Livingston - all the threads merged

[KingfaetheSooth]

Oh calm down!

Personally I thought it was an accurate and rather apt observation.

It's a well written and pretty stark piece. It certainly doesn't look like the Livi situation will drag on as others have. I'd guess they'll either be taken over this coming week or liquidated at the end of it.

Well I happen to think that a journalist who uses his article to compare a one minute silence for a well respected club chairman who has passed away to that of a club who has been ran by a series of scumbag club Chairman to be a bit insensitive at best.

Maybe I am being a bit sensitive - but I wonder what Ronnie Bradford's family would think. Then again, you like to defend your mates who sit at the back of the stand with their notebooks and laptops who have paid heehaw to get into the game.

Could this be the moment you actually transformed into the cartoon you've always verged on?

Aren't you the Thistle fan who started watching St Johnstone cause you wanted to shag fat Sam? Like I care what you think.

Awww don't get upset KFTS! The bad journo was just being sarcastic, we all observed the minutes silence with total respect & none of us used this to think of the death of our club, although reading that story I now wish I had!!!

I'm sure the Livingston fans did observe the one minute's silence impeccably - but I think thre journalist who wrote the piece was out of order with his comparison.

One of the Italians (not Massone) came into the QoS shop after the game and bought a QoS scarf - took his money should really have held it up to the light and made a show of checking but hey if he wants to give his money to us and not his own club?

When we left the shop Massone and a little group of his henchmen were deep in conversation at the exits - i regret not getting him to sign my programme surely would have been worth all of £2.51 on ebay by now.

Perhaps they will look at Queens now they are being KO'd from livi - lots of development potential for housing at Palmerston!

I don't think Livi will be remaining in business or going under on the strength of their share of the gate yesterday anyway!

Probably around £5K or so - it will hardly pay their top earning player for much more than a month.

More interesting is what happens to the cash if Livi go out of business before the cheque is written. Would it still go to the interim administrator or back into the Alba Cup pot?

I have a wee question for you all: does a lot of clubs have supporter's trusts? & do they work with the clubs? There seems to be a lot of confusion at Livi (mainly seeds of doubt planted by Massone & partly because we are a young club so not much experience) people seem to see it as support the club OR support the trust, so if you back the trust you are being detrimental to the club, I would really appreciate some comments/history on other club trusts, although I do not have any problem with the trust I'd like to find out if other clubs had this sort of problem.

I suggest you first of all study Supporters Direct website link and have a read of their most recent magazine. select from here

But most importantly, get involved and have your say - it should be a democratic organisation - I suggested a while back on this thread that you join your trust.

Edited July 27, 2009 by KingfaetheSooth

[Skyline Drifter]

Well I happen to think that a journalist who uses his article to compare a one minute silence for a well respected club chairman who has passed away to that of a club who has been ran by a series of scumbag club Chairman to be a bit insensitive at best.

Maybe I am being a bit sensitive - but I wonder what Ronnie Bradford's family would think. Then again, you like to defend your mates who sit at the back of the stand with their notebooks and laptops who have paid heehaw to get into the game.

Incredibly you've actually managed to come over even more precious than you did in the previous post there Callum.

He drew a comparison and no-one else appears to have a problem with it. I seriously doubt Ronnie Bradford's family would have given it a second's thought.

Your last sentence is fairly pitiful.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Skyline Drifter

[RedV]

Incredibly you've actually managed to come over even more precious than you did in the previous post there Callum.

He drew a comparison and no-one else appears to have a problem with it. I seriously doubt Ronnie Bradford's family would have given it a second's thought.

Your last sentence is fairly pitiful.

Love the edit - I was about to post a one word response: "Why??"

[John MacLean]

Incredibly you've actually managed to come over even more precious than you did in the previous post there Callum.

He drew a comparison and no-one else appears to have a problem with it. I seriously doubt Ronnie Bradford's family would have given it a second's thought.

Your last sentence is fairly pitiful.

Looks like Kingfaethesooth is preparing a reply.

It's a slow day at work I'll think I'll pull a chair up and get myself comfortable. :-)

[RedV]

Looks like Kingfaethesooth is preparing a reply.

I Trust it will be great. And community-owned.

[KingfaetheSooth]

Incredibly you've actually managed to come over even more precious than you did in the previous post there Callum.

He drew a comparison and no-one else appears to have a problem with it. I seriously doubt Ronnie Bradford's family would have given it a second's thought.

Your last sentence is fairly pitiful.

Like I said, maybe I'm being over-sensitive - maybe I'm wrong - but I would suggest that the one minute silence for Ronnie Bradford gave the Scotsman journo the idea to write the piece using mourning/death/obituary/post mortem metaphors.

I think that is cheap - especially as Ronnie Bradford's passing is only very briefly mentioned in the final paragraph with the quote " It may as well have been held for Livingston FC." He may not have meant what he said - or didn't mean it insenstively - but that translates (to me anyway) that the one minute silence for Ronnie Bradford also might have been for the death of Livingston FC. Now, it's fairly well-known that I don't care a jot about the death of the current Livingston FC - but I do respect the work our former Chairman did for QotS. I haven't much respect for journalists either.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, Ewan.

[John MacLean]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, Ewan.

We're onto first names now. Boy, this is serious! :-)

Hit him with a rule book SD. KftS get a copy of the last Supporters Direct magazine, roll it up and use it as a cosh! :-)

[Guest]

So, as the fog of war clears, is this a fair reflection of what is going on.....................

The club are £1.35 million in debt, and cannot afford to service this debt.

There have been behind the scenes meetings between McDougall, The Council and the Trust. The likely outcome of this is that the council will write off the monies owed to them, but are scared to say so publically for fear of a backlash from disgruntled residents seeing one rule for them, and another much softer rule for LFC.

The council at said meetings have taken the gamble of pushing the club towards administration in the hope of de-valuing Massone's input, and maybe even getting him to walk away with nothing. All of this would effectively bring the debt down by £800k, leaving debt of £650k.

McDougall would put in an amount of money that would (probably) come to a % of the debt. This would cover the administrators fees in return for the club being delivered to McDougall and the Trust for buttons.

The remaining £650k of debt would be written off and/or re-structured. Most likely, a good chunk of it would never be honoured.

The Trust are urging Massone to do "the right thing" and walk away. Doubtless creditors are urging the club to do "the right thing" and pay them what they are owed...............but for whatever reason, their's will be the voice that will never be heard.

It's hard to see anything coming out of this other than more people who ain't exactly Snow White in charge at Livingston, or Massone digging his heels in and driving the whole thing off a cliff............his view of Livingston might well be the same as Livingston's view of him.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Guest

[Guest Flash]

The SFL League Cup and Challenge Cups are simply split 60/40 on the net proceeds.

Semi Finals and Finals are run by the SFA and clubs effectively get 40% of the net takings each. (that's presumably what happens with SFL League Cup semi finals and finals also as well as the Challenge Cup Final).

This is how gate receipts are split in the Challenge Cup

8.1 Where First, Second and Third Division clubs are in opposition, the Management Committee Recommended Prices of Ground Admission shall be those charged by the club in the higher division.

8.2 In all rounds of the competition excluding the Final Tie, clubs shall only be entitled to deduct a limit of 10% of the total number of spectators admitted to the match in the competition subject to such limit not exceeding 1,000 persons. The numbers in excess of this figure must be returned in the gross gate and divided

in the ratio 75% adult and 25% juvenile and senior citizens of the Management Committee Minimum Recommended Prices of Ground Admission with the visiting club.

In the Final Round of the competition,

after paying match expenses, 5% of the net receipts will be deducted by the League and the sum of £5,000 or 10% of the remaining balance, which ever is the greater, will be deducted and paid to the club providing the neutral venue. The remaining receipts shall be equally divided between the two competing clubs. The allowance to be paid to the club providing the neutral venue shall be calculated on the entire stands, enclosures and ground admissions after providing for the aforementioned deductions so far as is applicable to such ground.

And this is how they are split in the League Cup

9.1 In all rounds of the Cup Competition, excluding the Semi-Finals and Final Tie, the Management

Committee minimum recommended ground prices of admission or the actual minimum admission price, whichever is the greater for adults, juveniles, and O.A.P’s shall, after deducting 15% by the Home Club, be divided equally between the two Clubs participating in each tie. The share of admission money in terms of this Rule must be paid to the visiting club within ten days of the date of the match. Any club failing to pay, detail or return as before provided, or any club

failing to immediately report non-payments of receipts due to it, shall be dealt with as the Management Committee may think fit. 9.2 Any club wishing to charge less than the Management Committee minimum recommended prices of admission must obtain the consent of its opponents prior to the match taking place and the agreed admission prices shall be divided as hereinbefore mentioned.

9.3 Where Scottish Premier League Clubs and Scottish Football League Clubs are in opposition, the minimum recommended prices of ground admission shall be the higher of those charged by either Club. Where Scottish Football League Clubs are in opposition the minimum recommended prices of ground admission shall be those charged by the Club in the higher division.

9.4 In all rounds of the Cup Competition, excluding the Semi-Finals and Final Tie, Clubs shall only be entitled to deduct a limit of 10% of the total number of spectators admitted to the match in the Competition subject to such limit not exceeding 1,000 persons. The numbers in excess of this figure must be returned in the gross gate and divided in the ratio 75% adult, 25% juvenile and senior citizens of the Management Committee minimum recommended ground prices of

admission with the Visiting Club.

9.5 Payment for tickets sold by a Visiting Club together with the details of tickets sold, and the return of unsold tickets, must be made to the Home Club within ten days of the date of the match taking place. Any club failing to pay, detail or return as before provided, or any Club failing to at once report non-payments of receipts due to it, shall be dealt with as the Management Committee may think fit.

9.6 In each tie in the Semi-Final Round of the League Cup Competition, after paying match expenses, 5% of the net receipts will be retained by the League and 20% of the remaining balance will be deducted and paid as ground rent to the respective Clubs which provided the neutral venues.

The remaining receipts from both ties shall be pooled and divided equally among the four competing Clubs.

9.7 In the Final Tie of the League Cup competition, after paying match expenses, 5% of the net receipts will be retained by the League and 20% of the remaining balance will be deducted and paid as ground rent to the Club which provided the neutral venue. The remaining receipts shall be divided equally between the two competing clubs. The allowance to be paid to each Club providing a neutral venue shall be calculated on the entire receipts for the stands, Enclosures and Ground admissions after providing for the forementioned deductions so far as applicable to such

ground.

9.8 In the Semi-Final and Final Ties, payments for tickets sold by each competing club together with details of tickets sold, and the return of unsold tickets, must be made to the League within ten days of the date of the match. Any club failing to pay, detail or return as before provided shall pay interest on the monies due to the League and such interest shall be calculated on a daily basis at a rate of 5% per annum over the Bank of Scotland base rate.

All from SFL website

Edited July 27, 2009 by Flash

[KingfaetheSooth]

So, as the fog of war clears, is this a fair reflection of what is going on.....................

The club are £1.35 million in debt, and cannot afford to service this debt.

There have been behind the scenes meetings between McDougall, The Council and the Trust. The likely outcome of this is that the council will write off the monies owed to them, but are scared to say so publically for fear of a backlash from disgruntled residents seeing one rule for them, one fule for LFC.

The council at said meetings have taken the gamble of pushing the club towards administration in the hope of de-valuing Massone's input, and maybe even getting him to walk away with nothing. All of this would effectively bring the debt down by £800k, leaving debt of £650k.

McDougall would put in an amount of money that would (probably) come to a % of the debt. This would cover the administrators fees in return for the club being delivered to McDougall and the Trust for buttons.

The remaining £650k of debt would be written off and/or re-structured. Most likely, a good chunk of it would never be honoured.

The Trust are urging Massone to do "the right thing" and walk away. Doubtless creditors are urging the club to do "the right thing" and pay them what they are owed...............but for whatever reason, their's will be the voice that will never be heard.

It's hard to see anything coming out of this other than more people who ain't exactly Snow White in charge at Livingston, or Massone digging his heels in and driving the whole thing off a cliff............his view of Livingston might well be the same as Livingston's view of him.

I think that is a fairly good summary.

Meanwhile the SFL Chairman are probably considering calling for a meeting of the SFL Management Committee for a week on Wednesday to decide what action to take.

[Guest penelope pitstop]

So, as the fog of war clears, is this a fair reflection of what is going on.....................

The club are £1.35 million in debt, and cannot afford to service this debt.

There have been behind the scenes meetings between McDougall, The Council and the Trust. The likely outcome of this is that the council will write off the monies owed to them, but are scared to say so publically for fear of a backlash from disgruntled residents seeing one rule for them, one fule for LFC.

The council at said meetings have taken the gamble of pushing the club towards administration in the hope of de-valuing Massone's input, and maybe even getting him to walk away with nothing. All of this would effectively bring the debt down by £800k, leaving debt of £650k.

McDougall would put in an amount of money that would (probably) come to a % of the debt. This would cover the administrators fees in return for the club being delivered to McDougall and the Trust for buttons.

The remaining £650k of debt would be written off and/or re-structured. Most likely, a good chunk of it would never be honoured.

The Trust are urging Massone to do "the right thing" and walk away. Doubtless creditors are urging the club to do "the right thing" and pay them what they are owed...............but for whatever reason, their's will be the voice that will never be heard.

It's hard to see anything coming out of this other than more people who ain't exactly Snow White in charge at Livingston, or Massone digging his heels in and driving the whole thing off a cliff............his view of Livingston might well be the same as Livingston's view of him.

You are normally spot on but your perspective on this is a little wrong (and I suspect your past experiences may colour your view on this - which I can quite understand)

There is no question of "devaluing Massone's debt". Massone's debt (if it exists ) will still be there regardless of what happens to the club re administration. Whether he gets any of the money is dependent on what happens of course but that applies to everyone.

The Council have a very strong hand here as they own the freehold. While it is encumbered with a lease it is not worth as much to them as unencumbered. Whether the basis of the lease is changed or whether a different amount of land is leased is something that no one can see yet so how the Council will come of this is completely unable to be guessed at.

Also to suggest that simply becvause interested parties have had meetings to see what might happen to the club if it goes into administration is in some what underhand is also wrong/. It would perhaps be negligent not to have such mettings. It is difficult for to see what you would have accepted? Massone carrying on and running up vast amounts more of debt? The Council coming down harder earlier when there might have been a chance that Massone could have salavaged something and paid the creditors? The council coming down on him now is apparently not yor preferred solution.

You have hard words for everyone but no suggestion as to what you think would have been the right thing to do. I know that the idea positon is that Massone had been a white knight and would ahve paid everyone. But the reality is he is a lying so and so who took a while to be found out. so having got there what do you think could realistically be done, or do you consider the club should just have been closed down as being beyond redemption?

[Robbo]

According to the Daily Hail Ged Nixon,local businessman and prominent member of the Livi trust has been in constant dialogue with ex C/beath chairman during a holiday in America.Hes supposed to be jetting in for a meeting tonight at 5pm tonight with trust members,Mcdougall and McGruther in the hope of putting together a rescue deal for the club.Nixon is also to meet WLC leader Peter Johnston tonight.McGruther has an emergency meeting with the SFL on Wednesday where he will be asked if Livi can fulfil their fixtures this season.If Massone who wants 500k back from Livi does not agree to a deal McGruther will have to say no to the SFL and start the process of liquidation

[AND180Y]

You are normally spot on but your perspective on this is a little wrong (and I suspect your past experiences may colour your view on this - which I can quite understand)

There is no question of "devaluing Massone's debt". Massone's debt (if it exists ) will still be there regardless of what happens to the club re administration. Whether he gets any of the money is dependent on what happens of course but that applies to everyone.

The Council have a very strong hand here as they own the freehold. While it is encumbered with a lease it is not worth as much to them as unencumbered. Whether the basis of the lease is changed or whether a different amount of land is leased is something that no one can see yet so how the Council will come of this is completely unable to be guessed at.

Also to suggest that simply becvause interested parties have had meetings to see what might happen to the club if it goes into administration is in some what underhand is also wrong/. It would perhaps be negligent not to have such mettings. It is difficult for to see what you would have accepted? Massone carrying on and running up vast amounts more of debt? The Council coming down harder earlier when there might have been a chance that Massone could have salavaged something and paid the creditors? The council coming down on him now is apparently not yor preferred solution.

You have hard words for everyone but no suggestion as to what you think would have been the right thing to do. I know that the idea positon is that Massone had been a white knight and would ahve paid everyone. But the reality is he is a lying so and so who took a while to be found out. so having got there what do you think could realistically be done, or do you consider the club should just have been closed down as being beyond redemption?

If, as the last accounts submitted by Livi show they were £1.2 million in debt under Flynn's tenure then it is entirely possible that Massone has invested significant sums?

Yes the council should have acted earlier just like the bank accounts of struggling companies get moved to a special lending unit for close supervision then so should this have been.

It's yet another debt write-off that sticks in everyones craw!

The meetings seem to have decided the outcome of the clubs plight and given the hatchet job on Massone it would be a brave person/fool to want to run the place.

[Skyline Drifter]

This is how gate receipts are split in the Challenge Cup

8.1 Where First, Second and Third Division clubs are in opposition, the Management Committee Recommended Prices of Ground Admission shall be those charged by the club in the higher division.

8.2 In all rounds of the competition excluding the Final Tie, clubs shall only be entitled to deduct a limit of 10% of the total number of spectators admitted to the match in the competition subject to such limit not exceeding 1,000 persons. The numbers in excess of this figure must be returned in the gross gate and divided

in the ratio 75% adult and 25% juvenile and senior citizens of the Management Committee Minimum Recommended Prices of Ground Admission with the visiting club.

In the Final Round of the competition,

after paying match expenses, 5% of the net receipts will be deducted by the League and the sum of £5,000 or 10% of the remaining balance, which ever is the greater, will be deducted and paid to the club providing the neutral venue. The remaining receipts shall be equally divided between the two competing clubs. The allowance to be paid to the club providing the neutral venue shall be calculated on the entire stands, enclosures and ground admissions after providing for the aforementioned deductions so far as is applicable to such ground.

That doesn't actually say how the gate receipts are split for the Challenge Cup.

I see the League Cup is actually split 57.5% / 42.5% and not 60/40 as I thought. Apologies.

[Reynard]

The SFL League Cup and Challenge Cups are simply split 60/40 on the net proceeds. I've no idea if that's what they used to do when League gates were split or not. At a guess I'd have said not and since the same number of games were played and costs would even out it would be logical just to split the gate down the middle but like I say I have no idea. How recently did they actually do this? Must be back to before the creation of the Premier Division anyway surely?

The Scottish Cup is very similar to be honest. Before they reorganised recently the situation was:

Rounds 1-2: Exactly as the SFL, 60/40 split

Rounds 3-5: Net proceeds split: 5% to the SFA as a Levy, 57% Home club, 38% Away Club (in other words, 60/40 after the levy is taken off).

Semi Finals and Finals are run by the SFA and clubs effectively get 40% of the net takings each. (that's presumably what happens with SFL League Cup semi finals and finals also as well as the Challenge Cup Final).

I'm not sure since the changeover what round the levy comes in at now. I think it's the 3rd round still but as we haven't had a home third round tie since the changeover I'm not certain and it may now be the 4th.

Cheers. Interesting to know how it works.

The shared gates were abolished in the mid seventies as far as I know. Probably around the time of the premier league being formed. It wasn't a good thing at all.

[Nizzy]

Aren't you the Thistle fan who started watching St Johnstone cause you wanted to shag fat Sam? Like I care what you think.

Not only are you coming across as even more of a posturing, pious prat than usual, but you're also betraying yourself as a completely clueless one to boot. That's some trick.

[jimbo]

given the hatchet job on Massone it would be a brave person/fool to want to run the place.

Oh puleeeze! I can just about put up with the rest of the criticism of everything Livi in this thread but dont, dont, dont write anything that would elicit even a smidgeon of sympathy for that man. He is a proven liar who cares about nothing other than himself. And now in spite of all his pitiful utterings at every opportunity that he just wants to "save thee club" he has been heard by employees in one of his regular temper tantrums threatening to bring it down rather than sell his shares to the interested party. The man is a first class arse!

[Guest Flash]

That doesn't actually say how the gate receipts are split for the Challenge Cup.

I see the League Cup is actually split 57.5% / 42.5% and not 60/40 as I thought. Apologies.

I thought 8.2 was the allocation, but have to admit I didn't read it.

I think all the rules for the Challenge Cup are the same as for the League Cup, unless otherwise specifically stated in the Challenge Cup rules. So, the Challenge Cup allocation will be the same as the League Cup, unless there is a specific rule saying otherwise. I think only the semi final and final allocations will be different in the two competitions.

Edited to add that semi final will be different because CC semis aren't played at a neutral venue, of course.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Flash

[Guest]

You are normally spot on but your perspective on this is a little wrong (and I suspect your past experiences may colour your view on this - which I can quite understand)

There is no question of "devaluing Massone's debt". Massone's debt (if it exists ) will still be there regardless of what happens to the club re administration. Whether he gets any of the money is dependent on what happens of course but that applies to everyone.

The Council have a very strong hand here as they own the freehold. While it is encumbered with a lease it is not worth as much to them as unencumbered. Whether the basis of the lease is changed or whether a different amount of land is leased is something that no one can see yet so how the Council will come of this is completely unable to be guessed at.

Also to suggest that simply becvause interested parties have had meetings to see what might happen to the club if it goes into administration is in some what underhand is also wrong/. It would perhaps be negligent not to have such mettings. It is difficult for to see what you would have accepted? Massone carrying on and running up vast amounts more of debt? The Council coming down harder earlier when there might have been a chance that Massone could have salavaged something and paid the creditors? The council coming down on him now is apparently not yor preferred solution.

You have hard words for everyone but no suggestion as to what you think would have been the right thing to do. I know that the idea positon is that Massone had been a white knight and would ahve paid everyone. But the reality is he is a lying so and so who took a while to be found out. so having got there what do you think could realistically be done, or do you consider the club should just have been closed down as being beyond redemption?

It's a fair question. Yes, I think the club in it's current manifestation should be killed off. It offers up nothing other than a litany of unethical behaviour both moral and a financial sense. There is something deeply flawed in the Livvy model.

Now, having taken the sharp intake of breath, I am not saying that Livingston does not deserve to have a pro football club. What I am saying is that it has forfeit any right to have such a club under the circumstances which exist today. Livingston FC have always had choices..........right back to day one. They have consistently made choices which have involved ripping off others. Now it needs to stop, and more importantly, within a framework of professional sport, it needs to be messaged very clearly that behaving in the Livingston way will result in one thing and one thing only..........expulsion from a league environment that places honesty and integrity..........the very essence of sport...............way above "success" and "achievement" of the type that Gretna and Livingston have chosen to inflict upon the leagues of this country.

The Council can meet who thery like. Of course they can. However, there is little doubt in my mind that they are every bit as capable as Massone of re-inventing the truth.............and they are doing that very thing. Meet.............but tell the truth. That's all I would ask.

[KingfaetheSooth]

Not only are you coming across as even more of a posturing, pious prat than usual, but you're also betraying yourself as a completely clueless one to boot. That's some trick.

I must have mistaken you for you for someone else. The same point applies.....