the latter, it could be quite reasonably argued that an innocent person may not have appreciated that they could be facing criminal charges for a crime they didn't commit.

The nature of the crime with which Lovett has been charged is horrific. But it does not warrant him being sacked until such a time--if such a time comes--he is found guilty in a criminal court. That doesn't mean he necessarily shouldn't be suspended until such a time (that's another argument), but it certainly means he shouldn't be sacked. That's a moral decision, not a fair one. St Kilda have sacked him to try and distance themselves from the semiotics of rape, but at the moment Lovett remains an innocent person. Innocent people shouldn't have their rights sacrificed to promote a corporate brand.

We don't know the facts surrounding the alleged crime, and we don't really know the facts around why he was sacked. The only fact apparent in this whole mess is that Lovett won't play an AFL game ever again. And if he's innocent of the crime with which he's been charged, St Kilda's role in ensuring that this is the end of his AFL career (by their recent actions) is unforgivable.

Er. OK then. Semiotics??

1. I agree with that right. Just questioned whether it was within the AFL's legal domain. Apparently it is.

2. Agreed. I haven't read the contract; I suspect no Dockerlander has. I gleaned from the little info given us that StK have a legal right (not a legal obligation, nor a moral right) to sack him. And not because he was late to training - that's a ridiculous position to hold. A little more than a skim read reveals that after being picked up by the Saints he was a serial offender.

3. Furphy. By the conditions of 2 (as far as we have been informed), the outcome of the charge is irrelevant. The only relevant fact is the laying of the charge itself, which is indisputable.

Crikey, this is fun...



_{(PS I'm a big fan of Chris Corrigan)}

I wont bore you with full article. This is what St Kilda said at the time.

St Kilda CEO Michael Nettlefold said the sacking was unrelated to the rape charge, but his behaviour in the off-season was unacceptable and had brought the club into disrepute.

The club refused to comment on whether his contract would be paid out.

Stevedore,

Yes, but my interpretation would be that in exercising that legal right there would be an expectation of discretion, rather than it being a blanket rule. Nor should it be used as an excuse to get rid of a player who presents other problems.

If an AFL player walked into a pub, shot dead 10 people in front of witnesses, and somehow (miraculously) managed to get bail while awaiting trial, I'm not sure I'd be arguing against their being sacked. But in the present case, rightly or wrongly, the crime in question is a lot more difficult to prove, and the presumption of innocence must be upheld. Otherwise all AFL players could face the possibility of facing fictitious charges of which they are innocent resulting in their being sacked, particularly come finals time.

In any event, St Kilda have said that their decision to sack Lovett has nothing to do with the criminal charge he is facing. So the technicality of their contractual right to sack him is really a moot point.

I do not believe for a second that if the crime in question here wasn't rape, that Lovett would have been sacked, serial offender of the club's rules or not. Do you?

And as for your declaration that you are a Chris Corrigan fan (albeit in small font), you do know the history and symbolism behind the terms *Fremantle* and *Dockers* don't you? And you do know there's another team up the road you could barrack for who doesn't have that history or symbolism? Just checking.

St Kilda might say he was not sacked for the rape charge. Equally one wonders what else he did to bring the club into disrepute given it never made the papers.

All that aside, everyone is saying that Lovett was the dud recruit of the year only because they haven't seen Brett Peake play.

Were not two other St Kilda players charged with rape a couple of years back, only to have the charges dropped? Those players were not summarily dismissed, so for St Kilda to admit to disposing of an employee because of this accusation would be completely indefensible.

In any case, the club has dismissed Lovett and the player is appealing. That is his right.

Can't wait to hear what Lovett did in the two months at St Kilda to bring the club into disrepute.

If I may hazard a guess; and it is only a guess; I reckon the players have rebelled and stated that they don't want him at the club. Therefore St Kilda are desperately trying to justify a decision to keep the players happy.




^{I don't like Chris Corrigan.}

_{I buried Paul.}

I think the rules were changed because of Milne and Montagna.

Odd that they'd change the rules after the outcome vindicated their initial decision.

As per the quotes from the paper above, they clearly claimed technical breaches of the contract and went out of their way to highlight that it wasn't the police charges that were brining about their decision. So even they know it's dangerous ground to be treading on.

au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/...diation-with-lovett/

Are St Kilda calling his bluff knowing that with his sexual assault trial coming up he won't want to take them to court over unfair dismissal in the forseeable future?

I still don't know what their logic is?

Nah, they're just idiots.

I would have thought mediation was the solution just before they decided to sack him and refuse to let him query the decision through the AFL arbitration system. It's probably not the best solution after they've told him to tell his story walking then refused to show up to the scheduled mediation meeting.

I'm not sure they even understand the concept of mediation, or scheduling, or a meeting, or a contract, or a siren, or withholding tears.

Individual Conduct Policy" [which] "gives the competition's governing body the power to stand down a player charged with a serious offence",

so you only have to be CHARGED with a serious offence....what happenned to innocent until proven guilty