Livingston - all the threads merged

[Swampy]

But why does it have to be one or the other ? Why not a mix of both ?

Why don't the council offer to reduce the debt by x amount in return for x amount of shares given to the "Trust" ? Both camps would have their egos massaged and the club would still be in the 1st division.

I wouldn't like it if my landlord was meeting and helping draw up a business plan with a group planning on a hostile takeover of a company I owned. Peter Johnstone even stated publicly that the latest rent installment hadn't been paid when it had. He didn't come out and apologise for getting it wrong either. I would be wary of someone's motives when they act like that.

First of all, why are you bringing up the first division? There is, as yet, no word from anyone except a newspaper that Livingston are going to suffer forced relegation. Both Massone and the SFL say that this was not even mentioned, let alone considered, at the meeting between the two parties. (I wouldn't automatically believe Massone's version of events but I have also heard it from the horse's mouth at the SFL, who I am inclined to believe on this matter.)

Second, if you're that much against the Trust being given a discount on Livi then why are you looking for them to leave the taxpayer out of pocket to subsidise the Trust in getting a hold of some shares?

As for the last part, the key difference here is that presumably you are in good standing with your landlord and do not have any outstanding debts to him. Regarding whether or not Johnstone should be apologising I'll wait for you to answer Duncan Freemason's question on the "latest" bill fiasco.

Maybe the council do have their hearts set on getting the Trust in the door, I don't know. I wouldn't necessarily blame them if they did. Massone has shown himself to be an unreliable debtor and clearly has little or no interest in running Livingston as a viable entity. WHether the council's correct to put their eggs in the Trust basket, we'll need to wait and see, but they are absolutely correct to be looking down other avenues. And just to reiterate, this third division scaremongering was 100% made up by a newspaper. It is, as I post this, not even slightly on the agenda.

The council have mis-managed a public asset (the stadium) for years, they could have irritated the lease at the end of Flynns tenure if they were not comfortable with the new shareholders of their tenant, the council are complicit in the mess!! That said to be fair to the council it isn't the first time they have amended the lease for LFC.

Indeed, like I said, the council are very much open to question on this and I would hope that voters are doing just that.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Swampy

[Guest Wall E]

Oh come on, since when has ethics been a pre-condition with all things Livvy? The council will have the rent they are due booked. It will form part of a budget for someone somewhere. The council choose to write it off, and somewhere, there's a library not getting new stock, wheelchair ramps not being fixed, or half a dozen home helps not being hired. Thats politics and the public purse. LFC are a privately owned company. When public money gets pumped into private companies.......particularly ones with plenty of "previous" in terms of racking up date as quick as its written off, then there will have to be a hell of a compelling reason to do so. With Massone's hands on both the tiller and the till, do you think that's a safe and sensible place to invest public money in the current climate?

Livingston survive by not honouring their debts. The changes that are needed involve those who support and are involved in the club getting off their collective backsides and doing something about it other than endlessly daydreaming of millionaires cueing up to "invest", or government organizations looking down and smiling and offering a statement of "oh OK Livingston, we'll write it off again, but this is the last time".

Look back on LiviLions and you'll find years of talk of organizing, and moving forward. Lots of talk, but nothing ever happens. Then when one group (the Trust) tries to take the bull by the horns, they are accused by every numbnut going that they are stirring up trouble. Stirring up trouble? Who do you think was first to have some sort of grasp of where this was all headed? Was it the trust, or was it the Massone apologists?

Why Livingston should be so awash with appeasement specialists is beyond me, but it is. Lots of talk, but absolutely no backbone when it gets down to showtime.

That most would rather see the debts written off yet again rather than see the club pay what it owes and budget accordingly is shameful. That your Trust people are seen as subversive is shameful. That the majority of your support are all talk and zero action has become something of a Livingston signature dish.

Get off your butts, open your eyes, and do something. Insist that your club functions in a manner that will pay off your debts in full, and show that you are willing to play at whatever level that will bring it about. For once, embrace what you really are, not the fantasy of what you never really were. Get involved, and stay involved. Want Massone out? Then force him out. Rebuild on the ashes of the 15 years of lies and mis management instead of trying to prop up what currently sits in place. The internal structure needs to be destroyed and replaced by something that has a bit of truth and honour in its belly.

Ask yourself why you should be anti-trust. There's usually only one answer. You want a sugar daddy to pump in cash over and above what you the supporters can muster. That;s always the reason.

You've had every crook and comic singer in charge of you, and it's a mess. Trying doing it for yourselves, and maybe it'll still be a mess, but it will be yours to fix. Unplug yourseves just once from the benign dictator drip feed. You might be pleasantly surprised,

.j

Cracking post. 

[Steve McQueen]

I think Livvy should be allowed to sell their place in the first division to the highest bidded & swap places with them.

[MCL]

So how does it work that the "latest" rent bill had been paid, but earlier ones haven't? How does that work? I genuinely need to understand this premis, because currently, I don't get it. If the latest installment has been paid, it means there is no rent due. So how come the council claim rent is unpaid? I mean, you can't claim to have paid a "latest" installment without having paid the ones prior to that. Or have I got that wrong?

I'm no expert on company law, or the finer detail of public money expenditure, but I would have thought Trust ownership of the club would negate asset stripping, and would to a greater degree, put the club in the hands of the community. I can kind of see how a council might look sympathetically towards that, but I'd still have concerns that it's council policy rather than one or two council members looking after themselves. Writing off debt to Massone? You have got to be kidding. What is it about him that makes you think he's worthy of WL public money? He seems to lie for fun, yet still you back him. Why?

I also took from your posting that you want public money written off to keep the club in the first division, as opposed to keeping the club in existance. Personally, any football club that chooses to go into adminstration inside five years should be kicked out of the league. They drag the name of the game into disrepute. Every football club's league status is pretty much dependent on the collective financial horsepower of its supporters and backers. If you ain't got the money and backing to exist in the spl, you shouldn't be able to keep to hold on to that status thus excluding another club who behave responsibly. The same applies to the SFL. why should Livingston be allowed to hang on to SFL1 status by getting their debts written off yet again? Why is your playing budget not cut by a further 50k a season until you pay off your debts? Why are you so unwilling to legitimately balance income and expenditure? If paying your debts means you slip to SFL2 or SFL3, what is so wrong with that? Is that really something so awful that you'd prefer your club to not pay their debts at all simply in order to maintain SFL1? If so, it's simply staggering.

Time for Westfield............

WL Council in the Scotsman

[southview]

This whole situation with Livingston is tiresome and a nonsense. How they have been allowed to conduct their affairs like this for so long is ridiculous and an indictment on not just the e*se that is Massone but also the SFL.

And it will continue to run like this until someone calls a halt. April's wages have been paid because of the sale of a couple of players. Offloading Leigh Griffiths might allow him to pay off WLC and have some left over for wages.

The powers that be should have stepped in LONG ago when wages weren't being paid on time. A transfer embargo should have been immediately put in place and players put on a notice period whereby they could leave for another club for nothing after 'x' amount of days unless they were paid what they were due. Something almost similar to that exists in England.

There is absolutely no way a club in England would be allowed to go on like, absolutely no way.

I feel sorry for the Livi fans who support the team and have paid their hard-earned to do so, and any punishment the club was to suffer would be harsh on them.

However, the time has come for Massone to be charged for bringing the game into disrepute. His conduct, comments and behaviour have been an absolute disgrace and the scandal is that he has been allowed to get away with it. The guy turns my stomach.

You have (some) clubs living within the means, paying what they can afford and maybe struggling as a result, then you have clubs like Livi who appear to be able to do what they like.

The sooner this shambles is dealt with the better. It's time for the SFL to step in and be big men on this issue.

[Livi Willie]

I feel sorry for the Livi fans who support the team and have paid their hard-earned to do so, and any punishment the club was to suffer would be harsh on them.

However, the time has come for Massone to be charged for bringing the game into disrepute. His conduct, comments and behaviour have been an absolute disgrace and the scandal is that he has been allowed to get away with it. The guy turns my stomach.

It's been one long car-crash this season.

Something which Massone appears to know all about.

[Guest MightyDee]

Why are the Italians still in charge of the club? Would it not have been wise to get someone else in when the financial problems started, rather than let it snowball into this?

[Guest RAITHROVRS1]

No one likes to see a team go out of business, i do not have any sympathy for them. They do not have any history or fan base, go quietly.

Now as for Stirling Albion, a team with history. Save the Binos

[Guest zupa]

Why are the Italians still in charge of the club? Would it not have been wise to get someone else in when the financial problems started, rather than let it snowball into this?

Who in there right mind, would have a foreign law man owning their team ? .

[jimbo]

Why are the Italians still in charge of the club? Would it not have been wise to get someone else in when the financial problems started, rather than let it snowball into this?

Serious question - How do you get rid of the owner of a club?

[jimbo]

Who in there right mind, would have a foreign law man owning their team ? .

Not sure who you support but if a foreign law man was about to take over your club what, tell me, would you be able to do about it?

[Guest]

Well, he has made your football following life extremely uncomfortable, and so you supporters need to return the favour. Actively campaign for the ground NOT to be sold to him for starters. He needs to get the message that you, the supporters, do not support him or his business methods. Back your Trust. If you don't care for the people running your trust, then change them out too....but do it democratically. As a single entity, seek the backing of your council to re-structure your debt, but for heaven's sake PAY IT.

You guys are too used to debt avoidance and hand outs. Accept that Livingston FC is the sum total of what the supporters put into the club......no more than that, and no less than that. Once you accept and embrace those principles, change will happen. When you guys shut the door on asset strippers and chancers, your club has a fighting chance of being something worthy and respected in your community. As long as you are prepared to welcome the less than savoury individuals through the front door because you reckon they'll throw money at you, then it'll just get worse and worse.

The supporters of Stirling Albion might make it, and they might not. However, with nothing like the financial games your club has indulged in over the last dozen or so years, they have generated enormous respect and goodwill. Even if their approach doesn't impress you, then their desire, energy, and action should.

[Guest]

WL Council in the Scotsman

Hmmm........far from clear. What was the "payment re-structuring" mentioned? Is that a councillor effectively saying that a football club was "great for the town" (as opposed to "great for WL"), meaning that the club are being/ will be partly financed by the council if it's future is in threat? That would be via debt write off or a reduction in tenancy charges that will have to be funded from somewhere else in the budget or an under realization of stadium value by releasing ownership for less than it is worth. If so, then someone close to your club has a hell of a lot of clout with the council......

I look forward to the day when Livvy pursue the debt structuring option of actually paying 100% of what they owe. It still seems to be an alien and radical philosophy that's never considered at Almondvale.

[jimbo]

Well, he has made your football following life extremely uncomfortable, and so you supporters need to return the favour. Actively campaign for the ground NOT to be sold to him for starters. He needs to get the message that you, the supporters, do not support him or his business methods. Back your Trust. If you don't care for the people running your trust, then change them out too....but do it democratically. As a single entity, seek the backing of your council to re-structure your debt, but for heaven's sake PAY IT.

You guys are too used to debt avoidance and hand outs. Accept that Livingston FC is the sum total of what the supporters put into the club......no more than that, and no less than that. Once you accept and embrace those principles, change will happen. When you guys shut the door on asset strippers and chancers, your club has a fighting chance of being something worthy and respected in your community. As long as you are prepared to welcome the less than savoury individuals through the front door because you reckon they'll throw money at you, then it'll just get worse and worse.

The supporters of Stirling Albion might make it, and they might not. However, with nothing like the financial games your club has indulged in over the last dozen or so years, they have generated enormous respect and goodwill. Even if their approach doesn't impress you, then their desire, energy, and action should.

Yes that makes sense and I appreciate you taking the time to write it all. I can understand how supporters of established clubs can look down their noses at Livi given what the folk who run the club have got up to in the past but snide comments and put downs are a lot easier to do than offer your kind of constructive advice.

I'm like most fans who just want to go along on a Saturday and watch the team. I really don't want to get involved in the politics of it all but if a group (Trust, Supporters club, couple of mouthy fans) find a way of making things uncomfotable for the chairman I'd like to think I'd join in.

[Swampy]

Hmmm........far from clear. What was the "payment re-structuring" mentioned? Is that a councillor effectively saying that a football club was "great for the town" (as opposed to "great for WL"), meaning that the club are being/ will be partly financed by the council if it's future is in threat? That would be via debt write off or a reduction in tenancy charges that will have to be funded from somewhere else in the budget or an under realization of stadium value by releasing ownership for less than it is worth. If so, then someone close to your club has a hell of a lot of clout with the council......

I look forward to the day when Livvy pursue the debt structuring option of actually paying 100% of what they owe. It still seems to be an alien and radical philosophy that's never considered at Almondvale.

The part that is clear as day is the very first sentence. Livingston still owe over 200k to WLC.

[MCL]

The part that is clear as day is the very first sentence. Livingston still owe over 200k to WLC.

I think that the original £150k is still being disputed by Massone as he argues that it should fall to Flynn to pay it. Due dilligence rears it's ugly head again but he argues that the rent should be paid in advance and not in arrears. The bill about to drop is for the last year which is supposed to have a payment plan and Massone has been paying it on time apart from the last one which was a few days late.

I'm not apologising for him, just pointing out where the confusion is coming from

Edited May 17, 2009 by MCL

[Guest]

I think that the original £150k is still being disputed by Massone as he argues that it should fall to Flynn to pay it. Due dilligence rears it's ugly head again but he argues that the rent should be paid in advance and not in arrears. The bill about to drop is for the last year which is supposed to have a payment plan and Massone has been paying it on time apart from the last one which was a few days late.

I'm not apologising for him, just pointing out where the confusion is coming from

As I understood it, part of the agreement after the last bout of administration was that the council would allow the club to pay a year in arrears rather than the existing contract of "in advance". This effectively gave the club a year rent free in the stadium, as the final year would never ever be collected (it would only become due when the club didn't exist or moved elsewhere). So it seems that even that generous slippage of public money cash flow isn't being met.

If Flynn did indeed sell the club for a quid, is Massone seriously trying to say that out of that quid, he thought Flynn would pay off 150k in rent arrears? When you buy a club for a quid, you are buying the debt. Yes?

[Guest Wall E]

When you buy a club for a quid, you are buying the debt. Yes?

Yes. Edited May 17, 2009 by Wall E

[Livi 293]

A couple of days of shock horror, then it is near enough forgotten.

It's certainly not forgotten, on my part anyway. As I've said elsewhere, the removal of Greame Robertson will be something this club will regret for a long, long time.

Maybe he did youth player contracts?

Edited May 17, 2009 by Livi 293

[Livi 293]

No one likes to see a team go out of business, i do not have any sympathy for them. They do not have any history or fan base, go quietly.

Now as for Stirling Albion, a team with history. Save the Binos

Many posts on here are well thought out and, even if I do not agree with every one of their specific points, worthy of much of my respect.

That rationale, however, is utter f***ing bollocks.

IMO, of course.

Edited May 17, 2009 by Livi 293