Yoss

Yeah sorry, appreciate that, my two statements were unlinked and I didn't mean to imply criticism of anyone who joined the group.

Yeah, it's probably brinkmanship, but he has something to lose and McDougall doesn't. Is McDougall really that bothered?

The facebook piece is fucking awful, can it really be that there are Livi fans who are still so far from getting it? I see James McPake and Manny Dorado are among those who've joined the group.

The "all publicity is good publicity" line is not true, not many sponsors want to be associated with a tainted brand.

Good man.

Good post. Duncan has been spot on through the thread but I've ceased to agree with him a bit in the past couple of days and I don't have a problem with what the council are doing here. First up, it's not clear to me there, is that £25K to Massone intended as a final pay-off in lieu of all debt or is he still going to want is pennies in the pound from any subsequent deal over and above that? I suspect the former, McGruther is in a pretty strong bargaining position there if the alternative is liquidation and getting nothing. That would bring the debt somewhere under a million. If the council have been talking to interested parties and are indeed willing to cut a better deal with one of them in whom they have most confidence then that's perfectly legitimate - in fact given Livingston's history of failing to screen owners up to now you'd think WLC would be applauded for taking that step. They can't agree a stitch-up by themselves because it needs agreement from other creditors, but they can make it easier for one group to put in an offer if they're willing to forego there own debt, and so long as it's transparent that's fine. There's a significant difference there with Leeds United where much the same thing happened, because the major creditor who was willing to take a lower deal from Bates's bid was an offshore trust with identities unknown - since there was no obvious reason why such a trust would be anything other than neutral in the matter of ownership, and since offshore trusts have followed Ken Bates' business career like a bad smell and been involved in previous stitch-ups, there was a strong suspicion that Bates himself was involved with or had links to it. That would have made it illegal, but it doesn't apply here. (Other interested parties thus had to make an offer to the offshore trust as well, and thus while they were putting in bids of higher total value than Bates's, they were worth less to the other creditors - again that's a bit different from the Livi scenario where it's a matter of trying to save the club rather than a question of which group of businessmen would get their hands on a Leeds which was still going to be a very viable asset.) Whether the WLC tax payers think that's all fine and above board is a separate matter and a matter for them, but we are where we are and WLC realise they've lost probably their money in any scenario; if they're preferred option is to nonetheless do what they can to retain a senior football club in the town and direct their efforts to that then from a business point of view that's perfectly legitimate and I don't see a problem with it.

The players are playing for nothing, for the time being.

Fill your boots.

Yeah, that's one of the better articles. There have been a few guns jumped on the last page or two of this thread, let's remember the Council only hold about 25% of the stated level of debt and aren't able by themselves to agree a stitch-up.

Today showed the worst case scenario of how it could go wrong given the players we've lost - lacking goalscoring threat even when we are on top as for most of the first half, looking vulnerable at set pieces, and most worrying of all was the manner in which we went to pieces once things started to go wrong. Shit happens though, it's going to take more than one poor game to dent my early season optimism. The barracking of Tade is stupid, he made some dangerous runs and caused the problems again today, as he has in several of the pre-season games. He needs to start taking some of the chances obviously, can't keep making excuses for him forever. but the guy behind me was slagging him even before that early chance today, and thinks he has "nae strength and nae pace". Really, it's just fucking silly and already showing signs of being counter-productive. And lay off McGlynn too while you're at it, substitution is often the easy answer but rarely the right one when the team as a whole isn't playing too well, one of the things I like about him is that he doesn't cop out that way so easily. Plus, my mum says he's a lovely bloke. I'm not going to read too much into the Campbell / Walker thing, these things happen; Campbell didn't have a great game today but he's still going to be a big player for us. I'm not Walker's biggest fan but he did okay and showed a bit of commitment when he came on.

Right, I've just read this judgement and Wimbledon, as they then were, seem to have used a loophole: independently of the money the new buyers were putting into the club to rescue it from administration, they were also prepared to put up further of their own money (rather than the company's) to pay off football debts in full in order to retain or regain the share from the football league; however if it were the company's assets that were being used in such a manner then they would indeed fall foul of the law and the implication is the Inland Revenue would then win such a case - have I understood that right? The same loophole should be available to pretty much any buyer of a club in such circumstances as long as it's done the same way, but if it's being done within the company using company assets then there could be trouble. As I read it.

*cough* - right thread this time. My mother met John McGlynn yesterday and said what a nice man he is.

Thanks for the link, yes I am interested and I agree entirely with your second paragraph. (And with nearly all of the recent posts about the need to ensure Livi are suitably penalised, in case I may have given any impression to the contrary last night.)

I don't think there's much doubt what the team will be, or at least I'll be very surprised if it's not: McGurn, Wilson, Ellis, Campbell, Murray, Davidson, Williamson, Simmons, Tade, Weir, Smith Didn't think Smith was injured, but Ferry would replace him on the left if so. Otherwise Ferry on the bench with O'Connor, Hill, Walker, Bryce.

All he said was that he has to find out what the SFL's "attitude" is going to be. And yes he did say penalities might affect a takeover, but that's a no-brainer, I don't read it as blackmail. I didn't have a problem with it. I agree, btw, relegation would probably be fairer than a points deduction - if Livi gained an advantage by overspending then they gained it last season while the debt was accruing. Don't know what Airdrie's attitude to a last minute re-promotion would be though.

Yeah, I take your point in both cases. Games have certainly been sswapped about to suit other clubs for reasons to dow ith stadia, like when Dunfermline needed a string of away games to lay their plastic pitch. I don't know if any games have been moved to provide cashflow but I like to think the SFL would consider any such request, I certainly wouldn't want to lose a club that might yet be around for many years if such a relatively small thing was going to make all the difference. On penalties - yes I think he expects them, I don't know if he said he'd ask for none to be given or whether he's just going to ask for calrification of the position, but in any case his job from now on is to get the best deal he can for Livingston, he's professionally obliged to argue the best case for them and try to minimise anything which might make it more difficult to sell the club. The SFL should stick to their guns anyway of course, but there's nothing sinister in him having the discussion. (It's also worth remembering that Scottish football is heavily dependent on the goodwill of creditors and if the SFL are seen as being unnecessarily obstructive to a deal that might be in the creditors' best interests then that could have a negative impact on everyone.)

See also, interview with Massone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8168220.stm Nothing out the ordinary in that one, just slightly amusing to hear him boasting of his fantastic relationshp with the supporters. ("Just a little part of the support try to create problems.")

Ah, sorry, I'd misunderstood.

Interesting, I knew they were no longer priority and that they weren't happy with the football's football debt ruling but hadn't realised it had been challenged. Wimbledon's administration was 2003 though so pre-dated the law change? Some interesting titbits on that interview for anyone who hasn't watched yet. The players are playing for nothing just now; there is no cashflow at all other than anticipated gate receipts; debt to the Inaldn Revnue is also over £300K. The SFL do have to stick to the rules but as already noted they have very flexible rules, I imagine all they'll be able to tell him next week is that it will have to be decided by a full board meeting when they can convene it. The administrator will need to know this info in order to be able to tell the club though so he's quite right to ask them what the score is - it can be a major sticking point as Southampton discovered this summer, one of their potential takeovers fell through when the propsctive buyers refused to sign an agreement that they wouldn't challenge the ten point deduction. Rearrangement of a fixture is not unprecedented, if other clubs are happy to agree I don't see a problem. They might not be happy to agree though, if clubs at their early away fixtures have already sold sponsorship packages and things they might tell them to get stuffed.

Cheers both, useful info.

But the SFL's rule is flexible enough to be able to act on a CVA, or indeed on what's happened already just as readily as on formal administration (if they see fit): "The Management Committee shall also have full power to deal with as it thinks fit, including power to deduct championship points before or during a season and/or to impose a player registration embargo on any club guilty of conduct contrary to the interests of the League and its member clubs or any registered player or former registered player, or potentially likely to prejudice the orderly progress of the League Championship and/or the League Challenge Cup competition in any season. Such conduct, for the avoidance of doubt, may include a club in or going into Administration, Liquidation, Receivership, Sequestration or any other insolvency procedure by whatever means or having a Judicial Factor appointed to its undertaking. For the further avoidance of doubt, a club in or going into any such procedure will remain responsible for the purposes of this Rule for the conduct of its undertaking by any Administrator, Liquidator, Receiver, Trustee in Sequestration, Judicial Factor or other such officer appointed to it." That's not to say they will act on it, we'll have to wait and see, but it's not the case that the SFL will be prevented from taking any action they might otherwise have wanted to by Livi playing the rules.

Whether or not the SFL could have done more / better, I'm open to dbeate about, but the expectations of what they can and should be able to do has for the most part been totally unrealistic throughout the course of the thread. Anyway, I'm still confused about this Interim Manager thing, is it so they can go in and have a period of time to make an assessment or make any small changes to business practices that may help without having to go through a formal administration? If so, what happens if there's insufficient funds to pay the wages next week or if revenue is insufficient to meet accruing bills and the administrator realises they'd be trading illegally? How long can this situation go on for and what happens next?

The SFL don't have journalists, they're reliant on what's on club websites or at least what clubs tell them officially. And since Livi's website at the moment just says "Club statement to follow", they'll be awaiting developments. Everything else is gossip, and p&b is the best place for that.

As mentioned before, while it may well be that the administration situation influenced their thinking, it wasn't the reason for Gretna's demotion to the third division - that was because of the issues with Raydale.

So how does the Interim Manager thing work, where's our insolvency experts this afternoon?