Jump to content

Flash

Gold Members
  • Posts

    4,220
  • Joined

Everything posted by Flash

  1. The Management Committe can act against Which goes much further than But not as far as The point is that the SFL do not have to wait until Administration, or an Administration process or any of that stuff is started. A club just has to be "guilty of conduct contrary to the interests of the League and its member clubs" before action can be taken against them. More serious than being late with the payment of one invoice, but potentially less serious than going into Administration. In fact, it doesn't need to involve financial matters at all.
  2. I think (but not sure) that breaching a player's contract also allows the Management Committee to take any action it deems fit. So, not paying players on time may fall into that category. Think it is Rule 54, but it ties into SFA rules and employment contracts, so you would really need to read everything in order to be certain on whether any action that could be taken. I would imagine if a player complained to his Union and the employer didn't resolve the issue, it would be up to the SFL to step in and deal with it as it saw fit. It would probably need some form of complaint first, rather than just reports of late payment.
  3. I may have said this before but a club does not have to be in Administration before sanctions can be taken against them. The rule states that sanctions may be applied by the Management Committee - "on any club guilty of conduct contrary to the interests of the League and its member clubs" and goes on the list Administration as one of the matters which would fall into that category. Whether Livi were guilty of the above conduct prior to Administration may be a moot point and may have been difficult to prove even if true but, in general terms, the SFL do not have to wait until an Administrator is appointed before taking action against any member club. All administration does is obviate the need for a "trial" prior to sanctions being imposed.
  4. Off you trot to help re-writie a business plan. Move along now...
  5. In that case, you'd have to take the SFL to court and prove that the rules (which Livi voluntarily signed up to when becoming a member) are illegal. Which rule in particular do you consider to be illegal?
  6. True. What I meant was that companies involved in the SFL are taking part in a sporting competition which is regulated. Whereas companies in general business may be in competition, they don't have to abide by rules and regulations designed for sporting purposes only, which are in addition to general company law. The rules of the SFL contain sanctions for this situation. If they are not applied, why should any of the other rules of the SFL be adhered to by any of the member clubs?
  7. Football is not a business like any other because football clubs have to operate within the rules of their member body, other businesses don't. The question of sanctions is not a moral one, it is a question of applying the rules which every club agrees to abide by. If no sanctions are applied, we might as well say "The rules are, there ain't no rules" and tear up the whole of the SFL rulebook.
  8. That is a pretty robust argument in favour of no sanctions. This should be incorporated in the SFL rules: 76.1 The Management Committee shall have full power to deal with as it thinks fit, including power to suspend, fine or expel any club, club official or player guilty of misconduct or of violating, infringing or failing to observe the Rules of the League or League Challenge Cup Competition. 76.2 The Management Committee shall also have full power to deal with as it thinks fit, including power to deduct championship points before or during a season and/or to impose a player registration embargo on any club guilty of conduct contrary to the interests of the League and its member clubs or any registered player or former registered player, or potentially likely to prejudice the orderly progress of the League Championship and/or the League Challenge Cup competition in any season. Such conduct, for the avoidance of doubt, may include a club in or going into Administration, Liquidation, Receivership, Sequestration or any other insolvency procedure by whatever means or having a Judicial Factor appointed to its undertaking. 76.2A Any club which can demonstrate that its business plan is predicated on survival in a particular division shall be exempt from any or all of the above sanctions.
  9. A player registration embargo is one of the sanctions available under the same rule as the points deduction. It is nothing to do with preventing you signing anyone while you get up to date with your payments. It would be a punishment for past wrong doing, same as a points deduction, same as relegation. So, if you are willing to accept a punishment (as you say you are) a player registration embargo is one of the puishments available.
  10. He maybe waived all claims as part of the deal to sell his shares.
  11. It isn't a vandetta to want to see Livi relegated. Had they lived within their means, and only signed players they could afford to pay, they would already be in the Second, at best.
  12. Sorry to keep repeating this, but a club does not have to be insolvent or in administration in order to suffer sanctions. If they thought that appointing an "interim manager" was a clever way of avoiding any penalty, they were wrong and they clearly hadn't read the rules properly. Have you read them? Of course, whether anybody does anything about it is a different matter.
  13. The report was wrong because it was based on a journo counting the Livi fans. The number through the gate was 130 (big difference ). The 50% is wrong too because it is 42.5%, or something like that. Still, not bad considering they had 8% of the fans.
  14. Maybe he voted against it. Maybe he abstained. Is there a record of who was in favour and who was against the plan? Even if the head of the management committee is not in favour of a decision, he can be outvoted. He would, however, have a casting vote in the event of deadlock.
  15. Remember, too, that any club unhappy at any punishment (or lack of one) can appeal and put it to a vote of all full memeber clubs. Might be an idea for them (or one of them) to propose a penalty to the Management Committee that would be acceptable, and then have everyone vote on that.
  16. All this semi-emotional blackmail regarding "real" football fans supporting their team no matter what is only a smokescreen to attempt to disguise the fact they are worried that a boycott would result in the business plan to save them being flawed. If other fans wish to go to matches at Almondvale, that is up to them. However, saying that "you're not a real fan" if you don't is utter pish. All they are interestd in is saving their own skins. Which is fine, but don't try to dress that up as being concerned about the greater good of Scottish football.
  17. I don't think it makes any difference. We have a reasonably decent sized away support and it doesn't prevent us from being regularly gubbed. Ross County hardly bring anyone to Palmerston (understanably) and it doesn't prevent them from winning there. I don't think our home record is any worse against teams who bring a large support compared to those who don't. Nor is our away record better at places where we take most fans.
  18. The thing is - it is now up to the other full members of the SFL to decide Livi's fate. If they don't vote for the rule change, or if they uphold any appeal against the lack of sanctions, it is still possible that Livi will go out of business or be relegated to the Third division or receive some other punishment. We will see shortly whether the chairmen of clubs who "live within their means" feel as strongly about this as most of their fans do. If Livi escape unpunished, or virtually unpunished, it will be the responsibility of the SFL clubs who vote in favour. There will then be zero room for fans of clubs voting in favour to take the moral high ground because their chairmen will have sanctioned the very thing everybody is protesting about, So, everybody who votes in favour of doing nothing effectively has the same mentality of those in charge (or who were in charge) of Livi.
  19. Good shout. Even better that you leave out the ref and linesmen. Apologies for going OT.
  20. Could we not replace all the floodlight bulbs with low energy ones? Would need to switch them on at 9am to give them time to brighten up, right enough. Or have luminous shirts and a luminous ball?
  21. I don't think it even has to go that far. I think his involvement is covered by "any other insolvency procedure". Why else was he appointed if it wasn't part of an insolvency procedure? He was appointed with a view to administration of a company that is "Hopelessly insolvent". If that doesn't qualify as an insolvency procedure, I don't know what does.
×
×
  • Create New...