Jump to content

Livingston - all the threads merged


Recommended Posts

2004, 2009, 2014.

Might as well pencil admin 4.0 in for sometime in 2019.

Wouldnt pencil them in just yet. Another admin and they should just be dissolved. Once is bad enough, twice is shocking, three times would just be taking the piss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers to SD and Yoss. Few followups: even though the company would be tax liable even if the individual had paid bonuses themselves and not told anyone, I'm presuming the not telling anyone bit is (at best) a bit naughty? I mean you could be racking-up a tax liability for the firm in a way which wasn't apparent to anyone else involved.

Also, to return to my (evidently flawed) bakery analogy - although I didn't make this clear I was meaning a situation where the oven-men know in advance that I would give them some kind of predetermined bonus [or as you say it may still be a tip] if they made a certain quality of cake. Not that I could eat the cake and then decide of my own generosity to give them some bonus/tip or otherwise. In football I imagine that players normally know that they'll get X bonus for Y performance, rather than bonuses being wholly discretionary (in terms of whether they get paid at all and what gets paid). And you certainly hear of cases in non-league football of sponsoring businesses offering £X per goal, there was even a Highland League club where the top scorer was to receive a free car, IIRC. But from what you're saying - I imagine the difference still hinges on whether or not the person paying the bonus is formally involved with the bakery/club?

Finally, to move away from bakery analogies and into football... I take it that arrangements made with players for bonuses would require to be lodged with the SFA and SPFL in the same way that the contracts and so forth are? I remember during the discussions about Rangers use of image rights payments and EBTs that they disputed whether these were payments for football, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers to SD and Yoss. Few followups: even though the company would be tax liable even if the individual had paid bonuses themselves and not told anyone, I'm presuming the not telling anyone bit is (at best) a bit naughty? I mean you could be racking-up a tax liability for the firm in a way which wasn't apparent to anyone else involved.

Also, to return to my (evidently flawed) bakery analogy - although I didn't make this clear I was meaning a situation where the oven-men know in advance that I would give them some kind of predetermined bonus [or as you say it may still be a tip] if they made a certain quality of cake. Not that I could eat the cake and then decide of my own generosity to give them some bonus/tip or otherwise. In football I imagine that players normally know that they'll get X bonus for Y performance, rather than bonuses being wholly discretionary (in terms of whether they get paid at all and what gets paid). And you certainly hear of cases in non-league football of sponsoring businesses offering £X per goal, there was even a Highland League club where the top scorer was to receive a free car, IIRC. But from what you're saying - I imagine the difference still hinges on whether or not the person paying the bonus is formally involved with the bakery/club?

Finally, to move away from bakery analogies and into football... I take it that arrangements made with players for bonuses would require to be lodged with the SFA and SPFL in the same way that the contracts and so forth are? I remember during the discussions about Rangers use of image rights payments and EBTs that they disputed whether these were payments for football, of course.

You'd get on well with BoredomGuy, the famous Saintees poster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking before I read that statement that he could have been paying cash bonuses out of his own pocket and putting them through his Director's loan account. It looks like that has been happening but unfortunately for Nixon the people who received the money are now denying it. As there is no paperwork it has given Rankine the opportunity to put the boot in and get his excuses in first.

I'm sure this letter to the authorities has happened first and when Nixon got wind of it he's got his own back by alerting the SFA to the fact Livi missed Rankine from the paperwork about having interests in the other clubs. The fact that Nixon was the one who should have included him in the paperwork just makes it worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, to return to my (evidently flawed) bakery analogy - although I didn't make this clear I was meaning a situation where the oven-men know in advance that I would give them some kind of predetermined bonus [or as you say it may still be a tip] if they made a certain quality of cake. Not that I could eat the cake and then decide of my own generosity to give them some bonus/tip or otherwise. In football I imagine that players normally know that they'll get X bonus for Y performance, rather than bonuses being wholly discretionary (in terms of whether they get paid at all and what gets paid). And you certainly hear of cases in non-league football of sponsoring businesses offering £X per goal, there was even a Highland League club where the top scorer was to receive a free car, IIRC. But from what you're saying - I imagine the difference still hinges on whether or not the person paying the bonus is formally involved with the bakery/club?

Regardless of whether or not you might have promised / agreed a level of tip beforehand (which is not that unusual a scenario), it's still a tip, and doesn't represent any kind of contract. (It would of course be different if it involved any kind of collusion with the employer to pay that instead of normal wages. I don't think any such involvement would even need to be formal, informal would also do it.)

If you're envisaging some kind of bizarre situation where an employee effectively had employment contracts with two different people, for carrying out exactly the same duties, that one employer was somehow entirely ignorant of, and yet which involved absolutely no relationship between the two 'employers', then that sounds like such a curious and artificial scenario that I can't think of having come across it or having seen it catered for in legislation. I can't think that that would represent a legal contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking before I read that statement that he could have been paying cash bonuses out of his own pocket and putting them through his Director's loan account. It looks like that has been happening but unfortunately for Nixon the people who received the money are now denying it. As there is no paperwork it has given Rankine the opportunity to put the boot in and get his excuses in first.

I'm sure this letter to the authorities has happened first and when Nixon got wind of it he's got his own back by alerting the SFA to the fact Livi missed Rankine from the paperwork about having interests in the other clubs. The fact that Nixon was the one who should have included him in the paperwork just makes it worse.

I think the two of them should fight it out with black puddings ecky thump style.

ecky-thump.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Livi knew about these payments a long time ago. Given that they were hopfull that they could have been "RESOLVED during the JULY court action".

They have deliberately waited until AFTER they have assembled a decent squad KNOWING that they would make a decleration which would result in a transfer ban which would have no impact.

CHEATS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or after the court date as actually stated. As I say, what would have stopped us from just sitting on this information until the courtcase began?

Declaring tax unpaid, and a relatively small amount at that is hardly cheating.

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...