Yoss

That's a new one. Run it by me? Edit: Actually, don't bother.

Now I'm pleased.

I'm not sure whether to be pleased or offended that I missed the shortlist. Not that I would have expected to be able to hold a candle to Duncan or Kingfae when it came to the final vote.

You don't think an obviously elementary error in arithmetic in the same post as a jibe about poor educational standards might have been linked in some way?

"Livingston FC brings jobs and money into the local economy." Jesus wept, I sincerely hope that is a wind-up.

hahaha Good lord, I didn't see that one.

Yeah, reading livilions for more than a few minutes is a bad idea, sympathy for them goes out the window very quickly.

The failure to provide guarantees of the bond as agreed at the previous week's meeting as the condition of their remaining in division 1 seems to be the only reason they've given, anywhere, for the decision. If it is the case then maybe it's fair enough - bear in mind that prior to that first meeting and the conditions agreed within them the expectation was that Livi wouldn't be allowed to start the season at all. But rather unhelpfully they haven't said this publically, and I've only seen it reported second hand on livilions quoting a conversation with David Thompson: http://www.livilions.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16860

Broadly agreed, in principle certainly. A wage cap is a fairly blunt tool though, some clubs can afford to pay, say 70% of turnover on wages, some can't. It would be a huge effort to police effectively as presented there. As far as investment goes, no football is not a good investment for anyone looking for a fiancial return int eh traditional sense but some people do like to put money into the game for their own reasons, and that's fine and shouldn't be legislated against or even discouraged. I'm not sure about (effectively) banning soft loans. I know several of the clubs who've got into trouble (including Livi and Gretna) have had soft loans and those have been included in the total level of debt that gets quoted when it comes to a head, but it wasn't those debts that actually caused them to reach that stage - how many examples are there of clubs who have been put into difficulty by an investor attempting to call in a soft loan? In Gretna's case, say, the financial commitments (made more than a year ahead in amny cases) were impossible to meet once Mileson's funding was withdrawn, that woudln't have been any different if his money had been given rather than lent, the only difference would have been that Mileson himself wouldn't have been a creditor. Which I suppose might have made it easier for someone to mount a rescue package but that's not really the point. I'm not sure it would have stopped the Livingston scenario either, not in the past twelve months anyway. Maybe previously if it could have been effectively enforced. Circumstances vary so much and the world in general so difficult to plan for that it's more or less impossible to set hard and fast rules for the good governance of a club or indeed any other business, but it is easily possible to detect when things are starting to go wrong - as said by myself and others earlier, late wages and missed Inland Revenue payments being obvious and easily knowable examples. I'd probably be in favour of sanctions at that stage aimed at nipping trouble in the bud. (NB Once again I'm not trying to piss on any bonfires here, I'm picking holes in it precisely because I do think you're making serious suggestions and ones that need to have holes picked in them if they're to be given consideration.)

Also, other costs vary hugely between clubs so the 50% thing applied across the board isn't necessarily going to be aprticularly appropriate as a means of determining what a club can reasonably afford to spend on wages. Many clubs own their own grounds and have substantially lower costs than those who are renting them. That's often down to sensible financial management over a long period of time so not allowing them to spend their extra cash seems neither fair nor teleologically sound in relation to the effect you're trying to achieve.

How would the wage cap work, would it be fixed at the start of the season by being based on the previous season's income? Or would it be judged at the end of the year as to whether they'd exceeded that year's percentage or not? In the former case you're making it difficult for clubs to attract (and use) new investment, and it'd be a particular problem for newly-promoted clubs. In the latter case it'd need some careful judgement, income does vary from year-to-year on all sorts of factors and it'd make it difficult to set wage budgets, some clubs would be bound to exceed them and it'd lead to various shenanigans towards the end of the season. In either scenario there's a danger of encouraging (even more) use of brown envelopes, which is not something the SFL has the power to police very effectively. They already have the right to inspect financial records, at least I'm pretty sure I red that in the rulebook the other day. Resources are the problem there, as SD and others have noted. Not trying to pour cold water on anything here, these are all ideas that can and should be looked at.

And just to correct my own post there - it's actually 21 days notice needed to hold an SGM. The SFL need to get a waiver from all thirty clubs to be able to hold it as soon as this Thursday.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say "there but for the grace of god goes your club" - most clubs don't behave like Livi. There have been threads on this site over the past few months for Stranraer, Stirling, Clyde, and they have the overwhelming majority of support from fans of all clubs, more than a few of whom have been more than willing to dip their hands into their pockets to back it up, There are specific (and valid) reasons why Livingston have not attracted the same sympathy. Not that I consider myself a hater, and I still hope they do come through this, much as they've gone about it the wrong way by trying to set their own terms for that survival.

I don't particularly buy Sir CM's intepretation of the rules there either. To me it's more natural to read 76.4 as applying only as and when the vote as taken, rather than assume it to apply throughout the period between the appeal being made and the vote being taken. But it's not explicit either way and it's wrong to claim otherwise. And of course it doesn't matter a f**k what we think anyway, it's down to the SFL to interpret. This bit may all be a storm in a teacup in any case, the SFL already seem to have indicated that they'd have postponed the game themselves if the appeal had been received early enough for them to do so, so they might decide Livingston's decision is neither here nor there. Let's wait and see.

See that's just not true. It's *a* way of interpreting the rules, but to present it as being explicit is simply wrong.

Indeed. There must be more to that than has been reported there though.

Well if that is the case then Livi will go under, how's he going to persuade 75% of creditors to accept an offer of nothing? In any event, the creditors are Livingston's priority, which is not to say that's not a consideration, but the SFL must not just bend over backwards and let Livi have what they say they need in order to get them the best deal. That's (quite clearly) not in the best interests of football or, in the long run, of the creditors and the banks on whom football is dependent.

You appealed last thing on a Friday evening, to get in touch with every club over the weekend to send a director at the drop of a hat first thing Monday morning is impractical and I would presume unconstitutional. Most directors are business folks who have other interests and don't work full-time for their football club, nice as it would be if Livingston FC were the centre of the universe around which everything else revolved. (In fact I thought you needed fourteen days notice for an SGM so I'm surprised they're able to hold it as soon as Thursday, but I can't see where I got that fourteen days things from so maybe that was wrong.)

Among the stuff on livilions there's an actually quite useful thread here: http://www.livilions.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16860 It's a report of a conversation with David Thompson, SFL Operations Director, and while it's not an official source of info and we can't be sure anyway that the comments have been correctly reported, there are a couple of things there worth noting. If that's the case the the SFL were apparently prepared to postpone the game anyway (and the other two) had the appeal been submitted earlier in the day in which case they may not deem the latest offence too serious even if Livingston have acted unilaterally. If there's another set of fixtures to be held before the appeal is heard it'll be interesting to see if there are any postponements, and if so how many. Maybe I've just missed it among all the talk but that's the first I've heard of this, and the first I've heard of any concrete reason for the Management Committee taking a different line this week other than just attitudes having hardened or a change of mind. That makes this week's decision a bit more understandable and they should maybe have made it clearer.

Maybe that was the basis for the show, every week he'd come up with some cunning plan to read it only to be foiled at the last minute. I've seen worse ideas piloted.

Nice to have you back, btw, there was someone pretending to have your name for the past month but he seemed like a right c**t.

I see. What's Prison Break? (Or have I just been whooshed?)

To answer a question from elsewhere, does anyone know what Davidson has tattooed on his neck?

I saw that about Argentina, we've got nothing on them.

LLD, and presumably Livi themslves, are interpreting "The appeal shall, however, be deemed to have succeeded unless the decision of the Management Committee is supported by a majority of the votes cast at the said Special General Meeting" as "The appeal shall, however, be deemed to have succeeded until the decision of the Management Committee is supported by a majority of the votes cast at the said Special General Meeting." Which is one possible interpretation I suppose, but I'm not really convinced. More pertinently, it's self-evidently not the SFL's own interpretation, and unless they actually are thinking of taking it to the courts that's the one that counts.