Jump to content

Livingston - all the threads merged


Recommended Posts

I refer you back to Duncans recent post about Livi fans where you will find the true definition of a "Sad B*****d"

Every single person in West Lothian is suffering so that 500 (on a good day) Sad B*****ds who are too miserable to pay for a ticket at Porkheid can watch fitba while their board runs up yet more debts!!

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refer you back to Duncans recent post about Livi fans where you will find the true definition of a "Sad B*****d"

Every single person in West Lothian is suffering so that 500 (on a good day) Sad B*****ds who are too miserable to pay for a ticket at Porkheid can watch fitba while their board runs up yet more debts!!

:shutup:geek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to Duncan Freemason's post on the other thread regarding no-one voicing any concerns about the charities not being paid (had to answer it on here as the OP's were on this thread) When this was brought to our knowledge questions were asked of the board about this matter & this was their response;

I made a point of asking about the charity and was told that they have been paid.

Which prompted these posts;

Correct me if Im wrong, but is it not now impossible for Livy to settle any debtors that are named on the CVA proposal outwith any agreed CVA?

In other words, if St Johns are listed as a creditor, Livy cannot pay them 100% of the debt without prejudicing the rest of the CVA.

Or am I wrong?

You are correct.

Also at this moment in time Livi cannot pay any debts pre-admin as they are frozen by the courts pending a cva.

So his source is a liar.

That would be a major issue. McGruther has formally listed them in the CVA document. A key part of administration is that the playing field is levelled for all creditors. If Mr Administrator has elected to pay one creditor 100%, and is not prepared to match that for all other creditors on that CVA document, he is in breach of the rules that govern administration. So if they have told you that, and it's true, McGruther will have some explaining to do. If St John's are actually part of the CVA proposal creditors meeting tomorrow, then someone has lied to you. Satisfy yourself as to which is the most likely, and which is the easy answer. LFC have a history of lying about payments to creditors, that I do know. If St John's have been paid, then where did the money come from? Other creditors will want to know why they weren't offered the same deal. By the way, to settle with st john's would have cost you every penny of the cash raised at the gate last Saturday. There is absolutely no way you are paying St Johns, hiring assistant managers and running a full time squad (even on minimum wage) on the money coming into the club.

So in answer to Duncan's query that no-one has voiced their concerns about the actions of the board, indeed we did & continue to do so, we do not all want to bask in glory without a care for how we get there or who suffers on the way. In addition, just because you cannot read any questions to the board on here or on LL does not mean they are not being asked nor that we are silent & accept way things are being done. Questions will continue to be asked until it is proved that the club is living by it's 99p in the pound rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to Duncan Freemason's post on the other thread regarding no-one voicing any concerns about the charities not being paid ......................................

So in answer to Duncan's query that no-one has voiced their concerns about the actions of the board, indeed we did & continue to do so, we do not all want to bask in glory without a care for how we get there or who suffers on the way. In addition, just because you cannot read any questions to the board on here or on LL does not mean they are not being asked nor that we are silent & accept way things are being done. Questions will continue to be asked until it is proved that the club is living by it's 99p in the pound rule.

So do you now accept that the board lied to the person that asked the question?

Are you happy that you are being lied to with regards to the 99p rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in answer to Duncan's query that no-one has voiced their concerns about the actions of the board, indeed we did & continue to do so, we do not all want to bask in glory without a care for how we get there or who suffers on the way. In addition, just because you cannot read any questions to the board on here or on LL does not mean they are not being asked nor that we are silent & accept way things are being done. Questions will continue to be asked until it is proved that the club is living by it's 99p in the pound rule.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Its pretty obvious to even the casual observer that they are not. Full time wages and sub 1000 crowds means the maths doesn't add up. Your club is a car crash & a danger to those around it.

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...