Nowhereman

But how can they ' appeal' to an sgm within 10 days if it takes 21 days to convene a special general meeting.

I think I have been saying that for some time now but he won't listen

Or alternatively that they know it is going to be succesful ...

Totally baffled by that decision. Up until now I could understand their logic but this contradicts completely what has gone before

No it doesn't. Thats why it says ' and/or '

So going by your logic Livi indicate their intention to appeal and at that stage the appeal has not started so they are still a third division club. At Thursday's meeting when the appeal hearing starts the penalty is set aside. So Livi are reinstated as a first division club for the couple of hours that the hearing takes before becoming a third division side again when they lose the vote. Doesnt really make sense does it ? The general practice is for a punishment to be set aside during an appeal - that happens in civil scottish court cases, it happens under SFA rules and it happens under certain aspects of the sfl rules. That is what Livi are relying on when they have refused to turn up and its a sustainable argument. You just can't see it as you have convinced yourself that you are right

I think the important part is the and/or in para 4. That to me means that the penalty can be reduced even if the decision is left in place

Thats what I've been saying. There seems to be a few people on this thread who think their view has to be right and Livi are undoubtedly wrong. I just don't think that the rules and interpretation of them are that black and white. and as you say McDougall and Rankine are not fools and they must think they have a reasonable chance of ultimately winning

So what is the point in having the SFA as an appeal body if they are never going to overrule anything that the sfl do?

Well how many other teams have been relegated two divisions for a breach of the rules in recent history ( excluding Gretna because they were about to go under anyway and the league knew that when they imposed the penalty )

It wouldn't undermine the rules in any way at all if they merely changed the penalty or sent it back to the sfl for them to reconsider.The SFA are an appeal body after all and what is the purpose in having an appeal to the SFA if they are never expected to do aything which might interfere with an sfl decision

You yourself said earlier in the thread that precedents only come about through decisions being made that havnt been made before. And if the SFA did hand it back to the sfl that would surely be with a view to the sfl itself changing the punishment

No it wouldn't. You really don't know how these things work do you ?

Fair point if that is what the punishment was for. However I wonder how many other clubs in administration have been asked the same question. Probably none because if a club goes into administration during the season there is no way that the punishment would be relegation. The sfl are not going to impose such a penalty half way through a season. So livi coud well argue that their punishment was made more harsh because the timing of going into admin. allowed it to be. Oddly enough WLC were behind the timing. Perhaps if they had waited until the season had started it may have been better for Livingston

Yes the sfl can take what action they see fit but the purpose of an appeal is to have the the decision looked at again by a higher body and in this case the higher body is the SFA. I think that rule would allow the Sfa to reduce the punishment

Does rule 133.1.4 (4) - ' . . . or impose a lesser penalty in respect thereof ' not allow the SFA to alter the punishment without overturning the actual decision ? And given the excessiveness of the punishment ( remember no sfl club has ever received any punishment at all for going into administration ) is there not a chance that the SFA might reduce it. Also interesting to see that the penalty is suspended in this situation so Livi are still a first division club.Livi no doubt were aware of this before setting off down the appeals route and that is why they have refused to play third division games

Show of hands was it then ?

They would hardly ask the sfl for guidance given that they were disputing what the sfl were saying. And if McGruther was motivated by the cost why would he agree to play Ross County when the cost of that trip would have exceeded the cost of a trip to Falkirk

Er... I think that is my point

The appeal process began when Livi indicated formally that they were lodging an appeal.My point is to ask what should happen to the penalty that has been imposed pending the appeal being completed and I think that will be one of the points being argued by Livi when the sfl get round to dealing with their failure to turn up last Saturday

Yes there is. 1. Livi were demoted by a decision of the management committee. The management committee were entitled to take that decision 2. Livi decided to appeal that decision. Livi were entitled to do that 3. The rules are silent as to whether or not the punishment is suspended pending the appeal process being completed 4. In certain other circumstances penalties are suspended during an appeal process Therefore it can be argued both ways as to which division Livi are currently in. In those circumsatnces I can understand why Livi refused to play. I am not supporting their stance or condoning anything Livi have done but I can understand their decision last week and they do have a valid argument. As i have said they might lose but it is a stateable case

Of course Livi can't decide for themselves which rules to obey and which ones not to. But as you say they are appealing and all I was doing was pointing out that Livi do have the basis of a case. They might lose but they do have the right to appeal. Its not impossible for the sfl to interpret their own rules wrongly

If it was 'until' and not 'unless' that would make a huge difference

Yes I know but if Livi can justify their not turning up last week they would not get a points penalty no matter which division they are in