Benjamin_Nevis Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 You keep stating this pish and it doesn't change the fact that your reading of this situation is wrong,while the rules are laid out in a fashion that appears to allow them to do as they like that doesn't mean they can do as they like,any set of rules and how they are used must come within the law of the land,if a decision appeared to be made excessively harsh due to giving Livi a kicking for vindictive reasons it could contravene certain Business Law.And your they agreed to them retort is pish also. What's harsh about it? SFL: OK Livi, you can stay in Division One, as long as you lodge a bond to fulfil your fixtures. Livi: Aye, no bother. Week later... SFL: So, can you provide the bond? Livi: Errr, Naw. SFL: You best be moving on then, you've got Division Three to prepare for. Seems fairly straightforward to me. If Livi had done what they said they would do at the first meeting, instead of blackmailing the SFL with a "Its Division One or else", and failing to lodge a bond that seemed a week earlier to not be a problem, then the SFL would have kept them in Division One, with nothing worse than a 10 point penalty. They only have themselves to blame for this nonsense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) What's harsh about it?SFL: OK Livi, you can stay in Division One, as long as you lodge a bond to fulfil your fixtures. Livi: Aye, no bother. Week later... SFL: So, can you provide the bond? Livi: Errr, Naw. SFL: You best be moving on then, you've got Division Three to prepare for. Seems fairly straightforward to me. If Livi had done what they said they would do at the first meeting, instead of blackmailing the SFL with a "Its Division One or else", and failing to lodge a bond that seemed a week earlier to not be a problem, then the SFL would have kept them in Division One, with nothing worse than a 10 point penalty. They only have themselves to blame for this nonsense. Were you there? Is 7 days a realistic timeframe in todays financial climate? Have any other clubs close to administration been asked to post a bond? My own club were reportedly close last season,were any assurances asked of Ayr United? Edited August 22, 2009 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) Were you there?Is 7 days a realistic timeframe in todays financial climate? Have any other clubs close to administration been asked to post a bond? My own club were reportedly close last season,were any assurances asked of Ayr United? 1. The bond is not a suitcase full of hard cash. It's a signed document stating that the owners would cough up should the season start, things go tits up and Livi fail to fulfil their fixtures. In any case however, at the first meeting, the bond wasnt a problem. It suddenly became a problem a week later. Why was this? 2. If they went into Interim or Full Administration then they would also be hauled up. 3. Unless Ayr went into interim or full administration then why would they have been? The whole reason action has been taken against Livi is because they have gone into Interim Administration. I'm assuming Ayr didn't. Being "Close" to administration means f**k all. Contravention of the rules only occurs when a club goes into Insolvency proceedings. No, of course i wasn't there. However i'm fairly sure all hell would have broken loose had the bond been provided, and Livi still been relegated. There's not been a fucking peep from any of the McGruther/Livi5 group regarding the bond. The only quote was apparently from Brown McMaster, alluding to the fact that the promise to fulfil fixtures, (ie the bond) was not forthcoming. To my recollection, neither McGruther nor Livi5 have denied this. THAT'S why they were punted down two Divisions. *Edited for spelling Edited August 22, 2009 by jupe1407 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 1. The bond is not a suitcase full of hard cash. It's a signed document stating that the owners would cough up should the season start, things go tits up and Livi fail to fulfil their fixtures. In any case however, at the first meeting, the bond wasnt a problem. It suddenly became a problem a week later. Why was this?2. If they went into Interim or Full Administration then they would also be hauled up. 3. Unless Ayr went into interim or full administration then why would they have been? The whole reason action has been taken against Livi is because they have gone into Interim Administration. I'm assuming Ayr didn't. Being "Close" to administration means f**k all. Contravention of the rules only occurs when a club goes into Insolvency proceedings. No, of course i wasn't there. However i'm fairly sure all hell would have broken loose had the bond been provided, and Livi still been relegated. There's not been a fucking peep from any of the McGruther/Livi5 group regarding the bond. The only quote was apparently from Brown McMaster, alluding to the fact that the promise to fulfil fixtures, (ie the bond) was not forthcoming. To my recollection, neither McGruther nor Livi5 have denied this. THAT'S why they were punted down two Divisions. *Edited for spelling The bond needs to be done through a bank or similar,don't kid yourself if you think you need to go into interim administration,the rules state otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 The bond needs to be done through a bank or similar,don't kid yourself if you think you need to go into interim administration,the rules state otherwise. The bottom line however is that at the first meeting McGruther/Livi5 were apparently able to provide the bond. At the second they weren't. Of course i'm sure they didn't just say that at the first meeting, then hope that not being able to provide it at the second meeting and hoping it was too late to f**k about with fixtures wasn't in their thinking at all... The rules state something along the lines of Insolvency Proceedings. Being "close" to being in the shit doesn't constitute Insolvency Proceedings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) Livi's appeal is, surely, simply about severity of punishment. (Not a claim they never broke SFL's rules on insolvency practitioners etc.; and not a claim that the SFL has breached their own rules). It is on that basis that posters like Sir Calum Melville and others anticipate the appeal to the SFA ending in failure. Because the SFL give them full powers to punish Livi as they see fit. SFL haven't broken any Laws of the Land; and no Court is going to rule on severity of punishment in football... Edited August 22, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 You keep stating this pish and it doesn't change the fact that your reading of this situation is wrong,while the rules are laid out in a fashion that appears to allow them to do as they like that doesn't mean they can do as they like,any set of rules and how they are used must come within the law of the land,if a decision appeared to be made excessively harsh due to giving Livi a kicking for vindictive reasons it could contravene certain Business Law. Now you're getting silly. Relegating Livi to the 3rd Division in no way, shape or form breaks the laws of the land. And your they agreed to them retort is pish also,they still have to work within the law of the land. Right...and they have. Civic Government Scotland Act gives LA's autonomy to do as they like in the area of taxis,doesn't actually mean they can do as they like. Yes...and? Well Sir C, there is actually a school of thought interpretation wise that reckons that by adding words such as "including ..." you are actually limiting the preceding wide ranging "as it sees fit". That is usually avoided by adding the words "including, without limitation, ...". The draftsman has not included those words in this case so I'd suggest the wording is not beyond challenge. Would you like me to get you some more straws to grab at? The word "including" simply lists example punishments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) Civic Government Scotland Act gives LA's autonomy to do as they like in the area of taxis,doesn't actually mean they can do as they like. Yes...and? perhaps Livi5 intend to establish a pirate minicab empire, to help subside full-time Div 3 footie? Edited August 22, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 [Would you like me to get you some more straws to grab at? The word "including" simply lists example punishments. I don't need to grab at straws Sir C, it's not my appeal and I don't have any interest in Livi as a club but I think this whole process has been a shambles. It's already been established on this thread that your grasp of English is not what you think it is, that you don't have any experience of appeals to football authorities and you have just demonstrated you don't know much about disputes on interpretation of documents, you don't seem to have even read my post properly. I wonder what it is you are actually any good at in your day job? We'll see soon enough how the Livi appeal goes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I don't need to grab at straws Sir C, it's not my appeal and I don't have any interest in Livi as a club but I think this whole process has been a shambles. It's already been established on this thread that your grasp of English is not what you think it is, What, because I mis-spelled the word "principle"? that you don't have any experience of appeals to football authorities And, despite Spartans' delusions of grandeur, you have no experience of making appeals to the SFL, which is all that counted during that particular strand of the debate. and you have just demonstrated you don't know much about disputes on interpretation of documents, So in what way is "as they see fit" ambiguous? you don't seem to have even read my post properly. I did. You're wrong. I wonder what it is you are actually any good at in your day job? I'm a software engineer at a university, and will possibly be starting a PhD in October, funding permitting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 What, because I mis-spelled the word "principle"? And, despite Spartans' delusions of grandeur, you have no experience of making appeals to the SFL, which is all that counted during that particular strand of the debate. So in what way is "as they see fit" ambiguous? I did. You're wrong. I'm a software engineer at a university, and will possibly be starting a PhD in October, funding permitting. Good stuff Sir C, but you have just answered my questions. There are any number of good lawyers who would say your interpretation is correct, there would be an equal number who would say it is not, that is the nature of these types of disputes. This is a forum for opinions, your opinion is valid as is mine and all the Livi supporters. From what you have said I think I am bit better qualified than you to offer an interpretation of documents but when I come on to P&B I offer only my opinion and don't do as you do and say that something is crystal clear. Might be in the software world Sir C but not many other places. Good luck with the funding, I wish you well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 It's too quiet, in here. This needs a bump. £1 to enter, proceeds go to the Fighting Fund.Hmm... I reckon we'll have a surge tommorow from all of the bottomfeeders anticipating a potential expulsion so we'll be past 10,000. I'll go for 10,469. I forgot about my little competition of the post count when we played our first game. August 15th at 15:00. Well yeah, you're all right there obviously. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on their current motivation anyway, just because I'm soft that way. That was post 10,469 which was 25 hours and 20 minutes before our first game. I guess, I was closest without going over so I win some pride. Another £1 in the Fighting Fund buckets at the next home game 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 It's too quiet, in here. This needs a bump.I forgot about my little competition of the post count when we played our first game. August 15th at 15:00. That was post 10,469 which was 25 hours and 20 minutes before our first game. I guess, I was closest without going over so I win some pride. Another £1 in the Fighting Fund buckets at the next home game I think the Berwick v Livi thread has caught the attention of most of us at the moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 It's too quiet, in here. This needs a bump.I forgot about my little competition of the post count when we played our first game. August 15th at 15:00. That was post 10,469 which was 25 hours and 20 minutes before our first game. I guess, I was closest without going over so I win some pride. Another £1 in the Fighting Fund buckets at the next home game What are the Fighting Fund buckets, raising money for? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 What are the Fighting Fund buckets, raising money for? To benefit the club in some shape or form. Whether this goes towards paying creditors, is put into youth or is used in another way, is still to be decided. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) To benefit the club in some shape or form. Whether this goes towards paying creditors, is put into youth or is used in another way, is still to be decided. might go in legal expenses or McGruther's fees but the creditors won't see a penny of it. How much has your first division support raised now anyway? Edited August 23, 2009 by AND180Y 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 :lol: I just realised what I said was hilarious. :lol: How could I be so stupid to think that might be the case in retrospect. :lol: I bow to your superior knowledge of Livingston Football Club, sir :lol: . In conclusion, :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 The Fighting Fund is to subsidise your cheating, full-time existence. Fortunately these cheats are too shite to prosper. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 The Fighting Fund is to subsidise your cheating, full-time existence. Fortunately these cheats are too shite to prosper. Ah glad you're back, I was feeling very neglected & unwanted for a while thinking you had abandoned us! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djn Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 What are the Fighting Fund buckets, raising money for? Hiring "Trialists" like Robbie Winters to take on teams like Berwick, apparently We should be flattered, really... 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.