Skyline Drifter

Which rule would that be?

That may, or may not be the case, I tend not to believe it couldn't have been fairly clear the course of action to be followed much earlier in the day. However, NOTHING excuses the fact that Livingston issued an official statement at or around 5pm on their website confirming an appeal but mentioned not a word about failing to fulfil tomorrow's fixture until considerably later whenever that was (I left the office at 5:40pm and it was still only rumours then and there was nothing on your website). That is despicable behaviour designed to cause maximum inconvenience. No more, no less. If Ged Nixon was able to come outside and tell Livingston fans in the car park that they wouldn't be playing at the same time the first statement went out (and according to your fans he did) then the two statements should have been released officially at the same time.

***Long Rant Alert*** Firstly, I think it's important to remember exactly what the SFL did when they handed Hamilton a 15 point penalty and why they did it. Most people only look at the number and don't think about it any further. I don't actually think the 15 point number is a precedent for anything much at all. When the SFL docked Accies 15 points they were quite specific that the reason they did so (and arrived at that number), remembering that the decision was handed down 3 weeks from the end of the season, was because that was the number of points required to place Hamilton bottom of the division but leave their fate still recoverable. They deliberately placed them four points behind us with three games to go and a head to head amongst that. Had we been half a dozen points better off I've no doubt the penalty would have been nine points instead. It was given because of where it left them, not how many points it was and was purely designed to give them a fighting chance of avoiding automatic relegation because they didn't want to just rule that way directly. This is different. If Livingston fail to fulfil this fixture tomorrow (which clearly they will) and their appeal later fails then, given this is start of the season, there's no real reason 15 points should be a precedent. 3 or 6 is more likely. Other points: I think Livingston have conducted themselves deplorably all day today and frankly any sympathy at all for them has now evaporated. They have had two days to decide what to do. I think they should be playing this fixture but leaving that aside for the moment that they clearly aren't going to do so but waited until after 5pm on Friday night to publish it is disgraceful. That they released a statement at 5pm announcing an appeal and mentioning nothing about failing to appear for tomorrow's fixture is doubly disgraceful. Instead we had rumours and half truths flying around for an additional hour or so before it was confirmed that the game will not go ahead. That is utterly utterly reprehensible behaviour and frankly I question the professionalism of the people involved. It's been designed to cause maximum disruption and Livingston are behaving like a spoiled child. Pram overturned, toys everywhere. That they can apparently guarantee they'd be able to play at Dingwall tomorrow but won't play at East Stirling is ridiculous so there can be no argument that it is anything other than a point of principle (to be fair that's exactly what Livingston say it is but we had all sorts of nonsense about players unpaid and insurance floating about because Livi let it run so long). Well I'm sorry but the SFL procedure was, so far as I can see, perfectly in accordance with the rules and if this appeal fails, as it surely will, then Livingston should without question be hit with further points penalties (to whatever extent) for this petulant refusal. It's fairly clear from the tone of the SFL press release that whoever wrote it feels the same. The brinksmanship and gun to the head attitude of Livingston's "White Knights" this week has been disgraceful. Perhaps "Horsemen of the Apocalypse" would now be more appropriate? As for the SFL, I remain by and large sympathetic. I don't believe there was much if anything they could legally have done before last week but unfortunately Livingston's behaviour today has just underlined the massive mistake they made in not acting more decisively a week earlier. This could and should have been set in motion a week earlier and been sorted out by now. However, they made that mistake and are now paying the price in their credibility. It's hard to see what else they could actually have done this week apart from perhaps bottle out and offer a points deduction on Wednesday instead of relegation. Livingston's conduct today leaves them looking worse than it needed to though, something I have no doubt is exactly what it was intended to do. There are no winners in this. The integrity of the competition is already harmed. Livingston have made themselves a complete joke. Airdrie United and Cowdenbeath are shunted from pillar to post with a whole harder division to play in than they've prepared for. Ross County and Arbroath have teams to face that they can't possibly have prepared properly to face. The whole of the third division potentially have a squad (if it stays together) that is much too good for that level to compete with all season off, at this point, an even footing. It's an utter nonsense and the blame for that mostly lies squarely with Livingston, starting with Massone, continuing with McGruther and culminating in the 'Horsemen'. I'll climb off my soapbox now!

You aren't listening. THE CLUBS PAY NOTHING. Any SFL player is automatically covered by an SFL group policy arranged and paid by the SFL. Livingston, like Queen of the South, Berwick Rangers and every other club in the SFL have nothing to pay. Whatever else tomorrow's refusal play is about it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this complete red herring about insurance.

It's not about being checked for God's sake it's the fact you seem to think the SPL should be bloody doing it! The financial health or otherwise of SFL clubs has got precisely the square root of feck all to do with the SPL and for what it's worth I'm utterly sure they'd agree.

So anyway, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OFFICIAL INFORMATION THAT THE LIVINGSTON GAME DOES NOT GO AHEAD TOMORROW? So far as I can see these rumours are coming from someone on the Livi forum claiming to have spoken to Ged Nixon and to the SFA at Hampden on the phone. Livingston half an hour ago issued a statement on their own website that said they were appealling. That was it. Nowhere in the statement does it suggest they won't be playing tomorrow. If they've made that decision then surely they have to let people know that's the case? The SFL have no announcement on their website and that was updated with new items five minutes ago. I have a feeling someone is yanking chains here.

Sorry HJ, and it's not like you, but that's utter and complete nonsense. No club in the SFL pays personal insurnace for players. It's all done as part of a group policy with the SFL. Registered player then they are insured as long as Livingston remain members. Some clubs might pay medical insurance for players to cover private health care but I very much doubt it. We looked into it and the costs are exorbitant.

Ah, sorry, since you clearly lifted the reference to the gift from the chrsitening thread I presumed you would also have read the post where I told FC1919 I'd had a look on the Early Learning Centre website and couldn't find it there. It doesn't seem to be available on their website. Maybe it was end of line product or something? Like I said, my sister bought it down South. She lives in Trowbridge so presumably she bought it there or in Bath or Bristol.

I have no idea what that actually means? Are you suggesting the SPL as an organisation should have the right to step in and check SFL member club books if they hear a rumour of trouble? If so that's the craziest suggestion on this thread yet.

?

Not that I'm aware of. Early Learning Centre's own product so far as I can remember.

That is one of the funniest things I've read on here in a long time.

Annual audited accounts are already required by the SFA for club licensing purposes. I have no great objection to that. You were wanting six monthly accounts in the previous post. It's the additional cost of those if they are to be audited that I'm asking about.

And for the 3rd time. IHGH suggested exactly that, I took issue with it, and that's where you came in. I've quoted it twice! Audited accounts or not? If yes then that has an associated, and completely unnecessary in corporate law terms, cost. Who should pay that? Either way it's money coming out of the game unnecessarily. If no, they aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Why would I? I'm not on here claiming to know better than the SFL what they should have been doing (well not particularly anyway, I've said already I thought they didn't act decisively enough at the first meeting a week ago but like everyone else on here I obviously don't know what was actually said in private discussion). I addressed the point (initially) that the SFL somehow should have been able to act on this as long ago as last October and certainly at the end of the season, not last week. I happen to disagree with that suggestion. I don't see the SFL as competent to replace the laws of the land in terms of governance of companies.

IHGH did, right there, in bold, in the quote I addressed in the first place that you followed up. If his argument is reduced to absurdities that is in fact because it was absurd, not because I reduced it so.

I'd say so yes. The SFL is not here as a financial watchdog, it's not in their remit and they aren't qualified to do it. If anything that's an SFA issue and indeed it is something the SFA look at as part of licensing. What they do not do however is jump in jackbooted every time someone puts their hand in the air and says "Please sir, Montrose haven't paid me yet for some stationery they bought last month" or "Livingston owe me a week's a wages" or "Queen of the South have charged me twice for my season ticket", etc. That's the part of IHGH's suggestion that is utterly ludicrous and remains so no matter how often he repeats it.

The SFL (which incidentally has about five staff who just might be busy doing other things and not experts in book-keeping) would be spending every waking hour looking at the detailed financial arrangements of every club in the league in that case. That's a ludicrous notion.

And? Yet again, very easy to shout "The SFL should be doing something" in a "Won't someone please think of the children" kind of way but what exactly is it that you think gave them grounds to do anything last October? The present owner of a company suing the previous owner over a lack of disclosure of facts at purchase is nothing to do with the SFL and not a reason for them to do anything.

I understand the point you are making, and agree with it, but just in Gretna's defence they got swept up by one man with false promises and it cost them a club that had existed happily within its own means for over 50 years. I don't think it's entirely fair to compare with Livingston who have been in administration (or its equivalent) twice in 14 years and have overspent since the day and hour they were created. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with that decision at the time and the Gretna elected to the SFL (pre-Mileson) would most likely have been an asset to the SFl on a small scale the way Annan are now. Mileson's arrival on the scene changed everything just as it would had he pitched up at Cowdenbeath, Airdrie, Elgin, etc instead.

I agree, and I'm also far from certain but I think this would fall to the SFA to investigate, not the SFL. I'm sure I read a while back that the SPFA were in talks with the SFA about Livingston's players position. I don't think it was the SFL but my memory may be flawed and the original source could equally be confused.

But that's entirely the point. That was the SFA and yes it was to do with licensing. You are using it as an axe to beat the SFL with. They didn't breach any (specific) SFL rules. I know what Flash is saying but that really covers issues such as interim administration and suchlike which is indeed the point at which the SFL did act. I never said incidentally that they were unable to take action until they went into administration. I said they were unable to do so before McGrouther's appointment, which isn't the same thing. I seriously think the SFL would be making a dangerous precedent if they want to jump in at rumours of non-payment of bills and a few court cases.

Indeed they could but the difference here, given that the league place isn't a sellable commodity transferrable away from the company, is that the only way to do so is to buy the company with debt included and either pay them or come to an arrangement with them. A consortium could buy Livingston FC, change the name to Livingston Thistle and carry on if they can deal with the debts. But Spartans or Cove can't buy their league place.

And Livingston were not in breach of any rules laid down by the SFL or required to show them any accounts at all at that point. Who says Livingston were "on the point of bankruptcy"? The press, some creditors? They were right in fact but Massone denied it. The SFL can't work based on rumour and internet postings. Haemorrhaging money on court cases isn't illegal and plenty other clubs have done the same (my own did so in the 1980's somewhat ludicrously). It's certainly not for the SFL to tell clubs what court cases they can spend money on. Players didn't so far as I am aware go for months without pay though certainly there appear to have been many months when it was paid late. Staff may have done, I'm not sure. In itself that isn't a reason for the SFL to interfere. Did Livingston fail to submit annual accounts by a deadline? Who to? For what purpose? Got a link to that, I've nver heard that one?

On what grounds? Like I said, they weren't in breach of any rule. Massone could have perfectly legally told them to get lost. I might consider it in my view reasonable that I should pop round your house tonight, make myself comfortable on your sofa and demand sight of all your bank statements but you'd equally tell me, politely I'm sure, to "Get lost". And you'd be right too. keithgy is a moderator on here. I stand to be corrected but I've never seen him post a wind up ever. If he posted it (and he did) then he undoubtedly had grounds to believe it at the time. Whether he maybe knows people involved and that was a knee jerk response now being re-considered after some more rational though, only keith and his source will know.