Livingston - all the threads merged

[RedV]

Oh come on, since when has ethics been a pre-condition with all things Livvy? The council will have the rent they are due booked. It will form part of a budget for someone somewhere. The council choose to write it off, and somewhere, there's a library not getting new stock, wheelchair ramps not being fixed, or half a dozen home helps not being hired. Thats politics and the public purse. LFC are a privately owned company. When public money gets pumped into private companies.......particularly ones with plenty of "previous" in terms of racking up date as quick as its written off, then there will have to be a hell of a compelling reason to do so. With Massone's hands on both the tiller and the till, do you think that's a safe and sensible place to invest public money in the current climate?

Livingston survive by not honouring their debts. The changes that are needed involve those who support and are involved in the club getting off their collective backsides and doing something about it other than endlessly daydreaming of millionaires cueing up to "invest", or government organizations looking down and smiling and offering a statement of "oh OK Livingston, we'll write it off again, but this is the last time".

Look back on LiviLions and you'll find years of talk of organizing, and moving forward. Lots of talk, but nothing ever happens. Then when one group (the Trust) tries to take the bull by the horns, they are accused by every numbnut going that they are stirring up trouble. Stirring up trouble? Who do you think was first to have some sort of grasp of where this was all headed? Was it the trust, or was it the Massone apologists?

Why Livingston should be so awash with appeasement specialists is beyond me, but it is. Lots of talk, but absolutely no backbone when it gets down to showtime.

That most would rather see the debts written off yet again rather than see the club pay what it owes and budget accordingly is shameful. That your Trust people are seen as subversive is shameful. That the majority of your support are all talk and zero action has become something of a Livingston signature dish.

Get off your butts, open your eyes, and do something. Insist that your club functions in a manner that will pay off your debts in full, and show that you are willing to play at whatever level that will bring it about. For once, embrace what you really are, not the fantasy of what you never really were. Get involved, and stay involved. Want Massone out? Then force him out. Rebuild on the ashes of the 15 years of lies and mis management instead of trying to prop up what currently sits in place. The internal structure needs to be destroyed and replaced by something that has a bit of truth and honour in its belly.

Ask yourself why you should be anti-trust. There's usually only one answer. You want a sugar daddy to pump in cash over and above what you the supporters can muster. That;s always the reason.

You've had every crook and comic singer in charge of you, and it's a mess. Trying doing it for yourselves, and maybe it'll still be a mess, but it will be yours to fix. Unplug yourseves just once from the benign dictator drip feed. You might be pleasantly surprised,

.j

A mighty tome, delivered in a frenzy as dawn approached!

Well done that man. "In a nutshell" springs to mind.

[MCL]

Oh come on, since when has ethics been a pre-condition with all things Livvy? The council will have the rent they are due booked. It will form part of a budget for someone somewhere. The council choose to write it off, and somewhere, there's a library not getting new stock, wheelchair ramps not being fixed, or half a dozen home helps not being hired. Thats politics and the public purse. LFC are a privately owned company. When public money gets pumped into private companies.......particularly ones with plenty of "previous" in terms of racking up date as quick as its written off, then there will have to be a hell of a compelling reason to do so. With Massone's hands on both the tiller and the till, do you think that's a safe and sensible place to invest public money in the current climate?

Livingston survive by not honouring their debts. The changes that are needed involve those who support and are involved in the club getting off their collective backsides and doing something about it other than endlessly daydreaming of millionaires cueing up to "invest", or government organizations looking down and smiling and offering a statement of "oh OK Livingston, we'll write it off again, but this is the last time".

Look back on LiviLions and you'll find years of talk of organizing, and moving forward. Lots of talk, but nothing ever happens. Then when one group (the Trust) tries to take the bull by the horns, they are accused by every numbnut going that they are stirring up trouble. Stirring up trouble? Who do you think was first to have some sort of grasp of where this was all headed? Was it the trust, or was it the Massone apologists?

Why Livingston should be so awash with appeasement specialists is beyond me, but it is. Lots of talk, but absolutely no backbone when it gets down to showtime.

That most would rather see the debts written off yet again rather than see the club pay what it owes and budget accordingly is shameful. That your Trust people are seen as subversive is shameful. That the majority of your support are all talk and zero action has become something of a Livingston signature dish.

Get off your butts, open your eyes, and do something. Insist that your club functions in a manner that will pay off your debts in full, and show that you are willing to play at whatever level that will bring it about. For once, embrace what you really are, not the fantasy of what you never really were. Get involved, and stay involved. Want Massone out? Then force him out. Rebuild on the ashes of the 15 years of lies and mis management instead of trying to prop up what currently sits in place. The internal structure needs to be destroyed and replaced by something that has a bit of truth and honour in its belly.

Ask yourself why you should be anti-trust. There's usually only one answer. You want a sugar daddy to pump in cash over and above what you the supporters can muster. That;s always the reason.

You've had every crook and comic singer in charge of you, and it's a mess. Trying doing it for yourselves, and maybe it'll still be a mess, but it will be yours to fix. Unplug yourseves just once from the benign dictator drip feed. You might be pleasantly surprised,

.j

If the club go into admin then the council will need to write the money off anyway. So there goes those library books, wheelchair ramps, etc, etc.

Why do they plot with the "Trust" against the owners and promise to reduce the rent for them and not the owners ? What's in it for the council ? Why not work with the owners to find a solution to keep the club in the 1st division ?

The club would still be a limited company so the council would be pumping money into it.

I'm not anti-trust because I want a sugar daddy. I'm anti-trust because of the people running it are only in it for their own egos. They want to be sitting on their fat arses in the director's box on a Saturday hob-nobbing with the council leader and his mates.

I think I was one of the first to see where this was headed due to my court proceedings and I'm not a Massone apologist. I just can't see why people who are supposed to support the club would rather see it go into admin and drop divisions than work with what we have. Well I can, and it's all about that seat in the director's box.

[Guest strathbrock]

Won't quote the whole thing again but I agree with DF's post. I think that more Livi fans are beginning to see the light. Those who still persist in seeing the present chairman as the saviour of the club are either brainwashed or just scared of the alternative or a bit of both. We need those running the club to come clean about the finances and then we can start mobilising along the lines of Clyde and Stirling Albion who at least have the luxury(?) of knowing clearly where they stand.

[Swampy]

If the club go into admin then the council will need to write the money off anyway. So there goes those library books, wheelchair ramps, etc, etc.

Why do they plot with the "Trust" against the owners and promise to reduce the rent for them and not the owners ? What's in it for the council ? Why not work with the owners to find a solution to keep the club in the 1st division ?

The club would still be a limited company so the council would be pumping money into it.

I'm not anti-trust because I want a sugar daddy. I'm anti-trust because of the people running it are only in it for their own egos. They want to be sitting on their fat arses in the director's box on a Saturday hob-nobbing with the council leader and his mates.

I think I was one of the first to see where this was headed due to my court proceedings and I'm not a Massone apologist. I just can't see why people who are supposed to support the club would rather see it go into admin and drop divisions than work with what we have. Well I can, and it's all about that seat in the director's box.

I assume what's "in it for the council" is not having an incompetent moron running the club, and probably a bit of fuzzy kudos from the locals for being seen to be working with the people. Plus, perhaps the Trust have presented a solid plan to make it happen rather than a barrow-load of IOUs for the full amount, little of which will be forthcoming. Certainly the council won't be doing it 100% out of the goodness of their hearts, and I think that WLC's role in the Livingston case is a pretty shabby one, but I do not think that this is a compelling argument against what they're doing now.

While certainly some people involved in Trusts nationwide are walking ego-trips, do you not think you're being a bit over the top? Surely some people involved in the Trust are genuine Livi fans who want mainly to see the club survive and then prosper. If that comes at the cost of their sitting in the directors' box with a blazer on then surely it's a small price to pay.

And what about the alternative - the people running it now and their motivations? Why do you think Massone and co. are in the directors' box right now? What is your honest assessment of their motivation for taking over Livingston FC, and is it better or worse than being on an ego trip? Are they maybe even on an ego trip? Will it be OK when Livingston closes its doors for the last time because they ran the club without an ego and because a fan faction that you don't like didn't get their blazers?

Edited May 16, 2009 by Swampy

[Guest strathbrock]

I assume what's "in it for the council" is not having an incompetent moron running the club, and probably a bit of fuzzy kudos from the locals for being seen to be working with the people. Plus, perhaps the Trust have presented a solid plan to make it happen rather than a barrow-load of IOUs for the full amount, little of which will be forthcoming. Certainly the council won't be doing it 100% out of the goodness of their hearts, and I think that WLC's role in the Livingston case is a pretty shabby one, but I do not think that this is a compelling argument against what they're doing now.

While certainly some people involved in Trusts nationwide are walking ego-trips, do you not think you're being a bit over the top? Surely some people involved in the Trust are genuine Livi fans who want mainly to see the club survive and then prosper. If that comes at the cost of their sitting in the directors' box with a blazer on then surely it's a small price to pay.

And what about the alternative - the people running it now and their motivations? Why do you think Massone and co. are in the directors' box right now? What is your honest assessment of their motivation for taking over Livingston FC, and is it better or worse than being on an ego trip? Are they maybe even on an ego trip? Will it be OK when Livingston closes its doors for the last time because they ran the club without an ego and because a fan faction that you don't like didn't get their blazers?

Good post swampy. Kind of sums up my feelings.

[Guest]

A mighty tome, delivered in a frenzy as dawn approached!

Well done that man. "In a nutshell" springs to mind.

Pretty sad I guess. You kinda of nailed it one. The curse of advancing years, restaurant meal, one drink too many and a row with the wife were all contributing factors.

Livingston seem to have their fair share of switched on supporters. They have the motive but not the motivation, and that's the bit I can't understand. On a personal level, I'm just fed up seeing Livingston gain an advantage over the Raiths and QotS's o of this world by not honouring debts. Livingston (and yes I've said it before) have now had more managers in 15 years than Rangers have had in more than a century. The latest debacle with Hegarty has shown that many Livvy fans are now de-sensitized to this kind of behaviour. A couple of days of shock horror, then it is near enough forgotten. Couple the people behaviours to the financial behaviours, and surely its obvious they are a club crying out for the involvement of the support in a more integrated way. If there are now council officials getting themselves up close and personal to Massone et al, then they really do need a slap.

[Guest]

Good post swampy. Kind of sums up my feelings.

Yep, a very good post.

[MCL]

I assume what's "in it for the council" is not having an incompetent moron running the club, and probably a bit of fuzzy kudos from the locals for being seen to be working with the people. Plus, perhaps the Trust have presented a solid plan to make it happen rather than a barrow-load of IOUs for the full amount, little of which will be forthcoming. Certainly the council won't be doing it 100% out of the goodness of their hearts, and I think that WLC's role in the Livingston case is a pretty shabby one, but I do not think that this is a compelling argument against what they're doing now.

While certainly some people involved in Trusts nationwide are walking ego-trips, do you not think you're being a bit over the top? Surely some people involved in the Trust are genuine Livi fans who want mainly to see the club survive and then prosper. If that comes at the cost of their sitting in the directors' box with a blazer on then surely it's a small price to pay.

And what about the alternative - the people running it now and their motivations? Why do you think Massone and co. are in the directors' box right now? What is your honest assessment of their motivation for taking over Livingston FC, and is it better or worse than being on an ego trip? Are they maybe even on an ego trip? Will it be OK when Livingston closes its doors for the last time because they ran the club without an ego and because a fan faction that you don't like didn't get their blazers?

But why does it have to be one or the other ? Why not a mix of both ?

Why don't the council offer to reduce the debt by x amount in return for x amount of shares given to the "Trust" ? Both camps would have their egos massaged and the club would still be in the 1st division.

I wouldn't like it if my landlord was meeting and helping draw up a business plan with a group planning on a hostile takeover of a company I owned. Peter Johnstone even stated publicly that the latest rent installment hadn't been paid when it had. He didn't come out and apologise for getting it wrong either. I would be wary of someone's motives when they act like that.

[Mr.J]

The only humane thing to do is to put this mongrel of a club out of its misery.

[AND180Y]

and I think that WLC's role in the Livingston case is a pretty shabby one, but I do not think that this is a compelling argument against what they're doing now.

The council have mis-managed a public asset (the stadium) for years, they could have irritated the lease at the end of Flynns tenure if they were not comfortable with the new shareholders of their tenant, the council are complicit in the mess!! That said to be fair to the council it isn't the first time they have amended the lease for LFC.

Edited May 16, 2009 by AND180Y

[Livi]

Well I can, and it's all about that seat in the director's box.

What alot of sh!te.

Massone is running our club into the ground. This is from a guy who spent decent money there last year.

I am not a Trust lover either, but I won't slag them for trying especially when we have an owner that is clearly running the club into the ground. End of the day if we want Livi to have a future then fans will need to work together or maybe we will achieve you goal of there being no Livi?

What has Massone done since he has come in?

• Called anyone owed money enemies of the club & they should support Celtic or Rangers
  

• Had c.16 court cases for unpaid bills (some of those of his own making)
  

• Confirmed on national radio a creditor had been paid, when clearly they hadn’t
  

• Continued to say “there is no problem” when clearly there is
  

• Accused the Daily Record of racism
  

• Sacked one management team
  

• Suspended another management team
  

• Banned players from POTY (permission was sought)
  

• Paid the playing staff consistently late
  

• Not paid all of the non playing staff
  

• Banned supporters from Almondvale
  

• Sold promising talent for buttons
  

• Divided the Livingston support
  

• Promised Livi FC 3^rd in SPL
  

I guess that makes a great report card for being a chairman????

[banjo player]

But why does it have to be one or the other ? Why not a mix of both ?

Why don't the council offer to reduce the debt by x amount in return for x amount of shares given to the "Trust" ? Both camps would have their egos massaged and the club would still be in the 1st division.

I wouldn't like it if my landlord was meeting and helping draw up a business plan with a group planning on a hostile takeover of a company I owned. Peter Johnstone even stated publicly that the latest rent installment hadn't been paid when it had. He didn't come out and apologise for getting it wrong either. I would be wary of someone's motives when they act like that.

I wouldn't like it if my landlord was meeting a group planning a hostile takeover of my company if it was in financial difficulties but their motivation for doing so would be abundantly clear and frankly sensible in the circumstances.

How do you think Susan Boyle as a WLC council tax payer would feel if she saw a legitimate debt being traded for worthless shares in a football club? She'd be a bit annoyed, wouldn't she? She might be less annoyed if she could see some benefit, pro bon publico, in the council working wth a sucessor organisation on a completely different business model that might, just might turn this disaster around.

[Yoss]

Excellent work from Mr Freemason there.

Edit: and Swampy.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Yoss

[banjo player]

Excellent work from Mr Freemason there.

Edit: and Swampy.

You do have to wonder though, given the reaction from MCL, why they bother, in fact why do we all bother, why don't we just leave Livi to fester...

[jimbo]

But why does it have to be one or the other ? Why not a mix of both ?

Why don't the council offer to reduce the debt by x amount in return for x amount of shares given to the "Trust" ? Both camps would have their egos massaged and the club would still be in the 1st division.

I wouldn't like it if my landlord was meeting and helping draw up a business plan with a group planning on a hostile takeover of a company I owned. Peter Johnstone even stated publicly that the latest rent installment hadn't been paid when it had. He didn't come out and apologise for getting it wrong either. I would be wary of someone's motives when they act like that.

You are big on motives. You "know" (somehow?) the motives of the Trust members and you question the motives of the council. Have you ever wondered about the motives of an Italian business man who takes over a wee Scottish club that has struggled financially since its inception and who speaks incessantly about wanting to buy the ground.

You suggest that the Trust now work hand in hand with someone who came in and took over the club without bothering to find out what the liabilities were (called due diligence I believe) and who refused to pay debts until forced to by courts. This is someone you could work with in your business is it? Your obvious problems with person or persons in the Trust are now making you sound pathetic.

[zutons]

2,000 posts on this topic.

Livi go now.

[Guest]

But why does it have to be one or the other ? Why not a mix of both ?

Why don't the council offer to reduce the debt by x amount in return for x amount of shares given to the "Trust" ? Both camps would have their egos massaged and the club would still be in the 1st division.

I wouldn't like it if my landlord was meeting and helping draw up a business plan with a group planning on a hostile takeover of a company I owned. Peter Johnstone even stated publicly that the latest rent installment hadn't been paid when it had. He didn't come out and apologise for getting it wrong either. I would be wary of someone's motives when they act like that.

So how does it work that the "latest" rent bill had been paid, but earlier ones haven't? How does that work? I genuinely need to understand this premis, because currently, I don't get it. If the latest installment has been paid, it means there is no rent due. So how come the council claim rent is unpaid? I mean, you can't claim to have paid a "latest" installment without having paid the ones prior to that. Or have I got that wrong?

I'm no expert on company law, or the finer detail of public money expenditure, but I would have thought Trust ownership of the club would negate asset stripping, and would to a greater degree, put the club in the hands of the community. I can kind of see how a council might look sympathetically towards that, but I'd still have concerns that it's council policy rather than one or two council members looking after themselves. Writing off debt to Massone? You have got to be kidding. What is it about him that makes you think he's worthy of WL public money? He seems to lie for fun, yet still you back him. Why?

I also took from your posting that you want public money written off to keep the club in the first division, as opposed to keeping the club in existance. Personally, any football club that chooses to go into adminstration inside five years should be kicked out of the league. They drag the name of the game into disrepute. Every football club's league status is pretty much dependent on the collective financial horsepower of its supporters and backers. If you ain't got the money and backing to exist in the spl, you shouldn't be able to keep to hold on to that status thus excluding another club who behave responsibly. The same applies to the SFL. why should Livingston be allowed to hang on to SFL1 status by getting their debts written off yet again? Why is your playing budget not cut by a further 50k a season until you pay off your debts? Why are you so unwilling to legitimately balance income and expenditure? If paying your debts means you slip to SFL2 or SFL3, what is so wrong with that? Is that really something so awful that you'd prefer your club to not pay their debts at all simply in order to maintain SFL1? If so, it's simply staggering.

Time for Westfield............

Edited May 16, 2009 by Guest

[Barney Pickleton]

Booo hoo hooo

Get a fucking grip mate.

We've been here long enough

Fuckin right mate, you have been here long enough, now get tae f**k.

[Chuckinho]

So, if the council require payment by the 30th of June at the absolute latest, where does this put the SFL? Does this give them time to elect another club if Livi goes under? An earlier resolution would definietly be in everyone's best interests surely.

We seem to have clubs not paying rent and others not paying taxes. This surely isn't the responsible way to run a club.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Chuckinho

[Dunning1874]

I'm not a Massone apologist.

Sure.