Livingston - all the threads merged

[Guest Flash]

The Management Committe can act against

".. any club guilty of conduct contrary to the interests of the League and its member clubs"

Which goes much further than

but that really covers issues such as interim administration and suchlike

But not as far as

"Please sir, Montrose haven't paid me yet for some stationery they bought last month" or "Livingston owe me a week's a wages" or "Queen of the South have charged me twice for my season ticket", etc.

The point is that the SFL do not have to wait until Administration, or an Administration process or any of that stuff is started. A club just has to be "guilty of conduct contrary to the interests of the League and its member clubs" before action can be taken against them. More serious than being late with the payment of one invoice, but potentially less serious than going into Administration. In fact, it doesn't need to involve financial matters at all.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Flash

[HibeeJibee]

The SFL (which incidentally has about five staff who just might be busy doing other things and not experts in book-keeping) would be spending every waking hour looking at the detailed financial arrangements of every club in the league in that case.

That's a ludicrous notion.

An astutue point Skyline - with the exception of Longmuir, the remaining handful of SFL staff are essentially administrative and would not likely be qualified (or capable) of inspecting the complex world of shady football club finances. Even if rules could be put in place allowing them to do so - which I'd question. When people talk of "the SFL" it should mean David Longmuir + 30 clubs reps.

Time for change then.

What other organisation would carry out disruptive disciplinary action three days before a league campaign?

If you are painting a rosy picture of the SFL, please add IMO alongside your quotes.

They are idiots, IMO.

Well that includes Ayr Utd then... in fact don't you have one of the reps on the Management Committee? Regardless, what could the SFL have done differently? They could take no action until Livi were subject to some kind of court action. That court action happened 2 weeks ago.

People can huff and puff all they like about 'unpaid wages', 'unsubmitted accounts to the SFA', and so on but the SFL works within the limits of legality and reality... They've done their best, with exception that decisions on sanctions should have been made 8 days ago, not yesterday.

[Sergeant Wilson]

Why, the prorgrammes that were printed are now, more likely going to waste at a cost to County and is a viable complaint, more likely is wasn't his only complaint but was the easy one for the press to pick up on.

As for being one of the guys voting, I don't think he was in that meeting, I'm sure the memeber which were at the meeting was posted earlier on and it only contained about half of the first division.

Link to post - not definate, but some suggestion of who was there post no 7710

Last post on the programme issue. If he had them printed earlier in the week, assuming Livi were the opponents they were rendered useless any way. If he waited, and then had them printed yestrday evening, when he thought it would be Airdrie, then you don't have a printer, you have a wizard. If they are now printed, they will just use them when the game gets played.

He does have a point about hospitality, I know County do well from it, but he is showing his naivety if he thinks The SFL will compensate him. This is a latest in a long line of SFL farces he might as well get used to it.

[HibeeJibee]

again- who is suggesting that such a system, if initiated under the auspices of *either* the SFA or SFL, would work like that?

Well because it has to? Otherwise, you need yet another arm of the SFL administration.. which sits down and decides whether a financial issue is important enough or not to be passed onto the 'financial investigation' arm... which then decides to pass it onto the 'punishments' arm...?

Financial regulation should be the job of the SFA - and, through Club Licensing, it is doing that.

In your desperation to paint the SFL in the best possible light you are reducing other people's arguments to absurdities. Anyone can do reductio ad absurdum- it's dead easy- but it doesn't really get your argument any further forward.

Skyline is one of the most informed posters on P&B over this kind of issue. He is talking sense...

Edited August 6, 2009 by HibeeJibee

[ayrmad]

An astutue point Skyline - with the exception of Longmuir, the remaining handful of SFL staff are essentially administrative and would not likely be qualified (or capable) of inspecting the complex world of shady football club finances. Even if rules could be put in place allowing them to do so - which I'd question. When people talk of "the SFL" it should mean David Longmuir + 30 clubs reps.

Well that includes Ayr Utd then... in fact don't you have one of the reps on the Management Committee? Regardless, what could the SFL have done differently? They could take no action until Livi were subject to some kind of court action. That court action happened 2 weeks ago.

People can huff and puff all they like about 'unpaid wages', 'unsubmitted accounts to the SFA', and so on but the SFL works within the limits of legality and reality... They've done their best, with exception that decisions on sanctions should have been made 8 days ago, not yesterday.

SD can't come up with suggestions preferring to criticise others attempts,so go ahead you tell us how you'd sort Scottish football.

[qos_75]

Why don't you post your suggestions including those that might impinge on your own team,my earlier suggestions would affect my club on at least 2 counts but I still think such rules need introduced b4 we start losing even more clubs.

I agree that there should be financial checks in place.

I also agree with SD that to suggest anyone with a financial gripe against a club, no matter how small, could have a team of forensic accountants sent to a club is outrageous. That in itself would bankrupt the SFL, never mind the clubs.

[bleubrazil]

It would have been totally outrageous for a 'potential investor' holding no position at the club to have addressed a meeting convened to punish the said club for breach of rules... Massone was IIRC Livi's nominated representative to the SFL - and he was denied entry to the meeting last week - so to suggest that someone holding no position whatsoever should be allowed in is tosh.

Massone was history since McDougall and co had purchased his shares and to all intent and purposes McDougall was the new chairman of Livi. His consortium were trying to save one of the League's member clubs from extinction and it would have been fairer to allow him to put forward his case before sentence was passed. Nothing 'outrageous' about that - it's regarded as fair play throughout the civilised world.

Edited August 6, 2009 by bleubrazil

[Livi 293]

http://www.livingstonfc.co.uk/news_060809_1.php

[Ivo den Bieman]

I agree that there should be financial checks in place.

I also agree with SD that to suggest anyone with a financial gripe against a club, no matter how small, could have a team of forensic accountants sent to a club is outrageous. That in itself would bankrupt the SFL, never mind the clubs.

again- who is suggesting that?

the system is very simple. Clubs must submit accounts on a six monthly basis for inspection.

Clubs which fail to do that will face severe sanctions, also in the case of any kind of insolvency, or default on player or non-playing staff wages.

I agree that the horse has bolted re: Livingston but I don't see what the great harm is in discussing how situations like these can be better managed, so that a "Livi" situation doesn't play out again in the way the last week or so has.

[ayrmad]

I agree that there should be financial checks in place.

I also agree with SD that to suggest anyone with a financial gripe against a club, no matter how small, could have a team of forensic accountants sent to a club is outrageous. That in itself would bankrupt the SFL, never mind the clubs.

I haven't posted anything that suggest actions should be taken unless it arrives in court,Massone repeatedly ended up in court and repeatedly paid staff and players late,no petty gripes.

[HibeeJibee]

SD can't come up with suggestions preferring to criticise others attempts,so go ahead you tell us how you'd sort Scottish football.

how long have you got... well broadly, I'd like to see [1] a pyramid system; [2] a revolution in the organisation of youth football; [3] reformation of reserve leagues; [4] complete change in the ridiculous system of player registrations; [5] end seperate Junior/Amateur/Welfare FAs; [6] direct relegation or some play-offs involving 11th in the SPL; [7] clubs aiming to live within their means.

In terms of financial issues... SFA should be responsible for monitoring the finances of all clubs in Senior football (SPL, SFL, SHFL, EOSFL, SOSFL, NCFL) because they are neutral, and since they have the resources to do it. Through Club Licensing, clubs which are running up unmanageable debts should be subject to sanctions. Clubs that enter liquidation, administration or insolvency should be subject to sanction from their league (as currently). As regards the SFL, they should re-write their rules on this matter to make it explicity clear what the punishment is (relegation, points deduction, etc.) and not leave it up to committee's opinions. That's a fairly reasonable plan IMO.

Edited August 6, 2009 by HibeeJibee

[Guest morton1874]

(Am I still allowed to post on here?)

I can't be bothered trawling through pages of celebrations, so I'll just post up my thoughts. Apologies if these points have already been covered.

1. In terms of the rules, we cannot complain about the punishment itself. However, it sets a precedent - any SFL club that becomes 'insolvent' can expect relegation to Division Three. Will that actually happen? Doubtful. And I hope Livingston make the point at the time.

2. The way it has been handled is a disgrace. If the SFL were intent on doing this as early as last week, surely it should have been conveyed at the meeting last week. As it is, it just highlights how spineless the SFL are - look like the heroes one week, then stab in the back the next, if you like. Why get hopes up, and allow the club to start planning for Division 1? Shambles.

3. I'm assuming that the thinking behind Division Three is that it is the only league we can afford to be in, int he eyes of the SFL. Because, if you are talking about the unfair advantage of spending out with your means, the worst we could have been had we lived within our means is the Second Division.

4. McDougall, Rankine and Nixon are not ready to walk away. We might, just, survive.

1. Gretna were bombed down to Div 3 after being relegated to the 1st. They just didn't survive, so its not a precedent.

2. Yes, it was a disgrace, you should have been booted out last week.

3. I would assume the thinking behind relegating a team to the lowest possible division would be the toughest punishment they could hand out without booting livi out the league.

4. I hope your right.

Now get this pish to the 3rd divison forum.

*edit: apologies if any of this was covered.

Edited August 6, 2009 by morton1874

[Yoss]

As anyone who was following the thread maybe a hundred pages or so back will know, I'm generally in agreement with Skyline Drifter and qos_75 here, it's easy to pile in on the SFL and say they should have acted sooner but much more difficult tosee exactly what they could have done and how.

That doesn't let them off the hook though, Livi's implosion was not difficult to see coming and there were a number of specific and quantifiable warning signs that coule have been acted on, in particular late wages and Inland Revenue payments. In the latter case we could follow the rule that's been introduced down south of a transfer embargo in the even of clubs falling behind with the HMRC, in the case of wages the current rules probably already allow them to act, but it's arguable and fraught with difficulty - they'd be have to act on the catch all terms about conduct contrary to the reputation of the league rather than on a specific rule. But that's something that should be looked at, a specific rule that repeated late wage payments would allow the SFL to make points deductions or any action it sees fit, though the emphasis in both these scenarios should very much be on nipping trouble in the bud rather than allowing it to develop to unmanageable limits before any action is taken.

Other ideas like wage caps are good in theory and might perhaps be explored as well but would probably be more difficult both to implement and police. I don't see why those two things I've suggested there should be particularly difficult even within the existing limitations of the SFL's current organisation - both of them are things that are knowable and measurable without anyone needing to employ a small army of accountants.

[MCL]

I'm fair looking forward to it. I just hope that Messrs Rankine, McDougal and Nixon are as well.

The "Trust" business plan will surely kick in and save Livi though ? It was hatched with WLC to get rid of Massone, go into admin and out the other side clear of debt before McDougall and Rankine were even mentioned so there shouldn't be a problem.

Except for HMRC wanting their £300k right enough

[Livi 293]

1. Gretna were bombed down to Div 3 after being relegated to the 1st. They just didn't survive, so its not a precedent.

2. Yes, it was a disgrace, you should have been booted out last week.

3. I would assume the thinking behind relegating a team to the lowest possible division would be the toughest punishment they could hand out without booting livi out the league.

4. I hope your right.

Now get this pish to the 3rd divison forum.

I didn't realise Gretna's was for administration. Point noted.

[HibeeJibee]

http://www.livingstonfc.co.uk/news_060809_1.php

Unless they want to cause trouble (which in the case of McDougall + Rankine might simply put them in the bad books with SFL clubs and individuals... not a good plan when you already have involvement in other clubs, and possibly ambitions for the future), I see no advantages in any appeal. They cannot win any appeal to the SFL. Appealling only causes disruption for everyone.

[Skyline Drifter]

again- who is suggesting that?

the system is very simple. Clubs must submit accounts on a six monthly basis for inspection.

And for the 3rd time. IHGH suggested exactly that, I took issue with it, and that's where you came in. I've quoted it twice!

Audited accounts or not? If yes then that has an associated, and completely unnecessary in corporate law terms, cost. Who should pay that? Either way it's money coming out of the game unnecessarily.

If no, they aren't worth the paper they are written on.

[HibeeJibee]

I didn't realise Gretna's was for administration. Point noted.

Well I don't think the SFL has ever explicitly said what the reason was - probably because that's not how the Management Committee works. When a club breaks a rule... they sit down and look at it; if they have broken a rule, they think about a punishment; and all of that is done within a background of their remit to ensure the smooth operation integrity and sustainability of the SFL.

Gretna had issues over the ground; administration; ability to complete fixtures; and membership.

[casper's fan club]

General Livi fan just wanting to say that I, along with a few other fans are of the opinion that while the decision is unfortunately fair given the handling of the Gretna situation (the SFL for once being consistent!) it's the handling of it that's been a shambles and is infuriating us.

The moment we went into administration or made the initial lay-off of non playing staff at the club (the start of the liquidation process as I understand it) the SFL should have been on the phone saying "lads, it's Division 3 for you" - there is no reason why this wasn't done at that point.

That way we'd have known the score and the other teams who're now going to be messed about - Cowdenbeath etc - wouldn't be wondering when there season starts and having to worry about a week or two of lost revenue if Livi appeal (which will no doubt "endear" us to yet more fans / clubs!)

However (and not defending the SFL but trying to see it from both sides) there is always the possibility that the Livi consortium turned up yesterday and contested the bond, or the value of it, and the SFL went "stuff you then, division 3 for you." That's the only way that I can see the SFL can rationally have made this decision but if it is the case then why haven't they made that clear?

It's all a mess. It's like Club Earth on a Sunday morning.

[ayrmad]

how long have you got... well broadly, I'd like to see [1] a pyramid system; [2] a revolution in the organisation of youth football; [3] reformation of reserve leagues; [4] complete change in the ridiculous system of player registrations; [5] end seperate Junior/Amateur/Welfare FAs; [6] direct relegation or some play-offs involving 11th in the SPL; [7] clubs aiming to live within their means.

In terms of financial issues... SFA should be responsible for monitoring the finances of all clubs in Senior football (SPL, SFL, SHFL, EOSFL, SOSFL, NCFL) because they are neutral, and since they have the resources to do it. Through Club Licensing, clubs which are running up unmanageable debts should be subject to sanctions. Clubs that enter liquidation, administration or insolvency should be subject to sanction from their league (as currently). As regards the SFL, they should re-write their rules on this matter to make it explicity clear what the punishment is (relegation, points deduction, etc.) and not leave it up to committee's opinions. That's a fairly reasonable plan IMO.

Your earlier posts along with this one appear to suggest that it is only some posters using SFL instead of SFA when posting suggestions,why argue then, someone needs to take heed of financial mismanagement,it doesn't matter who so long as someone is doing it.

7. Clubs aiming to live within their means-laudable but means nothing,a % of turnover is required not an aim as an aim depends on chairmen being fiscally prudent taking no account of headbangers,dreamers etc.