Jump to content

Livingston - all the threads merged


Recommended Posts

I still think you are at crossed puposes with the earlier posters. They have all acknowledged that Airdrie are a continuation of the club/company previously trading as Clydebank. Clydebank supporters however, undoubtedly, are in possesion of the spirit of their old club and carry that in to the new one. Airdrie only took the league place.

Airdrie supporters mostly prefer, for obvious reasons, to think that United is a continuation of Airdrieonians.

Now, do you agree with that?

Of course I do. That is a fair reflection of the situation. But you have to remember that Airdrie United , as a club , were in existence at the same time as Clydebank. They had to be because they applied for league membership while Clydebank were still members of the Scottish league. When Mr Ballantyne bought Clydebank and changed the name, the ground and the strip he had to obtain the permission of the Scottish league to do so. He obtained that permission ( even although there was precedent for not being allowed to do so )from the sfl. He therefore changed Clydebank's name to that of a club that was already in existence. That is why I think that it was in effect a breach of the rules. The sfl effectively sanctioned the transfer of Clydebank's league place to Airdrie United. I am distinguishing the ' football club' from the legal entity that is a company which I think you agree with given your post. It is easy to hide behind a strict interpretation of the company law rules and that is exactly what the blazers did when they allowed Airdrie to take Clydebank's place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Flash

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errrm, they didn't really stick to the rules either though, did they?

But they did something about the situation and sorted it. Massone stuck his head in the sand and hoped it would all go away.

But what I meant was the fact that Clyde had to release every one of their players and start again from scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I agree with the first statement, but most businesses sign up to member bodies who have rules that the businesses have to adhere to. ABPI(Pharmaceuticals) NHBC(housebuilders) CORGI(Gas Installation) etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Agree totally but at the same time the rules have to comply with the law of the land.

Football isn't above the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when are we likely to hear anything today, anyway? Is it going to be in the early afternoon, or are we starting late to allow committee members to finish on the golf course and enjoy a three course lunch first?

Ivo, i've never understood why all these meetings are at 2pm or later...surely the earlier in the day the better. As you say though, why rush a nice lunch and risk indigestion..thats no way to start the afternoons socialising ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Flash
I agree with the first statement, but most businesses sign up to member bodies who have rules that the businesses have to adhere to. ABPI(Pharmaceuticals) NHBC(housebuilders) CORGI(Gas Installation) etc.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by 2.30pm, Livi will be booted out of the SFL if there's any justice.

It's not about justice. It's about what is right for the game in general going forward. Is it right to allow a club to run up huge debts, including signing two players in the January window, sell up when they become insolvent and come straight back next season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He obtained that permission ( even although there was precedent for not being allowed to do so )from the sfl. He therefore changed Clydebank's name to that of a club that was already in existence.

Really? What league did this Airdrie Utd play in at the time?

Stuart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Flash
Agree totally but at the same time the rules have to comply with the law of the land.

Football isn't above the law.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by 2.30pm, Livi will be booted out of the SFL if there's any justice.

:lol:

wasn't that meant to happen last week?

no chance now. It's a high wire act for the SFL. Too harsh, and the risk of the blackmailers throwing a strop and taking the SFL to appeals/ threatening legal action (although on what basis that would be, I'm not sure. "Livi's" indignation at the mere thought of any sanction being applied really gives me the boak). Too lenient, and other clubs up in arms about the manifest unfairness of the whole thing.

for that reason, whilst relegation would be the most appropriate punishment, I'm going to bet that the moist severe thing the SFL do is deduct 15 points. I still don't rule out them doing nothing at all about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about justice. It's about what is right for the game in general going forward. Is it right to allow a club to run up huge debts, including signing two players in the January window, sell up when they become insolvent and come straight back next season?

Whatever is decided today will either confirm or otherwise the credibility of the SFL. They must not allow a precedent to be set and they need to demonstrate they are a serious football league once and for all. What I don't want to see is an SPL-esque judgement that stinks of protectionism while putting two fingers up to Scottish football and justice itself.

A 15 point fine (plus an outright ban from the league, suspended for 5 years - activated if administration recurs in that timeframe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the required bond...

I wonder if the thinking behind this is ....

Livi put up £720,000 which the SFL hang on to. That equates to £20,000 per league game. After each game has been played, the SFL then release £20,000 back to the club. This ensures a steady cash flow for the whole season. Now if these guys are serious about investing in Livi and have the money (which they claim they do), I cannot see what the problem would be.A large portion of this released cash could then be paid directly to creditors to help clear the debts (and who I would hope would be agreeable to such a repayment proposal) , with wages and other club expenses being met from revenue generated by the club throughout the coming season. Any surplus cash generated would also go to outstanding creditors..

If they do go tits ups the SFL would then distribute the cash amongst the remaining 9 teams to cover their loss of revenue on a basis of who they had and had not played up to the point when they went out of business

They claim to have the money, they claim they're gonna repay the debts. This proposals works unless they don't actually have that sort of cash, in which case they're back to square fucking one anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's Scottish Tit & Bum predicts "chaos" if "Livi" are sanctioned/relegated, with whining from the new owners, including the classic from MacDougall "this isn't blackmail". <_<

The spectre of SFL appointed lawlords, ruling on an inevitable appeal from the Franchise in the event of sanctions being applied, and the league thrown into disarray, is raised.

Chaos

what a mess.

Edited by Ivo den Bieman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's Scottish Tit & Bum predicts "chaos" if "Livi" are sanctioned/relegated, with whining from the new owners, including the classic from MacDougall "this isn't blackmail". <_<

The spectre of SFL appointed lawlords, ruling on an inevitable appeal from the Franchise in the event of sanctions being applied, and the league thrown into disarray, is raised.

Chaos

what a mess.

Wait a minute: they want to be able to submit the bond and leave it at that? That means Livi effectively walk away scot-free, because a bond is repaid eventually.

I can't see any of the clubs going for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...