Livingston - all the threads merged

[staggy4life]

Not sure if this has been brought up already? but of all the big bookies only W-Hills are offering odds on the Ross County v's Livvy game on Saturday. Do they know something we don't?

http://www.oddschecker.com/football/scotti...ston/win-market

Atleast there is one bookie doing the game. I've been looking at most the sites and couldn't find anywhere to bet on the game.

[qos_75]

Hammer them with a ten point penalty? That's not a hammering. That's a kiss and a cuddle, with a touch of heavy petting from the SFL, with a promise of more to follow. Livi's new owners should be jumping for joy and high fiving passers by, like an over hormonal teenager after a school disco, if it's only ten points. I know Livi are in the business of shafting people, but come on!

Anything less than 20 points will be abdication of responsobility by the SFL. So think on my blazer wearing friends and award a just and proper penalty.

[HibeeJibee]

Interim manager Donald McGruther, of administrator Mazars, has urged the SFL to think again about possible sanctions against the club.

He told BBC Scotland that Livingston could still go out of business if the new consortium and the SFL failed to find common ground.

As has been pointed out already, the idea that the club in breach of the rules and the governing body intended to enforce them somehow sit down and find common ground is quite disturbing. I can't see a judge sitting down with a burglar to discuss the practical severities of the sentence.

Gotta say, that was one hell of a good post, and completely agree with you that the SFL (and indeed the SFA's) credibility is on the line over this matter.

I think in reality the only people experiencing a loss of credulity are the fans... and in this case I'm reasonably confident that the SFL are not particularly concerned about what the fans think.

"The consortium says its business plan for Livingston's future hinges on it remaining in Division One. "

What happens if Livi are relegated at the end of this season under normal circumstances. Do they walk away then?

Stuart

I think they'll be reasonably confident of avoiding 1oth, if necessary by signing players during January. (I can't see the SFL imposing a strict transfer embargo). That is why McDougall and Rankine had to make it clear to the SFL that they couldn't impose demotion or big points fine.

I think there's been some very interesting points made in the last twenty or so pages. It would be great to see some kind of fan-based grouping emerge (maybe from the posters on this thread and other interested fans who don't bother with the internet?) to try and campaign for the kind of changes we'd want to see enacted, and try and feed those into McLeish's review.

As someone else said after "deadline day" last week, we need to take some kind of action or forever consign ourselves to moaning pointlessly on the internet about what "they" (the blazers, UEFA, etc etc) are doing to "our" game.

Maybe hopelessly utopian but it would be interesting to see what could come out of it.

Nice in theory, in reality can you find 1 instance of the SPL or SFL listening to supporter views?

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

Justice would IMO be... a 15-point fine, a ban on transfer activity during the period of CVA (bar amateur contracts), and a mandate of the SFL Management Committee to monitor their activity.

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?

Of course not. If Livingston get away with, for example, a warning + a suspended points fine (or a minor points fine which they later over-turn) + a bond paid back in installments, it is little or no punishment whatsover. If effectively says that if you're club is [1] not in the bottom tier; [2] is regarded as not being a 'diddy'; and [3] you have the right contacts... you'll get away with it.

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).

I don't think today is really that big a judgement on the SFL, they've made big mistakes before.

By the way, if Livi want to appeal in the law courts, any hearing would take place tomorrow or Friday and be thrown out immediately, because:

1) Livi agreed to be bound by the rules of the SFL when they accepted membership

2) The rules are not illegal

Although this won't happen, they can appeal to the SFA. As happened with that 'arbitration' on whether or not the SPL are bound by their agreement with the SFL. In that case, 3 experts sat for about 2 years, and eventually (and incredibly...) found the SPL are not bound by it. Livi can appeal to the SFA to overturn the sanction - the SFA is soveriegn over it component members.

The club meeting has been cancelled due to objections of a less than min 14 day notice period by a majority of clubs. SFL are going ahead with a decision today without their input nonetheless.

In fairness it is better to have no club meeting, than one which is in breach of the time period and risks not every club being able to attend. Particularly smaller clubs without full-time heads.

I imagine that a wide range of club chairman opinions will have been canvassed in advance of the meeting though- both by Longmuir for the SFL, and MacDougall/Rankine twisting arms and calling in favours from their fellow blazers.

Undoubtedly, and in fact of the group of men sitting discussing this issue at this very moment, few have no interests in the outcome. Longmuir and the office bearers for the SFL; Division 1 clubs for their club interests; Leishmann; Ballantyne... so it should be an interesting event IMO.

My fear is that the SFL will not be strong enough today... and as a result, the 1 & only realistic footballing disincentive over running with unsustainable debts will be shown to be a paper tiger.

Should this occur, the only way for the SFL to save the situation long-term would IMO be to go and adopt a set procedure (like SPL has done), making it explicity clear what the sanctions are.

[AyrshireTon]

Hammer them with a ten point penalty? That's not a hammering. That's a kiss and a cuddle, with a touch of heavy petting from the SFL, with a promise of more to follow. Livi's new owners should be jumping for joy and high fiving passers by, like an over hormonal teenager after a school disco, if it's only ten points. I know Livi are in the business of shafting people, but come on!

Anything less than 20 points will be abdication of responsobility by the SFL. So think on my blazer wearing friends and award a just and proper penalty.

It'll be a ten point deduction for everyone EXCEPT Livi.

Anyway, I hear the meeting is at the puddings now, although I understand one guy was given cold custard and had to send his back, so there might be a wee delay.

[Savage Henry]

From Edinburgh Evening News.....

"Sources at the club believe league bosses have bowed to pressure from other clubs to hammer Livingston for their troubles.

But the consortium has assured the Evening News the bond – and a business plan – was in place by the deadline of 3pm yesterday and the new "provisional" board will appeal any further penalty.

The threat of a ten-point deduction is causing major problems for the investors, who could still pull the plug on the rescue deal as the demands have prevented the consortium from paying the players this week.

"We are extremely concerned about this," said provisional chairman Gordon McDougall. "Last week at Hampden, we were given the green light to remain in Division One and the possibility of further sanctions were withheld. We then received a letter stating we had to submit a business plan and the bond, which is in place to ensure we can satisfy 18 home games based on £40,000 a game.

"I understand where they are coming from as we've been in administration twice but this is new people in here now.

"I hope they understand our position. We will have to spend a fortune to get this club back on its feet and are more than willing to put the money down on the table on the condition there is no further penalty.

"If there are any other penalties, we will appeal them."

I just hope 'sources at the club' are right and that the SFL clubs have decided to hammer LIVI and to hell with the blackmailers.

How stupid is he? Does he not realise that the other clubs have home games too, and that the bond also ensures Livingston turn up to complete their away fixtures? Or, as has been obvious since day one, does the impact on other clubs not matter?

These guys are no better than Massone.

What a complete muppet. Who the hell are Livingston to decide what punishment they get?

Edited to add, I nearly missed the bit about the players not being paid. Excuses starting already. I hope the SFL see they are being taken for a ride here.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Jim Pansy

[AND180Y]

From Edinburgh Evening News.....

"Sources at the club believe league bosses have bowed to pressure from other clubs to hammer Livingston for their troubles.

But the consortium has assured the Evening News the bond – and a business plan – was in place by the deadline of 3pm yesterday and the new "provisional" board will appeal any further penalty.

The threat of a ten-point deduction is causing major problems for the investors, who could still pull the plug on the rescue deal as the demands have prevented the consortium from paying the players this week.

"We are extremely concerned about this," said provisional chairman Gordon McDougall. "Last week at Hampden, we were given the green light to remain in Division One and the possibility of further sanctions were withheld. We then received a letter stating we had to submit a business plan and the bond, which is in place to ensure we can satisfy 18 home games based on £40,000 a game.

"I understand where they are coming from as we've been in administration twice but this is new people in here now.

"I hope they understand our position. We will have to spend a fortune to get this club back on its feet and are more than willing to put the money down on the table on the condition there is no further penalty.

"If there are any other penalties, we will appeal them."

I just hope 'sources at the club' are right and that the SFL clubs have decided to hammer LIVI and to hell with the blackmailers.

If they have paid the bond and were to get relegated/ suffer a heavy points penalty do they get the bond back? Between paying Massone and the bond they have sunk a shit load of cash into the place?

[HibeeJibee]

From Edinburgh Evening News.....

...

"I hope they understand our position. We will have to spend a fortune to get this club back on its feet and are more than willing to put the money down on the table on the condition there is no further penalty.

"If there are any other penalties, we will appeal them."

I just hope 'sources at the club' are right and that the SFL clubs have decided to hammer LIVI and to hell with the blackmailers.

Hopefully, there is something deeply disturbing about investors who came riding out of the night literally a couple of weeks ago, sitting and making conditions about no further penalties, and in doing so going further and actually saying they will appeal against them if they are handed out.

Edited August 5, 2009 by HibeeJibee

[ubertube]

the adminstrator is playing a different game to everyone with a football interest here. he's repsonsible only to the clubs creditors so he's going to push for the strongest deal knowing that if it all goes tits up then there's nothing left to go tits up with. he's on a winner either way.

he's his priority is not to save the club but to get the best deal for those owed money by the club

*boycott livi*

[EdinburghPar1975]

Probably 20 point penalty reduced to 15 on appeal.

I'll see your 20 reduced to 15 and raise you 15 reduced to 10

[Mackie The Staggie]

If they have paid the bond and were to get relegated/ suffer a heavy points penalty do they get the bond back? Between paying Massone and the bond they have sunk a shit load of cash into the place?

No, but will get it back at the end of the season, or most likely a portion of it after each game has played.

[AND180Y]

........................................

..........

he's his priority is not to save the club but to get the best deal for those owed money by the club

*boycott livi*

His priority is to get the most money for his firm in fees.

[ubertube]

No, but will get it back at the end of the season, or most likely a portion of it after each game has played.

mackie doesn't rhyme with staggie

maggie the staggie would rhyme.

so would mackie the stackie

Edited August 5, 2009 by ubertube

[Mackie The Staggie]

mackie doesn't rhyme with staggie

maggie the staggie would rhyme.

so would mackie the stackie

[Savage Henry]

His priority is to get the most money for his firm in fees.

No, it's not. It is, as the previous poster said, to get as much money for the creditors as possible.

[Lambo1885]

No, it's not. It is, as the previous poster said, to get as much money for the creditors as possible.

In Administration/Liquidation Cases the one person(s) who ALWAYS get paid is the the Administrator. He'll alway make sure his company will get it fee's before anything else.

[diamonds2002]

In Administration/Liquidation Cases the one person(s) who ALWAYS get paid is the the Administrator. He'll alway make sure his company will get it fee's before anything else.

Otherwise no-one would do it

[lzreid]

He is right you know.

[stuartcraig]

That is why I said that the effect of Clydebank changing their name to Airdrie United was to transfer their league place to another club

There was no club called Airdrie Utd at the time Ballantyne bought Clydebank or at any time before then (only a proposal to create one). My question regarding league membership was simply a device to highlight this fact.

Jim Ballantyne bought Clydebank FC, changed the club name, strip and moved them to Airdrie. League membership stayed with the company and club which Ballantyne bought. These actions were allowed within the terms of the SFL's rules. Irrespective of the moral rights or wrongs of those actions, those are also the facts.

There was no transfer of league membership from one club or company to another. That is also a fact.

Your assertion, that the SFL has already allowed this rule to be broken in the case of Airdrie Utd, is not supported by the facts.

Stuart

[MacWatt]

I just hope that the SFL are not taken in by these footballing nomads Rankine and McDougall. Here is a take on Rankine from the Loch Lomond Free press............

"one never quite knew what Neil was up to. In the twenty years prior to his stewardship the Sons were consistently in the first division. Under Neil’s guidance we became permanent fixtures in the second division. This situation was only remedied by the introduction of a third division.

His reputation became such locally that one newspaper editor (perhaps unfairly) Christened him “Rankbadyin”.

Neil seems attracted to small football clubs. As well as his now relinquished interest in Dumbarton, he owns by proxy, the major shareholding at East Fife and also attempted to take over Airdrieonians a few years ago when they were in a Livi type situation.

Neil has an unerring knack of spotting opportunities connected to potential land value. It may be that this could be turned to Livi’s advantage in dealings with the owners of Almondvale and major creditors, ie the local council. In that respect look for a proposed deal this week if Neil does become involved.

However much it would be to Livi’s short term advantage to have Neil on board, I suspect the long term advantage will accrue to Neil himself.

Knowing Neil that’ll certainly be the plan!

[Guest WJR]

No, but will get it back at the end of the season, or most likely a portion of it after each game has played.

Maybe this has already been commented on but there does seem to be a general perception that the bond is cash up front. It's not, it's a form of guarantee which would only be called upon if the relevant club could not fulfill its fixtures. Assuming the club the club does fulfill its fixtures then the cost to them of providing the bond is the commission payable to the bond issuer which is a percentage of the total amount of the bond, don't know what that would be under current market conditions but it won't be a lot.

Spartans and all the other applicants last summer were told that as new members they may be required to lodge a bond. Livi are to all commercial if not legal intents and purposes are a new club so not unreasonable to ask them for a bond.

I don't know if Annan had to provide a bond but so far as I know they could demonstrate a stable financial background over a number of years so amybe they didn't have to put up a bond. (Before any smart a*se comments it of course became an academic consideration for us!)