The Master

Ross County won at the weekend. Do you really think they'll vote in your favour and give up the three points? Same goes for Arbroath.

Quite how you managed to draw that conclusion... It probably would be laughed at by Sun readers, because they have difficulty understanding basic concepts. Actually, that probably explains why you're having problems. I didn't say they did. But the principal stands: appealing a red card is an appeal against the accusation that you carried out the offence (and a successful appeal against that results in the punishment being scrapped as well). Again, I didn't say they did. This is a simple case of drawing on an analogy to illustrate that, during an appeal against a punishment, it is not uncommon for the punishment to continue to be served. It fact, it's pretty normal.

If you quite finished screaming, I'll explain the flaws in your post. You're not comparing like with like. Red cards go hand-in-hand with the offence. So when you appeal a red card, you are appealing against your "conviction" (as it were) for the offence. You are not appealing against the punishment.

It wasn't an entirely serious suggestion But I suppose with all the other stuff that's been flying around in the past 24 hours or so, it's not entirely unrealistic...

Presumably there's a right of appeal to the SFA, though? Also, they could take it to CAS if they had both the money and the inclination. And their decision would be final.

Dundee appealed to the SFA over the severity of the punishment handed out to Livingston in 2005, when they were found guilty of fielding an ineligible player (by the SPL). I believe Livingston did also appeal, but I'm not sure if that was about being found guilty, or about the size of the fine (they had a cheek if it was the latter -- £15,000 for paying a player registered as an amateur was scandalous).

Actually, something else has crossed my mind. When a club is appealing against the punishment as opposed to the "conviction" (as it were), what does the SGM actually look at: is it the entire case again, or is it whether or not the SFL had the right to impose such a punishment? If it's the former, then it may well succeed; if it's the latter, then I don't think it will.

Does it seem likely that they'll get that? I know that Dundee think it was too harsh a punishment but I don't know about other clubs.

Chick Young seemed convinced all 30 clubs could vote if they wanted. But I also think Chick Young is convinced that the moon is made of cheese.

As posted by Skyline Drifter on another thread, the only reason Hamilton were deducted 15 points was to put them at the bottom of the league. So it's not as simple as saying there's a precedent of 15 points. All manner of factors come into play.

If that's explicit in the SFA rulebook, then fair enough. But there is no such provision in the SFL rules and those are what Livi are governed by at present.

Death Row is a completely different situation, because it's a sentence in two parts: being on death row, then actually being executed. Whilst an appeal is pending, you remain on death row...you just don't run the risk of execution. With Livingston (and with every other sentence in law), the punishment stands until it is overturned (which may be never).

No, that's wrong. Only once Livingston have actually appealed are the SFL obliged to, by their own rules, reverse the decision until such times the SGM supports the original decision by a vote (which, I would imagine, will always be on the same day). I once again call on the common law analogy: a criminal appealing against his sentence does not get released whilst the appeal is in progress.

Er...yes they do. Upon expressing a wish to appeal, the SGM is convened. They didn't. Not once did they say the word "postponed" in their statement.

They have not not appealed. They have paid the £500 which allows them to appeal. The appeal is literally made to the Special General Meeting...which has not yet been convened.

They have not. For crying out loud, will people read and digest the following: The facts pertaining to this: 1) Livingston have paid a deposit of £500 2) Livingston have not yet appealed because the meeting has not been convened 3) Livingston, therefore, are still a third division club But by far the biggest thing is this: The appeal is made to the Special General Meeting. Therefore no appeal has been made until someone from Livi addresses said Special General Meeting.

He abstained at the meeting. You really think it comes down to petty things like that? Christ almighty...

Name the people with a vested interest that had a hand in Livingston's relegation.

The analogy is not "crap", as you so eloquently put it. In any walk of life, if you are appealing against a sentence (which is what Livingston are doing), you continue to serve that sentence until such times that it's reduced (which may be never). And the SFL rules are also quite clear. When you make an appeal, it's made to a Special General Meeting, i.e. the appeal has not been heard until someone from Livingston FC has addressed said meeting. At the moment, all that Livi have done is lodge their intention to appeal and paid the required £500; the SFL must now convene said SGM.

Could someone with a LiviLions account please explain the rules to the people over there. Ta.

But they're not. They're working to a system that implements the punishment handed down. And the punishment is to be assumed valid until such times a Special General Meeting does not command a majority vote vindicating the Management Committee's decision. Again, I call on the analogy of a criminal appealing against his sentence -- just because he's appealing, it doesn't mean he should be released.

What are your thoughts?

It should go without saying you will be punished for tomorrow, no matter the option. So I say #4.

So you're kind of the antimatter of Scottish football? Actually, that explains a lot...

HibeeJibee has left the rulebook in my hands (along with others). I feel honoured!