Livi 293

All this proves it that you're digging where there's hee-haw to find.

Down to 10 men for over half the match, too...

Oh, of course. Poor you.

As I say, I was only commenting upon what was suggested.

I was assuming the administrator negotiated the CVA within which it is being argued we could have laid off players? No?

OK

Was that not the administrator's decision, rather than the new owners?

Wrong.

I' not talking about this in reference to Livi, so you can drop the tone.

I'm not talking about red cards here. Surely you can see how ridiculous it must sound to folk who have no interest in sport? "We do not allow our companies to appeal a decision in a court of law. Even if we are punishing them for breaking said 'law.'"

I should really have said football in general. An industry where the law of the land doesn't apply...

If that is true, it sums up the utter fucking stupidity, ludicrousness and back-slapping hypocrisy of Scottish football.

The police figure was 750 at 3.10pm. The BBC figure is 757. I'd say that's about right - and where we were last year, too.

Official Site Board Statement (also in programme v Montrose, although edited now to reflect past tense of game). No idea if it's been posted, can't really be arsed looking through this thread for it.

I think McGruther has manufactured the current situation to give him the best chance of dealing with the debt, and to keep costs (from his own company's point of view) at a minimum, while keeping the club alive. I was merely offering an explanation for your claim that the consortium are deliberately making it akward for the SFL. I don't know that that is their primary aim...

Certainly it's a possibility. I suspect insuring players to play in a 'provisional' league game in a league they are not yet in may also have caused reluctance. However, the consortium may believe that, in fact, the SFL have made it as difficult as possible for Livingston to survive given their demotion decision. It may well be a very silly position to take, but I would imagine the entire u-turn performed by the SFL last week from the first to second meeting caused a lot of anger...

Indeed, the contradictions in their various positions over the last week or so are staggering, no matter who you agree with...

It's about seeing whether the SFL are right to make us play a fixture, and the cost that implies, if, in actual fact, by the very "letter of the law" that is being used against us right now, we should not be in that Division until an appeal decision is reached. If the club feel the punishment is harsh (which they obviously do) and appeal (which they have) and that then means we are not as of yet a Third Division Club (one SFL source claims we are, and now another appears to have claimed the opposite) then why are we playing a Third Division fixture? I have no problems playing in Division 3 if our appeal is rejected. But if we have a case to stay in Division 1, I'd hope the club persue that. Surely the statement about creditors is true, though? (And why would Donald McGruther only be concerned with what is good for Livingston Football Club? I thought it was his job to secure the best deal for all concerned with our debts?)

Statement from David Thomson, Operations Director at the SFL, yesterday evening. Has he not just compromised the SFL's position there, and thus legitimised Livingston Football Club's stance?

As far as I'm aware, this is ultimately a decision by the Interm Manager. He remains in control of the club - the consortium remain just that - they have no control yet.

Or... http://www.livingstonfc.co.uk/news_070809_1.php So are we playing or not?

No... Edit: Ahh, I see... fixed.

I think the issue is whether the debt can be serviced as a Third Division club. It's not as simple as 'just getting on with it'. The prospective owners are assessing if they can even afford to fund it in Division Three.