John MacLean Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) I missed little 'gem' re the power being cut at Livi until I read The Herald this morning. The bill from Scottish Power was £32,000 but covers Stadium House attached to the stadium. The bill is sent directly to Livingston Football Club but the company's based at Stadium House pay 50% to Livi to cover their share of the bill. Which they have done. So Massone has received £16K towards the bill to Scottish Power but still hasn't paid the bill. What has happened to this £16K that he received for payment to Scottish Power? So, in trying to show to the Livi fans what happens if he doesn't put his own money in Massone has left the businesses based at Stadium House with no lecky despite them having paid their share of the bill. Edited to add: just seen Wee Bully's post making the same point. Edited June 19, 2009 by John MacLean 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Is that not fraud? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Is that not fraud? THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravelin Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Is that not fraud? Doubt it's fraud but it is immoral and daft. How's Masonne supposed to expect local businesses to get behind the team when he's effectively just shafted the businesses that are his club's tennants? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Doubt it's fraud but it is immoral and daft. How's Masonne supposed to expect local businesses to get behind the team when he's effectively just shafted the businesses that are his club's tennants? But the companies have paid Livingston FC to ensure they are provided with electricity; Livingston FC have not done this, so it looks like fraud to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensburgh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 if it's not fraud, surely it's at least theft. where's our resident legal experts when we need them? more to the point, where's the Lothian and Borders Police? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstars #9 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Is that not fraud? as the man above says it's out and out theft add that to his drink driving charge 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 if it's not fraud, surely it's at least theft. where's our resident legal experts when we need them? more to the point, where's the Lothian and Borders Police? If he has provided the occupants with faked up documents or receipts that indicate the money has been paid to the leccy people, then it will be fraud of the most basic type. If he hasn't done this, then he will be guilty of theft. Both are crimes. It will end up as a civil case. No-one has asked, but I guess the stadium purchase in the next 12 days will now be out of the question...... The one quality he has is his ability to lie..............quite possibly unparalleled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravelin Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science. Quite whether it is fraud in a legal sense would be up to the courts. If however it is in the lease agreement between the club and the tennants that they pay a portion of the electricity bill, which if they have been paying I would expect it is, then in return the tennants could quite rightly expect to be supplied with electricity. In allowing the electricity to be cut off the club has almost certainly broken thier lease agreement with the tennants and are leaving themselves open to yet another legal case. All the stuff by Masonne about teaching the fans a lesson is just a pathetic attempt to deflect attention, either that or he really is more silly and niaeve than even we think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) lose-lose for the company though isn't it; either try and work with no electricity, or sue the football club who have already massive liabilities elsewhere. (and who by the looks of it don't have the money to get the power back on. i think I'm right in saying that before the power is re-connected, the company will require the debt cleared in full, will levy a substantial re-connection fee, and possibly a certain amount of deposit up front against the payment of future bills. So that cretin has just made the paying of this bill substantially more expensive- a costly "lesson to the fans") The best option for the companies concerned would be to find new business premises not connected with a bankrupt football club, run by a comic opera fantasist. As the club has almost certainly defaulted on its rental agreement, they would now be free to do so. Edited June 19, 2009 by Ivo den Bieman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainspotter Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 In allowing the electricity to be cut off the club has almost certainly broken thier lease agreement with the tennants and are leaving themselves open to yet another legal case. Without knowing the nature of the tenants' business(es), I'm assuming a claim for loss of earnings and/or goods damaged due to lack of power would also be likely? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberdeen Cowden Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Doubt it's fraud but it is immoral and daft. How's Masonne supposed to expect local businesses to get behind the team when he's effectively just shafted the businesses that are his club's tennants? The quicker they get put into Div3 or kicked out altogether the better. What are the SFL doing? - have they all gone on holiday with their MP's??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravelin Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Without knowing the nature of the tenants' business(es), I'm assuming a claim for loss of earnings and/or goods damaged due to lack of power would also be likely? Yep, plus potentially any costs incurred in moving premises, setting up a new lease elsewhere etc. It'd dwarf the cost of paying the elec bill in the first place. Of course Masonne has tons of money to just throw away like that so he can teach the fans a lesson hasn't he? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I've been trying all morning to come up with some witty/facetious comment regarding this. Possibly mocking Livi, certainly mocking The SFL, but I can't. I can't think of many bigger shambles. Scottish football really is special. I know there are plenty of clubs in admin in England, but our organisations, Clubs, SPL, SFL, SFA always seem to be spectacular in their failures. League structure, play offs, TV deals, admin, liquidations, postponements, handling the unexpected (Phil O'Donnell) Fixtures etc etc. If it can go wrong it will go wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjo player Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Bear in mind with reagrd to the tenant that rent is usually paid quarterly in advance. The last quarter day was at the end of May, so whoever the landlord is (the Club or Livi Dream), has two months plus rent in his sky rocket for premises that the tenant cannot use. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingfaetheSooth Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) I see Charles Darwin Esq. has made a plea for Massolini to post the latest on livilions. Old Charlie boy hasn't poked his head in here from his Inverness bunker in a few weeks...but he must be loving the exposure his livilions forum is getting. Edited June 19, 2009 by KingfaetheSooth 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLD Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I should point out that the office block is owned and run by a seperate company which is unconnected with LFC so the other companies are not LFC's tenants. Quite why they share an electricity bill is unknown for sure but is probably a legacy of the time when LFC owned the building via a subsidiary. That ended after the last admin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjo player Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I should point out that the office block is owned and run by a seperate company which is unconnected with LFC so the other companies are not LFC's tenants.Quite why they share an electricity bill is unknown for sure but is probably a legacy of the time when LFC owned the building via a subsidiary. That ended after the last admin. Even more messy and complicated then, given that the lease will probably have a so called user clause which entitles the tenant to "quiet enjoyment" or similar ie the right to use the premises. So the landlord will have to sort that bit out, whilst trying to sort out Massolini. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravelin Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 So I wonder who will be getting the bill for the installation of a seperate meter for the office building? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) I should point out that the office block is owned and run by a seperate company which is unconnected with LFC so the other companies are not LFC's tenants.Quite why they share an electricity bill is unknown for sure but is probably a legacy of the time when LFC owned the building via a subsidiary. That ended after the last admin. According to The Scotsman, there is only 1 electricity meter ... so each month, or quarter or whatever, the bill is halved 50-50 (whether or not either side has accrued 50% of it...?). The companies then pay Livingston FC, who then pay the whole bill. Or, as is the case, don't pay the whole bill presumably ... Whatever the situation it's a bizarre and IMO stupid arrangement. With the fixtures already released, season tickets sold, players and squads taking shape, cup draws made and so forth, I can't see the SFL demoting Livi. They will leave them in the First Division, if necessary with a deduction for administration. If Livi fold, they will run with 9 clubs. Edited June 19, 2009 by HibeeJibee 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.