Nowhereman
-
Posts
2,061 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Nowhereman
-
-
But thats exactly what they did!
I dont think anyone has ever questioned their right to appeal.
What this is about is whether or not they were entitled to refuse to play a 3rd division match, because they interpreted the rules to mean they were still a 1st div club.
Theres nothing to suggest that they were.
Yes there is.
1. Livi were demoted by a decision of the management committee. The management committee were entitled to take that decision
2. Livi decided to appeal that decision. Livi were entitled to do that
3. The rules are silent as to whether or not the punishment is suspended pending the appeal process being completed
4. In certain other circumstances penalties are suspended during an appeal process
Therefore it can be argued both ways as to which division Livi are currently in. In those circumsatnces I can understand why Livi refused to play. I am not supporting their stance or condoning anything Livi have done but I can understand their decision last week and they do have a valid argument. As i have said they might lose but it is a stateable case
0 -
If it can be shown that there is a general principle in the sfl rules that a penalty is suspended until the result of an appeal hearing ( as there is in civil law ) then Livi could argue justifiably that the penalty of demotion should be suspended until the appeal is decided. If the penalty is suspended they are still in the first division and there is no reason for them to play East Stirling The rule I quoted was quite clear in stating that a penalty would be suspended albeit in entirely different circumstances. But if a different situation is unclear as to whether a penalty should be suspended or not it is not unreasonable to look at other areas of the rules to see what happens in different circumstances
But the rule you quoted specifically related to a punishment given to a player by a club. How could that possibly be related to a punishment given to a club by the SFL? How far should we take it? What if a player decides he doesnt agree with a red card decision, so stays on the pitch and plays on, because as far as he's concerned he hasnt been sent off and his punishment doesnt apply until after the appeal? Or how about if a club believes they had a goal wrongly dissallowed, so their interpretation is that they won the game, and actually they won the league not someone else - presumably their free to go and play in a higher division the next season?
Those are ridiculous and extreme examples, but the point they are there to make is a simple one. Its not up to Livy to interpret the rules. They, like all the other clubs and players, agreed to abide by the SFL rules and, presumably, the decisions of the Management committee and any other appropriate body. Livy, just like any other club and player, cannot simply pick and choose which rules to abide by and which to interpret in their own way. If they disagree with a decision there are appropriate channels to lodge this, which is what they've done, but they cant simply make other things up as they go along, based on some possible interpretation of a rule, based on a possible interpretation of another, totally unrelated rule.
If I could be bothered going and finding a picture of a lot of straws, I would post it here.
Of course Livi can't decide for themselves which rules to obey and which ones not to. But as you say they are appealing and all I was doing was pointing out that Livi do have the basis of a case. They might lose but they do have the right to appeal. Its not impossible for the sfl to interpret their own rules wrongly
0 -
But they cant justify it
What do you think in the quote you posted makes you think they can? That was my original question
[/quote
If it can be shown that there is a general principle in the sfl rules that a penalty is suspended until the result of an appeal hearing ( as there is in civil law ) then Livi could argue justifiably that the penalty of demotion should be suspended until the appeal is decided. If the penalty is suspended they are still in the first division and there is no reason for them to play East Stirling The rule I quoted was quite clear in stating that a penalty would be suspended albeit in entirely different circumstances. But if a different situation is unclear as to whether a penalty should be suspended or not it is not unreasonable to look at other areas of the rules to see what happens in different circumstances
0 -
Hmm...I'm still not sure that makes much of a difference.
I think the most crucial part is "...appeal to a Special General Meeting". That means they can't appeal until the meeting is convened.
If it was 'until' and not 'unless' that would make a huge difference
0 -
There is no appeal against whatever penalty is dished out for refusing to play the fixture. That bit is pretty clear in the rules.
Yes I know but if Livi can justify their not turning up last week they would not get a points penalty no matter which division they are in
0 -
What does that rule you quoted relate to? Why does it specifically say "Should a club impose on a player any of
the penalties contained in Rule 54.1.1 or 54.1.2, they will not become operative until the appeals
channels have become exhausted"?
My guess is that its specific to something totally unrelated to this scenario. No club has imposed a penalty on Livy, the SFL have. Nowhere in the rule you've quoted does it say an SFL penalty does not become operative until after appeal.
I think you're, and Livys, interpretation of this is wrong, but at the end of the day its pretty academic. Its not really up to one club, or its administrator, to interpret the rules of the SFL. Having been told to play a 3rd division match thats exactly what they should have done, appeal or no appeal. Any nonsense about prejudicing an appeal or considering themselves still a 1st div club is just that ... nonsense.
Yes it is unrelated to this scenario, I said that in my post. My point was that if there is any doubt as to the interpretation of rule 76 then consideration would have to be given as to how the sfl deal with other appeals. In any event this is only relevant to the scratching of last weeks fixture and any penalty that might be imposed for that. It has nothing to do with whether Livi should be relegated or not. The argument against that will have to be that the penalty was unprecedented ( I thought Gretna were relegated because their ground didnt come up to the required standard for first division ) and was too harsh ( as far as I am aware noone in the sfl has ever received any penalty whatsoever for going into administration )
0 -
it matters not. They are still red carded until the appeal is heard. Livvy are a third division side until the appeal is heard. They are also a third division side who have refused to fulfill a fixture which takes their appeal to a whole new level. It has stated that they have not and will not accept the SFL decision unless it is beneficial to Livingston FC. And that attitude needs to be hammered into the ground as far as it will go.
Even if they are still red carded the penalty is set aside pending the appeal and they are allowed to play until the appeal is heard. To use another analogy. In a civil court case if an appeal is lodged the original decision is put on hold from the moment the appeal is intimated until the appeal is heard. It is not only put aside on the day of the appeal hearing. So if A sues B for £5000 and wins his case and B then lodges an appeal A cannot pursue B for the funds because there is an appeal pending. In other words the first courts decision cannot be enforced until the appeal court has made its decision. If that principle is applied here then Livi should still be in the first division until tomorrow afternoon at least
0 -
Rubbish.
Rule 76 is clear enough. Only once the appeal has been made is it deemed to have succeeded. Livi, by their own admission, have not yet made their appeal.
Ergo, it has not succeeded so they are a Third Division team.
Oh, and this bit:
Is utter tosh.
Red card offences are defined in the rules. So you either carried out the offence (and hence deserve the red card) or you didn't; there's no middle ground.
No its not rubbish. Your interpretation could be correct but its by no means as clear cut as you suggest. Also your suggestion that the appeal only starts when counsel gets on his feet tomorrow to present the case is doubtful to say the least. An appeal starts when the intention to do so is formally intimated - as in the example in my previous post. If a penalty is suspended pending an appeal that quite clearly applies before the actual hearing takes place.
You have misunderstood the point I was making about red cards. If someone is sent off for say a foul they may not dispute that it was a foul, just that it was a foul deserving a sending off. So they are disputing the penalty - just like Livi are doing here.
0 -
Correctamundo. One big .45 magnum shell duly discharged into the right foot. They have as yet made no appeal. They are therefore, a 3rd division side seeking to be returned to the 1st division. Their way of going about this was as a 3rd division side to turn round and tell the governing body that they would not play another 3rd division side. Not the most convincing of arguments.
They have effectively told their governing body that they will not adhere to their decision to the point where they wish to appoint a solicitor to represent them. Why would they seek legal represntation against a governing body (the SFL) whose authority they have refused to acknowledge? Kick them out. Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will change. This is one soiled football club that should be shown the exit door tomorrow.
The player shall have the right to appeal as set out in Rule 54.1.1.1 and the player and the club shall
each have the right of appeal as set out in Rule 54.1.1.2. Should a club impose on a player any of
the penalties contained in Rule 54.1.1 or 54.1.2, they will not become operative until the appeals
channels have become exhausted
This is from the league rules. As you will see it states that any penalty imposed will not become operative until the appeals channels have become exhausted. It does deal with a different situation but you would expect the rules of an institution to be interpreted consistently. In the Livi situation they are clearly not saying that they did not break the rules. But a penalty has been imposed and they are appealing the penalty. If the above interpretation is applied then the penalty should not become operative and therefore Livi are still a first division club. So Livi's decision not to play last week is entirely logical and consistent with their decision to appeal. By agreeing to play they would be accepting the very penalty which they are disputing.
The red card analogy is similar. When a player appeals a red card he is not necessarily saying that he did not do what he was accused of. He may well accept that he is guilty of the 'crime' but thinks that the penalty is too harsh. He therefore appeals the red card. In those circumstances the penalty is suspended until the appeal is heard.
So that is two situations within the rules where a penalty is suspended until an appeal is heard.
Therefore the Livi argument about being in the first division can be seen to be consistent with the sfl rules in other situations where an appeal is possible
Given that rule 76 is not exactly clear as to when an appeal is succesful and could be interpreted both ways , where would you look for guidance as to the correct way to interpret it ? Thats right , other parts of the rules where an appeal is competent. And they would seem to suggest that the penalty should be suspended pending the result of the appeal.
0 -
There was no club called Airdrie Utd at the time Ballantyne bought Clydebank or at any time before then (only a proposal to create one). My question regarding league membership was simply a device to highlight this fact.
Jim Ballantyne bought Clydebank FC, changed the club name, strip and moved them to Airdrie. League membership stayed with the company and club which Ballantyne bought. These actions were allowed within the terms of the SFL's rules. Irrespective of the moral rights or wrongs of those actions, those are also the facts.
There was no transfer of league membership from one club or company to another. That is also a fact.
Your assertion, that the SFL has already allowed this rule to be broken in the case of Airdrie Utd, is not supported by the facts.
Stuart
Well thats not actually a fact because it depends on how you define a club. But anyway none of this matters now. Congratulations on your 'promotion'
0 -
I think we are 90% there. As Stuart pointed out earlier. Airdrie only existed on paper at the time. Indeed it was given as a reason for the non-election to Div 3 earlier that month. So they shares and the league place were purchsed, not transferred to another member club.
But rule 21.7 doesn't refer to a member club, only to a club. The rules are quite specific in sometimes refering to a member club and sometimes to a club. Airdrie United may not have been playing in any sort of league at the time but they were undoubtedly a 'club' That is why I said that the effect of Clydebank changing their name to Airdrie United was to transfer their league place to another club
0 -
I still think you are at crossed puposes with the earlier posters. They have all acknowledged that Airdrie are a continuation of the club/company previously trading as Clydebank. Clydebank supporters however, undoubtedly, are in possesion of the spirit of their old club and carry that in to the new one. Airdrie only took the league place.
Airdrie supporters mostly prefer, for obvious reasons, to think that United is a continuation of Airdrieonians.
Now, do you agree with that?
Of course I do. That is a fair reflection of the situation. But you have to remember that Airdrie United , as a club , were in existence at the same time as Clydebank. They had to be because they applied for league membership while Clydebank were still members of the Scottish league. When Mr Ballantyne bought Clydebank and changed the name, the ground and the strip he had to obtain the permission of the Scottish league to do so. He obtained that permission ( even although there was precedent for not being allowed to do so )from the sfl. He therefore changed Clydebank's name to that of a club that was already in existence. That is why I think that it was in effect a breach of the rules. The sfl effectively sanctioned the transfer of Clydebank's league place to Airdrie United. I am distinguishing the ' football club' from the legal entity that is a company which I think you agree with given your post. It is easy to hide behind a strict interpretation of the company law rules and that is exactly what the blazers did when they allowed Airdrie to take Clydebank's place.
0 -
At last! It has sunk in.
Presumably you didn't read my original post on this point. I was always referring to the club not the company
0 -
I'm not sure he's got it yet.
Ask a Clydebank fan if its the same club.
0 -
Listen, here's a wee secret. Don't tell anybody this, but no, it didn't. They are ACTUALLY the same club under a different name!! Gonnae no tell anyone. Let's just keep it between me and you.......oops....too late.......everybody else seems to understand it.....except you!!
Same company under a different name. Same club, don't think so
0 -
Actually, Clydebank changed their name (to Airdrie United) and moved to a new registered ground. Both perfectly legal under league rules.
Yes I'm well aware of what happened but the effect was that the leaugue membership of one club was transferred to another
0 -
I guess both you and Captain Sensible are in agreement then - Airdrie and Livingston are cheats.
Just as a matter of interest, which rules and conventions (plural in both instances) did Ballantyne circumvent? 21.7? 51B? 70?
If I recall correctly, Clydebank were in financial straits, and they were offered up to the highest bidder, lock, stock, and league membership.
21.7 Except as aftermentioned no club shall be entitled, either directly or indirectly, to transfer its
membership of the League to another club
Think you answered your own question there.Clydeband, albeit indirectly, transferred their league membership to Airdrie United
0 -
Lets see, we went bust and went out the game.
A new business was set up, but with persons entirely unconnected with the old regime, with a similar club name, strip, etc, and playing at the same ground.
They were refused election to the SFL to teach all the other clubs a lesson, that you could not simply dissolve the club, write off the debt and start again.
They then bought Clydebank, payed off their debts and started again, with a new name, and moved the team, changed the strip, etc (nothing says you can't).
I personally don't give two hoots about ANY other club. I do care that the rules apply fairly to all, and what pisses me off is that the reason the league used to refuse us entry to the league is now being bodyswerved. If our Chairman had any integrity he'd walk away from his SFL blazership (after the vote on a rule change of course).
But Airdrie United did have to get the permission of the league to change the name and take Clydebank's league position. They were given that permission. So in effect the league allowed an Airdrie team to stay in the league at the expense of an existing team. Not the same as what is happening with Livi but still as rotten
0 -
Presumably the tax authorities still want paid, after all they were about to raise proceedings as well. i doubt they would wait al does not vote year so the payment will have to be made sooner rather than later and it will have to be made by McDougall/ Rankine. we are being told that WLC are also to be paid. So that is a total of about half a million that Mcdougall/ Rankine are going to have to pay. And they are going to have to pay this with absolutely no guarantee that they will ultimately get control of the club ? They could pay up and Massone still doesnt sell his shares and the sfeeel doesnt vote for a rule change ? Does anyone really believe that they would risk making such a paymeny without some sort of guarantee
0 -
Really?
Who was that then, given that Airdrieonians lost their league place upon liquidaton, which was then followed by Airdrie United's application to the SFL being declined?
You forgotten so soon ?
0 -
From the Livi site after a fans meeting with McGruther.
If Massone was to get £70000 on a debt of £290000 that works out at about 25p in the pound. If the total debt is £1.7million that means someone must be willing to pay somewhere in the region of £425000 to £450000 for the club. Thats a loyt of money to pay for a company that has no assets
0 -
I'm not sure how you can actually blame the SFL for the Livi debacle to be honest. Until Livi went into administration there was nothing they could do. Of course it did seem clear to most people that we would get to this stage, but the SFL could not preempt this.
Edited to add:
Going by your assessment, the SFL should have taken Clydebank out of the SFL a couple of seasons before Airdrie took you over. I mean it was clear to all you were fucked financially, so it was only a matter of time.
Agreed. If the sfl are to be expected to remove clubs who are technically insolvent we would have very small leagues. Until a club does actually go into admin or is liquidated there is not a great deal the league can do. What they could do of course is have rules in place to ensure that owners are fit and proper persons, but thats another debate
0 -
Yep, which is why there should be a robust fit and proper person test performed by the SFA when a club changes ownership or alternatively clubs should be owned by a trust or their community.
Not holding my breath for any sensible action from the SFA though things are slowly improving down South.....
So can anyone tell me how Dunfermline conduct a Board meeting with 13 Directors??????????????
Are you saying that just because a club is run by a trust it will be properly and well run? There is absolutely no guarantee that the people in charge of a trust would be capable of running a football club
0
Livingston - all the threads merged
in Scottish Premiership General Chatter
Posted
The appeal process began when Livi indicated formally that they were lodging an appeal.My point is to ask what should happen to the penalty that has been imposed pending the appeal being completed and I think that will be one of the points being argued by Livi when the sfl get round to dealing with their failure to turn up last Saturday