AND180Y Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Wouldn't work.Melville would not have came to Dundee if he had to pay all creditors back. Stupid thinking, son. Then that is the way it should have been. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raith1974 Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Wouldn't work.Melville would not have came to Dundee if he had to pay all creditors back. Stupid thinking, son. Sorry still doesn't make it right. How i will laugh DAD if it goes tits up for you lot when your sugar daddy walks away and your again left with huge debt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Then that is the way it should have been. A tad impractical. The Marrs (who created the mess in the first place) were apparently due £7million. Should they have got that back? The other major creditor was HBoS. They agreed to restructure the debt to £7million or so. This was then written off as a sweetener in another business deal. I don't have the full details, but something to do with Bob Brannan agreeing to run through a massive outside business deal in exchange for the debt being written off. Why should that be repaid? After all, the Bank were willing to do this in order to make much more money from a business deal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 According to the BBC news video, this administrator is saying there are people in the background willing to invest in the club. Something i would suggest the WLC are aware of which to my mind smacks. I am not happy with the quote that the administrator is going to speak to the SFL regardes penalties and possible re arrangment of a fixture. Surely the SFL have to stick to the rules or else they are setting a precidence. This whole thing is a pure farce and getting more so by the day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabawsa_Ritchie Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Too many pages to read but will Airdrie now be promoted as a result of Livingston going into Admin?, I ask this because when Gretna went into admin they didn't get points deducted but were simply placed in Division 3 (well for a short period of time anyway!). Or since Livingston have went into Admin at such a late stage, will this mean a Division of 9 teams if they go bust? Too late - once the fixtures are out that's it settled. If Livi go under it's a 9 team First Division with SFL compensation to each remaining Club for the lost home games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 According to the BBC news video, this administrator is saying there are people in the background willing to invest in the club. Something i would suggest the WLC are aware of which to my mind smacks.I am not happy with the quote that the administrator is going to speak to the SFL regardes penalties and possible re arrangment of a fixture. Surely the SFL have to stick to the rules or else they are setting a precidence. This whole thing is a pure farce and getting more so by the day. Surely the club concerned would have to be consulted if they were switching an away fixture back to Almondvale? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCL Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Whoever is telling you the information you are putting on here is wrong. Massone has no power now other than as a creditor with everyone else - and only then if he can satisfactorially show he has a genuine debt. I was standing listening to the Interim Manager give his interviews to the press. That's where I got my info although I might have misheard him. I was the only Livi fan to turn up at Almondvale today (and yes, I was working before you ask ) which surprised me. Usually events like this would attract a few fans trying to find out what was going on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjo player Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 SFL statement from their website reproduced in full The Scottish Football League have now been in contact with Mr Donald McGruther of Mazars in relation to Livingston Football Club as a result of Mr McGruther’s appointment by the Courts as Interim Manager at the Club. The SFL have received assurances that tomorrow’s ALBA Challenge Cup Fixture against Queen of the South will be fulfilled and will be seeking a meeting with Mr McGruther to discuss the situation early next week so that's fine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCL Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Surely the club concerned would have to be consulted if they were switching an away fixture back to Almondvale? It's not changing an away fixture, it's to bring one of the home games forward to next week. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjo player Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Usually events like this would attract a few fans trying to find out what was going on. They were away trying to find a friend to take to the game tomorrow while you were just hanging around and doing nothing constructive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 It's not changing an away fixture, it's to bring one of the home games forward to next week. I guess this will be the acid test of how much Livingston (as in the town) wants senior football to remain. Anything under a 2000 home crowd would be pretty damning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjo player Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 It's not changing an away fixture, it's to bring one of the home games forward to next week. Just imagine the SFL did that. Other fans would be up in arms at the possibility that Livi could pull back three points before their second fixture. Two games played and Livi could have as many as -4 points. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Two Questions here. Have the SFL ever brought a home game forward to help a financially embarrased club. Have the SFL, under current regulations, or previous regulations made a decision that does not fully comply with those regulations. It appears to me this administrator may ask them too. I fear they may. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Tax due to HMRC used to have preferential status but that was abolished in about 2004 since when they take their chances with all the other unsecured creditors. HMRC's hard line with clubs and refusing to agree to CVA's stem from this time.Council Tax has no priority and never has had I would make the point that no one else on here has about CVA's. In order for them to be agreed 75% of the creditors by value have to vote yes. HMRC have withdrawn all co-operation with Football CVA's since they lost their preferred creditor status. This is because of the preferred status given to football creditors by the SFL, SPL. EPL and EFL. They did challange the football creditors rule in the High Court in London in the case of HMRC -v- Wimbledon FC and lost in the court of appeal. Therefore unless the SFL waive the rule or HMRC are less than 25% of the creditors getting out via a CVA will not be as easy as all that. Interesting, I knew they were no longer priority and that they weren't happy with the football's football debt ruling but hadn't realised it had been challenged. Wimbledon's administration was 2003 though so pre-dated the law change? The Interim Manager Donald McGruther - BBC Video Some interesting titbits on that interview for anyone who hasn't watched yet. The players are playing for nothing just now; there is no cashflow at all other than anticipated gate receipts; debt to the Inaldn Revnue is also over £300K. According to the BBC news video, this administrator is saying there are people in the background willing to invest in the club. Something i would suggest the WLC are aware of which to my mind smacks.I am not happy with the quote that the administrator is going to speak to the SFL regardes penalties and possible re arrangment of a fixture. Surely the SFL have to stick to the rules or else they are setting a precidence. This whole thing is a pure farce and getting more so by the day. The SFL do have to stick to the rules but as already noted they have very flexible rules, I imagine all they'll be able to tell him next week is that it will have to be decided by a full board meeting when they can convene it. The administrator will need to know this info in order to be able to tell the club though so he's quite right to ask them what the score is - it can be a major sticking point as Southampton discovered this summer, one of their potential takeovers fell through when the propsctive buyers refused to sign an agreement that they wouldn't challenge the ten point deduction. Rearrangement of a fixture is not unprecedented, if other clubs are happy to agree I don't see a problem. They might not be happy to agree though, if clubs at their early away fixtures have already sold sponsorship packages and things they might tell them to get stuffed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 It's not changing an away fixture, it's to bring one of the home games forward to next week. Ah, sorry, I'd misunderstood. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 See also, interview with Massone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8168220.stm Nothing out the ordinary in that one, just slightly amusing to hear him boasting of his fantastic relationshp with the supporters. ("Just a little part of the support try to create problems.") 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 This particular case is different. Livi are insolvent. They are bankrupt. The sfl will be asked to bring forward or swap a fixture to a home game to generate money for livi. If they did this it would be preferential treatment. Treatment that i am not aware was offered to any other club in this position. The same applies to penalties. reading into the administrators interview, i think he expects penalties. But he is still going to ask for non to be given. If the SFL do either, then they have to do the same for every club in this position in the future. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 This particular case is different. Livi are insolvent. They are bankrupt. The sfl will be asked to bring forward or swap a fixture to a home game to generate money for livi.If they did this it would be preferential treatment. Treatment that i am not aware was offered to any other club in this position. The same applies to penalties. reading into the administrators interview, i think he expects penalties. But he is still going to ask for non to be given. If the SFL do either, then they have to do the same for every club in this position in the future. Yeah, I take your point in both cases. Games have certainly been sswapped about to suit other clubs for reasons to dow ith stadia, like when Dunfermline needed a string of away games to lay their plastic pitch. I don't know if any games have been moved to provide cashflow but I like to think the SFL would consider any such request, I certainly wouldn't want to lose a club that might yet be around for many years if such a relatively small thing was going to make all the difference. On penalties - yes I think he expects them, I don't know if he said he'd ask for none to be given or whether he's just going to ask for calrification of the position, but in any case his job from now on is to get the best deal he can for Livingston, he's professionally obliged to argue the best case for them and try to minimise anything which might make it more difficult to sell the club. The SFL should stick to their guns anyway of course, but there's nothing sinister in him having the discussion. (It's also worth remembering that Scottish football is heavily dependent on the goodwill of creditors and if the SFL are seen as being unnecessarily obstructive to a deal that might be in the creditors' best interests then that could have a negative impact on everyone.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unthinkable Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 It's not changing an away fixture, it's to bring one of the home games forward to next week. The SFL were adamant that the 1st three fixtures and the last three fixtures cannot be tampered with as each team must play in a set sequence, hence Raith are away to QOS on the opening Saturday, despite being League Champions, due to a fixture request by Fife Police for April. Interesting to see if they could accomodate Livi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Yoss, this administrator has a job to do, and hes doing a pretty good one so far by straight away making a public statement that livvi have no money and no income but could be saved if the SFL were to possibly waive the penalties and allow one fixture change so that interested investors wouldnt be put off. What the guy has done , publically, is to challenge the SFL to put up or allow livvi to go bankcrupt. They are now in a totally impossible position and are dammed either way. He states, after only 3 hours that he has had phone calls from interested parties who would back away if penalties were imposed. This guy is handcuffing the SFL knowing either way they will be gunned down. I hope the Blazers and SFL have enough guts and strength to say enough is enough. Impose penalties, relegate Livvi and refuse to swap a fixture. If they dont, they should all resign and let in someone who has the strength to do what is correct and not politically expedient. 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.