Jump to content

Livingston - all the threads merged


Recommended Posts

Well ok, lets accept the fact that Livi were demoted to the 3rd division, why was it done 3 days before the season was due to start? Livi's fault was it, aye?

TBH, fact it happened 3 days before or whatever, as opposed to 9 days, make little difference... Livi would still have wanted to appeal to SFL SGM, SFL MC would still have said "play your ties in the meantime", so therefore Livi would probably still have refused to play ES on the opening day.

And i'm not claiming league fixtures are fixed, it was just a coincedence that we played Cowden in the playoffs after playing them on the last day of the season but making the first game of the season against a team that you've played in all of your last 3 league games is just daft, simple as that.

As someone best placed than most to comment: never make a mistake of presuming something could have been done but wasn't. In fixtures there's a reason for everything and a consequence for every change. Plus we all want fixture allocation to be totally neutral, yep? Or at least want it to be fair for all clubs (i.e. everyone getting a derby day where possible at Christmas). If so - why should the fact that you happened to play a club on game 36, and then happened to play them in a play-off, automatically preclude you from playing them in game 1...? How is that neutral for all?

:)

Edited by HibeeJibee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops! I see us Livi swines have rattled Hibee Jibee's cage again tonight! :unsure::ph34r:

PLL, I'd hoped you were intelligent enough to realise I'm hamming it up a touch ;) . However, I'm totally astonished by all these fans... saying SFL should stump up compensation for Wednesday's game getting a lower crowd than a weekend - or for losses made on 8th August. SFL desperately tried to get that game on!! It was Livi who scratched!! Since SFL's account is shared out among the member clubs at the end of each season, that means all our clubs paying for Livi's audacity!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Shire have to play on Wednesday if only to be fair to their players and supporters as they are obviously running the risk of a 15 points deduction and season over. They should also send the bill for the game to the SFL and sue them if they don't pay.

Please Shire see sense and play.

I hope Shire do turn up on Wednesday night and I think that if they dont then the scenario that will likely play out id that they are deducted points and Livingston will not be due to the circumstances in which that specific game was called off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PLL, I'd hoped you were intelligent enough to realise I'm hamming it up a touch ;) . However, I'm totally astonished by all these fans... saying SFL should stump up compensation for Wednesday's game getting a lower crowd than a weekend - or for losses made on 8th August. SFL desperately tried to get that game on!! It was Livi who scratched!! Since SFL's account is shared out among the member clubs at the end of each season, that means all our clubs paying for Livi's audacity!!

I have been banging my head off the same brick wall since the game was scratched! Believe me it does not seem to matter how many times/ways you put it, it will not get through! I have now given up as I was just angering myself more & more! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PLL, I'd hoped you were intelligent enough to realise I'm hamming it up a touch ;) . However, I'm totally astonished by all these fans... saying SFL should stump up compensation for Wednesday's game getting a lower crowd than a weekend - or for losses made on 8th August. SFL desperately tried to get that game on!! It was Livi who scratched!! Since SFL's account is shared out among the member clubs at the end of each season, that means all our clubs paying for Livi's audacity!!

Livi scratched, Livi scratched. Yawn yawn yawn. The only thing that is scratched here is your record. :lol:

The fact of the matter is that the SFL Management Committee would never have asked Livingston to play the match on August 8, had they followed their own rulebook. Whether you agree with appealing the relegation or not, it's quite simply the case that Livingston should have been treated as a First Division club pending the outcome of the appeal.

I personally couldn't care less what people think of my club, but I do find it bizarre that no one seems keen to tackle the clear conflicts of interest in this case. Jim Ballantyne is all over this scenario like a rash. While Airdrie didn't vote at the Special General Meeting its a fact that he participated in discussions in the run up when he should not have, offering a view and cajoling other committee members to act in a way which favoured his club very substantially.

There are very serious questions over the governance of the SFL. The treasurer is/was up to his eyes in gambling debt. The president has flouted the dual interest rules. The 'chief executive', taking £100,000 pa out of the game doesn't even know his own rulebook.

That Livingston is the issue shouldn't preclude the SFL from criticism. The way these people have acted is highly questionable. Corrupt is a strong word, but there's a lot of dodginess going on.

Fans of all the 30 clubs should be asking themselves why chancers like Brown McMaster are allowed to exert influence at all? How much has McMaster invested in Scottish football? How much is he taking out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Livi scratched, Livi scratched. Yawn yawn yawn. The only thing that is scratched here is your record. :lol:

The fact of the matter is that the SFL Management Committee would never have asked Livingston to play the match on August 8, had they followed their own rulebook. Whether you agree with appealing the relegation or not, it's quite simply the case that Livingston should have been treated as a First Division club pending the outcome of the appeal.

I personally couldn't care less what people think of my club, but I do find it bizarre that no one seems keen to tackle the clear conflicts of interest in this case. Jim Ballantyne is all over this scenario like a rash. While Airdrie didn't vote at the Special General Meeting its a fact that he participated in discussions in the run up when he should not have, offering a view and cajoling other committee members to act in a way which favoured his club very substantially.

There are very serious questions over the governance of the SFL. The treasurer is/was up to his eyes in gambling debt. The president has flouted the dual interest rules. The 'chief executive', taking £100,000 pa out of the game doesn't even know his own rulebook.

That Livingston is the issue shouldn't preclude the SFL from criticism. The way these people have acted is highly questionable. Corrupt is a strong word, but there's a lot of dodginess going on.

Fans of all the 30 clubs should be asking themselves why chancers like Brown McMaster are allowed to exert influence at all? How much has McMaster invested in Scottish football? How much is he taking out?

Top quality piece of revisionist pish you have there.

The bits in bold are especially hilarious.

I take it you can prove the underlined bit?

As for the Treasurer gambling illegally.... remind us please ... which well known "chancer" in Scottish football circles took these alleged bets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top quality piece of revisionist pish you have there.

The bits in bold are especially hilarious.

I take it you can prove the underlined bit?

As for the Treasurer gambling illegally.... remind us please ... which well known "chancer" in Scottish football circles took these alleged bets?

What part is revisionist? At no point am I suggesting that the SFL didn't have the right to impose a punishment on Livingston, but there's a process to follow and it wasn't followed.

To try and force Livingston to play the Shire on that day flies in the face of the way appeals should be dealt with. I've got sympathy for the Shire but it's probably more important for all concerned that the process of dealing with misconduct is dealt with properly, even if a game is delayed.

The game should be rearranged and played forthwith to bring the whole sorry episode to an end. It doesn't have to be next Wednesday, the clubs should come to a sensible agreement in conjunction with the SFL.

As for the betting issue it doesn't matter if Neil Rankine took the bets, because Neil Rankine isn't / wasn't the Treasurer of the SFL, or indeed an office bearer of any football club. Besides McIntyre didn't place all his bets with him anyway.

Jim Ballantyne was all over the decision making process. Recorded fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is that the SFL Management Committee would never have asked Livingston to play the match on August 8, had they followed their own rulebook. Whether you agree with appealing the relegation or not, it's quite simply the case that Livingston should have been treated as a First Division club pending the outcome of the appeal.

Why did Livvy not scratch on Aug 15 ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't bother jupe. LLD and his cohorts exert more spin on an issue, than a 1989 edition of Pravda.

Or to paraphrase - "I've got f**k all sensible to offer to the argument other than repetitive bile towards Livingston FC." :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did Livvy not scratch on Aug 15 ;)

Good point well made :lol:. And LLD... if you're response to my posts on this thread is to conclude that I've nothing "sensible to offer to the argument other than repetitive bile towards Livingston FC", perhaps that is an indication of the degree of blinkerdness you apply. I make constructive points.

I don't always make constructive points - I'm laying it on a bit thick, being a bit tongue-in-cheek at times - but to suggest my contribution on here is solely repetitive bile is, frankly, utter nonsense...

Edited by HibeeJibee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part is revisionist? At no point am I suggesting that the SFL didn't have the right to impose a punishment on Livingston, but there's a process to follow and it wasn't followed.

As for the betting issue it doesn't matter if Neil Rankine took the bets, because Neil Rankine isn't / wasn't the Treasurer of the SFL, or indeed an office bearer of any football club. Besides McIntyre didn't place all his bets with him anyway.

Jim Ballantyne was all over the decision making process. Recorded fact.

1. Process? Livi punished - Livi appeal - Failed Appeal - Appeal to SFA - Decision Upheld. Where wasn't process followed?

2. It does. The major player at your club knowingly took illegal bets from an SFL office bearer. Do you not think this is just a tad wrong? "Besides McIntyre didnt place all his bets with Rankine". Simply brilliant. Does this somehow justify his actions?

3. Where is it recorded? Got a link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point well made :lol:. And LLD - I you're response to my posts of this thread is to conclude that I've nothing "sensible to offer to the argument other than repetitive bile towards Livingston FC", perhaps that is an indication of the degree of blinkerdness you apply. I make constructive points. I don't always make constructive points - I'm laying it on a bit thick, being a bit tongue-in-cheek at times - but to suggest my contribution here is solely repetitive bile is frankly utter nonsense...

Where's the blinkeredness? Livingston FC acted incorrectly and was punished. I am not disputing that for a nanosecond.

I think the way that the decision was reached was questionable. Did the punishment fit the crime? Was the decision taken for the right reasons - i.e. the good of the game? Both debatable I reckon.

Does it not concern you that the prime mover in the League Management Committee has benefitted financially via his club in the wake of this decision? And that he was involved in the decision making process?

Are you not concerned that other members of the same small committee are no stranger to breaking the rules themselves?

I've read a lot of your posts and you seem to have a clear view that Livingston FC's past conduct has reflected badly on Scottish football. That's fair enough, but I find it strange that you aren't as keen to criticise the very questionable self-serving conduct of the people who run one of the game's governing bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Process? Livi punished - Livi appeal - Failed Appeal - Appeal to SFA - Decision Upheld. Where wasn't process followed?

2. It does. The major player at your club knowingly took illegal bets from an SFL office bearer. Do you not think this is just a tad wrong? "Besides McIntyre didnt place all his bets with Rankine". Simply brilliant. Does this somehow justify his actions?

3. Where is it recorded? Got a link?

1. The process wasn't followed at the point where Livingston were asked to play East Stirlingshire.

2. He's a bookmaker, that's his business. Is it up to a bookmaker to question everyone who places a bet?

3. No link, but his input into discussions is definitely recorded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The process wasn't followed at the point where Livingston were asked to play East Stirlingshire.

2. He's a bookmaker, that's his business. Is it up to a bookmaker to question everyone who places a bet?

3. No link, but his input into discussions is definitely recorded.

1. You were asked to play East Stirlingshire pending the outcome of the appeal. Perfectly reasonable given that the "entirely coincidental" timing of your club's interim administration so close to the season left little other option.

2. It is up to him to ask questions when he KNOWS these bets are not legal. Jesus H Christ.

3. Again, i'll ask. WHERE are there recorded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You were asked to play East Stirlingshire pending the outcome of the appeal. Perfectly reasonable given that the "entirely coincidental" timing of your club's interim administration so close to the season left little other option.

2. It is up to him to ask questions when he KNOWS these bets are not legal. Jesus H Christ.

3. Again, i'll ask. WHERE are there recorded?

1. The SFL shouldn't have asked. When they did we had the right to refuse. If by using the phrase 'entirely coincidental' you are suggesting that the whole Massone period was contrived to come to an end a week before the season then you really need to have a word with yourself.

2. The bets are legal in the context of the law of the land are they not? The rules that were broken by the Treasurer were football rules.

3. A record of the meetings was made, it's common business practice.

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...