Livingston - all the threads merged

[EdinburghLivi]

well, we can agree that the SFL is run absolutely farcically, at least.

On the matter of "punishment" I wouldn't see the calls for demotion as any kind of vandetta. To be honest, given that you were massive odds on not to exist this week, I'd take that rather than bitterly complaining about fantasy "vendettas".

Yes there will be inconvenience to others, but "Livi" has to take any blame for that going, as much as the SFL.Issues of "oh but it's too late" and "what about the poor fans who've already booked their tickets" is nothing more than a smokescreen. After all, if you had been properly run, none of this would be an issue. What's "better for the league" and what's "better for Livingston FC", clearly, aren't one and the same thing.

In my view, the inconvenience to a few well organised fans is a lesser evil, than a club being allowed to get away with what's on Livi's charge sheet, relatively unpunished. Not that you'll agree, fair enough.

Yes, I am extremely pleased that we still exist. As I've said, me arguing this point isn't for our benefit, it's for the league's. While I am talking about vendettas, I'm not being bitter on that front. I just think that the people saying that we should be looking to give us the worst possible punishment aren't looking out for the league's best interests. I'm happy wherever we're playing next season. As I've said, I'm going to get my season ticket when I get the money.

Yes, it wouldn't have happened if we were properly run however, the SFL have decided to save us, clearly thinking it was in their best interest so they have to be consistent and continue to look for the SFL's best interest. That, in my opinion, is a points deduction rather than relegation, if we are to be punished.

I think you're kind of downsizing what really is going to happen with relegation. Bare in mind, it's not just the fans but the teams, the thing that the SFL are meant to be looking out for. Airdrie have set up for the 2nd division and will get hammered even worse than we will if they get promoted (guys like Scott Gemmill as their striker) while Ross County and Arbroath are both preparing for ourselves and Airdrie respectively.

Edited August 4, 2009 by EdinburghLivi

[Spain]

Nah, I think at this stage, a big points deduction, at least 20, would be a harsher punishment that straight forward demotion, because they won't possibly overcome that, they'll play all year knowing that they will be getting relegated, and that should hurt their crowds.

So, especially at this late stage, I'm in favour of a hefty points deduction.

I agree, I mean last year with one of the tightest leagues seen, livi ended up i think 7 or 8 points clear of the bottom. A 10 point deduction this year, would make it far too easy for them to compete to stay in the division. Granted they've lost the likes of Griffiths, but perhaps a 15 point deduction would be a suitable punishment, from which there is still a slight glimmer of hope they could survive, but most likely will not.

At least it means on some level they've got something to play for. I mean we could all be playing a completely unmotivated team for months should they could be relegated by Christmas thanks to too heavy a points deduction.

[Ivo den Bieman]

Yes, I am extremely pleased that we still exist. As I've said, me arguing this point isn't for our benefit, it's for the league's. While I am talking about vendettas, I'm not being bitter on that front. I just think that the people saying that we should be looking to give us the worst possible punishment aren't looking out for the league's best interests. I'm happy wherever we're playing next season. As I've said, I'm going to get my season ticket when I get the money.

Yes, it wouldn't have happened if we were properly run however, the SFL have decided to save us, clearly thinking it was in their best interest so they have to be consistent and continue to look for the SFL's best interest. That, in my opinion, is a points deduction rather than relegation, if we are to be punished.

I think you're kind of downsizing what really is going to happen with relegation. Bare in mind, it's not just the fans but the teams, the thing that the SFL are meant to be looking out for. Airdrie have set up for the 2nd division and will get hammered even worse than we will if they get promoted (guys like Scott Gemmill as their striker) while Ross County and Arbroath are both preparing for ourselves and Airdrie respectively.

well, again, for me the credibility and integrity of the league is more important- the league has neither if, after all that's gone on, you simply get a points deduction and carry on in Division One.

Airdrie, if what has been said on here is to be believed, will have a bigger player budget available for Division One which will be activated.

In the part in bold, you conflate the SFL's and your best interests as one and the same thing- kind of undermines everything else you say about looking out for the best interests of Scottish football, really.

[Spain]

well, again, for me the credibility and integrity of the league is more important- the league has neither if, after all that's gone on, you simply get a points deduction and carry on in Division One.

Airdrie, if what has been said on here is to be believed, will have a bigger player budget available for Division One which will be activated.

In the part in bold, you conflate the SFL's and your best interests as one and the same thing- kind of undermines everything else you say about looking out for the best interests of Scottish football, really.

I agree, but only in a small part, I feel it's the timescale thing here. I mean with regards to County, I believe that our programmes ussually go to press on a Wednesday. It's simply too late to demote Livi now. The SFL missed their chance last week and as a result has already lost its credibility and integrity.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Spain

[Homer Thompson]

Nah, I think at this stage, a big points deduction, at least 20, would be a harsher punishment that straight forward demotion, because they won't possibly overcome that, they'll play all year knowing that they will be getting relegated, and that should hurt their crowds.

So, especially at this late stage, I'm in favour of a hefty points deduction.

But it will also hurt everyone elses crowds too.

I may be wrong but I thought it was the creditors that equalled 75% of the debt as opposed to just 75% of all creditors. I'm sure someone more knowledgable that me will correct me if I'm wrong!

Im pretty sure you're right. Ironically, if Massones claims of how much he's put into the club are true, could he not have a say?

[Rovers_Lad]

Another problem for Livi is if they get demoted the bigger players in the squad will leave and with the league starting on Saturday could cause a lot of problems I doubt some of your "High earners" will want to play 2nd division football next year

Whether they get demoted or not they should be punting high earners at the moment and going part time

[Ivo den Bieman]

The SFL missed their chance last week and as a result has already lost its credibility and integrity.

fair comment tbh, the damage is already done.

[flyingscot]

Nah, I think at this stage, a big points deduction, at least 20, would be a harsher punishment that straight forward demotion, because they won't possibly overcome that, they'll play all year knowing that they will be getting relegated, and that should hurt their crowds.

So, especially at this late stage, I'm in favour of a hefty points deduction.

I think the point deduction is best too. IMHO we are at a stage where other clubs cannot prepare for football in D1 or D2 when they expected to be at a lower tier (Airdrie etc.).

There has to be a penalty for clubs that do this- although nothing helps creditors.

[Monster]

I'm still confused as to how Livi can afford to pay a (rumoured) £700k bond to stay in the league but their creditors can only get a 'p' per £ amount...can someone explain? Is it because the bond would be lodged by individuals and not the club itself?

The players and staff will be paid in full first, so I would imagine that will take up a fair percentage of the £700k.

[Guest Flash]

Im pretty sure you're right. Ironically, if Massones claims of how much he's put into the club are true, could he not have a say?

He maybe waived all claims as part of the deal to sell his shares.

[Benito Robles]

Ivo's posts are amongst the most sensible I've read on this meged thread. If the SFL don't relegate Livingston after their meeting then both the integrity of their competition and their ability to be an effective organisation will be lost forever.

It's time for the SFL clubs to show some teeth. Relegate them to division three and get them out of the game.

[Bryan]

Will the Chief Executive be a paid post?

How many other 1st Div or even SPL clubs have this post?

We have one but she is one of only 4 office/commercial staff we have.

It was said last week that no board member at Livingston would be remunerated.

No sfl director should I think.

[Skyline Drifter]

We have one but she is one of only 4 office/commercial staff we have.

No sfl director should I think.

It depends really.

I don't have a problem with a full time working employee who also happens to have been appointed a director receiving a wage. That's only reasonable. However, I would agree that any person appointed as a director of an SFL club who has their own full time job / income source that they lived on merrily before they joined the football club board certainly shouldn't then get an income from the football club purely for being a director.

As for the title 'Chief Executive' it's just a job title isn't it. We don't have one but we have a club secretary who is remunerated as the main administrator at the club. If we change his job title to 'Chief Executive' does it actually make any odds to anything?

[southview]

I think the point deduction is best too. IMHO we are at a stage where other clubs cannot prepare for football in D1 or D2 when they expected to be at a lower tier (Airdrie etc.).

There has to be a penalty for clubs that do this- although nothing helps creditors.

Points deduction is the the only course of action for me as well. Promoting clubs less than 72 hours before the start of the league season would be utterly ridiculous and amateurish.

I know what you are saying Ivo but I reckon the SFL missed the boat last Thursday when they bowed down to the three amigos. They should have been told you will be relegated to division two or three, take it or leave it.

We know why they didn't say that. McGruther held a gun to their heads and said any deal is off unless we stay in division one. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the SFL buckled.

I don't see why any more teams should have their seasons inconvenienced further. Airdrie are preparing for Arbroath, it's simply unfair to ask them to go to Ross County and compete in a division they are not built for.

A bigger budget won't allow Kenny Black to go and sign the type of players he needs as all of the better ones are with clubs!

I reckon the SFL will feel the need to be seen doing something and hit Livi with 10 or 15-point deduction. Anything 20 points upwards would do for me.

Edited August 4, 2009 by southview

[AND180Y]

The players and staff will be paid in full first, so I would imagine that will take up a fair percentage of the £700k.

They have to pay the footballing debts and lodge £700,000.

[Savage Henry]

Whether they get demoted or not they should be punting high earners at the moment and going part time

To be honest, it's a bit of a disgrace that they aren't.

I get the impression that so far as the SFL is concerned, so long as the players get paid, they'll turn a blind eye to the underhand shenanigans elsewhere. Which kind of misses the point, I feel.

[Kenny_m]

They can't be relegated, their business plan is for first division football!!!!!

And they will have to re-construct the league next season if they can't overcome their points deduction!

[Bryan]

It depends really.

I don't have a problem with a full time working employee who also happens to have been appointed a director receiving a wage. That's only reasonable. However, I would agree that any person appointed as a director of an SFL club who has their own full time job / income source that they lived on merrily before they joined the football club board certainly shouldn't then get an income from the football club purely for being a director.

Agree with that

As for the title 'Chief Executive' it's just a job title isn't it. We don't have one but we have a club secretary who is remunerated as the main administrator at the club. If we change his job title to 'Chief Executive' does it actually make any odds to anything?

thats true, at our level 'Chief Executive' is just a title its nothing like the role at an premiership side.

[EdinburghPar1975]

I know most of the Livi fans on here have said a points deduction would suit them best but how would they feel about a deduction the size of Luton Towns last year? 30 pts with no hope of an appeal against it. Would a 20 point penalty be too severe?

[MacWatt]

I notice in England where HMRC were owed 25% or more of the debt they always voted against a CVA as football creditors were given preferential treatment and had to be paid first.

Is this the case in Scotland as well with footballing debts having to be paid in full first? If so and if the HMRC are owed more than 25% then they could vote to scupper the Livi CVA.

"The Football League have just (13 June) passed a new rule that they believe should prevent clubs reaching the sort of level of debts that has seen points deductions over the past couple of seasons.

Clubs have voted that teams that build up high levels of debt to the Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will face a transfer embargo and will not be allowed to sign new players until that debt is erased. It is hoped this will bring financial responsibility to clubs and act as an early warning system to highlight mismanaged clubs.

In recent years, it has become almost impossible for a club to leave administration via a CVA primarily due to the levels of debt to the HMRC and as such have found themselves with an additional points penalty, as Luton, Bournemouth and Rotherham did last season. To comply with FL rules, a club leaving administration must do so with a CVA that 75% of creditors must agree to - put simply, the CVA is an offer of repayment to those owed money to be paid back at x pence in the pound over a number of years.

"Footballing debts" were always exempt from this and had to be repaid in full to avoid a domino effect taking place where once club's financial problems would then impact on other clubs. This is still the case, but the HMRC objected to this preferential treatment being offered to football people and not themselves, and subsequently voted against each CVA. This meant clubs were unable to leave administration with this agreement, and hence were given a further penalty by the Football League. The HMRC debts were responsible for more than 25% of a club's debts, meaning the HMRC had the power to vote down any possible CVA.

The new rules will create a system which should prevent this situation happening, as it will practically enforce clubs to pay their tax debts as and when they should be paid, rather than allowed to run up big bills that they later find themselves unable to pay off. The HMRC seem pretty happy with the new regulations, and the rules should at the very least see mismanaged clubs facing a penalty which impacts on the field. "

Time the SFL brought in a similar rule to impose some financial reality on clubs.