Livingston - all the threads merged

[lyle be back]

Interestingly, Skyline's point above throws a different perspective on this.

If you are the SFL, you have a meeting. Livi are not in administration. They give you a financial bond to show that they can fulfil their fixtures next season. Presumably as intimated above WLC have provided some sort of evidence that they will work with the new owners both to get the ground its safety certificate and re the rent arrears.

What can you do them on - Livi have fulfilled their fixtures, can demonstrate they can fulfil their fixtures. As far as I know the SFL are not concerned about creditors being messed up (presumably taking the view that that is a business decision taken by creditors when doing business with Livi). Yes the players were not paid, but it appears that this was done voluntarily re last wekened (I don't know re historic non payments).

The more you think about it - the more Massone is right - as long as you continue to pay the players you can get away with it.

If I was a businessman or a bank, I would be recalling overdraft facilities plus demanding payment up front from a lot of other clubs now. They now know that the SFL don't care about creditors - and why should they?

[lzreid]

So, Scottish football is still a badly run joke right?

[The Master]

Do I understand this correctly:

If the SFL rule is changed, there will effectively be a brand new Livingston (e.g. "Livingston 2009") that buys the place in the league and just picks up where the old one left off?

[The Old Northerner]

If you are the SFL, you have a meeting. Livi are not in administration. They give you a financial bond to show that they can fulfil their fixtures next season. Presumably as intimated above WLC have provided some sort of evidence that they will work with the new owners both to get the ground its safety certificate and re the rent arrears.

WLC and SFL may well be working with the money men. Massone is still the owner. That particular issue has yet to be resolved

[qos_75]

Do I understand this correctly:

If the SFL rule is changed, there will effectively be a brand new Livingston (e.g. "Livingston 2009") that buys the place in the league and just picks up where the old one left off?

Sir Calum Melville and Gordon Bennet will be kicking themselves.

Livi Debt Free 2010

[Skyline Drifter]

Do I understand this correctly:

If the SFL rule is changed, there will effectively be a brand new Livingston (e.g. "Livingston 2009") that buys the place in the league and just picks up where the old one left off?

I think it's wrong to pre-judge what they want to do and what they'll change it to.

It's fairly clear what they want to do is find a way to get Massone out without him having to actually agree to it. The SFL cannot over-ride corporate law and, if the man simply won't sell his shares in the company, and the SFL rule says the company can't transfer its registration then fundamentally everyone is between a rock and a hard place.

If they simply want to remove this rule then it will open up the opportunity for clubs to sell their "franchise" (league place) to someone else, be it a Livingston 2009 or indeed a Clydebank, Cove Rangers, etc. There's no way the SFL will want that so I can't imagine it's what they are trying to do.

I suspect the proposal will be to replace the existing rule with one allowing the administrator to transfer the league place ALONG WITH all debts and other assets to a new company so that in effect it's the same company entirely just without the same obstructive majority shareholder. If such a rule can actually be drafted correctly then I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Skyline Drifter

[The Master]

Sir Calum Melville and Gordon Bennet will be kicking themselves.

Which is why I don't think Livi can depend on Dundee's vote We've done it the hard way, so why shouldn't they?

[Scary Bear]

There is no automatic or "standard" points deduction in the SFL for going into administration (which incidentally they are not at this point technically in).

Yes, Accies got a 15 point deduction for missing a fixture.

Yes, I recall reading on here that there was no automatic 10 point penalty. It might have been you that mentioned it. I was just going on what happened to the last club to go into administration (Gretna).

Re the point Livingston are not technically in administration yet, I recall reading a quote from the great Massone a few days ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ton/8130333.stm

"We are not in administration," he said. "There was appointed today an interim manager and, by 18 August, he will decide if the club enters administration.

"Obviously this is a technicality: an interim manager is not insolvency, administration is insolvency."

I was puzzled at the difference between administration and appointing an interim manager. When/if the club go into administration, will they get a points deduction? Will the fact that this Livingston were quite recently in a similar position, mean a heavier points deduction?

What happened to Motherwell and Dundee, when they went into adminstration? I don't recall them being deducted points.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ell/1964329.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...dee/3359305.stm

[Guest Flash]

There is no automatic or "standard" points deduction in the SFL for going into administration (which incidentally they are not at this point technically in).

Yes, Accies got a 15 point deduction for missing a fixture.

A club does not need to be in administration in order to suffer a punishment. This is the relevant rule

"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."

Administration is included as an example. However, even just concentrating on that point is the appointment of the "interim manager" not included in the definition of "any other insolvency procedure"? If it isn't, why the hell was he appointed?

Also, if no punishment takes place, any club not satisfied with this can appeal:

"76.3 Any club, club official or player aggrieved by a decision of the Management Committee, other than a decision taken in terms of Rule 28, which shall be final and binding, or any club aggrieved by a decision of the Management Committee in terms of Rule 31, 32 or 70 concerning the suitability of its ground, shall have power, within ten days from the date of decision, to appeal to a Special General Meeting of the League on payment of a deposit of £500.00 which shall be

forfeited in the event of the appeal being dismissed.

76.4 The appeal shall, however, be deemed to have succeeded unless the decision of the Management Committee is supported by a majority of the votes cast at the said Special General Meeting."

I imagine this rule is in place to allow a club being punished to appeal but, as I read it, it allows any club to appeal a decision, whether or not they are the "victim".

And at General and Special meetings, it is one club, one vote (ie full members). there is no such rule as 4 votes for 1st division clubs etc.

"11.3 Except as aftermentioned, at all such General and Special Meetings, and in terms of Rule 30, each First Division club shall have one vote, each Second Division club shall have one vote and each Third Division club shall have one vote.

11.4 In the election of the President and Vice-President, each club shall have one vote."

Edited July 31, 2009 by Flash

[The Master]

I suspect the proposal will be to replace the existing rule with one allowing the administrator to transfer the league place ALONG WITH all debts and other assets to a new company so that in effect it's the same company entirely just without the same obstructive majority shareholder. If such a rule can actually be drafted correctly then I wouldn't have a problem with that.

That sounds fair enough, but the only problem I would have is that it sounds like there could be numerous loopholes that would need identified and closed before they're even opened.

So this isn't something that should be rushed through.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Sir Calum Melville

[Ebanda's Handyman Services]

If Livvy are staying in the 1st division I hope they get skelped with a massive points deduction.

That'll virtually guarantee that we have a playoff at least to maintain our 1st division status and hopefully establish ourselves as a first division club the season following.

I bear no ill-feeling towards the Livvy fans who will love their club as much as I love mine but any advantage we get this season is extremely welcome.

[shizzlemanizzle]

Just in after working since 8am to find this crock of shit. I won't be back at Almondvale and will be trying hard to convince my mates not to go either.

It would seem that Livingston FC could fall in shite and come up smelling of roses.

If they stay in the 1st Division I won't be going to any games at Almondvale.

This stinks to the high heavens. Like Banjo and Hootie I will not be attending Ayr's games at almondvale, I already contribute a fair bit to proper worthy charities.

[qos_75]

If Livvy are staying in the 1st division I hope they get skelped with a massive points deduction.

That'll virtually guarantee that we have a playoff at least to maintain our 1st division status and hopefully establish ourselves as a first division club the season following.

I bear no ill-feeling towards the Livvy fans who will love their club as much as I love mine but any advantage we get this season is extremely welcome.

It seems like the advantage will be handed to Livi, which is clearly unfair to the rest of the clubs in the league. If they escape without a sufficiently large points deduction (30+), it will be a disgrace.

I take it the clubs get to vote on this as well?

[Scary Bear]

Gretna were relegated because Raydale didn't meet SFL standards. There is no standard penalty and we didn't miss any fixtures thanks to the players agreeing to play for nothing to keep us going. Accies players went on strike and forced the fixture to be postponed.

Okay, there is no standard penalty, but Gretna were the last club in Administration and they got a 10 point penalty (albeit, this was from the SPL).

Apart from the 15 points that Accies were deducted I can't recall too many penaties that the SFL have dished out. Anyone remember any other point penalties received and what the penalties were for?

I vaguely recall a club getting a 3 point deduction for having an unregistered player.

Edit - Falkirk

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/lofivers...php/t98239.html

Edited July 31, 2009 by Scary Bear

[Guest Flash]

It seems like the advantage will be handed to Livi, which is clearly unfair to the rest of the clubs in the league. If they escape without a sufficiently large points deduction (30+), it will be a disgrace.

I take it the clubs get to vote on this as well?

I think my post above covers this.

[lzreid]

I apologise if it's been mentioned but has our friendly 'Interim Manager' mentioned what he's doing about their decent quality, unaffordable squad yet?

[Guest]

I think it's wrong to pre-judge what they want to do and what they'll change it to.

It's fairly clear what they want to do is find a way to get Massone out without him having to actually agree to it. The SFL cannot over-ride corporate law and, if the man simply won't sell his shares in the company, and the SFL rule says the company can't transfer its registration then fundamentally everyone is between a rock and a hard place.

If they simply want to remove this rule then it will open up the opportunity for clubs to sell their "franchise" (league place) to someone else, be it a Livingston 2009 or indeed a Clydebank, Cove Rangers, etc. There's no way the SFL will want that so I can't imagine it's what they are trying to do.

I suspect the proposal will be to replace the existing rule with one allowing the administrator to transfer the league place ALONG WITH all debts and other assets to a new company so that in effect it's the same company entirely just without the same obstructive majority shareholder. If such a rule can actually be drafted correctly then I wouldn't have a problem with that.

A very dangerous precedent if true. Who arbitrates and decides thta a majority shareholder can simply be stripped of what he owns in a private company, and for that to be delivered to someone else? The SFL are well enough known as being a toothless and thoroughly inept collection of amateurs not capable of tying their own shoe laces..........yet suddenly they (might) be taking it upon themselves to be part of a process that strips people of what they legally own...........regardless of how it is being run.

Look, this whole affair is tumbling along as many of us knew it would with Livingston squirming their way out of paying the price for what they have done. It was always going to be this way. Just combine the ineptness of the SFL, the profound shadiness of the new "owners", the ethically compromised WLC (see Mr Johnston go quiet very quickly as the media become involved). Just look at the flaws in the logic of it being bad for Scottish Football if we ever choose to apply morality and integrity into how we do things. The Livvy support being lost to the game "forever"............simply not true.

Now that MacDougall and Rankine are the messiahs, and as mentioned earlier, just watch as Ged Nixon and his little Trust are quickly marginalized, and Rankine can get after what this is all about..........the stadium. It'll take a wee while, but the stadium will allow the last piece of asset stripping to take place, and given what has gone on so far, there might be a few bob in it for the public servants too. It's Livingston we are talking about here, and nothing is ever what it seems..........and that will apply to this take over too.

I'm not angry at what has happened. Nor am I disappointed. It has done nothing more or less than provide me with assurances. It has given me every assurance that the game is as screwed up and rotten as I believed it to be (but hoped that it wasn't). The gutless option has been selected yet again, and the people left holding the broken pieces are creditors.........only now, it's not just a football club that's up to its nuts in questionable business practice. There's a governing body and a Council in the mix too. Sad, but as I say, utterly predictable.

[qos_75]

I think my post above covers this.

It does indeed. I don't know how I missed it

[Numbers]

I am not a business person and dont know the law, but this seems to me to be a very dangerous thing.

Basically what everyone is saying is this new proposed rule change is purely to get Massone out of livingston without any guarantee of them actually surviving, even though bonds are in place.

Now if that happens and this new company are elected into the SFL then surely penalties have to apply as they are in interim management which is a the first step of administration, and the door is open to massone to sue a good number of people.

People are saying he is a buffon, idiot and whatever. Maybe he is not and is instead letting people dig there own graves. It just may turn out Massone is a very cloever man.

[Skyline Drifter]

Yes, I recall reading on here that there was no automatic 10 point penalty. It might have been you that mentioned it. I was just going on what happened to the last club to go into administration (Gretna).

I was puzzled at the difference between administration and appointing an interim manager. When/if the club go into administration, will they get a points deduction? Will the fact that this Livingston were quite recently in a similar position, mean a heavier points deduction?

What happened to Motherwell and Dundee, when they went into adminstration? I don't recall them being deducted points.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ell/1964329.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...dee/3359305.stm

Gretna received a points deduction from the SPL. The SPL DOES have an automatic points deduction rule (as does the English Football League). You can't presume that Gretna sets any precedent for the SFL because it doesn't.

Motherwell and Dundee went into administration before the SPL introduced the rule. Indeed part of the reason they did so was cases like those two.

Livi may very well get a points deduction when and if they go into administration. Or they might not. Who can say? I doubt they'll get any heavier a deduction for the fact they've been in administration before but that too is an SFL Management Committee call.

A club does not need to be in administration in order to suffer a punishment. This is the relevant rule

"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."

Administration is included as an example. However, even just concentrating on that point is the appointment of the "interim manager" not included in the definition of "any other insolvency procedure"? If it isn't, why the hell was he appointed?

And at General and Special meetings, it is one club, one vote (ie full members). there is no such rule as 4 votes for 1st division clubs etc.

"11.3 Except as aftermentioned, at all such General and Special Meetings, and in terms of Rule 30, each First Division club shall have one vote, each Second Division club shall have one vote and each Third Division club shall have one vote.

11.4 In the election of the President and Vice-President, each club shall have one vote."

Last things first, sorry for any confusion. I presume they've changed that recently then because it was definitely a multiple vote system at the time the SPL clubs broke away.

On the first point, yes, I agree, point taken. However, I wasn't making a judgement, merely highlighting that they aren't actually in administration yet as was being said over and over.

That sounds fair enough, but the only problem I would have is that it sounds like there could be numerous loopholes that would need identified and closed before they're even opened.

So this isn't something that should be rushed through.

I agree. If that is the thinking then I'm not against it but it would need to be drafted very carefully indeed. I'm not overly worried about protection for creditors though. Creditors generally don't have any extra protection in any other field of work so I'm not sure why they should expect it in football (not aimed at you, I jnow you didn't mention that)? The world is full of double glazing companies that are the rejuvenation of previous double glazing companies gone under with the same people involved and the wife now the shareholder or the son and daughter, etc.