Guest Gorgie Boys On Tour Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Livingston LOL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Isnt one of the problems, though, that there are no assets? Stadium lease, league place, players, etc etc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lyle be back Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Stadium lease, league place, players, etc etc None of these would be an asset surely. I assume that the stadium lease cannot be sold on by Livi (I would have thought that there would be a clause in the lease from the council stating that it would revert to them in the event of Livi going under), surely the league place is not saleable so no value can be ascribed to them. As for players - they will only be an asset if anybody is prepare to pay for them (which given the financial situation they probably won't as they know they could pick them up once breach of contract has happened). As far as I can see these assets have a market value of zero. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 None of these would be an asset surely. I assume that the stadium lease cannot be sold on by Livi (I would have thought that there would be a clause in the lease from the council stating that it would revert to them in the event of Livi going under), surely the league place is not saleable so no value can be ascribed to them. As for players - they will only be an asset if anybody is prepare to pay for them (which given the financial situation they probably won't as they know they could pick them up once breach of contract has happened). As far as I can see these assets have a market value of zero. Exactly, although you could argue that the league place does have a value, ala Clydebank/Airdrie. With the departure of Griffiths, there are certainly no players who could be considered as assets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingfaetheSooth Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 But if you took out your posts detailing how every club should be a community based club run by the Supporters Trust, MCL's posts about how he doesn't trust the Livi Trust and the Falkirk fans' polemics that are devoid of paragraphs we are down to one Livi fan asking what time kick-off is on Saturday. :-) Aye right enough - there was plenty of shite on the Gretna thread though - from me and many others - such is the nature of the beast. Oh I'm gutted! What a faux pas. Truly you are worthy of praise for that. He's not wrong though. None of these would be an asset surely. I assume that the stadium lease cannot be sold on by Livi (I would have thought that there would be a clause in the lease from the council stating that it would revert to them in the event of Livi going under), surely the league place is not saleable so no value can be ascribed to them. As for players - they will only be an asset if anybody is prepare to pay for them (which given the financial situation they probably won't as they know they could pick them up once breach of contract has happened). As far as I can see these assets have a market value of zero. What's to stop another football club buying the league place though and there being an Airdieonians/Clydebank/Airdrie United scenario? Perhaps Spartans are lining up a bid having already smoothed the way with blazers and the SF1 Chairmen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) What's to stop another football club buying the league place though and there being an Airdieonians/Clydebank/Airdrie United scenario?Perhaps Spartans are lining up a bid having already smoothed the way with blazers and the SF1 Chairmen. I think this is the relevant SFL rule 21.7 Except as aftermentioned no club shall be entitled, either directly or indirectly, to transfer its membership of the League to another club. 21.7.1 A club desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purposes of internal solvent reconstruction only, or a club desirous of transferring its membership from an unincorporated body to a Limited Company or other corporate identity where the ownership and control of both entities are substantially the same, must apply to the Management Committee for permission to effect such transfer. 21.7.2 The Management Committee shall refuse or grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Management Committee shall think fit. It would appear that the club wishing to acquire the membership would first have to acquire the company owning the membership and then transfer it within the group as part of a reconstruction. And this would be subject to approval of the Management Committee. Doesn't look like a membership can be transferred between clubs which aren't in in the same group. Edited July 23, 2009 by Flash 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I think this is the relevant SFL rule 21.7 Except as aftermentioned no club shall be entitled, either directly or indirectly, to transfer its membership of the League to another club. 21.7.1 A club desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purposes of internal solvent reconstruction only, or a club desirous of transferring its membership from an unincorporated body to a Limited Company or other corporate identity where the ownership and control of both entities are substantially the same, must apply to the Management Committee for permission to effect such transfer. 21.7.2 The Management Committee shall refuse or grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Management Committee shall think fit. It would appear that the club wishing to acquire the membership would first have to acquire the company owning the membership and then transfer it within the group as part of a reconstruction. And this would be subject to approval of the Management Committee. Doesn't look like a membership can be transferred between clubs which aren't in in the same group. Is this a new rule since the Airdire/Clydebank thing, or did they just find a way round it? The problem is, that if the Management Committee were to block a move of this kind they'd end up a club short in the SPL. I would have thought they'd be likely just to let it go through. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Is this a new rule since the Airdire/Clydebank thing, or did they just find a way round it? Didn't Airdrie buy out Clydebank (including the SFL membership)? A small scale Glazer taking over Man U scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Watson Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 are livvy bust yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Is this a new rule since the Airdire/Clydebank thing, or did they just find a way round it?The problem is, that if the Management Committee were to block a move of this kind they'd end up a club short in the SPL. I would have thought they'd be likely just to let it go through. I don't know whether it is a new rule. Was the Airdrie/Clydebank thing not different in that Clydebank were acquired by a new owner and they only (leaving aside the emotional issues) changed the name and the location of their home ground? I don't think one club acquired another, although I don't know all the detail of that deal. I guess there would be nothing to stop somebody acquiring the shares of Livingston and doing the same thing, although they would then have to take care of the debt. I think the point is that the membership in itself isn't an asset that can be transferred, except in very limited circumstances. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 are livvy bust yet? Oh we are bust, it just hasn't been proved how much so yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Friday 24th according to the Beeb - that ought to be a busy day in the courthouse(s) for Mr Massone. I can only imagine that when he loses his case against Flynn, that will end any hope of him saving his own skin and will take off into the Tuscan night. Then again, he does seem a glutton for punishment. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingfaetheSooth Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I think this is the relevant SFL rule 21.7 Except as aftermentioned no club shall be entitled, either directly or indirectly, to transfer its membership of the League to another club. 21.7.1 A club desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purposes of internal solvent reconstruction only, or a club desirous of transferring its membership from an unincorporated body to a Limited Company or other corporate identity where the ownership and control of both entities are substantially the same, must apply to the Management Committee for permission to effect such transfer. 21.7.2 The Management Committee shall refuse or grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Management Committee shall think fit. It would appear that the club wishing to acquire the membership would first have to acquire the company owning the membership and then transfer it within the group as part of a reconstruction. And this would be subject to approval of the Management Committee. Doesn't look like a membership can be transferred between clubs which aren't in in the same group. But who makes up the management committee of the SFL - various club Chairman. That's why I made the point that discussions *could* take place in advance and a way smoothed. Of course the trust and/or McDougall / Rankine are probably having similar discussions/soundings with the relevant people. You have to remember that the SFL is a wee blazer club formed of SFL club Chairman who who like a dram of malt whisky in the Boardroom on matchdays. It's their ball and they will play with whom they see fit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 But who makes up the management committee of the SFL - various club Chairman. That's why I made the point that discussions *could* take place in advance and a way smoothed. Of course the trust and/or McDougall / Rankine are probably having similar discussions/soundings with the relevant people. You have to remember that the SFL is a wee blazer club formed of SFL club Chairman who who like a dram of malt whisky in the Boardroom on matchdays. It's their ball and they will play with whom they see fit. Yes, the Management Committee could sanction the transfer of the membership - but only after one club had acquired the other. They cannot sanction a transfer of membership between, say, Livingston and Spartans, which is what you said originally. In this example, Spartans would first of all have to acquire Livingston, and all that goes with it. The original point made was that the membership was a saleable asset of the club. It isn't. You have to acquire the club first in order to access the membership. I'm not saying that isn't possible, all I'm saying is that Livingston can't sell their SFL membership to an unconnected entity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Remember it's a totally different scenario. Clydebank were bought by an individual (as has been said previously). Clydebank then had the team name changed and moved town. Am I right in thinking that Airdrie Utd's year of formation should actually be that of Clydebank's? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Am I right in thinking that Airdrie Utd's year of formation should actually be that of Clydebank's? I think that is the official SFL position: Airdrie United (formerly known as Clydebank) was used in the last SFL handbook published 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingfaetheSooth Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Yes, the Management Committee could sanction the transfer of the membership - but only after one club had acquired the other. They cannot sanction a transfer of membership between, say, Livingston and Spartans, which is what you said originally. In this example, Spartans would first of all have to acquire Livingston, and all that goes with it.The original point made was that the membership was a saleable asset of the club. It isn't. You have to acquire the club first in order to access the membership. I'm not saying that isn't possible, all I'm saying is that Livingston can't sell their SFL membership to an unconnected entity. What is to stop a Director of Spartans buying Livingston FC from any receiver/administrator appointed when Livi finally go tits up and transfer the league place to Spartans having smoothed the way with the football authorities? He might get away with paying Massone zip and 1p in the £1 to other creditors too. After Gretna resigned their SFL place there was a legitimate bidding process - but I reckon all along that Annan had been 'tipped the wink.' Who's to say that Spartans have not been 'tipped the wink' this time and they will get entry? Of course the timing is all wrong with the new season so close - plus, I still think that with West Lothian Council's backing, a league place will be kept in Livingston - talks have obviously been going on between the likes of the Livi trust, the SFL and West Lothian Council behind the scenes. I'm just saying that it *COULD* theoretically happen as the game is run by a few blazers who call the shots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 What is to stop a Director of Spartans buying Livingston FC from any receiver/administrator appointed when Livi finally go tits up and transfer the league place to Spartans having smoothed the way with the football authorities? He might get away with paying Massone zip and 1p in the £1 to other creditors too. After Gretna resigned their SFL place there was a legitimate bidding process - but I reckon all along that Annan had been 'tipped the wink.' Who's to say that Spartans have not been 'tipped the wink' this time and they will get entry? Of course the timing is all wrong with the new season so close - plus, I still think that with West Lothian Council's backing, a league place will be kept in Livingston - talks have obviously been going on between the likes of the Livi trust, the SFL and West Lothian Council behind the scenes. I'm just saying that it *COULD* theoretically happen as the game is run by a few blazers who call the shots. Thats pretty much what I was thinking. Flash is right though - technically, the league place is not an asset. Therefore, Livy have no assets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Thats pretty much what I was thinking. Flash is right though - technically, the league place is not an asset. Therefore, Livy have no assets. Technically anything is worth nothing except that amount which someone will pay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Oh we are bust, it just hasn't been proved how much so yet. £1 or £1million you lot won't pay it anways, so why worry? 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.