Andrew Lovett signed a Heads of Agreement with GWS whilst on remand.

12 million over 5 years.

Sheedy says he's the perfect fit and has always been their primary target, the Scully talk was just a distraction so no other clubs would go after Lovett!!!!!!

That was my first thought ... St. Kilda players and the club left him out to dry.

He was guilty until proven innocent.

Under the circumstances I'd have expected the MFC to do the same. It's all very easy to say they "left him out to dry" now that he's been found not guilty - 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Agree. He was on his last chance at St Kilda before this incident. He should count himself fortunate to be able to move on a restart his life.

I thought he had settled with them. If they were smart the settlement would have included all causes of action arising from their employment of him.

Agree. This would be standard in any sensible settlement arrangement.

Everyone here is saying that no one will be interested. Which i think is maybe true.

But firstly he went to St Kilda because he was playing great football and he was a very good player.

Also i know with these cases that a non guilty can be due to lack of evidence not necessarily total innocence, but doesn't he deserve to now be treated as an innocent man and a very good footballer.

Plus the success of Krakouer for Collingwood will maybe intise a potential drafting

He was guilty until proven innocent.

Seems that way doesn't it.

Everyone here is saying that no one will be interested. Which i think is maybe true.

But firstly he went to St Kilda because he was playing great football and he was a very good player.

Also i know with these cases that a non guilty can be due to lack of evidence not necessarily total innocence, but doesn't he deserve to now be treated as an innocent man and a very good footballer.

Plus the success of Krakouer for Collingwood will maybe intise a potential drafting

Who knows, there may be other legal action possibly taken by the Girl involved, she can still sue him personally ala OJ Simpson. It may not all be over yet.

It will still get down to her word vs his word. If she is properly advised she wont waste her time and money.

It will still get down to her word vs his word. If she is properly advised she wont waste her time and money.

The burden of proof is lower in a civil court and there may be evidence that wasn't allowed to be introduced in a criminal trial.

One way or the other I hope he doesn't get a look in at our club.

The burden of proof is lower in a civil court and there may be evidence that wasn't allowed to be introduced in a criminal trial.

Proof of what???

What evidence cant be presented at a criminal court than can be at a civil court?

If a person is found in a criminal court to be not guilty of an offence then how can they be liable for damages for that action in a civil court?

GWS for mine....

I think the telling part is the way he was treated by his team mates at the time... must have been a reason for it and i think hes a very lucky man not to be doing some prison time.

Huh?

The telling part is where the court said "not guilty".

There was a racial element in this case that no-one wants to acknowledge.

He will get picked up by an AFL team next year....

He was twice the player that Kraks ever was and he is playing well at Collingwood.

Alot of teams will look at his pace, skills and endurance as a major plus in their teams going forward.

Naturally GWS come to mind but so do Carlton and West Coast, to 'on the cusp' teams who could use his dash.

There was a racial element in this case that no-one wants to acknowledge.

Mainly because it didn't exist. And its cheap and tacky when people playing that card for their own purposes

The charges tried in the court do not examine race as one of the factors.

Proof of what???

What evidence cant be presented at a criminal court than can be at a civil court?

If a person is found in a criminal court to be not guilty of an offence then how can they be liable for damages for that action in a civil court?

As RobbieF notes the requirement in a criminal court is to prove guilt "beyond all reasonable doubt" whereas in a civil court the test is "on the balance of probabilities" a much lower threshold. I dont know about the evidence but civil proceedings may be an option - as noted it does depend on who the jury believes.

Proof of what???

What evidence cant be presented at a criminal court than can be at a civil court?

If a person is found in a criminal court to be not guilty of an offence then how can they be liable for damages for that action in a civil court?

In answer to your first question - there is no disctinction on evidence that can be presented in the two types of action.

If a person is found not guilty of an offence in a criminal court they can certainly be liable for damages in a civil action.

Criminal court verdicts are beyond reasonable doubt but a civil proceeding verdict is balance of probabilities. There are a myriad of cases that have gone from not guilty in a criminal proceeding to damages in a civil proceeding.

The most celebrated case is O J Simpson - found not guilty at a criminal trial for murder but had to pay $33.5M in a civil case for wrongful death ( which he has paid two parts of nothing of)

Edited July 26, 201113 yr by nutbean

Gimme.

I'll take him. We've just learnt footy isn't about the nice guys anymore. Our nice guy is about to leave us for GWS and we're going backwards if w don't find someone else to somewhat replace his talent.

At our club we have a plethora of aboriginal support for him, and a great club culture (playing for jim etc). We also lack a gun HFF who is quick.

Would be a perfect pick.

Gimme.

I'll take him. We've just learnt footy isn't about the nice guys anymore. Our nice guy is about to leave us for GWS and we're going backwards if w don't find someone else to somewhat replace his talent.

At our club we have a plethora of aboriginal support for him, and a great club culture (playing for jim etc). We also lack a gun HFF who is quick.

Would be a perfect pick.

+1

Gimme.

I'll take him. We've just learnt footy isn't about the nice guys anymore. Our nice guy is about to leave us for GWS and we're going backwards if w don't find someone else to somewhat replace his talent.

At our club we have a plethora of aboriginal support for him, and a great club culture (playing for jim etc). We also lack a gun HFF who is quick.

Would be a perfect pick.

-1000000

no thanks

Repeat offender - Im not talking about the crime that he was found not guilty of - I am talking about his propensity for finding trouble.

For every troubled soul that makes good - Hall, Cousins - there is another that causes trouble at his next port of call Akermanis, Fevola.

Let him have a fresh start elsewhere.

In answer to your first question - there is no disctinction on evidence that can be presented in the two types of action.

If a person is found not guilty of an offence in a criminal court they can certainly be liable for damages in a civil action.

Criminal court verdicts are beyond reasonable doubt but a civil proceeding verdict is balance of probabilities. There are a myriad of cases that have gone from not guilty in a criminal proceeding to damages in a civil proceeding.

The most celebrated case is O J Simpson - found not guilty at a criminal trial for murder but had to pay $33.5M in a civil case for wrongful death ( which he has paid two parts of nothing of)

Are those cases in Australia or the US? Some of the US civil action outcomes particularly in cases against pharmaceutical coompanies defies logic, science and reason.

And its interesting the most celebrated case has resulted in no real civil outcome. The issue is whether there is a plausible chance of winning a "his word" vs "her word" game in court. More likely played out in the media. Civil action may be a technical options but its a road of potholes and not gold.

-1000000

no thanks

Repeat offender - Im not talking about the crime that he was found not guilty of - I am talking about his propensity for finding trouble.

For every troubled soul that makes good - Hall, Cousins - there is another that causes trouble at his next port of call Akermanis, Fevola.

Let him have a fresh start elsewhere.

Agree. Absolutely. For mine a not guilty verdict in court does not equate to clean slate off the field. He has a chance to redeem his life. He can do that elsewhere.

Im not saying 'let's get him'....

However if we decide he is the type of player we could use to release Davey a bit more then I hope all of us would support him completely.

I'd rather get an on-field $hit bloke in our side than an off-field one.

I'm not sure how the poll thing works, but I say put it to the vote, would Demonland want Andrew Lovett at MFC.

I would after watching our midfield capitulate on Sunday

this is on behalf of Demon Spurs

And I am tipping that you are wrong - that more people will say - no thank you

Edited July 26, 201113 yr by nutbean

I don't support this club to make me a good human being. I support this team to win me a premiership.

I couldn't give two squats about what the media says he would do to a club's image but if this person is going to position MFC closer to a premiership than I want him.

The man isn't Brendan Fevola, a lieing addict, he made one enormous error has admitted to his mistake and is moving on with his life and hopefully with his footballing. Anyone hear Andrew Krakouer screaming?

I'm over Melbourne not taking a risk. Clubs are flying past whilst we sit on our bums offering one 19 year old 6 million dollars.

FWIW, I don't think we will pick him up because the board is full of anti-risk takers but I'll bump this one in a few years because he's the X we'll always be screaming for.

Edited July 26, 201113 yr by Demon Land 7