jimbo Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 You dont think having players on FT contracts, at this time, is financial silliness? Full time contracts in division 3 is definitely daft. What you are ignoring of course is that the present board inherited the contacts the players are on. Innes and One are away but I suspect no one else wanted the others on highish wages. Our younger players, of whom there are a fair few, are on low salaries anyway. And of course it is still not clear what division we will end up in. The Robbie Winters signing does puzzle me. Don't know what's going on there. Maybe some bet hedging re the outcome of the appeal.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Im still not really sure what you're objection is though. Gretna could have been bought, although financially they were in a worse state than Livy, or so it would seem anyway. Livy could still go under if a CVA cant be agreed, although its probably unlikely that will happen. Im not sure how the two scenarios are different. When both decisions were made their were serious doubts about whether or not both clubs could make it through another season. Why is the Livy situation so different? Despite the apparent similarities there were some crucial differences Mr X. Gretna were completey fcuked, huge debts, owner AWOL, ground needing a lot of work and no credible purchaser. The SFL knew all this as they were in constant touch with the administrators so they knew it was only a matter of time. With Livi it was quite a bit different. Whatever people may think of the consortium there is a helluva lot of of football experience there and a fair bit of financial wherewithal I'd say. Given their involvement I was a bit surprised that it was even being suggested that they might not fulfil all their fixtures. I wasn't surprised by the request for a bond but I think there are a good few other clubs who should be stumping up bonds too. I actually think a general requirement for a bond in the same way as ABTA and ATOL bonds are required elsewhere would be no bad thing but that would be another example of asking turkeys to vote for Christmas, the SFL clubs would never vote it in and can you imagine the SFA taking the initiative on something like that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Despite the apparent similarities there were some crucial differences Mr X. Gretna were completey fcuked, huge debts, owner AWOL, ground needing a lot of work and no credible purchaser. The SFL knew all this as they were in constant touch with the administrators so they knew it was only a matter of time.With Livi it was quite a bit different. Whatever people may think of the consortium there is a helluva lot of of football experience there and a fair bit of financial wherewithal I'd say. Given their involvement I was a bit surprised that it was even being suggested that they might not fulfil all their fixtures. I wasn't surprised by the request for a bond but I think there are a good few other clubs who should be stumping up bonds too. I actually think a general requirement for a bond in the same way as ABTA and ATOL bonds are required elsewhere would be no bad thing but that would be another example of asking turkeys to vote for Christmas, the SFL clubs would never vote it in and can you imagine the SFA taking the initiative on something like that? Easy to bring in a rule that anyone buying a club is made to sign personal guarantees for any debts. Would their football experience be good or bad? None of the clubs they have been involved in seem to be in that great a shape? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Easy to bring in a rule that anyone buying a club is made to sign personal guarantees for any debts.Would their football experience be good or bad? None of the clubs they have been involved in seem to be in that great a shape? I agree it would be easy to bring such a rule in and applying it to new entrants would be a fairly logical compromise. Certainly when we applied we knew that the likelihood was that if successful (ha ha!) we would have to provide a bond. I don't know McDougall or Ranking personally but was McDougall not at Cowdenbeath for over 20 years? I don't know Ged Nixon either but I do know his brother who is a top lad so that will do for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Full time contracts in division 3 is definitely daft. What you are ignoring of course is that the present board inherited the contacts the players are on. Innes and One are away but I suspect no one else wanted the others on highish wages. Our younger players, of whom there are a fair few, are on low salaries anyway. And of course it is still not clear what division we will end up in.The Robbie Winters signing does puzzle me. Don't know what's going on there. Maybe some bet hedging re the outcome of the appeal.. Im not ignoring anything. The players could have been made redundant, just as the non-playing staff were. Also, Clyde had to get rid of their entire squad during the summer as part of their cost cutting. Why should Livy not do the same, drastically cut their wage bill and therefore have more money to put toward a CVA? Despite the apparent similarities there were some crucial differences Mr X. Gretna were completey fcuked, huge debts, owner AWOL, ground needing a lot of work and no credible purchaser. The SFL knew all this as they were in constant touch with the administrators so they knew it was only a matter of time.With Livi it was quite a bit different. Whatever people may think of the consortium there is a helluva lot of of football experience there and a fair bit of financial wherewithal I'd say. Given their involvement I was a bit surprised that it was even being suggested that they might not fulfil all their fixtures. I wasn't surprised by the request for a bond but I think there are a good few other clubs who should be stumping up bonds too. I actually think a general requirement for a bond in the same way as ABTA and ATOL bonds are required elsewhere would be no bad thing but that would be another example of asking turkeys to vote for Christmas, the SFL clubs would never vote it in and can you imagine the SFA taking the initiative on something like that? I see what you're saying, but at the end of the day all of that is secondary. The SFL should, and I believe did, make both decisions based on the hard facts available - which was in both cases, neither club could provide assurances they could complete their fixtures. The fact that Livy had, potential, new owners in the wings is irrelevant, IMO. At the time the decision was made, and lets not forget the SFL's were more or less forced to make the decision when they did, the new owners were not in place and the man responsible couldnt give assurances. The SFL would have looked even more incompetent if they had let Livy away with a more lenient penalty because their were potential backers on the scene, if they had then subsequently walked away. As I said, until the CVA is in place, theres still no guarantee Livy will be here this time next year. Its unlikely, but would you have preferred the SFL to make a decision based on the absolute facts, or the chance that things might be saved? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Dan Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Easy to bring in a rule that anyone buying a club is made to sign personal guarantees for any debts.Would their football experience be good or bad? None of the clubs they have been involved in seem to be in that great a shape? An interesting question would be how many clubs in Scotland would be able to cover their debts with their assets? Companies have to be able to demonstrate that they are able to "trade out" of any deficit. If the same criteria was applied to football, how many clubs would we be left with? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Im not ignoring anything. The players could have been made redundant, just as the non-playing staff were. Also, Clyde had to get rid of their entire squad during the summer as part of their cost cutting. Why should Livy not do the same, drastically cut their wage bill and therefore have more money to put toward a CVA?I see what you're saying, but at the end of the day all of that is secondary. The SFL should, and I believe did, make both decisions based on the hard facts available - which was in both cases, neither club could provide assurances they could complete their fixtures. The fact that Livy had, potential, new owners in the wings is irrelevant, IMO. At the time the decision was made, and lets not forget the SFL's were more or less forced to make the decision when they did, the new owners were not in place and the man responsible couldnt give assurances. The SFL would have looked even more incompetent if they had let Livy away with a more lenient penalty because their were potential backers on the scene, if they had then subsequently walked away. As I said, until the CVA is in place, theres still no guarantee Livy will be here this time next year. Its unlikely, but would you have preferred the SFL to make a decision based on the absolute facts, or the chance that things might be saved? The point about not being able to give a guarantee of fulfilling fixtures is a bit of fig leaf Mr X. The is is no compelling logic which demands that a team be relegated two divisions rather than being docked, say, 20 points. I'll repeat, relegating Gretna was purely to minimise the disruption to the league and in fairness to David Longmuir at the time I thought it was a stroke of near genius (bear in mind I had a pretty good insight on what was going on and you wouldn't believe half of it I'm sure - watch out for that chapter in "Managing Mickey - The Spartans Story"). Where I think they have gone wrong is in adopting this as a standard penalty which they didn't need to do. I have to agree with Jimbo it definitely reeks of old scores being settled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I agree it would be easy to bring such a rule in and applying it to new entrants would be a fairly logical compromise. Certainly when we applied we knew that the likelihood was that if successful (ha ha!) we would have to provide a bond.I don't know McDougall or Ranking personally but was McDougall not at Cowdenbeath for over 20 years? I don't know Ged Nixon either but I do know his brother who is a top lad so that will do for me. I don't know McDougall and given the events of this week I don't think even Rankines friends knew him!! If you read the Cowdenbeath website there is a story about the money McDougall took out of the club, is that not why they are struggling now? I don't know Nixon either, does being a top lad make you a good credit risk and suitable person to be involved with a club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 The point about not being able to give a guarantee of fulfilling fixtures is a bit of fig leaf Mr X. The is is no compelling logic which demands that a team be relegated two divisions rather than being docked, say, 20 points.I'll repeat, relegating Gretna was purely to minimise the disruption to the league and in fairness to David Longmuir at the time I thought it was a stroke of near genius (bear in mind I had a pretty good insight on what was going on and you wouldn't believe half of it I'm sure - watch out for that chapter in "Managing Mickey - The Spartans Story"). Where I think they have gone wrong is in adopting this as a standard penalty which they didn't need to do. I have to agree with Jimbo it definitely reeks of old scores being settled. Do your first two paragraphs not contradict each other? Theres no compelling logic for it, but you think it was a stroke of genius - Im even more confused now! I dont think this was applied to Livy as a standard penalty. Im sure I read a quote from someone at the SFL this time round that the decision was made to minimise disruption to the league. On that basis, I cant see any issue with the same penalty being applied in, what are, almost identical circumstances. At no point have the SFL said that Livy were demoted to the 3rd because that was the penalty dished out to Gretna 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Full time contracts in division 3 is definitely daft. What you are ignoring of course is that the present board inherited the contacts the players are on. Innes and One are away but I suspect no one else wanted the others on highish wages. Our younger players, of whom there are a fair few, are on low salaries anyway. And of course it is still not clear what division we will end up in.The Robbie Winters signing does puzzle me. Don't know what's going on there. Maybe some bet hedging re the outcome of the appeal.. You are in full administration, and it isn't difficult to terminate any and all contracts. The "inherited" bit doesn't hold water. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberdeen Cowden Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 You are in full administration, and it isn't difficult to terminate any and all contracts. The "inherited" bit doesn't hold water. They are still offering full-time contracts! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Do your first two paragraphs not contradict each other? Theres no compelling logic for it, but you think it was a stroke of genius - Im even more confused now!I dont think this was applied to Livy as a standard penalty. Im sure I read a quote from someone at the SFL this time round that the decision was made to minimise disruption to the league. On that basis, I cant see any issue with the same penalty being applied in, what are, almost identical circumstances. At no point have the SFL said that Livy were demoted to the 3rd because that was the penalty dished out to Gretna Sorry Mr X, I'm not making myself clear. I thought that Longmuir pulled off a very cunning stunt but it doesn't make the penalty a fair one. He knew Gretna were fcuked and did what he did to avoid chaos when they did fall over but viewed in abstract there is no logic which says a team must be relegated two divisions. It was not an identical situation as it was far from being a given that Livi would go into liquidation especially once Massone was out of the way. With Gretna it was inevitable they would go into liquidation and you'll recall from this forum at the time no-one gave a toss. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 It was not an identical situation as it was far from being a given that Livi would go into liquidation especially once Massone was out of the way. Not a given, admittedly, but very few seemed to be of the opinion that Livvy would survive. Even the consortium were spinning the story as Div 1 or bust. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Sorry Mr X, I'm not making myself clear. I thought that Longmuir pulled off a very cunning stunt but it doesn't make the penalty a fair one. He knew Gretna were fcuked and did what he did to avoid chaos when they did fall over but viewed in abstract there is no logic which says a team must be relegated two divisions.It was not an identical situation as it was far from being a given that Livi would go into liquidation especially once Massone was out of the way. With Gretna it was inevitable they would go into liquidation and you'll recall from this forum at the time no-one gave a toss. Why does it need to be logical? Why do some folks get banned for speeding and others don't? The punishment was handed down, Livi need to accept it and move on. Unless of course all of this has fcuk all to do with football from football people and all to do with the enrichment of a bunch of spivs and speculators? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberdeen Cowden Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I don't know McDougall and given the events of this week I don't think even Rankines friends knew him!!If you read the Cowdenbeath website there is a story about the money McDougall took out of the club, is that not why they are struggling now? I don't know Nixon either, does being a top lad make you a good credit risk and suitable person to be involved with a club? Don't know about Cowden struggling now any more than they were at any other time! - It's always been a struggle. Also don't know anything about Gordon taking money out the club. He worked his socks off for twenty years. The only mistake he made was giving a relative the manager's job ( good coach - not a manager though) that was the end for Gordon at Central Park.However, something doesn't sit right for me anyway. He told me just before he left Cowden that he was "going to put his feet up" I for one was sad about that. Next thing, he is running around with a "Townie " blazer on and then he gets involved with Livi!!!! This I will never understand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) Sorry Mr X, I'm not making myself clear. I thought that Longmuir pulled off a very cunning stunt but it doesn't make the penalty a fair one. He knew Gretna were fcuked and did what he did to avoid chaos when they did fall over but viewed in abstract there is no logic which says a team must be relegated two divisions.It was not an identical situation as it was far from being a given that Livi would go into liquidation especially once Massone was out of the way. With Gretna it was inevitable they would go into liquidation and you'll recall from this forum at the time no-one gave a toss. If the debt truly is £1.7 million, then a group of creditors deciding that they want full payment or liquidation could still force them into liquidation.......new owners or no new owners. Unless of course, they were prepared to stump up the full amount. At least with the council, there is nothing to worry about, as the comments so far indicate they were out to get rid of Massone, and recovering public funds doesn't seem to be all that important now the Italian is gone. That's a council policy I'd like to see in writing. .............and it was far from a given that Livvy could complete the fixture card. That is why the once voice that mattered (McGruther) failed to make that commitment. Edited September 3, 2009 by Guest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Sorry Mr X, I'm not making myself clear. I thought that Longmuir pulled off a very cunning stunt but it doesn't make the penalty a fair one. He knew Gretna were fcuked and did what he did to avoid chaos when they did fall over but viewed in abstract there is no logic which says a team must be relegated two divisions.It was not an identical situation as it was far from being a given that Livi would go into liquidation especially once Massone was out of the way. With Gretna it was inevitable they would go into liquidation and you'll recall from this forum at the time no-one gave a toss. OK, I understand what you're getting at now. If the decision to relegate Livy was taken to minimise the disruption to the SFL as a whole, should Livy have gone under, then I think it was fair and logical. As I said before, Im not sure the likelihood, or otherwise, of Livy going into liquidation should have been, or was, taken into account. It was up to McGruther to assess the likelihood of Livy surviving the season, not the SFL. He assessed it and couldnt guarantee they would, in my opinion that then left the SFL in exactly the same situation as with Gretna. I wonder what McGruthers answer would be if asked the same question today? With no CVA in place, would he, even now, be able to guarantee Livy can fulfill this seasons fixtures? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 You are in full administration, and it isn't difficult to terminate any and all contracts. The "inherited" bit doesn't hold water. It was my understanding that football debt (which this in effect would be) has to be paid in full as per SFL regulations so either Livi pay off the player's contracts and have to replace them with part timers or they honour the contracts and keep them. Believe me some of our players who have decent contracts would not get a look in elsewhere. But that of course was the work of the genius that is Massone. Anyway if it is as easy as you say to terminate the contracts then I'm presuming there will be an exodus if the appeal fails. So we'll see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Why does it need to be logical? Why do some folks get banned for speeding and others don't?The punishment was handed down, Livi need to accept it and move on. Unless of course all of this has fcuk all to do with football from football people and all to do with the enrichment of a bunch of spivs and speculators? C'mon And180Y, is that not a bit harsh on the consortium? If the authorities want their decisions and their authority to govern to be respected then I'd suggest there does need to be a logical connection between the "offence" and the penalty. But I think where we would probably agree is that there is precious little logic around in the administration of Scottish football. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 C'mon And180Y, is that not a bit harsh on the consortium?If the authorities want their decisions and their authority to govern to be respected then I'd suggest there does need to be a logical connection between the "offence" and the penalty. But I think where we would probably agree is that there is precious little logic around in the administration of Scottish football. Which part of the post is harsh? Bearing in mind they all have previous. 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.