Jump to content

Livingston - all the threads merged


Recommended Posts

Massone payed 100% of the wages. The maximum late was 2 days.

I worked for him. He payed all repayment plan with the hmrc. He payed two years rent to wlc.

The account showed simply the true....

Open Your mind if want the well of the scottish football.

Melville want organise the same fraud using cva...

You tell as many lies as Massone.............ph34r.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Massone pay you on time?

As was mentioned previously in the thread, I stopped working for the club when Pearse owned it as he'd stopped paying my invoices. I started proceedings to recover what was due before he sold the club to Angelo.

My action was against Livingston Football Club and not the individual owners so when the club was sold it didn't make any difference to my proceedings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As was mentioned previously in the thread, I stopped working for the club when Pearse owned it as he'd stopped paying my invoices. I started proceedings to recover what was due before he sold the club to Angelo.

My action was against Livingston Football Club and not the individual owners so when the club was sold it didn't make any difference to my proceedings.

Ok, I'll re-phrase - did LFC, under the ownership of Massone, pay you on time? The point being, you seem to be saying now that Massone was doing fine, all was well, until the bad guys came along and ruined things for him. You seemed to have a different view when you were chasing him for money 2 years ago.

Edited by LiviNeil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll re-phrase - did LFC, under the ownership of Massone, pay you on time? The point being, you seem to be saying now that Massone was doing fine, all was well, until the bad guys came along and ruined things for him. You seemed to have a different view when you were chasing him for money 2 years ago.

I had been due money from LFC for 12 months before Angelo took over so your question is irrelevant.

I didn't work for LFC while he was in charge so I didn't have any late payments during his tenure. His reason for not paying was that Pearse had hidden the debts and I and others should chase him for the money. My argument was the club were due the money and he could chase Pearse afterwards if he wanted.

I'm not saying he was doing fine. The accounts are saying that and they are signed off by Gordon McDougall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had been due money from LFC for 12 months before Angelo took over so your question is irrelevant.

I didn't work for LFC while he was in charge so I didn't have any late payments during his tenure. His reason for not paying was that Pearse had hidden the debts and I and others should chase him for the money. My argument was the club were due the money and he could chase Pearse afterwards if he wanted.

I'm not saying he was doing fine. The accounts are saying that and they are signed off by Gordon McDougall.

The list of creditors that were not paid along with late or no payment to employees say that he was not doing so well, but I am no expert. Could it be that the current owners are merely the latest in the list of persona non grata on your hit-list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The list of creditors that were not paid along with late or no payment to employees say that he was not doing so well, but I am no expert. Could it be that the current owners are merely the latest in the list of persona non grata on your hit-list?

Surely though those accounts tell a different story? Looking at them there was no reason to go into admin in August as at 29th June? The year before show hefty contingent liabilities but there is no reason to suggest they had to be paid (to Massone etal?)

Edited by AND180Y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely though those accounts tell a different story? Looking at them there was no reason to go into admin in August as at 29th June? The year before show hefty contingent liabilities but there is no reason to suggest they had to be paid (to Massone etal?)

Soemthing doesn't add up then. I would say that Massone did not act as someone who was on top of things. Why did he not pay creditors, (not just ones from Flynn era), why did he cash in the sell on clause for Dorans for a pittance? huh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soemthing doesn't add up then. I would say that Massone did not act as someone who was on top of things. Why did he not pay creditors, (not just ones from Flynn era), why did he cash in the sell on clause for Dorans for a pittance? huh.gif

Opinions can be argued upon, accounts filed with companies house cannot.

I can't second guess Massone's logic (to be honest he is irelevant in this) but the facts and figures are there in black and white.

Either things weren't as bad as they were made out to be or more likely going by the administrators statement that was filed with the court (ergo a legal document) these accounts are wrong.

There is a legal obligation that accounts give a true and proper statement of affairs as at the date on them these don't seem to do that?

Edited by AND180Y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The list of creditors that were not paid along with late or no payment to employees say that he was not doing so well, but I am no expert. Could it be that the current owners are merely the latest in the list of persona non grata on your hit-list?

If the accounts are a true reflection then he was reducing the debt, if they are not a true reflection then what is McDougall doing signing them off?

Surely, as a former treasurer who helped build a business plan involving complex economics to be used when you managed to get rid of Massone, you can understand the abbreviated accounts posted above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soemthing doesn't add up then. I would say that Massone did not act as someone who was on top of things. Why did he not pay creditors, (not just ones from Flynn era), why did he cash in the sell on clause for Dorans for a pittance? huh.gif

If he was reducing the debt then he must have been paying some off? I was paid eventually.

I would suggest the reason he sold on the Dorrans clause was because his income streams had been strangled by the "Trust" and others who wanted him out. No-one could survive in that case.

If the council had written off the debt as they did for the new owners, then reduced it, if the "Trust" had given him money for shares, etc, etc.

We might even have been in the SPL by now :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he was reducing the debt then he must have been paying some off? I was paid eventually.

I would suggest the reason he sold on the Dorrans clause was because his income streams had been strangled by the "Trust" and others who wanted him out. No-one could survive in that case.

If the council had written off the debt as they did for the new owners, then reduced it, if the "Trust" had given him money for shares, etc, etc.

We might even have been in the SPL by now smile.gif

What income streams were strangled by the Trust?

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...