EdinburghLivi Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) I'd certainly be concerned but I suppose it depends on who the other £500k of creditors are as to whether it's a really serious problem. It's certainly not as bad a position as we have been in. I suppose the breaking even suggestion will probably come from being in SPL 2. What could the change in Articles of Association mean? Edited April 3, 2011 by EdinburghLivi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I'd certainly be concerned but I suppose it depends on who the other £500k of creditors are as to whether it's a really serious problem. What could the change in Articles of Association mean? Well directors must always act in the best interest of Livi 5, various other clauses to strengthen Rankines hold on things even when he is out of the country. They have to inform him of meetings and if he cant make it he has the right with out board resolution to appoint a stand in or/and an alternate director. Plus loads of other stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livi Crazy Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 The accounts currently being discussed are for the year ended in 2010? So according to Nixon the next accounts for year ending in 2011 and due to be filed in March 2012 will show afurther loss of half a million and the accounts after that, year ending 2012 and filed in 2013, hopefully a break even figure? That would mean that the club would be circa £2million in debt, admittedly with nearly £1.5 million owed to the directors is that not a scarey thought? Interesting changes to the articles of association of Livi 5 and directors duties to it and not LFC. The current short term creditors are at a perfectly normal level and will be simple day to day issues on the standard 30-day and 60-day credit terms, they actually have only increased marginally over the year. I can see the debt to the directors ending up around £1.1-£1.2m and the other debt staying roughly similar. Now this isn't ideal, but the club has fixed costs which it has to cover and players were in contract, and if its a choice between getting in debt to the directors over long term (remembering one is a Livi fan and the others have worked significantly with lower league clubs so will know what to expect) or not paying our bills and terminating contracts early then I know which I would pick. We have been down the road of terminating contracts, with legal cases against us by Derek Lilley and Colin McMenamin and the high profile case of Manu Dorado, the latter resulted in us paying the legal fees, paying the value of the remainder of his contract and being issued a fine. If your going to have to pay the rest of a contract, better utilise the player. And, well we know whats happened in the past when bills haven't been paid. The clearly displayed directors debt shows that the costs of running the club in the divisions lower than we were set-up for clearly shows that the directors are covering the costs rather than failing to pay the creditors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The current short term creditors are at a perfectly normal level and will be simple day to day issues on the standard 30-day and 60-day credit terms, they actually have only increased marginally over the year. I can see the debt to the directors ending up around £1.1-£1.2m and the other debt staying roughly similar. Now this isn't ideal, but the club has fixed costs which it has to cover and players were in contract, and if its a choice between getting in debt to the directors over long term (remembering one is a Livi fan and the others have worked significantly with lower league clubs so will know what to expect) or not paying our bills and terminating contracts early then I know which I would pick. We have been down the road of terminating contracts, with legal cases against us by Derek Lilley and Colin McMenamin and the high profile case of Manu Dorado, the latter resulted in us paying the legal fees, paying the value of the remainder of his contract and being issued a fine. If your going to have to pay the rest of a contract, better utilise the player. And, well we know whats happened in the past when bills haven't been paid. The clearly displayed directors debt shows that the costs of running the club in the divisions lower than we were set-up for clearly shows that the directors are covering the costs rather than failing to pay the creditors. Why were the players not on contracts that said if Livi were relegated their wages would be reduced ? Fairly standard practice is it not ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Next season will hopefully a much, much greater income, which I think will happen when crowds will no doubt swell above the 2500 mark, sponsorship will increase and the use of the facilities at Almondvale will increase. Your average attendance for the last two seasons you were in Division 1 was below 2000. Average Attendance: 2008-2009: 1,866 (Division One) 2007-2008: 1,831 (Division One) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Ah but those attendances weren't following a title winning team, as they will be next season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 3rd division with 1st division contracts/wages What should they have done ? Maybe I'm missing something, but why not 3rd Division with 3rd Division contracts/wages? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Part of the agreement to save the club from liquidation was that contracts couldn't be torn up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Gray Ate My Hamster Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Part of the agreement to save the club from liquidation was that contracts couldn't be torn up. So part of the agreement to save you from going bust was to spend money you couldn't afford? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 So part of the agreement to save you from going bust was to spend money you couldn't afford? In fact, it was to stop us from being kicked out the league but the point's the same. Who am I to question the SFL? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) Ah but those attendances weren't following a title winning team, as they will be next season. ............and how long will these fair weather fans stay when you're in the bottom half of Division 1 losing more games than you win? Edited April 5, 2011 by btb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 ............and how long will these fair weather fans stay when you're in the bottom half of Division 1 losing more games than you win? We're going to win the league next year, you joker. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qpsnapper Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 This news is surely no surprise, though? Given the fact that our average gate dropped 100% last season, a large debt figure was always on the cards. Don't most teams like Livingston have similar debts? Highly doubt the club is in much trouble here, it'll all be paid off and swept away. Did nobody watch you last season? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 In fact, it was to stop us from being kicked out the league but the point's the same. Who am I to question the SFL? When a club enters administration, there is nothing (except morals) stopping it from ripping up contracts. The only proviso is that the players are, ultimately, paid off in full, or at an agreed rate. Simply put, you're talking bullshit. Again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 When a club enters administration, there is nothing (except morals) stopping it from ripping up contracts. The only proviso is that the players are, ultimately, paid off in full, or at an agreed rate. Simply put, you're talking bullshit. Again. So what you're saying is Dundee have less morals than Livi? a bit like 2 bald men fighting over a comb with our two clubs comparing morals right enough, but still.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Maybe I'm missing something, but why not 3rd Division with 3rd Division contracts/wages? Going to be interesting to see what kind of team you have next season! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Why were the players not on contracts that said if Livi were relegated their wages would be reduced ? Fairly standard practice is it not ? Cause we had guys like Flynn and Massone in charge. I read when we renewed contratcts and signed players on new contracts that we made such a proviso. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) When a club enters administration, there is nothing (except morals) stopping it from ripping up contracts. The only proviso is that the players are, ultimately, paid off in full, or at an agreed rate. Simply put, you're talking bullshit. Again. The SFL told us we weren't allowed to, if we wanted to stay in the league structure. This was clarified by them, at the time. Edited April 5, 2011 by EdinburghLivi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The SFL told us we weren't allowed to, if we wanted to stay in the league structure. This was clarified by them, at the time. You're lying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 You're lying. NA NA NA NA NA! I'M NOT LISTENING! 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.