HibeeJibee

They've never been punished before, chucking them out of the league would be ridiculous. We've got to the stage where relegation isn't possible. A points deduction is a fair and measured action. Regarding the bond... I just think it's a stupid and unfair thing to do. Stranraer looked like they'd collapse before the end of last season, or not start this one: they'd never have been required to put up a bond. It's simply majority SFL clubs demanding cash from clubs who struggle to raise it. EDIT TO ADD: I mean how do you calculate the bond? Why not make every club put up a bond?

I think it's a nonsense they're having to put up a bond. As no-one else was ever asked to do so. Expelling a club for entering administration would be massively OTT. A big points fine will not be. There are plenty other clubs now skating towards ice as thin as Livi's. Livi's happened to break.

Whatever the situation, the SFL have the power to impose a penalty (which can be effectively in any form they see fit), as Livingston have been in a form of insolvency... It doesn't have to be administration, just being run by an insolvency practitioner. One saving grace of the lax rules...

I have to say that I'd be appalled if no punishment is applied... and since the only realistic and fair punishment is a points deduction, that's what it has to be surely? Personally I'd say 10 pts.

Clyde were in a similar position, and have had to slash the playing budget... but recently reported that they still envisage running at a loss next season. Now OK, Livingston will have higher crowds due to being in the First Division: but they've a higher wage bill and may be relegation dead-certs. Perhaps a luck-of-the-draw tie v an OF club in the Scottish Cup is their only way of breaking even?

Yes and no, but regardless... Gretna were handed totally different treatment to Livi by the SFL.

OK I didn't appreciate that. But I'm still confused as to what's been taken away from Airdrie - as Livi haven't been liquidated, in fact have got new investors and may not be in long-term admin?

I wasn't aware that David Longmuir had the power do do that. Ultimately the clubs decide. And since Livingston have not gone out of business, I'm confused as to what Black actually means... Black's gripe is that Livi remain in a higher division than his club, because they've dodged being wound up. 'Football in Airdrie' did pretty much the same thing: going bust > forming a new firm and buying up another club not in the bottom tier > running along fine in their old stadium. The road taken may be different, but the results are essentially the same. 'Football in Airdrie' moved in murky waters, and came out with a fish (having avoided giving fish to their creditors) - now, 'Football in Livingston' has done the same. Livingston happen to have kept their original disguise. Not quite, but I'm not wanting to get into a debate on this. Ultimately, Livingston FC have found a new set of investors who will avoid the club being liquidated or suffering prolonged admin. It is bad if they are dodging creditors but giving a bond to the SFL - but frankly I don't see why the SFL should be taking a bond off them. If you're policy to a club entering financial trouble is going to be "give us a huge sum of money to sit in our bank account", I can't see it being used much. And as a second point on this: if precedent is to be observed, how do Gretna FC fans feel now? Were they given an opportunity to "do a Livingston"? Or even the opportunity to "do an Airdrie"?

15 point deduction at a stretch... But what if there was 30 or 40 years between the admins? Well, that may be fair enough. I still think it's arrogant for Kenny Black to be going on as is his club have been robbed of a mandatory entitlement. Particularlt when that club is Airdrie Utd... I agree that establishing a holding company, which pays money to the SFL, thus allowing Livi FC to avoid paying anything to its creditors, is very dodgy. The holding company concept is dodgy.

Is this actually true though? The Management Committee simply passed the matter onto an EGM of clubs... That isn't now required, because Massone has gone and the take-over will go through - and the take-over going through means they are not insolvent. That's my intepretation of it... The Management Committee did not have the power to green-light them before Massone left. It is now not required to get an EGM of clubs to green-light them because Massone has left...?

OK, just back from holiday and find a raft of developments and the thread 100+ pages further on than when I left it. If anyone could give a single-paragraph summary of the situation - cheers... Working on the basis of what I've read on the BBC website and yesterdays + today's Scotsman: Changing the rules regarding ownership: I can see what the SFL Management Committee was trying to do here, as it would have solved the problem very easily. Unfortauntely, it also looks very bad in terms of the image being put out. You shouldn't change rules to help clubs that have cheated their way to "success". It simply commits further damage on fair-play clubs. In principal, I'd be very disturbed at the prospect of the rules being changed to save Livi. But if the rules are outdated, and updating them happens to save Livi from an unjustifiable punishment then it's probably the lesser evil. A 10 point deduction would be a fitting punishment, surely...? As an aside to this, can anyone confirm why Massone was barred from entering the SFL meeting - there seems to be nothing in the rules preventing a club's official rep being at proceedings...? I don't doubt he is an unpleasant character, but he is still Livingston's official SFL representative. Demotion to First/Second etc. etc. - we must remember that the situation with Gretna was a bit different... due to the ground issue and the change from Associate to Full membership which was related to it, which occurred while they were in the SPL IRRC. However, leaving that aside, it's a pretty stupid idea that just because you have a precedent, you must stick to it. If you did that, you'd never change anything - ever!! Clubs shouldn't be relegated for administration - and doing so (and lifting up other clubs) a few days before the season starts would be doubly mad... I'm also astonished at the comments attributed to Kenny Black. In no way whatsover is it set in stone that Airdrie would go up if Livingston go down - they could run with 9, they could promote or save another club, etc. etc. and within the rules there is nothing giving Airdrie open priority. Most other leagues do not demote clubs for entering the beginning of administration (certainly not in England), so why should people imagine it to be the case in the SFL? Neither do I miss the irony of an Airdrie United official talkibg about unpaid wages, insolvency, and unfair advantage... So for me the position is: Livingston probably should have gone under entirely, but a solution (if admittedly a distasteful one...) has been found. If they can lodge a bond and run next season it should be seen as a good thing. They should be fined 10 points. They should perhaps also have to be subject of continuing financial scrutiny, perhaps by the SFL Management Committee who could be mandated by the clubs And demoting Livingston for 2009-10 would IMO be outrageous.

Get in touch with Stewart Gilmour: there's one going spare in Edinburgh he's past experience of. Basingstoke eh? I've only ever been to Basingstoke once, visited the Milestones Museum IIRC... To verge back onto a serious point before I switch off for the night (literally and metaphorically) - Livi are quite clearly on the brink, but that shouldn't be an excuse for giving them any competitive advantages like bringing up home games. I suspect they'll not see the season out anyway, tbf...

If you believe the local press, you should address the greetings card to "Annan Athletic FC" !!

Well said WJR. In fact the SFL's over-rated these days, EOSFL is where it's at. Livingston 2009?

I see Stewart Gilmour is on the SPL board now, btw. I hope everyone's fences are in order ... Anyway - Spartan's have an unfair reputation for appeals: U-21 outfielders, goalies signed after date of original tie, etc. They equal it all out with Dean Hoskins 'n Kenny Young. Balanced karma.

Evening WJR. Congratulations to Spartans on winning their first trophy at the new ground before the season has even started... pity your close rivals for the League title last season have quit!! My presumption is that he will say "give me a steady run of home games, with a bit of help at the start; forward me some £££ of prize-money (e.g. minimum even for finishing 10th); and we'll hobble on". I think SFL will look at it as attractive - the various alternatives are very messy indeed. I'm sure that Spartans will have drawn immeasurable experience from their previous unsuccessful bid ... One must also see some irony in the fact that the ground you've just vacated was originally the home of Ferranti Thistle... who moved to Meadowbank... and then to Livingston... Meadowbank, now the home of Edinburgh City... Spartans closest rivals... who also used to play at City Park... and also may be likely to bid for any vacancy. Scottish footie. It's incestuous ...

I wrote a reply including quotes, but hit a wrong button and lost it: here's a hasty new version... My interpretation is that - [1] the administrator is telling the SFL the club is less likely to be sold if they receive a points deduction for entering administration; and [2] he needs cash from hosting a home game, and will play the 'we might go bust' card if they don't agree to move up 1/2 fixtures. What I expect to happen is this... the SFL will fudge the points deduction, partly due to their being this slightly odd status over the legal process/status - partly due to there being no precedent for a mandatory immediate deduction - partly because they can fend off the storm. The SFL will also let them move forward a home game v Morton (from November 21st, clashes with ALBA Cup Final) or v Ayr (from March 13th, clashes with Scottish Cup QF) on the grounds that those games might have to move anyway. I anticipate there being some opposition within SFL... it will be fended off. What should happen is this... Liv should be fined 10 points for entering administration, or if there is doubt about the status - as soon as that doubt is cleared up... No fixtures should be brought forward: the club is in huge debt, it shouldn't be given a competitive advantage over its rivals too. Demoting Livi, or demoting Livi and promoting Airdrie, would be equally unacceptbale moves IMO.

Yes sorry, getting mixed up between QP + Cowden . Personally I think they have to run with 9 in the First... far too late to start altering away games/hospitality etc., never mind a host of problems with clubs having built squads for the division below. No automatic relegation if just 9.

Actually it's very good for the SFL. If a small 'provincial' team ever get into the First Division and enter administration they can chuck them out of the SFL. If Motherwell ever get relegated into the First Division and enter administration, they can give them a slap across the wrist. Etc. etc. Surely it is up to the administrator to decide: until now, any talk the SFL did was with Massone. But the SFL is only the collection of 30 club chairmen, so they've probably not got involved yet. Gretna were (ostensibly) placed in the Third Division because their ground wasn't suitable, and the administrator couldn't guarentee to fulfil the fixtures. Neither of those apply to Livi as yet. I still think it would be utterly astonishing if the SFL votes to move Airdrie and Queen's Park up at a week or 10 days notice. Particularly as the Management Committee of the SFL (i.e. the 29 voting clubs - Annan have no vote) includes 9 Third Division + Livi, against 9 First Division, thus you'd expect the Second Division clubs to be those with the power to decide which way it goes. The previous bit about the Office Bearers + 6 elected delegates refers to the League Executive. If this was to happen, you're looking at a non-league club resigning from their own league once it's started. I'm hard pushed to think of the last time that has happened in senior football here. Quite possibly the barmiest solution conceivable. As much chance of it happening as of Massone being elected Pope, and calling upon Divine Providence to clear Livingston of their £1m+ debts... For me, the SFL have to deduct them 10 points. And ask for a guarentee regarding fixtures. If Livingston's administrator cannot give that guarentee, then the First Division should run with 9. Promotion/relegation adjusted - and an election process for a new club should be held in spring.

Surely lower SFL clubs would oppose any buy-out of Livi by a non-leaguer? Airdrie Utd were 'new'.

That statement is patently untrue... The SFA updated their friendly match list at opening of business this morning (I happened to check it just after 9am) - and the game was listed at Creamery Park. It seems pretty obvious from this, the Plymouth A website, and the fact that nobody is going to let Livi use their ground "just like that" - this decision was made earlier this week, and not just this morning.

My understanding is that the SFL will allow Livingston to play behind closed doors, or to change home games to away ones... (although that could only last, at a very extreme, until Christmas time anyway). Obviously that would be an inconvenience to fans, and long-term a financial hit for Livingston, but it avoids a car-crash situation of them getting expelled/demoted in late July.

It's certainly running next year, and with the recession easing, I don't see why it'll be scrapped.

Why? The only way to get into the SFL is to wait for a club to die, then apply for vacancy. Why should a re-incarnation of a badly run club be let back in, keeping an ambitious non-leaguer out?

It would be a dangerous thing for the SFL though - and they've the ability to stop such a move. With 2 weeks to go before KO? And it would have to be a seperate club, 'Celtic Harp', and not a reserve team. On top of which Celtic and Rangers are both tied into the SPL Reserve League...