Livingston - all the threads merged

[Roger the cabin boy]

35 minutes ago, Livi La Vida Loca said:

Pot kettle black ? I really do not want to be involved in this debate but c'mon now. 

 

I’ve already said John ward knows. But so does Robert Wilson, and  probably even the forensic accountants too. I have it On good authority from Hogarth and directors from the time. What more do you want? 
 

what information have I spread in the past day that’s in any way misleading or rumours? 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Roger the cabin boy

[LIVIFOREVER]

22 hours ago, Roger the cabin boy said:

Regarding transfer plans, it was some time ago this year (maybe before or right after the Baycup news?) where Martindale says he has his budget for the year made up. Whether or not this includes any money for transfers is another thing, but you’d think (hope) the transfer window would be taken into account.

 

If rankine wins his case it will be *very* bad news for the club, best case is some sort of agreed settlement that isn’t the full ticket. Even then there’s the cost of reaching that point

The mounting court costs are something we haven’t read much of in the papers … Livingston took Hogarth to the commercial court, wasted months and tens of thousands of pounds (of the club’s money)just to lose and have their case thrown out by the judge. The club as a result has to pay a significant portion of Hogarth’s court fees - so whatever livi has spent, just double it (six figs easily)
 

There’s a lack of accountability upstairs. We have a transfer window coming up, we’re bottom of the table, and we’re now at least six figures deep into court costs … how many strikers could be bought with this wasted money? At least two players’ salaries I’d wager.

 

And yeah, Rankine is taking *us* to court, so money spent on that can’t be avoided. If the result goes against livi, and Rankine wins, there has to be some accountability there? 

 

 

Livi didn't lose the case did they, thought they were told to go away and get it presented better.

 

Rankine is owed money and has tried several times to get it back, but had been told Livi would pay him what they could so it wasn't detrimental to the club's survival. It's him that keeps bringing cases against Livi, every time he sees the club making a few bob, like after playing one of the erse cheeks in a cup game. The club are in debt though, so where is he supposed to get it?

 

Both Rankine and Hogarth are pains in the arse to the club, i stand by my post, until we rid ourselves of them it'll be ongoing court cases and continued holding the club back. He's done the same with Dumbarton and East Fife, he got caught out with the STV cameras at the door of his 'friend' when he answered her door, when we had Rankine at Livi breaking SFA rules on being involved at more than one club. He's no longer involved in running Livi, but hangs around like a bad smell popping up with court cases every so often.

Edited December 13, 2023 by LIVIFOREVER

[LIVIFOREVER]

50 minutes ago, Roger the cabin boy said:

I’ve already said John ward knows. But so does Robert Wilson, and  probably even the forensic accountants too. I have it On good authority from Hogarth and directors from the time. What more do you want? 
 

what information have I spread in the past day that’s in any way misleading or rumours? 

That doesn't mean anything really, he's hardly going to say he's the one lying. You're just getting his side of it and coming on here presenting it as facts. You're clearly against Ward and Martindale though and have had an agenda against both for some time.

Edited December 13, 2023 by LIVIFOREVER

[Roger the cabin boy]

1 minute ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

That doesn't mean anything really, he's hardly going to say he's the one lying. You're just getting his side of it and coming on here presenting it as facts. 

What are you talking about? Lying about paying wages? 

[Roger the cabin boy]

20 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Livi didn't lose the case did they, thought they were told to go away and get it presented better

Lord Braid politely told them that their case was unclear, baffling, despite being given ample opportunities to make it clearer. Over 6 months in his court that *they* took Hogarth to.
 

As a result they have to pay Hogarth’s court fees (at least a large percentage). Does that sound like a draw?

[LIVIFOREVER]

Just now, Roger the cabin boy said:

What are you talking about? Lying about paying wages? 

No, i believe that would be true if he's told you he did, it's well known Directors have had to do that from time to time at Livi. That isn't what he's being taken to court by Livi for though is it.

[LIVIFOREVER]

2 minutes ago, Roger the cabin boy said:

Lord Braid politely told them that their case was unclear, baffling, despite being given ample opportunities to make it clearer. Over 6 months in his court that *they* took Hogarth to.
 

As a result they have to pay Hogarth’s court fees (at least a large percentage). Does that sound like a draw?

Is that it done then or are they still taking him to court for money they say he owes them?

[Roger the cabin boy]

3 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

No, i believe that would be true if he's told you he did, it's well known Directors have had to do that from time to time at Livi. That isn't what he's being taken to court by Livi for though is it.

He’s not at court with livi anymore.

[LIVIFOREVER]

Just now, Roger the cabin boy said:

He’s not at court with livi anymore.

Have they dropped the case?

[Roger the cabin boy]

Just now, LIVIFOREVER said:

Have they dropped the case?

I don’t know if they’re still looking to pursue him.

The judge said in his Opinion, that was posted here some time ago, that they’d have to start again at a lower court (Sheriff court, like the one next to the stadium) if they think they have a case against Hogarth. 

Not good for the club because they’d probably just use the club’s money again. And let’s be honest, if they can’t build a coherent case for the high court, what chance have they got a second time round? Risk spending more money on Hogarth’s fees?

 

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

21 minutes ago, Roger the cabin boy said:

Lord Braid politely told them that their case was unclear, baffling, despite being given ample opportunities to make it clearer.

Livingston! No, I don't believe that could ever be true.

[mozam76]

38 minutes ago, Roger the cabin boy said:

I don’t know if they’re still looking to pursue him.

The judge said in his Opinion, that was posted here some time ago, that they’d have to start again at a lower court (Sheriff court, like the one next to the stadium) if they think they have a case against Hogarth. 

Not good for the club because they’d probably just use the club’s money again. And let’s be honest, if they can’t build a coherent case for the high court, what chance have they got a second time round? Risk spending more money on Hogarth’s fees?

 

 

Something really needs to made clear here. It was not Livingston FC's job to build the case. It's the job of their legal rep to do that. Livingston could hand their legal team an absolute pig in a poke when it comes to vouching, it's the job of the legal team to either a) build a coherent case from it, or b) tell their client that they can't help. 

Lots about what's been going on at the club worries me, but their use of a two bit criminal defence lawyer for something so serious is nothing short of baffling. 

[Livi La Vida Loca]

2 hours ago, Roger the cabin boy said:

what information have I spread in the past day that’s in any way misleading or rumours? 

My comments on the rumour mill were generalised to everything that comes up about the situation because ultimately all the facts are not available. 

With regards to yourself, you are continuously pushing information that someone told you which is one side of the argument and how do you know it's wholeheartedly true? It's all he said she said from both sides of the argument and thus my request that all of us who don't have the full picture refrain from pushing a narrative without all the facts. 

[Roger the cabin boy]

12 minutes ago, Livi La Vida Loca said:

My comments on the rumour mill were generalised to everything that comes up about the situation because ultimately all the facts are not available. 

With regards to yourself, you are continuously pushing information that someone told you which is one side of the argument and how do you know it's wholeheartedly true? It's all he said she said from both sides of the argument and thus my request that all of us who don't have the full picture refrain from pushing a narrative without all the facts. 

What I’ve contributed in the past couple days has mainly been about things where we don’t need two sides, I.e. wasting money on court cases affecting our ability to afford the players we desperately need. 

Please tell me what information I’m spreading that is one side of a story? 

 

[LIVIFOREVER]

20 minutes ago, Livi La Vida Loca said:

My comments on the rumour mill were generalised to everything that comes up about the situation because ultimately all the facts are not available. 

With regards to yourself, you are continuously pushing information that someone told you which is one side of the argument and how do you know it's wholeheartedly true? It's all he said she said from both sides of the argument and thus my request that all of us who don't have the full picture refrain from pushing a narrative without all the facts. 

Yeah most of us would just like to hear from someone without an agenda, or axe to grind, but it doesn't ever happen. Whenever someone comes on here to tell us about internal strife, it's usually from the side against the current incumbents running the club. Some of it is probably true, i don't doubt that, but a lot isn't, and bits get added on.

[Roger the cabin boy]

49 minutes ago, mozam76 said:

Something really needs to made clear here. It was not Livingston FC's job to build the case. It's the job of their legal rep to do that. Livingston could hand their legal team an absolute pig in a poke when it comes to vouching, it's the job of the legal team to either a) build a coherent case from it, or b) tell their client that they can't help. 

Lots about what's been going on at the club worries me, but their use of a two bit criminal defence lawyer for something so serious is nothing short of baffling. 

More fool those running the show then. With the length of time they spent in court, and the amount of back and forth there was, they had plenty of time to change counsel. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Roger the cabin boy

[Roger the cabin boy]

3 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Yeah most of us would just like to hear from someone without an agenda, or axe to grind, but it doesn't ever happen. Whenever someone comes on here to tell us about internal strife, it's usually from the side against the current incumbents running the club. Some of it is probably true, i don't doubt that, but a lot isn't, and bits get added on.

What isn’t true, pray tell?

[LIVIFOREVER]

10 minutes ago, Roger the cabin boy said:

What I’ve contributed in the past couple days has mainly been about things where we don’t need two sides, I.e. wasting money on court cases affecting our ability to afford the players we desperately need. 

Please tell me what information I’m spreading that is one side of a story? 

 

All of which is from an angle slagging the guys running the club. Otherwise you wouldn't be coming on to do it.

The court case against Hogarth was badly handled by the legal team, that much is true, still isn't known if it he will be pursued further once the legal team get their case presented better.

 

The budget was set at the start of the season, that wasn't affected by spending money on the court case, so that part of your posts is transparent, of what you're trying to achieve.

[LIVIFOREVER]

8 minutes ago, Roger the cabin boy said:

What isn’t true, pray tell?

See my above posts, you add a slant onto something for a purpose, which just isn't true. You're clearly on here to cause unrest within our support, against Ward, Black,  and Martindale.

[Roger the cabin boy]

1 minute ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

The budget was set at the start of the season, that wasn't affected by spending money on the court case, so that part of your posts is transparent, of what you're trying to achieve.

They shouldn’t be using the club’s money to pursue a court case in the first place. 
 

I sincerely doubt that the court case was factored into the budget considering they probably weren’t planning on losing and paying the defendant’s fees. They had no idea the length of time they would be in front of the judge before a trial date could even have been decided.  Then there’s the cost of a trial… you don’t budget for a court case - you have a war chest.

If you believe what I’m replying to, it seems that no matter what I say, you use whatever mental gymnastics necessary to believe that those behind the club must be in the right.