The Master
-
Posts
13,126 -
Joined
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by The Master
-
-
They don't need to be registered anywhere but they do need to be written up on an offical teamline and signed by an authorised club representative. Like I said, 11 random punters couldn't do it (and to repeat I'm sure there's a limit to the number of trialists who can play in each game.
It's three, I think.
0 -
Which rule would that be?
I believe he is referring to this:
76.3 Any club, club official or player aggrieved by a decision of the Management Committee, otherthan a decision taken in terms of Rule 28, which shall be final and binding, or any club aggrieved
by a decision of the Management Committee in terms of Rule 31, 32 or 70 concerning the
suitability of its ground, shall have power, within ten days from the date of decision, to appeal
to a Special General Meeting of the League on payment of a deposit of £500.00 which shall be
forfeited in the event of the appeal being dismissed.
76.4 The appeal shall, however, be deemed to have succeeded unless the decision of the Management
Committee is supported by a majority of the votes cast at the said Special General Meeting.
(With thanks to HibeeJibee)
However, he (and the club, apparently) have grossly misinterpreted it.
0 -
Because by allowing it to happen the SFL will be breaking their own rules.
Actually, there's no need to quote the rule now: I know what one you mean.
You've misinterpreted it, though. It doesn't mean that the appeal has succeeded just by submitting it and it then needs reverted back. It just means that once the meeting has taken place, the appeal stands unless a majority of the votes cast at the meeting support the Management Committee.
0 -
Because by allowing it to happen the SFL will be breaking their own rules.
Quote the rule...
0 -
And I suspect any case will be strengthened when Ross County and Airdrie kick off at Victoria Park tomorrow.
And why is that, then?
0 -
In defence of Mr Longmuir, he's been a big success since coming in (Irn-Bru deal, ALBA Cup + TV deal for it+ Div 1, CIS extension, other technical stuff) - and he aint the Management Committee!!
Oh yes, it's great that he's managed all this.
Unfortunately, however, the buck does have to stop with him.
Although not entirely the same, it's a bit like Fred Goodwin -- he may not have been personally involved in bad deals, but they happened under his stewardship so he has to take the blame.
0 -
Perhaps, one positive may come out of all this: lessons will be learned. I sincerely hope so.
Once the dust has settled, I'd like to think that the SFL will effectively hold their hands up and bring in someone to conduct a hasty, independent inquiry into what's happened.
The report should make recommendations on the handling of such situations in the future, as well as (if needs be) apportioning blame to individuals.
Failing that, David Longmuir should adhere to the principal of ministerial responsibility and resign.
0 -
My point is really broader - in the entire history of the SFL, a situation like this has occurred on really just 2 occasions (Renton / Hamilton). That's what for me makes Livi's actions so diabolical.
I'd argue that what Livi are doing has happened only once (Renton).
At least Hamilton had a partial excuse, namely a players' strike. From what I can gather, the only reason Livi aren't turning up tomorrow is because they don't believe themselves to be a Third Division club.
0 -
I have a couple of questions which Hibee Jibee or Skyline Drifter might be best placed to answer.
Is there a limit on the penalty for not fulfilling a fixture? Could the club be expelled for this regardless of whether the administrator has a potential buyer for a 3rd Division Livi?
I'm neither HJ or SD, but I believe the answer is "yes".
In fact, I think most rules regarding punishments are open enough to allow the SFL to do what they see fit.
0 -
Shire's website suggests they don't intend to turn up. Leaving them open to sanction too
?http://www.eaststirlingfc.co.uk/news_artic...livipreview.htm
Perhaps giving the SFL prior notice of your intentions negates the need for the other team to turn up.
Either that, or the website is wrong in that respect as well as the "prejudice" thing.
Livi will be back in the 1st division once the legal eagles check the small print.Where does the law come into this?
The rule is there in black and white: the SFL can impose any punishment they see fit for breaches of insolvency rules.
0 -
From the SFL site.... a somewhat different take on the issue from the wording that appears on the ES site.
East Stirlingshire v Livingston
The Scottish Football League have this evening been advised by that Livingston Football Club will not be fulfilling their IRN-BRU SFL Third Division fixture against East Stirlingshire at Ochilview Park tomorrow, Saturday August 8, which had a scheduled 3.00pm kick off.
It is our duty to communicate this information to all supporters who were planning to attend the match.
This matter will now be referred to the Scottish Football League Management Committee for consideration.
All other fourteen fixtures in the IRN-BRU Scottish Football League will be played tomorrow as previously communicated.
Well that's that then.
The SFL haven't postponed the game and so long as 'Shire are there, Livi are, and I offer no apologies for my succinctness, fucked.
0 -
Has the SFL said it's off to avoid prejudicing the process...
I just don't understand that.
How could fulfilling a fixture prejudice the process?
0 -
I don't understand the bit about influencing the appeals process.
The SFL already stated that they expected Livi to play regardless, then nullify the results if needs be. So is that last paragraph just opinion from East Stirlingshire?
0 -
You are the silly one my friend.
The SFL has rules and the appeals process is part of them. By forcing us to play in the Third Division they could be seen to be pre-determine or anticipate the outcome of appeals process and breaking their own rules.
It's the same principle that applies when, for example, a player appeals a red card and they are allowed to play on pending the outcome.
Two completely different scenarios.
Livingston have broken the rules; there is absolutely no denying that. What they are appealing against is the punishment being handed down. In such cases, you continue with the punishment and only stop if the appeal is successful.
A red card is an appeal against the "felony" itself. That's when the principal of leave to appeal comes in.
0 -
According to LiviLions, Ged Nixon is "confident" the appeal will be successful?
Why? Have the rules changed without the SFL telling anyone?
0 -
If they know this then they are pre-determining the appeals process, which is probably unlawful.
Don't be silly.
The SFL are the ones who make the rules and enforce them. So they already know that an appeal will not succeed.
0 -
It's not farcical to ask teams to play games that could be annulled a week or two down the line? Come on.
The games will not be annulled. The SFL know this.
0 -
Gies peace. Whether you think the appeal has a case or not, playing the games in the meantime is farcical. It's simply an ill-conceived attempt by the SFL to get themselves out of the hole they made for themselves by delaying the relegation decision until Wednesday.
Are you really suggesting six teams should play games (and charge people to see those games) when there's a chance they won't count?
No.
I'm suggesting six teams should play games (and charge people to see those games) because nothing will stop them from counting.
Are you trying to tell me that if Dundee were relegated two divisions and there was a right of appeal, you wouldn't give it a try?Oh they should give it a try.
They'll fail, but God does love a trier (apparently).
0 -
Is that in the rules, or has he made it up?
Because, as I said before, when a felon appeals against a sentence, they aren't let out of jail...
EDIT: oh no...please tell me that we won't have the complete and utter embarrassment that will be Livingston arriving at Victoria Park tomorrow, only to be denied entry?
0 -
Purely from a football supporter's perspective I would rather we were playing somewhere tomorrow but at the end of the day the SFL fudged decision to play the three games and then potentially scrub them later is utterly ridiculous.
No it's not.
Because let's be honest: you're either staying in the Third Division, or going out of business. The SFL rules clearly state they have carte blanche when it comes to insolvency and Livingston FC agreed to be governed by those roles as members of the SFL.
0 -
If it's the case that the players haven't been paid and aren't prepared to play for nothing, then I can understand the SFL postponing the game: might as well do it formally than have fans turning up etc.
However, Livi should then be hammered for causing the postponement and the punishment should be on a par with not turning up. So 15 point deduction that follows them whatever league the find themselves in this season.
0 -
Starring Heath Ledger as Livingston?
0 -
Let's be quite clear here: if players have been used in Cup games uninsured then that is utterly shocking in itself. If one had taken a bad fall and broken his back, think of the consequences...
Secondly, insurance of players is the club's responsibility. If they cannot fulfil a game due to a lack of insurance, they're in the wrong. It's outrageous to postpone the match to help them out.
Thirdly, who has taken this decision? SFL Management Committee? Longmuir? A Livi 5 dictat...?
I sense that, like me, you're on the brink of spontaneous combustion over all this...
Luckily, I'm away to catch a bus soon so will have time to calm down.
0 -
Well quite. What rule-book are they working from? And what part of it changed between 11am - and 4:50pm? All 3 'provisional' games off or only East Stir v Livi? KO is in 21 hours time FFS ...
But SFL put a statement onto their site this morning saying games were on whatever happened?
Oi, don't attribute that to me
0
?
Livingston - all the threads merged
in Scottish Championship General Chatter
Posted
A club can appeal.
When the meeting to hear the appeal is convened, and has heard the appeal, it has succeeded. It is then up to the meeting to defeat the appeal (i.e. uphold the original decision) with a majority vote.
It is actually how argument works in day-to-day life: you say something, I defeat it and until you defeat that, I've "won".