Yoss

He arrived on a two year deal last summer, though I've no idea on what terms he left, the club have never said anything about it.

We were thinking especially of you.

Yeah, I think I'm basically agreeing that there has been enough evidence of malpractice for the SFL to have acted more strongly more quickly. I suppose I'm just acknowledging that it's much easier to think that from the sidelines when you don't have the responsibility for it, and I don't really envy those who had to make the decisions.

I'm not surprised at Vaughan omission but I thought Harmison would be in. Panesar still has to be ahead of Rashid in the reckoning as a Test player at the moment, I want Rashid to be good but I'm doubtful at this stage. I suspect the Aussies would thrash him all over the place, and his batting hasn't developed in the way that was hoped for him either. (Boycott was quite critical of him in that respect in his Telegraph column the other day.) Panesar's complete lack of form this season is a worry though, so I think they'll end up going with just the one spinner, even at Cardiff which last I heard wasn't spinning as much as had earlier been anticipated. You don't necessarily want to make the pitch too much of a turner anyway, it brings both Clarke and Katich into the equation as dangerous part-time bowlers. Yeah, that's pretty much my side except I'm agreeing with the selectors ahead of you. The first ten pick themselves if fit and I'd put in Sidebottom as the last bowler. Who has done really well actually, last year I thought his international days were already coming to and end but he's won me round.

I don't think we're monitoring the situation closely at all, we're reacting to gossip and blethering pish in the way that people do on internet chatsites (and long may it continue). I don't think the SFL have much more idea of what's going on than we do; and they can't act on gossip.

But if the immediate effect of that is to make Massone pull out and the club go under, that would probably scupper those who were owed the money - all very well taking a stance on their behalf but it might not be in their best interests to act that way. I accept that it can be argued the other way too, there was indeed a case for taking stronger action on that basis. And if as we all strongly suspect, Livi go under anyway and causes all kinds of additional problems because of the delay then the SFL will get all manner of stick for it. But it was far from easy to be sure they could have acted any differently.

I wasn't here in those days but what was denied at what stage?

Okay, there's probably something that can be learnt there. When you say "shit hot", what action do they / can they take?

The bond thing has indeed been suggested before would, for one thing, be a serioue impediment for anyone trying to help a football club out in such a circumstance, or indeed more or less anyone getting involved in football at low levels. Not least a Trust. And I can't agree with you there was any good reason for stopping David Hay either - are you suggesting anyone who has managed a club going into administration should be prevented working in football again? I appreciate what you're saying and it would be nice to think something can be done, but easy as it is to be wise after the event it's very hard to devise any set of rules that would have distinguished, as of last summer, between the new regime at Livi and plenty of other regimes that are perfectly legit and have done well with other clubs.

And as for scrutiny of club finances, for one thing Livi haven't submitted their accounts (and the SFL don't have the resources to go round auditing clubs on a more active basis, even if that were desirable) and in any case there are other clubs who are living beyond their means and being subsidised by benefactors. Which is perfectly legitimate even if it might not sound like a very clever long-term business plan.

Good post LLD. But the fit and proper persons test, it's very difficult to see what could have been done. Massone, as far as we know, isn't a convicted fraudster or bankrupt or anything that would have given any reason for him to fail any such test, as far as I'm aware. Yeah, he's turned out to be a nutter and total incompetent, but how do you devise a test that's going to screen effectively for that?

What sort of assurances? Gretna's situation was a bit different, they were already in administration even before the end of the previous season, and there was already an issue with the ground which gave the SFL further scope.

What sort of assurances? Massone would have given those assurances, what would you do then?

I've got a bit more sympathy with the SFL than that, it really has been very difficult to tell what's been going on at Livi - I thought they were going to go under midway through last season but they kept not doing, Massone just has an extraordinary way of doing business. The SFL can't act on rumours - they could have acted on the late wage payments I grant you and if Livi do go under there will be loud cries that they should have, but it would set an uncomfortable precedent, it's not uncommon for clubs to find themselves in the mire with cashflow that way. (Thanks to SD for checking out the rulebook.)

Gretna were put into the third division right away weren't they? So their first division place was never even ratified and Airdrie never actually relegated. As I understood it.

Yeah, I was wondering what the cut off date would be, but I would have thought any time up until the first fixture, possibly even a bit beyond that. Really don't have a clue though, I don't know of any precedents for it or whether there are any rules in place to cover it.

haha Yeah, like some of the "subtleties" of contract law, business law, employment law and drink-driving law.

A John Robertson Lounge is not a clearly defined legal entity and there's no particular reason why there should be any particular legal restriction on calling yourself one. The same is not true of a Trust, though I'm not an expert either and don't know whether they're on the wrong side of legality.

Deluded, absolutely. No arguments from me on that score.

Isn't the increased debt and the money he's put in the same thing though? Even Abramovich puts his money into Chelsea in the form of "loans", I think it's beneficial for tax reasons to do it that way even if you do actually intend to sink it into the club and never expect to see it again. Personally I credit his motivations a little better. Sure, he thought he could do well out of it himself ulmitately, but I imagine he thought it could be mutually beneficial and that he could make it work for the club too. And probably still does, in spite of everything.

I don't believe a word of it. Massone desperately needs to sell, and like the absurd tale of £300K the other week, this is his attempt to stimulate the market.

I imagine they just use a bigger table and have an extra plate of sandwiches.

That will be the end of it if there's been another incident, surely his last chance.

Aside from wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-Scotland-did-well, does anyone actually give a toss about this world cup?

hiding.