jimbo Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 I don't see this as a problem at all, btw. The SFL rules clearly give them the ability to judge each case on its own merits... Livi, for example, had a history of financial troubles (and previous administration) a different club might not. Furthermore if there is any precedent, it is not demotion of 2 divisions - it is demotion to the bottom division. In the unlikely event a Third Division club goes into administration (the assets of a part-time side make it far less likely) and doesn't fold ASAP, they could be fined points/expelled. The obsession with 1 punishment for all offences, is misguided. The concept of consistency however is something the SFL might at some point aspire to. The reason Livi were demoted 2 divisions was for the simple reason that those in judgement feared they might not be able to complete their fixtures and that compensation payable to the other teams in the league would be a lot less in the bottom division than in the first. The fact that Livi managed to survive on the non existent away crowds in the 3rd gave the lie to their supposition. On that basis then judging each case on its merits depends on the whims of those on the committee who make the decision. In other leagues the rules and penalties are clearly set out as indeed they should be in the SFL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Exactly. If rules were never changed, we'd still have a 12-team single-division SFL, entirely amateur, playing 22 games. Judge cases upon merits. Yeh, lets just throw the rule book out the window. Who needs it when the blazers at the SFL can chop and change them according to their moods. They are such an upstanding group of people, of course, that their judgements would better those of Solomon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Cheers - there is lots of history between Livi fans & MCL & between the Club & MCL. His continued hate fest against both has caused a major divide that just keeps getting bigger & bigger sadly. Its not just as clear cut as MCL makes it out to be, but it never is really always 2 sides to every story. I think more Livi fans would have time for MCL's point of view if he actually done something about his moans & groans, but he chooses time & time again to use Pie & Bovril to air them and have cheap pop shots at the board & Livi fans. IMO he has created his own divide between himself & the club to the point he is not welcome at Livi FC. The current owners of Livi make themselves freely available to fans, but he chooses not to speak to them directly. I am not really defending the club on anything, but if you have constant public hate campaign against them, then thats not a fair fight/campaign and therefore many Livi fans don't use this site for that reason. I guess thats what I am defending (if anything at all). I don't like everything the club does, but as a fan there are channels to riase questions directly to the people involved in making these decisions. Seriously? The concept of consistency however is something the SFL might at some point aspire to. The reason Livi were demoted 2 divisions was for the simple reason that those in judgement feared they might not be able to complete their fixtures and that compensation payable to the other teams in the league would be a lot less in the bottom division than in the first. The fact that Livi managed to survive on the non existent away crowds in the 3rd gave the lie to their supposition. On that basis then judging each case on its merits depends on the whims of those on the committee who make the decision. In other leagues the rules and penalties are clearly set out as indeed they should be in the SFL. How is what the SFL did to Livy inconsistent with any actions taken in the past? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCL Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Seriously? No. How would he know why not very many Livi fans come on here ? I could have a guess that they don't like the banter. They prefer LiviLions where they can all nod heads in agreement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cumbernauld Lion Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 MLC, Why is it you're banned again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) Q. What is the difference between Lady Gaga and 007 ? A. Lady Gaga has got balls :lol: What's the similarity between Lady Gaga's latest photo-shoot and 007+Jimbo? Two exposed tits! Edited June 17, 2010 by Cliche Guevara 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) The concept of consistency however is something the SFL might at some point aspire to. The reason Livi were demoted 2 divisions was for the simple reason that those in judgement feared they might not be able to complete their fixtures and that compensation payable to the other teams in the league would be a lot less in the bottom division than in the first. The fact that Livi managed to survive on the non existent away crowds in the 3rd gave the lie to their supposition. On that basis then judging each case on its merits depends on the whims of those on the committee who make the decision. In other leagues the rules and penalties are clearly set out as indeed they should be in the SFL. That's total shite! Livingston consistently proved incapable of balancing the books at higher levels. The purpose of the demotion was to mitigate the potential damage, and force them to operate at a realistically sustainable level. It was clear that Livingston had sufficient infrastructure to be able to operate at a sustainable level, in division three (unfortunately the West Lothian crack whores couldn't help themselves, and somehow thought they could support full-time football in the third division). If anything the SFL decision was vindicated in Livingston fulfilling their fixtures, and successfully winning the championship. The problem with football, these days, is it's difficult to legislate for emerging bouts of cheating that clubs like Livingston creatively produce (repeatedly). As I recall at the time of Livi's demotion the future club was sufficiently unclear, that the only alternative would have been expulsion from the SFL altogether! You have to undertsand that there is no consistency in misdemeanor, which makes consistency in punishment a red-herring. Football is playing constant catch-up with you financial cheats, and can't be criticised for trying to protect the integrity of the game. Edit: sorry, should actually point out that the compensation was considered on the basis of home crowd revenue lost as a result of Livi not being able to fulfill fixtures. Edited June 17, 2010 by Cliche Guevara 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The concept of consistency however is something the SFL might at some point aspire to. The reason Livi were demoted 2 divisions was for the simple reason that those in judgement feared they might not be able to complete their fixtures and that compensation payable to the other teams in the league would be a lot less in the bottom division than in the first. The fact that Livi managed to survive on the non existent away crowds in the 3rd gave the lie to their supposition. On that basis then judging each case on its merits depends on the whims of those on the committee who make the decision. In other leagues the rules and penalties are clearly set out as indeed they should be in the SFL. I know we've been through this some hundred of pages ago but I can't help getting sucked in again. You've missed the point there jimbo about the nature of this "supposition"; it wasn't a question of the SFL making their own personal judgements on how likely or otherwise it was that the prospective new owners had the means to keep Livingston going - they're legally obliged to seek protection for their members and in a case where (like Gretna the previous year) a club is still in administration (or a process thereof) and without a CVA being agreed then no administrator or potential buyer can - legally - give such guarantees because it's dependent on the goodwill of the creditors which has yet to be ascertained. In England they're considerably stricter about this rule and clubs are not allowed a licence to start the season at all in this situation (in theory, at least, in practice they've bent the rules for Chester and I think Leeds, and caused themselves a right old mess in the Chester case). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCL Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 What's the similarity between Lady Gaga's latest photo-shoot and 007+Jimbo? Two exposed tits! :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Many genuine Livi supporters are not ducking any hard questions I hope that's true and I daresay it is, we just don't see much evidence of it. Can anyone answer me on question then, since presumably someone has asked it - has any of last season's operating loss been run up as debt, even if it's soft loans, or has someone gifted the full amount to the club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I'm available for photographs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Yeh, lets just throw the rule book out the window. Who needs it when the blazers at the SFL can chop and change them according to their moods. They are such an upstanding group of people, of course, that their judgements would better those of Solomon. Gretna FC: Unable to provide guarantee to fulfill First Division fixtures for the following season. Demoted to Division 3. Livingston FC: Unable/Unwilling to provide bond to fulfill First Division fixtures for following season*. Demoted to Division 3. * despite having agreed days earlier to provide this, and therefore receive lesser punishment of 10 point deduction. I really don't know why you're finding it hard to grasp this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 (edited) I hope that's true and I daresay it is, we just don't see much evidence of it. Can anyone answer me on question then, since presumably someone has asked it - has any of last season's operating loss been run up as debt, even if it's soft loans, or has someone gifted the full amount to the club? We've been told there are no Director's loans. And yeah, I answered that a few months ago. Edited June 18, 2010 by EdinburghLivi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Gretna FC: Unable to provide guarantee to fulfill First Division fixtures for the following season. Demoted to Division 3. Livingston FC: Unable/Unwilling to provide bond to fulfill First Division fixtures for following season*. Demoted to Division 3. * despite having agreed days earlier to provide this, and therefore receive lesser punishment of 10 point deduction. I really don't know why you're finding it hard to grasp this. It should be pointed out [1] Gretna were demoted primarily due to their ground not meeting criteria (they had ascended to Full Member status from Associate Member status pf the SFL during their season in the SPL) and [2] Livi's problems started when the "guarantee" began to morph slightly... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 We've been told there are no Director's loans. And yeah, I answered that a few months ago. Can someone explain in simple terms where the cash did come from? You didn't run at a profit, off crowds of 700-800. Is it debt/loans/or donations? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Can someone explain in simple terms where the cash did come from? You didn't run at a profit, off crowds of 700-800. Is it debt/loans/or donations? Whether people like this or not the club does not just rely on supporters' income - it runs functions almost 7 days a week at times. That coupled with sponsorship. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 (edited) Whether people like this or not the club does not just rely on supporters' income - it runs functions almost 7 days a week at times. That coupled with sponsorship. I see. Can I ask a supplementary question... your crowds fell, by 2 in 3; and your wage bills clearly did not plunge to the floor - as your remained as a full-time side, in fact recruited some players including Winters; and there is less prize-money in the Third Division. The recession and your demotion presumably didn't see your functions and sponsorship rocket skywards. And playing in the First Division, you made a huge loss each season - which sent you into CVA and admin. So if the functions weren't covering losses then, how on earth are they now...? Edited June 18, 2010 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Surprised there are still those getting entertainment or stimulation out of Livi and their fans, all the best for this season and just ignore the bawbags, they obviously lead a very sad and lonely existence, no doubt they'll be on explaining how exciting their lives are and that they aren't on here for some sort of positive affirmation due to being socially and sexually inept. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 (edited) I see. Can I ask a supplementary question... your crowds fell, by 2 in 3; and your wage bills clearly did not plunge to the floor - as your remained as a full-time side, in fact recruited some players including Winters; and there is less prize-money in the Third Division. The recession and your demotion presumably didn't see your functions and sponsorship rocket skywards. And playing in the First Division, you made a huge loss each season - which sent you into CVA and admin. So if the functions weren't covering losses then, how on earth are they now...? It all depends on your cost model I guess. The wage bill now is the smallest it has been for some years thats for sure. Could it be less of course it could I think there 1 or 2 players still on the old contracts once they have gone it it will come down further. The functions have always been a factor in helping Livi FC, but there outgoings have always outweighted the income simple maths really. I never heard once last season players weren't paid, staff weren't paid or suppliers weren't paid or saw any court dates cause by the current board by not paying people last season? Clearly the income (Directors input, season tickets sales, sponsorship & functions, commercial ) is paying the outgoings (Salaries, Suppliers), but people still want to question? If it wasn't then people wouldn't be getting paid & Livi FC would be in Admin/shut down and there would be lots of Scottish Sun Stories Edited June 18, 2010 by 7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Clearly the income (Directors input, season tickets sales, sponsorship & functions, commercial ) is paying the outgoings (Salaries, Suppliers), but people still want to question? If it wasn't then people would be getting paid & Livi FC would be in Admin/shut down and there would be losts of Scottish Sun Stories People want to question since it's all been said several times before, though. In the past, outward appearances of normality masked unpaid debts / the accrual of bank debt / the injection of soft loans / and so on. People are therefore legitimately sceptical... Since Livi have 100% atrocious record. I'm sure Livi aren't on the brink of disaster again, quite clearly. But nevertheless: many people are interested in the sustainability of the new model. 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.