Nowhereman Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 (edited) But thats exactly what they did! I dont think anyone has ever questioned their right to appeal. What this is about is whether or not they were entitled to refuse to play a 3rd division match, because they interpreted the rules to mean they were still a 1st div club. Theres nothing to suggest that they were. Yes there is. 1. Livi were demoted by a decision of the management committee. The management committee were entitled to take that decision 2. Livi decided to appeal that decision. Livi were entitled to do that 3. The rules are silent as to whether or not the punishment is suspended pending the appeal process being completed 4. In certain other circumstances penalties are suspended during an appeal process Therefore it can be argued both ways as to which division Livi are currently in. In those circumsatnces I can understand why Livi refused to play. I am not supporting their stance or condoning anything Livi have done but I can understand their decision last week and they do have a valid argument. As i have said they might lose but it is a stateable case Edited August 13, 2009 by Nowhereman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Yes there is.a) Livi were demoted by a decision of the management committee. The management committee were entitled to take that decision B) Livi decided to appeal that decision. Livi were entitled to do that c) The rules are silent as to whether or not the punishment is suspended pending the appeal process being completed d0 In certain other circumstances penalties are suspended during an appeal process Therefore it can be argued both ways as to which division Livi are currently in. In those circumsatnces I can understand why Livi refused to play. I am not supporting their stance or condoning anything Livi have done but I can understand their decision last week and they do have a valid argument. As i have said they might lose but it is a stateable case For crying out loud... Livingston have only just made their appeal today. They had not made their appeal before today, hence it could not possibly have been deemed to be successful. It's basic interpretation of the English language... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberdeen Cowden Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 At least he's not manager after what happened with you. Not yet! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 For crying out loud...Livingston have only just made their appeal today. They had not made their appeal before today, hence it could not possibly have been deemed to be successful. It's basic interpretation of the English language... The appeal process began when Livi indicated formally that they were lodging an appeal.My point is to ask what should happen to the penalty that has been imposed pending the appeal being completed and I think that will be one of the points being argued by Livi when the sfl get round to dealing with their failure to turn up last Saturday 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Yes there is.a) Livi were demoted by a decision of the management committee. The management committee were entitled to take that decision B) Livi decided to appeal that decision. Livi were entitled to do that c) The rules are silent as to whether or not the punishment is suspended pending the appeal process being completed d0 In certain other circumstances penalties are suspended during an appeal process Therefore it can be argued both ways as to which division Livi are currently in. In those circumsatnces I can understand why Livi refused to play. I am not supporting their stance or condoning anything Livi have done but I can understand their decision last week and they do have a valid argument. As i have said they might lose but it is a stateable case No it cant be argued, because the SFL told them they were in Div3. As I said, its not up to Livy to interpret the rules, or effectively pick and choose which ones suit them, anymore than its up to a player on the pitch to interpret the referees decisions and ignore the ones he doesnt like. If point c is correct, then Livy should have asked for guidance from the SFL as to what the position was, not just made up their own interpretation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 The appeal process began when Livi indicated formally that they were lodging an appeal. The process began, yes. But the rules make no allowance for the process. They clearly state that the appeal itself is heard and is deemed successful unless...and so on... My point is to ask what should happen to the penalty that has been imposed pending the appeal being completed and I think that will be one of the points being argued by Livi when the sfl get round to dealing with their failure to turn up last Saturday The penalty stays. Simple as that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 The appeal process began when Livi indicated formally that they were lodging an appeal.My point is to ask what should happen to the penalty that has been imposed pending the appeal being completed and I think that will be one of the points being argued by Livi when the sfl get round to dealing with their failure to turn up last Saturday I getting dizzy What happens is that Livy abide by the SFL rules and do as they're told. If they're not clear about what that is, then they ask for guidance. What they actually did, was make up their own interpretation to suit themselves (and I suspect McGruthers motives were motivated by saving money than any "prejudicing" of the appeal) and refuse to play a game they had already been told to play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 The process began, yes.But the rules make no allowance for the process. They clearly state that the appeal itself is heard and is deemed successful unless...and so on... The penalty stays. Simple as that. And you've seen all the correspondence between the SFL and Livi have you Sir Calum? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 This is beyond a bloody joke! 3 hours????? They already know the answer! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 The process began, yes.But the rules make no allowance for the process. They clearly state that the appeal itself is heard and is deemed successful unless...and so on... The penalty stays. Simple as that. Er... I think that is my point 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Recount 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I getting dizzy What happens is that Livy abide by the SFL rules and do as they're told. If they're not clear about what that is, then they ask for guidance. What they actually did, was make up their own interpretation to suit themselves (and I suspect McGruthers motives were motivated by saving money than any "prejudicing" of the appeal) and refuse to play a game they had already been told to play. They would hardly ask the sfl for guidance given that they were disputing what the sfl were saying. And if McGruther was motivated by the cost why would he agree to play Ross County when the cost of that trip would have exceeded the cost of a trip to Falkirk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Recount Show of hands was it then ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsson. Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 This is beyond a bloody joke! 3 hours????? They already know the answer! Away and do some ironing might take your mind off it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Er... I think that is my point And if the rules make no allowances for it, the original decision stands. That can be shown by its not standing being made explicit when dealing with red cards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Away and do some ironing might take your mind off it. It wouldn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Whether or not Livi's interpretation of the rules was correct, how did they think their case would be strengthened by not playing the game? Did they think that by not playing the game, more member clubs would vote for them in their attempt to be reinstated? How does that work? What did they gain by not playing it, other than the prospect of a further penalty? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 (edited) Fair comment Larsson Edited August 13, 2009 by Doink 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinheed Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 They would hardly ask the sfl for guidance given that they were disputing what the sfl were saying. And if McGruther was motivated by the cost why would he agree to play Ross County when the cost of that trip would have exceeded the cost of a trip to Falkirk He didn't agree to play County,he said they were prepared to play them but knew fine it wouldn't be allowed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I'm now playing out fantasies of being the tea lady in the meeting & scalding the bad blazer men's bits! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.