Livingston - all the threads merged

[EdinburghLivi]

Apparently the safety inspection is tommorow and there "shouldn't be a problem."

[ayrmad]

When have the SFL contradicted themselves?

As far as I can see, Livy were asked if they could guarantee they would fulfill all their fixtures in Div 1 next season - McGruther said 'no'. On the back of that they were demoted to Div 3, with the right to appeal. On Friday morning, with no intent to appeal lodged, the SFL made the decision that games would go ahead on Saturday, but become null and void should Livy subsequently appeal and be successful. They've since said that had Livy lodged their intent to appeal earlier then they would have postponed Saturdays games.

Whats contradictory about any of that? Or have I missed something?

I think my previous post where Longmuir stated on Thursday that if Livi filed their appeal their game would be off is one,now everyone including Longmuir wants them hung,drawn and quartered coz they refused to play a 3rd division game.

And that's not just a tiny insignificant one it's a fcuking huge one,punishing Livi for interpreting the situation the same as Longmuir did is plain daft.

Edited August 11, 2009 by ayrmad

[RedV]

To be honest I just wish the whole thing was over. I would have been quite happy for them to have accepted the demotion on Friday. I have no idea why our lot are prolonging this or even the wisdom of it.

I don't think it's beyond the realms of credibility to suggest the consortium want out, but if they just walk away now they look even more untrustworthy than they have in the past (well, Rankine does at least). By going down this route they may well be attempting to walk away absolved of all blame, playing the "nowt to do with us, the SFL just would not see reason" card. Albeit badly.

[ayrmad]

I don't think it's beyond the realms of credibility to suggest the consortium want out, but if they just walk away now they look even more untrustworthy than they have in the past (well, Rankine does at least). By going down this route they may well be attempting to walk away absolved of all blame, playing the "nowt to do with us, the SFL just would not see reason" card. Albeit badly.

I think McGruther had to take the course of action he has to attempt to get the best deal for the creditors and his own company.

Maybe wrong but that's my honest opinion.

[Ivo den Bieman]

Geoff Brown defends the SFL & condemns "Livi"

By the time I get back from Belgrade I predict this thread will be pushing 500 pages and "Livi" will probably still be complaining bitterly about something or other, from the safety of bottom spot in Division 3.

[Homer Thompson]

I think my previous post where Longmuir stated on Thursday that if Livi filed their appeal their game would be off is one,now everyone including Longmuir wants them hung,drawn and quartered coz they refused to play a 3rd division game.

And that's not just a tiny insignificant one it's a fcuking huge one,punishing Livi for interpreting the situation the same as Longmuir did is plain daft.

I cant see any quotes from Longmuir, but there is this one from McMaster, which doesnt say what you seem to be implying -

"If they'd appealed in due time, we'd have put the three games off, there's no question of that," added McMaster. "But there comes a point when we need to make a call.

I would imagine that Longmuir would have said something very similar.

I dont see that as contradictory at all, in fact it seems very simple to me. Had Livy appealed before the SFL's announcement the games would have been called off. In the absence of any appeal, they were told to play the game, but then later refused. The only failing of the SFL, that I can see, is that they possibly didnt tell Livy this in advance, but I cant see any room for interpretation.

[ayrmad]

I cant see any quotes from Longmuir, but there is this one from McMaster, which doesnt say what you seem to be implying -

I would imagine that Longmuir would have said something very similar.

I dont see that as contradictory at all, in fact it seems very simple to me. Had Livy appealed before the SFL's announcement the games would have been called off. In the absence of any appeal, they were told to play the game, but then later refused. The only failing of the SFL, that I can see, is that they possibly didnt tell Livy this in advance, but I cant see any room for interpretation.

I think Longmuir was quoted in Thursdays Daily Mail,he only stated the Livi game would be off.

The SFL shouldn't be constantly talking to the media about this situation,when they do it should be done via pre-written statements.

Edited August 11, 2009 by ayrmad

[Homer Thompson]

I think Longmuir was quoted in Thursdays Daily Mail,he only stated the Livi game would be off.

The SFL shouldn't be constantly talking to the media about this situation,when they do it should be done via pre-written statements.

You're probably right, that would be the more professional approach. But at the end of the day, that doesnt really mean that this is the SFL's fault, or that they have handled things badly, or even contradicted themselves, as you first said. It just means they're not handling the media as well as they might have. I dont see how that makes them the incompetent fools, that many seem to be claiming - or how it gives Livy fans any leeway to blame the SFL rather than their own club.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Mr X

[jimbo]

People from Livingston think that an irony is something you use with a boardy.

It's taken a while Sir C but at last you have raised a smile with me.

[The Master]

Lucky I'm not from Livingston then

I didn't say you were.

It goes without saying that people from Edinburgh think that irony is a word that comes after gridy.

[Doink]

I don't actually fully understand what you mean, but 'relegated/not relegated' has been done to death by know. It won't be going to a Court of Law so - effectively - SFL interpretation is god.

Depends on the outcome of the enquiry. If Livingston are not happy they may well take the case to a Court of Law.

[jimbo]

I didn't say you were.

It goes without saying that people from Edinburgh think that irony is a word that comes after gridy.

Nope! You should have stopped when you were winning!

[Dr Koop]

Depends on the outcome of the enquiry. If Livingston are not happy they may well take the case to a Court of Law.

Where would the money to pay for that kind of legal action come from?

[Fife Saint]

Depends on the outcome of the enquiry. If Livingston are not happy they may well take the case to a Court of Law.

But the club agreed to abide by the league rules. Would an administrator sanction a legal move given the costs involved? I don't think so. Remember, these guys are prospective owners and have no sway over the clubs position at the moment.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Depends on the outcome of the enquiry. If Livingston are not happy they may well take the case to a Court of Law.

Nope.

McGruther has apparently stated that whatever the outcome of Thursday's hearing, that'll be the end of the matter and they'll just get on with it.

[Skyline Drifter]

But the club agreed to abide by the league rules. Would an administrator sanction a legal move given the costs involved? I don't think so. Remember, these guys are prospective owners and have no sway over the clubs position at the moment.

Quite clearly they do have, notwithstanding the legal position. The Consortium are making the calls, or at least influencing them, and the club website are sticking out statements starting "We the Consortium............".

[Fife Saint]

Quite clearly they do have, notwithstanding the legal position. The Consortium are making the calls, or at least influencing them, and the club website are sticking out statements starting "We the Consortium............".

Do you think, and are they allowed to, initiate legal action on behalf of the club against the league SD?

[Homer Thompson]

Do you think, and are they allowed to, initiate legal action on behalf of the club against the league SD?

Not until they own it, I wouldnt have thought.

But then I dont see whats to stop them concluding the sale on Friday and then launching legal action against the outcome of the appeal.

[Fife Saint]

Not until they own it, I wouldnt have thought.

But then I dont see whats to stop them concluding the sale on Friday and then launching legal action against the outcome of the appeal.

Hell of a gamble isn't it. You would think they would be advised to walk away or accept the LMC decision.

[mike rankine]

I had a quick look through last night's thread and couldn't see this mentioned, so apologies if it has and I missed it, but did anyone else hear Jim Traynor's "Paper Talk" on Radio Scotland last night?

Rob Robertson (Daily Mail) was arguing strongly that Livi had been "royally shafted" by the SFL and other clubs with vested interests. He was claiming that Livi had never actually entered administration; that "two reputable businessmen" had agreed to buy the shares of Massone, honour all debt and that all this had been done within the required timescales of the SFL. In otherwords, he was saying this was a "clean deal" and Livi should be in Division 1 with no punishment whatsoever.

He even suggested it would be no different to Sir David Murray agreeing to sell his shares in Rangers to a reputable businessman. He asked if Rangers would be relegated to Division 3 in such circumstances.

I think he has missed some crucial points and am stunned that such an experienced journalist could be taken in by the PR of the Rankine/McDougall/McGruther crowd:

1. It's not the first time Livingston have been in some form of Administration;

2. They shafted their creditors last time;

3. They are currently in Interim Administration, against SFL rules;

4. The proposed rescue package will only honour football debts. Even with their First Division football plan, these "reputable businessmen" are only offering Xp in the pound to ordinary creditors under the CVA, i.e. Livi intend to shaft their creditors yet again;

5. The Consortium initially promised to put up a Bond guaranteeing they could fulfil their SFL1 fixtures but these "reputable businessmen" then appear to have played silly buggers and withdrawn that guarantee, resulting in the severe punishment of demotion;

Not to mention that Livingston could easily fall foul of the catch-all "bringing the game into disrepute" rule with their late payment of players, resulting media coverage, refusal to fulfil a scheduled SFL3 fixture etc.

The discussion can be heard on BBC's "Listen Again" function - Sportsound (Monday 10th August). The Livi discussion starts around 24 minutes into the show.