Wasps1 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Hes a cooo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylivi1 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Always been really impressed with him when he's played against us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilianlex Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Nat wedderburn from Cowdenbeath going to be one of our new signings. No he isn't. Has got himself a great move to Inverness. Well deserved too for the big man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylivi1 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 No he isn't. Has got himself a great move to Inverness. Well deserved too for the big man. Fair enough, you'd know better than me, just a rumour I'd heard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilianlex Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Well done to Livvy on getting the embargo lifted but the SFA have bottled it big style. Rankin has merely handed his shares to a couple of stooges. Can't see how that changes anything. Think the SFA backed themselves in a corner and not good for the Scottish game or sponsors to have yet another demotion or administration hitting the headlines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin time Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Well done to Livvy on getting the embargo lifted but the SFA have bottled it big style. Rankin has merely handed his shares to a couple of stooges. Can't see how that changes anything. Think the SFA backed themselves in a corner and not good for the Scottish game or sponsors to have yet another demotion or administration hitting the headlines. Still bitter at big whites double at the stock car track 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilianlex Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Still bitter at big whites double at the stock car track No, hardly a bitter post is it ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Well done to Livvy on getting the embargo lifted but the SFA have bottled it big style. Rankin has merely handed his shares to a couple of stooges. Can't see how that changes anything. Think the SFA backed themselves in a corner and not good for the Scottish game or sponsors to have yet another demotion or administration hitting the headlines. Farce implementing it in the first place. Even more farcical having it in place going into pre season and nearly all our players out of contract. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilianlex Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Farce implementing it in the first place. Even more farcical having it in place going into pre season and nearly all our players out of contract. Certainly think SFA should have thought it through before imposing the ban. They just look stupid now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiggle Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The so called Livingston embargo was as big a load of rubbish as was Sevco being allowed back into the leagues, not pay their tax bill and retain the deceased clubs trophy and league awards. What is the point of posing a transfer embargo from Jan until Jun when the only players available are those not currently signed or loaned from another club. If a transfer embargo is in place, then that team should not be allowed anywhere near target players or be allowed to field potential signing targets as trialists. Otherwise is is merely a bending of the rules, and that would never bhappen in Scotland, now would it? Oh behave. The whole embargo was another example of the SFA treating Livi differently to other clubs. The same rule was breached and abused by The Rangers and they never got an embargo. The same rule was breached by East Fife (with the same person) and no punishment was handed out to them, no fine or no embargo. As for it having no affect on us, we've lost 2 first team defenders to other clubs due to being unable to sign them because of the embargo, now I'm not saying that we would have kept these players, but the fact is that these two players left to join another club during the embargo (one of them came through our youth as well). The paperwork needed to lift he embargo was with the SFA on 29th May and the SFA took their sweet time to "investigate" before lifting the embargo. If you think we've not been punished, look at the facts, 1) We've lost 2 players, 2) We're later to the party on the signing of free agents and it means that Burchill has missed out on some potential players that may have signed for us. Is that not enough punishment? or do you believe that we should not be allowed to sign anyone, despite complying with the SFA's ruling and get points deductions and possible extinction for breaching a rule that two other clubs have breached and gotten away with. If so, then you need to take a look at yourself. Oh and by the way 4-0 Challenge Cup Final. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiviLion Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Darren Cole, Craig Sives, Danny Mullen and Gary Glen all signed up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The whole embargo was another example of the SFA treating Livi differently to other clubs. The same rule was breached and abused by The Rangers and they never got an embargo. The same rule was breached by East Fife (with the same person) and no punishment was handed out to them, no fine or no embargo. None of this is true, btw. The embargo was for failing to make the correct declarations, not for the mere fact of having (part-)owners with dual interests. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiggle Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 None of this is true, btw. The embargo was for failing to make the correct declarations, not for the mere fact of having (part-)owners with dual interests. Well that isn't correct. The embargo was placed until we got of Rankine. We got the fine for not making the correct declarations :- Disciplinary Outcome: Livingston FC Wednesday, 01 April 2015The Disciplinary Tribunal convened in accordance with the Judicial Panel Protocol to consider the case involving Livingston Football Club made the following determination Alleged Party in Breach: Livingston Football Club. Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Rule 1 – By failing to act towards the Scottish FA with the utmost good faith by not disclosing to the Scottish FA that Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, the parent company of Livingston FC, also holds interests in East Fife FC; Rule 7 – By providing false, misleading and/or inaccurate information in respect of Neil Rankine’s eligibility as a fit and proper person by declaring in an Amendment to Official Return form, dated 11th November 2013, that there were no matters to be brought to the attention of the Scottish FA in terms of Article 10, nor any interest in any other club in membership of the Scottish FA in terms of Article 13, the truth being that Neil Rankine then held and continues to hold interests in East Fife FC in addition to his shareholding in Livingston FC through Livingston 5 Ltd; Rule 21 - By holding interests in East Fife FC, through Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, whereby Livingston FC holds power to influence the management or administration of East Fife FC; Rule 86 – Not acting in the best interests of Association Football by not disclosing to the Scottish FA that Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, also holds interests in East Fife FC. Outcome: All breaches established. The tribunal considered that the imposition of a substantial financial penalty would not be in the best interests of the club or the wider interests of Scottish football. The panel did, nonetheless, require to illustrate the gravity of the breaches and imposed a ‘global sanction’ in respect of the four breaches, which arise out of a set of circumstances. The global sanctions are determined in two parts: 1. Fine of £5000 imposed on Livingston FC. 2. Livingston FC prevented from registering any player, either on loan or permanently, or extending the contract of any player currently registered with the club until such time as the club has resolved the ongoing breach of Disciplinary Rule 21. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 SFA have secret agenda against Livingston, IMHO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Well that isn't correct. The embargo was placed until we got of Rankine. We got the fine for not making the correct declarations :-Disciplinary Outcome: Livingston FC Wednesday, 01 April 2015The Disciplinary Tribunal convened in accordance with the Judicial Panel Protocol to consider the case involving Livingston Football Club made the following determination Alleged Party in Breach: Livingston Football Club. Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Rule 1 – By failing to act towards the Scottish FA with the utmost good faith by not disclosing to the Scottish FA that Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, the parent company of Livingston FC, also holds interests in East Fife FC; Rule 7 – By providing false, misleading and/or inaccurate information in respect of Neil Rankine’s eligibility as a fit and proper person by declaring in an Amendment to Official Return form, dated 11th November 2013, that there were no matters to be brought to the attention of the Scottish FA in terms of Article 10, nor any interest in any other club in membership of the Scottish FA in terms of Article 13, the truth being that Neil Rankine then held and continues to hold interests in East Fife FC in addition to his shareholding in Livingston FC through Livingston 5 Ltd; Rule 21 - By holding interests in East Fife FC, through Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, whereby Livingston FC holds power to influence the management or administration of East Fife FC; Rule 86 – Not acting in the best interests of Association Football by not disclosing to the Scottish FA that Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, also holds interests in East Fife FC. Outcome: All breaches established. The tribunal considered that the imposition of a substantial financial penalty would not be in the best interests of the club or the wider interests of Scottish football. The panel did, nonetheless, require to illustrate the gravity of the breaches and imposed a ‘global sanction’ in respect of the four breaches, which arise out of a set of circumstances. The global sanctions are determined in two parts: 1. Fine of £5000 imposed on Livingston FC. 2. Livingston FC prevented from registering any player, either on loan or permanently, or extending the contract of any player currently registered with the club until such time as the club has resolved the ongoing breach of Disciplinary Rule 21. That pretty clearly says "global sanctions". Both the fine and the registration ban were imposed for all breaches, the ban came with an additional clause that it would be in affect until one breach was resolved. SFA have secret agenda against Livingston, IMHO. As do the Scottish Justice system if Gallachers 3 year sentence is correct. Im sure Livy fans will be along with examples of people who did the same thing but got much lighter sentences. #prayforlivy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I've pointed out examples of this on several occasions, Moonster. Former SFA Chief Executive Gordon Smith leading a crusade against Robbie Winters for allegedly diving is particularly damning evidence. Decided to undermine the referee despite the fact he was in the stand and the referee was five yards away. Unsurprisingly once we fought back, he was out on his arse. Incidents like this have been happening for years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Rule 1 – By failing to act towards the Scottish FA with the utmost good faith by not disclosing to the Scottish FA that Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, the parent company of Livingston FC, also holds interests in East Fife FC; Rule 7 – By providing false, misleading and/or inaccurate information in respect of Neil Rankine’s eligibility as a fit and proper person by declaring in an Amendment to Official Return form, dated 11th November 2013, that there were no matters to be brought to the attention of the Scottish FA in terms of Article 10, nor any interest in any other club in membership of the Scottish FA in terms of Article 13, the truth being that Neil Rankine then held and continues to hold interests in East Fife FC in addition to his shareholding in Livingston FC through Livingston 5 Ltd; Rule 21 - By holding interests in East Fife FC, through Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, whereby Livingston FC holds power to influence the management or administration of East Fife FC; Rule 86 – Not acting in the best interests of Association Football by not disclosing to the Scottish FA that Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, also holds interests in East Fife FC. Thanks for taking the trouble to post the bits that prove my point, in the same post as you were disagreeing with it. Saves me a job. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (All that said, the sanctions against Livi last season did seem a bit harsh.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 As do the Scottish Justice system if Gallachers 3 year sentence is correct. Im sure Livy fans will be along with examples of people who did the same thing but got much lighter sentences. #prayforlivy Sounds like something you could fit in to your undoubtedly boring schedule? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Sounds like something you could fit in to your undoubtedly boring schedule? Sorry. My schedule is jam packed with excitement. Thanks for asking 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.