Livingston - all the threads merged

[The ghost of Jim Morton]

Bet if i started the ghost of jim morton is a w**k thread it would blow any of the above

out of the water.

That's no way to speak to someone who could quite possibly be your Daddy

I'll happily go head to head with you in a "which poster is the bigger p***k" poll. I would not expect to lose.. Feel free to set that one up son..

[Larsson.]

If as has been hinted at, McGruther and his backers are prepared to go to the law courts if and when the appeal falls tomorrow - things will really start to get interesting, costs will increase as will the stakes.

Amazing what money will be spent and risks taken to make money and aquire real estate....

If true what i don't get is the part Gordon McDougall is playing in all this, the guy loves football

and is not short of a few bob so why go through all this, when i'm sure he prob could build livi

up to a level from div 3.

[Larsson.]

That's no way to speak to someone who could quite possibly be your Daddy

I'll happily go head to head with you in a "which poster is the bigger p***k" poll. I would not expect to lose.. Feel free to set that one up son..

If i knew how to create a poll type thread i would.

[KingfaetheSooth]

If true what i don't get is the part Gordon McDougall is playing in all this, the guy loves football

and is not short of a few bob so why go through all this, when i'm sure he prob could build livi

up to a level from div 3.

McDougall has already been confirmed as heading up the football side of the new Livi. He's a businessman who likes to make money too though and is also not avesre to legal action as his recent day in court v Cowdenbeath shows. No doubt he has a football ego and loves wearing the blazer - but making money is his game too.

I only suspect that legal action is likely as a Livi fan who was strangely absent from this thread all during the Massone stuff has suggested it will not finish tomorrow. We'll see - this will run for a while I reckon.

Edited August 12, 2009 by KingfaetheSooth

[phantoms-livi-lass]

McDougall has already been confirmed as heading up the football side of the new Livi. He's a businessman who likes to make money too though and is also not avesre to legal action as his recent day in court v Cowdenbeath shows. No doubt he has a football ego and loves wearing the blazer - but making money is his game too.

I only suspect that legal action is likely as a Livi fan who was strangely absent from this thread all during the Massone stuff has suggested it will not finish tomorrow. We'll see - this will run for a while I reckon.

Who????

[The Master]

Who????

You!!!!

[phantoms-livi-lass]

You!!!!

When????

[Skyline Drifter]

I am also led to believe that there is an expectation that all will not be finalised on Thursday. The pain may well be prolonged further still!

If as has been hinted at, McGruther and his backers are prepared to go to the law courts if and when the appeal falls tomorrow - things will really start to get interesting, costs will increase as will the stakes.

Amazing what money will be spent and risks taken to make money and aquire real estate....

I only suspect that legal action is likely as a Livi fan who was strangely absent from this thread all during the Massone stuff has suggested it will not finish tomorrow. We'll see - this will run for a while I reckon.

Who????

He's referring to the post by Stadio delle Almondvale above but I think he's misinterpreted it. I think in context all SDA was saying was he expected a separate hearing to determine later the punishment for failing to play East Stirling so it wouldn't all be finished tomorrow. I think on that front he's technically correct though as I suggested earlier, all parties may just agree to deal with that tomorrow too.

SDA can feel free to correct but I don't think he was suggesting it would head further up the appeals process.

[Guest Flash]

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.

I think the appeal cannot be made until the Special General Meeting. The bit saying it will be deemed to succeed is just a way of saying that the decision of the Management Committee will be overturned at the meeting, unless it is supported by a majority of votes.

I don't think it is a case of appealing then waiting for the SGM. I think the SGM is called, and the appeal is made at that. Therefore, as things stand, they are a Third Division Club. Only if the decision of the Management Committee is overturned at the meeting, will that change.

Apologies if this has all been done to death. I haven't read this thread for a while.

[phantoms-livi-lass]

He's referring to the post by Stadio delle Almondvale above but I think he's misinterpreted it. I think in context all SDA was saying was he expected a separate hearing to determine later the punishment for failing to play East Stirling so it wouldn't all be finished tomorrow. I think on that front he's technically correct though as I suggested earlier, all parties may just agree to deal with that tomorrow too.

SDA can feel free to correct but I don't think he was suggesting it would head further up the appeals process.

ahhh, I was ready to chain myself to the stadium tonight in protest! This day is sooooooooo dragging by.

[Nowhereman]

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.

[Guest]

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.

Definitely not right for a red card. Here's why.............if it worked that way, and lets just say Celtic had a top player sent off on Saturday, and had a re-arranged fixture against Rangers planned for the Tuesday, but the appeal would be heard on a Wednesday, they could simply use the appeal process in order to have their player available for the big game, and happily take him being suspended for the following week end fixture against Falkirk. It simply cannot work that way. it would be tantamount to cheating, and name me one club that would think that was an acceptable way to behave........ok, name me a second club. The red card penalty stands until the appeal is heard. That simply has to apply to Livvy too, as they deliberately timed their actions in the belief that it would screw up the SFL to the point where they couldn't penalize them. It backfired, so now we have their legal tantrum. They are once again trying to intimidate the SFL be bringing an air of legal proceedings to what is clearly not a court case.

The bully boy tactics continue, and I hope they get what they deserve.........utter contempt.

[Guest]

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.

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.

[phantoms-livi-lass]

Definitely not right for a red card. Here's why.............if it worked that way, and lets just say Celtic had a top player sent off on Saturday, and had a re-arranged fixture against Rangers planned for the Tuesday, but the appeal would be heard on a Wednesday, they could simply use the appeal process in order to have their player available for the big game, and happily take him being suspended for the following week end fixture against Falkirk. It simply cannot work that way. it would be tantamount to cheating, and name me one club that would think that was an acceptable way to behave........ok, name me a second club. The red card penalty stands until the appeal is heard. That simply has to apply to Livvy too, as they deliberately timed their actions in the belief that it would screw up the SFL to the point where they couldn't penalize them. It backfired, so now we have their legal tantrum. They are once again trying to intimidate the SFL be bringing an air of legal proceedings to what is clearly not a court case.

The bully boy tactics continue, and I hope they get what they deserve.........utter contempt.

Jesus Christ! Not AGAIN Duncan!

[Skyline Drifter]

Sorry, but no.

When a player is sent off, his red card remains in place until such time as the appeal is heard. If for any reason, a game takes place twixt the red card and the appeal hearing, the player remains red carded. He cannot appeal and then consider the red card suspended until that appeal is heard.

That's actually entirely wrong and doesn't help your case one bit. Sir Callum Melville's convicted criminal example was more what you are looking for.

Red card suspensions are indeed set aside until such times as an appeal is heard, although normally they will do all that's possible to hear such an appeal before a next game is played.

Definitely not right for a red card. Here's why.............if it worked that way, and lets just say Celtic had a top player sent off on Saturday, and had a re-arranged fixture against Rangers planned for the Tuesday, but the appeal would be heard on a Wednesday, they could simply use the appeal process in order to have their player available for the big game, and happily take him being suspended for the following week end fixture against Falkirk. It simply cannot work that way. it would be tantamount to cheating, and name me one club that would think that was an acceptable way to behave........ok, name me a second club. The red card penalty stands until the appeal is heard.

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.

Sorry Duncan but that's still just absolutely factually incorrect. I've already tried to correct you on that point once today and you ignored it.

Appeals over red cards DO cause the original decision to be held over until the appeal is heard, though, as I said previously, in all but exceptional cases they move smartly to hear the appeal before the next game.

On a semi related matter, Kevin Fotheringham just last season was banned for a lengthy spell after being found guilty of racially abusing Gregory Tade during an East Fife v Stranraer match. He appealled his ban and had it set aside until the appeal was heard (he lost and eventually served the ban in full).

[Nowhereman]

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

[MCL]

He does not support Livi. He feeds off the club. FACT

More lies from the "Trust" presented as FACT. And just because you put FACT at the end of a sentence doesn't make it a FACT :lol:

[Homer Thompson]

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

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.

[phantoms-livi-lass]

More lies from the "Trust" presented as FACT. And just because you put FACT at the end of a sentence doesn't make it a FACT

It was not from the trust & it is a FACT. You are one paranoid git!

[The Master]

I think the appeal cannot be made until the Special General Meeting. The bit saying it will be deemed to succeed is just a way of saying that the decision of the Management Committee will be overturned at the meeting, unless it is supported by a majority of votes.

I don't think it is a case of appealing then waiting for the SGM. I think the SGM is called, and the appeal is made at that. Therefore, as things stand, they are a Third Division Club. Only if the decision of the Management Committee is overturned at the meeting, will that change.

Apologies if this has all been done to death. I haven't read this thread for a while.

That's exactly the point that I, Skyline Drifter, HibeeJibee and others have been making.

The rule clearly states that the appeal is made to the Special General Meeting.

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.

It's not dubious.

It's there in black and white: the appeal is made to a Special General Meeting...something that is not convened until tomorrow, hence it's impossible for Livi to have already appealed.

If a penalty is suspended pending an appeal that quite clearly applies before the actual hearing takes place.

Where are you getting this notion that the penalty can be suspended pending an appeal from?

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.

No, you've misunderstood the point I was making.

There's only certain fouls for which a red card, and only a red card, can be shown. So to appeal against a red card is to appeal against the accusation that you committed the offence in the first place.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Sir Calum Melville