MacWatt

Ged Nixon in the West Lothian Courier............ “We were all flabbergasted by the decision as we expected a points deduction. The SFL gave us categoric assurances we would be playing First Division football this season. They even posted this on their own website following their meeting on July 31. There was still a discussion about possible penalties but they told us they wanted a bond based upon First Division fixtures, a business plan based upon being a First Division club." They may feel hard done by, but even a so called verbal? categoric assurance is not worth the paper it is written on. I doubt whether there will be anything in writing to that effect. Anger and indignation don't win appeals. On the failure to fulfil fixtures......... “We offered to play the First Division fixture because going by the rules the minute you appeal the decision stands aside. The status quo prevails so you are deemed to have won your appeal until the vote goes against you and that is the rules. We are a First Division club until they vote against us and the whole situation has been handled very, very poorly." I think that the situation once an appeal has been lodged has been covered at length on this thread. Status quo prevails once an appeal is lodged or not? If the situation is unclear then Livi may get away without any further punishment.

The crux of McDougall's argument appears to be........ "The appeal is about the course of events that have led us to be relegated." The 'events' that they appear most exercised about is the apparent 'agreement' by the SFL to agree the Business plan allowing them to remain in the First Division and the subsequent decision by the SFL Managment Committee to relegate them which seems to have come as some surprise to McDougall and Rankine given this apparent 'agreement'. Some representatives of the SFL may have given some 'indication' that everything 'would be ok'. However, to suggest that this 'indication' was somehow legally binding on the SFL is naive in the extreme. They are obviously pissed off, but to base further appeals on this 'course of events' is folly in the extreme. Longmuir and McMaster made it clear at the press conference that they have been acting on the advice of their own Counsel. The foolish route down which McDougall and Rankine are leading the club may just be the actions of stubborn men who think the SFL have somehow gone back on their word, think that they have been wronged with macho male pride obscuring sound judgement.

McGruther was in court today seeking an order over the previous Directors. However the court was told that the Directors had held a meeting in Italy and had all resigned. Lady Paton asked why the meeting was held in Italy to be told that "that is where they are". Euan Duthie, Counsel for McGuther said that he would be instructed to represent the club at an appeal against SFL sanctions. As reported in the Hootsman.

"We cannot leave this thread until THE END!" Does 'The Livingston Thread' ever end? Or is it going on for ever and ever and ever and ever? The most recent indications sugest that 'The Livingston Thread' will continue to expand indefintiely. When talking about either 'what' came before that first post that created 'The Livingston Thread', or 'what' lies beyond 'The Livingston Thread' there's no way that any of the myriad concepts can be invoked without either infinity, an absolute void, or some kind of metaphysical First Cause necessarily entering the picture. One idea is that 'The Livingston Thread' started when it collided with another 'Livingston Thread'. Okay, again the original question isn't answered because we're left still hung up on the original question -- what's beyond 'The Livingston Thread' and the one we collided with? Then there's the idea that there's some 'mother' 'Livingston Thread' that spawns other 'Livingston Threads'. Back to the same question -- what's beyond this 'mother' Livingston Thread'? If there's nothing then it must be infinite. By calling up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle concepts have been developed stipulating that every time a post is made, or a Moderator decides to close a 'Livingston Thread', another 'Livingston Thread' branches off in the opposite direction. Here again the question is 'where' or 'when' did the critical decision to begin 'The Livingston Thread' take place? That puts us right back at square one -- what was before that?

Given the wide discretionary powers enjoyed by the SFL Managment Committee and the imprecise nature of the SFL Rules, I can see no possible grounds on which an appeal would succeed. They could of course be banking on the sympathy of a majority of the SFL clubs to overturn the (reasonable)decision to relegate them. I see no evidence to suggest that this is the case either. What exactly is McGruther and the Nomadic McDougall and Rankbadyin playing at? The only benefit that can accrue from this action is presumably to McGruther alone as he will be racking up his fees by the minute and he gets paid first before the creditors.

The SPL rules state a 10 point deduction for entering administration. There is no such set penalty within the SFL rules which means the SFL have wide discretionary powers. Gretna were deducted 10 points by the SPL when they went into administartion. They were then relegated to Divsion Three by the SFL when the administrator was unable to guarantee that Gretna would fulfil its fixtures.

8.1 Finance Requirements for SPL and SFL Clubs Copy of the Audited Accounts as defined. These shall be forwarded directly to the SFA by the following deadlines – For SPL clubs – by 31 March 2009. For SFL clubs – by 30 April 2009. 8.2.6 SFA Decision A licence will be refused: a) If the annual financial statements (that may also include supplementary information) are not submitted to the SFA within the defined deadline. B) If the club submits annual financial statements (that may also include supplementary information) that do not meet the minimum requirements for the content and accounting. etc.......

East of Scotland League Forum for this pish!

Livingston could appeal. As far as I can see there is no timescale for this. To be seen to be acting reasonably, however, they would have to submit this immediately and it would be have to heard at an Emergency meeting prior to Saturday. The SFL have wide discretionary powers and have acted within these. An appeal would be fruitless, looked upon as them acting vexatiously and could, as you say, run the risk of a harsher punishment.

I just hope that the SFL are not taken in by these footballing nomads Rankine and McDougall. Here is a take on Rankine from the Loch Lomond Free press............ "one never quite knew what Neil was up to. In the twenty years prior to his stewardship the Sons were consistently in the first division. Under Neil’s guidance we became permanent fixtures in the second division. This situation was only remedied by the introduction of a third division. His reputation became such locally that one newspaper editor (perhaps unfairly) Christened him “Rankbadyin”. Neil seems attracted to small football clubs. As well as his now relinquished interest in Dumbarton, he owns by proxy, the major shareholding at East Fife and also attempted to take over Airdrieonians a few years ago when they were in a Livi type situation. Neil has an unerring knack of spotting opportunities connected to potential land value. It may be that this could be turned to Livi’s advantage in dealings with the owners of Almondvale and major creditors, ie the local council. In that respect look for a proposed deal this week if Neil does become involved. However much it would be to Livi’s short term advantage to have Neil on board, I suspect the long term advantage will accrue to Neil himself. Knowing Neil that’ll certainly be the plan!

From Edinburgh Evening News..... "Sources at the club believe league bosses have bowed to pressure from other clubs to hammer Livingston for their troubles. But the consortium has assured the Evening News the bond – and a business plan – was in place by the deadline of 3pm yesterday and the new "provisional" board will appeal any further penalty. The threat of a ten-point deduction is causing major problems for the investors, who could still pull the plug on the rescue deal as the demands have prevented the consortium from paying the players this week. "We are extremely concerned about this," said provisional chairman Gordon McDougall. "Last week at Hampden, we were given the green light to remain in Division One and the possibility of further sanctions were withheld. We then received a letter stating we had to submit a business plan and the bond, which is in place to ensure we can satisfy 18 home games based on £40,000 a game. "I understand where they are coming from as we've been in administration twice but this is new people in here now. "I hope they understand our position. We will have to spend a fortune to get this club back on its feet and are more than willing to put the money down on the table on the condition there is no further penalty. "If there are any other penalties, we will appeal them." I just hope 'sources at the club' are right and that the SFL clubs have decided to hammer LIVI and to hell with the blackmailers.

The most likely sanction is a ten point deduction (following what the SPL rules now dictate in similar circumstances). SPL rules also place an embargo on signing new players. This is to avoid a situation where the club in adminstration simply tears up the contracts of their more expensive liabilities, cashes in on any players worth selling and then employing new players (or the same players) on reduced contracts. Once the CVA is agreed then this embargo will presumably be lifted.

I notice in England where HMRC were owed 25% or more of the debt they always voted against a CVA as football creditors were given preferential treatment and had to be paid first. Is this the case in Scotland as well with footballing debts having to be paid in full first? If so and if the HMRC are owed more than 25% then they could vote to scupper the Livi CVA. "The Football League have just (13 June) passed a new rule that they believe should prevent clubs reaching the sort of level of debts that has seen points deductions over the past couple of seasons. Clubs have voted that teams that build up high levels of debt to the Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will face a transfer embargo and will not be allowed to sign new players until that debt is erased. It is hoped this will bring financial responsibility to clubs and act as an early warning system to highlight mismanaged clubs. In recent years, it has become almost impossible for a club to leave administration via a CVA primarily due to the levels of debt to the HMRC and as such have found themselves with an additional points penalty, as Luton, Bournemouth and Rotherham did last season. To comply with FL rules, a club leaving administration must do so with a CVA that 75% of creditors must agree to - put simply, the CVA is an offer of repayment to those owed money to be paid back at x pence in the pound over a number of years. "Footballing debts" were always exempt from this and had to be repaid in full to avoid a domino effect taking place where once club's financial problems would then impact on other clubs. This is still the case, but the HMRC objected to this preferential treatment being offered to football people and not themselves, and subsequently voted against each CVA. This meant clubs were unable to leave administration with this agreement, and hence were given a further penalty by the Football League. The HMRC debts were responsible for more than 25% of a club's debts, meaning the HMRC had the power to vote down any possible CVA. The new rules will create a system which should prevent this situation happening, as it will practically enforce clubs to pay their tax debts as and when they should be paid, rather than allowed to run up big bills that they later find themselves unable to pay off. The HMRC seem pretty happy with the new regulations, and the rules should at the very least see mismanaged clubs facing a penalty which impacts on the field. " Time the SFL brought in a similar rule to impose some financial reality on clubs.

This may have been answered already but do not 75% of the creditors have to vote in favour of a CVA? Will HMRC, West Lothian Council and Scottish Power vote for this knowing they will only get 10p or so in the pound? In a situation of an insolvent club with minimal assets, it may be that these parties will vote for it as it is the best return they will get. I agree with many posters who feel that a club who trades beyond their means should not gain an advantage over other clubs who operate within their means. Not to punish Livingston in these circumstances would be ludicrous and send out a signal that the SFL is a toothless joke and that clubs can cheat their way to success in the knowledge that they can go into administration or enter into a CVA then start up again as if nothing has happened.

I take it that Massone believes that he will, on the basis that he is a creditor of the club, get more through the CVA than the £25K on offer. I read somewhere that Massone believes he may get £70K through this route. Presumably whatever HMRC, Scottish Power, Massone and other creditors get out of the CVA will depend on what saleable assets the club has. As they don't own the ground or the office space presumbaly this does not amount to much. Unless Massone is persuaded that taking the £25K is his best bet then Livi will cease to exist as a club when the SFL rule after tomorrows meeting.

"I note the builder changes from Glenthistle to Gladedale but as they have the same registered office it would seem reasonable to assume they are connected companies." Directors of Gladedale Dominic Lavelle London addresss David Gaffney Dollarbeg (Former Director of Miller Homes, Persimmon and Cruden Homes) Robin Johnson London address All three are also Directors of Glenthistle

Latest pronouncement on BBC from the Mad-one. "We have endured many attempts to close us down, sidestepped many tactics to sabotage our games, constant threats of administration. "But, through our passion, unity and pride we have taken these challenges head on and battled on with sheer determination and commitment to survive. "This is the greatest opportunity for all to unite, stand our ground and show our support and love for LFC." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ton/8130333.stm

I think that Massone would probably make more money plucking coins from the Trevi Fountain. Figures are difficult to come by but Kent County Cricket club made £50K from an Elton John concert at the St Lawerence Ground, Canterbury where there were 20,000 present.

Time for impolite creditors to "Go to the mattreses."

HMRC has been taking an increasinlgy agressive approach to the collection of tax since they lost their preferential creditor status in 1992. In 2006 HMRC were responsible for 58 per cent of petitions for the winding up of companies – compared to 42 per cent in 2001.

Coward.