Robbo Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 as for Livingstons punishment, 10 points isn't enough, I totally agree 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordieBoy80 Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Gordon McDougall has resigned from the Dunfermline board to concentrate on Livingston it seems http://www.dafc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/...1733149,00.html This could be hopeful for Livi Edited July 25, 2009 by GordieBoy80 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I see the news was released on the 23rd july. Very interesting is the timing with this. I am begining to think a deal has been struck with the council beforehand and that a Mcdougal/trust takeover is close. Add to this interested parties supposedly contacting the administrator within 3 hours of the appointment, then his statement, which i see as a challenge to the SFL, and i start to get some what suspicous. Mcdougal is a football man, and i just cant see him leaving DAFC board unless he is pretty certain he has somewhere to go. Naw, this jigsaw puzzle fits too darned easily for my liking. I bet now Livi get off without any penalty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PtB Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 f**k them B) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 The CVA wasn't agreed until 2004 though - however you could be right and the preferred creditor status could have gone in 2003. Here is the case if you are interested. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?d...;method=boolean HMRC are very very unhappy about the football creditors rule. In England the FL have introduced new rules effective from 1st July that any club that is in arrears with its PAYE will have a transfer embargo placed on them until they are back up to date. That was actually voted in by the EFL conference of all the Chairmen which shows that the majority of chairmen at least do not want the rogues to get away with it. That strikes me as exactly the right sort of measure and something that football can do to police itself. Right, I've just read this judgement and Wimbledon, as they then were, seem to have used a loophole: independently of the money the new buyers were putting into the club to rescue it from administration, they were also prepared to put up further of their own money (rather than the company's) to pay off football debts in full in order to retain or regain the share from the football league; however if it were the company's assets that were being used in such a manner then they would indeed fall foul of the law and the implication is the Inland Revenue would then win such a case - have I understood that right? The same loophole should be available to pretty much any buyer of a club in such circumstances as long as it's done the same way, but if it's being done within the company using company assets then there could be trouble. As I read it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) I see the news was released on the 23rd july. Very interesting is the timing with this.I am begining to think a deal has been struck with the council beforehand and that a Mcdougal/trust takeover is close. Add to this interested parties supposedly contacting the administrator within 3 hours of the appointment, then his statement, which i see as a challenge to the SFL, and i start to get some what suspicous. Mcdougal is a football man, and i just cant see him leaving DAFC board unless he is pretty certain he has somewhere to go. Naw, this jigsaw puzzle fits too darned easily for my liking. I bet now Livi get off without any penalty. ...and for this to happen, it would mean that WLC have been a willing partner in seeking to ensure that the creditors of a private company within their district will receive the minimum amount of repayment of debt so that they (the council) can continue to indulge in the corporate hospitality of said private company for many years to come. If this is the case, then politics in WL are even more rotten than has been thought...............not that I would be surprised by that. Until someone in the district has the motivation to remove the lid from what seems to be a very incestuious and self serving can of worms, then it'll just go on and on. For those with a vested interest in seeing Livvy pay the price for their wrongdoing this time, then a bizarre twist might be on the horizon...........and that twist would rapidly re-assess exactly who the most ethically compromised players in WL actually are.............I think they are all iffy players. There are no straightforward good guys and bad guys at play here. Massone just might well be the man to back if justice is a prime mover. If he has indeed put in his near fanciful figure of half a million, then he just might be able to ensure that 2.8p in the pound doesn't work this time. For those seeking an eye for an eye, then maybe.........just maybe........the man to back will be Massone. If a deal has already been worked by the council, the Trust and McDougall, then it looks as though the latest incarnation in WL might be based on economies of the truth yet again. Its becoming increasingly obvious WLC are no straighter than Massone himself, and that the Council's words to the public are little more than a fabrication to weasle over their true intent. The Trust of course, do want to be seen as the good guys, but only after every creditor gets screwed over yet again. Nothing at all has changed in West Lothian. Edited July 25, 2009 by Guest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers_Lad Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Mcdougal is a football man, C`mon,If hes interested he ain`t going to plough money in to a debt ridden club out of the goodness of his heart or because hes a football man as you call him. McDougals a businessman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 When Archibald was kicked out with Airdrie already in provisional liquidation, in mid-season, 6 games were postponed for a variety of reasons. Mostly to allow Barr time to get some puppetry together to run the club on his behalf. He also thought a property deal may eventually have been avaialable to any owner of the club/stadium. Anyway, the point I am making is The SFL will contain people with vested interests, the members will have pals who might be interested. They will do what the people who presently have the most power dictate. The rules are so vague they can be used to justify any (in)action. The council seem inclined to assist in preserving senior football, how else can they do this but negotiate on the rent arrears? As some of the locality is now up for grabs. I think they could rezone the stadium area, write off/down the arrears, allow the revived Livi to play there until such times as they can sell it and move Livi to a more appropriate "community facility". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Get this moving fixtures idea to f**k. Morton already have three away matches out of the first four league matches, along with two away cup matches. If Livingston can't fulfil their fixtures as scheduled (and they're a loss making entity in any event), then they should be kicked out of the league. Problem solved. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Allow them to move fixtures, but deduct 20 points for each fixture moved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) ...and for this to happen, it would mean that WLC have been a willing partner in seeking to ensure that the creditors of a private company within their district will receive the minimum amount of repayment of debt so that they (the council) can continue to indulge in the corporate hospitality of said private company for many years to come.If this is the case, then politics in WL are even more rotten than has been thought...............not that I would be surprised by that. Until someone in the district has the motivation to remove the lid from what seems to be a very incestuious and self serving can of worms, then it'll just go on and on. For those with a vested interest in seeing Livvy pay the price for their wrongdoing this time, then a bizarre twist might be on the horizon...........and that twist would rapidly re-assess exactly who the most ethically compromised players in WL actually are.............I think they are all iffy players. There are no straightforward good guys and bad guys at play here. Massone just might well be the man to back if justice is a prime mover. If he has indeed put in his near fanciful figure of half a million, then he just might be able to ensure that 2.8p in the pound doesn't work this time. For those seeking an eye for an eye, then maybe.........just maybe........the man to back will be Massone. If a deal has already been worked by the council, the Trust and McDougall, then it looks as though the latest incarnation in WL might be based on economies of the truth yet again. Its becoming increasingly obvious WLC are no straighter than Massone himself, and that the Council's words to the public are little more than a fabrication to weasle over their true intent. The Trust of course, do want to be seen as the good guys, but only after every creditor gets screwed over yet again. Nothing at all has changed in West Lothian. I see over on Livilions that the council have been paying Livi £25,000 a year for the last ten years for Corporate Hospitality!! You couldn't f**cking make it up!! The weird thing is that Massone didn't defend the action, I wonder if in the murky depth he has been cut a deal? Maybe no investigations into director conduct and a few quid or bit part in the new Livi? The deal in my opinion was already done before the court hearing with the council opting for a "friendly interim manager" rather than admin. Edited July 25, 2009 by AND180Y 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ1210 Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Livi were sponsorless in the ALBA cup game v QOS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) I think the SFL should demand that Livingston sacrifice a virgin fan to appease the footballing gods. Virgins in Livingston, only on the telly Edited July 25, 2009 by AND180Y 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 So, if a stitch up now seems to be near enough a certainty, who wins and who loses? The Losers: Anyone and everyone who has payments outstanding from LFC. This includes the public purse, but probably not the councillors themselves who will ensure that they feature on the winners list. The Winners: The 1% or so of the local population who follow the privately owned LFC. Their council will ensure that any and all debts owed to the public purse will simply disappear. 99% of the population will lose a little so that the 1% can gain a lot. Councillors who enjoy a bit of nose troughing at Almondvale every second Saturday. I don't know who they are, but they are the ones who will ensure that public money is syphoned the club's way in return for being given a bit of special treatment every second Saturday. The Livi Trust: They get to play Billy Big Shots on the back of the creditors being bumped. McDougall: He gets the club for a pittance on the back of the creditors being bumped. Treating those councillors right every second Saturday will ensure a bit of preferential treatment in return. This will take the form of very cheap stadium rental rates and doubtless other bits and pieces no-one would rather speak about. Is it corruption? I don't know. Twenty years ago, it would have been, but in these days when standards of integrity in local government are in freefall, then I'd rather leave that determination to others. If the above is what is actually happening, then corruption or not, it still stinks to high heaven. No wonder the council leader was nervous on tv. I wonder if he sleeps ok at night. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muggy Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) That's your 222nd post in this thread. You're excited by all this, are you? Edited July 25, 2009 by Le Italiano 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No, hes a small business who is owed nearly a 5 figure sum by Livingston. I wouldnt be anywhere near so soft if i was in his shoes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muggy Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No, hes a small business who is owed nearly a 5 figure sum by Livingston.I wouldnt be anywhere near so soft if i was in his shoes. My apologies to Freemason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No, hes a small business who is owed nearly a 5 figure sum by Livingston.I wouldnt be anywhere near so soft if i was in his shoes. Was owed, I believe. I might be wrong but I think he lost money through the previous admin and just doesn't want it to happen again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Virgins in Livingston, only on the telly AND180Y you didn't answer my question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Duncan I have said I feel terrible for what happened to you before & I do not want this to happen again! I would love to pay off all debts in full even if it takes decades, as do all the fans I have discussed this with, Will you stop bloody tarring us with the one brush? I do not wish the club to walk away from it's debts & I do agree that the SFL should give out a suitable penalty especially as this is the second time in admin in five years. We are not all robbing glory hunting feckers! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.