Livingston - all the threads merged

[ObserverFromAfar]

Like several posters on here, it's all a bit fast moving and sometimes difficult to get a true and fair perspective on what's going on! Can someone please help bring me up to speed and answer a few questions to clarify my understanding?

1. In the proposed new structure, the man the Livi fans considered would be no good for the club and didn't want any where close to it, Rankine, will hold more shares in it than anyone any other body (50%)?

2. The Trust do not hold a significant shareholding in the club, and, should any vote come down on shares held, the fans' Trust do not have a real say in the running of the club?

3. Nixon is holding shares on his own behalf, and not on behalf of the Trust or any other fans' group?

4. Although Massone is being berated by Livi fans etc, if he and his consortium had not turned up to buy the club last year, his offer was the only one the ensured the continuation of football at LIvi last season and witout which, it is likely there would be no Livi today? McDougall and Rankine, two people who combined would own a majority interest in Livi under current proposals, did not raise the equivalent of a "note of interest" in Flynn's sale of the club?

5. Based on the posting earlier by AND180Y quoting the LIvi Website, assuming the SFL confirm the reprieval of the club this week, even though McDougall may be Chairman and Nixon will CEO, with 50% of the shares, Rankine will have the biggest and most influential say in how the club/company is run and what deals are made/not made?

6. Future announcements, probably after this Wednesday's SFL meeting, from Livi's new owners may cast a positive light and remove the shadow of uncertainty about how the club will live within its' means in the future and how the existing debt will be managed away?

7. In light of everything, Livi fans are rejoicing at who maybe running the club and how it is proposed to be run?

8. There's still alot of work to be done to ensure Livi's survival?

Thanks in advance!

[phantoms-livi-lass]

Observer from afar, I didnt want to quote & answer as it would be too long so I will just answer with the numbers.

1. Yes, this worried me too but I am assured the main decisions are not to be made by him.

2. The trust do not have a large shareholding but it is in the future plans to increase this.

3. Nixon is holding shares on his own behalf but is still with the Trust which will also have a member on the board.

4. Even though I hate it I would tend to agree.

5. supposedly not, the decisions are to be made between all board members & must be agreed by all.

6. Yes a statement will follow the SFL meeting.

7. I would not say rejoicing, as there is still a lot to be done, but rejoicing that Massone is gone & that the club hasn't died? Yes.

8.There is a hell of a lot of work still to be done it's all uphill from here on in & will require a lot of work.

These are my opinions on the questions so don't know if they help or not, hopefully it will all be a clearer picture soon!

AND180Y why would you think I would insult you?

[EdinburghLivi]

I think someone said the other day that there were another group interested in aquiring our club at the same time as the Italians. Flynn just got a better deal from their proposal.

Edited August 3, 2009 by EdinburghLivi

[Livi 293]

I know this isn't quite running with the flow of the thread, but back to this - Massone - is there any evidence that he put money into Livingston FC? With the amount of debt supposedly accrued in the last year, I would suspect not.

I thought there was a figure of about £290,000 invested banded about somewhere?

[EdinburghLivi]

By Massone, bear in mind.

[Yoss]

Sorry, I'll put that better.

The point is that it is very easy for clubs (& for that matter fans) to be holier-than-thou about "clubs must not live beyond their means", when the truth is that some clubs have no choice but to live within their means solely because no-one will invest in them or give them credit for major improvements that might propel them to greater things. It's like Aesop's Fox dismissing the grapes as "probably sour anyway" simply because he cannot reach them.

The sad truth is that most businesses - and football is no exception - live beyond their means in order not merely according to the old adage of "you've got to speculate to accumulate", but simply to survive. Ask your local supermarket manager about how many of their products are 'loss leaders' just to get people into the habit of regularly using their store instead of the other supermarket down the road.

So it is with football, eg. running up a players' wages bill beyond your current earnings in anticipation of increased attendences and merchandise sales; cup runs producing big pay-day matches against prestigious clubs, etc; all on the back of a better squad producing regular wins and more entertaining games.

Airdrieonians tragically lived beyond their means so because they were desperate to get back into the top tier rather than face a slow death outside of it, having already forked out for a brand new stadium that would not be just SPL compliant but UEFA competition compliant as well.

If they didn't, no one would come to watch them, their income would decline even more, and they would endure a slow lingering death - especially as in the post-Bosman world they were no longer guaranteed to get anything back for star players that moved on to bigger and better things.

Had they succeeded in being promoted in 2002 to the SPL, everyone would have been slapping them on the back for their bold business acumen, rather than jumping on the corpse with tackity boots with hideous glee (as they soon did). And what happened to them nearly happened to Falkirk, St Mirren, Motherwell, and Lord knows how many others that didn't make the papers.

Hence why I'm cross at the current array of "Burn The Witch" merchants. It could easily have been them. In some cases it was them, but they lived to tell the tale (sometimes by hook, sometimes by crook). They should remember that what goes around, comes around - and may come back round again...especially in a global recession.

Fair enough, up to a point. Most businesses, especially young businesses, have to borrow to get anywhere and that's true of any industry including football. That's not quite the same as living beyond your means though, there needs to be an adequate business plan to back it up. These things are never guaranteed and there's some element of luck in the short term as to whether your business plan is up to the job and you can create enough business and revenue to cover the investment - but in the case of Livingston it's not going to be particularly difficult at this stage of their existence to calculate your approximate income for the coming season and to budget accordingly. I suspect that's going to have serious implications for your playing staff but I see from the statement there that any decision has been deferred until after Wednesday.

[Livi 293]

Ged Nixon's role as Chief Executive will not, apparently, sabbotage any Trust position on the board, which will be a separate role.

[Guest]

Duncan I fear you are a zealot and as such I sense that further discourse with you on this topic would be futile.

???? A zealot? Why? Because I point out where you are factually wrong? Because I was in a position to talk to your man Keane at the peak of his powers and listen at length to his grand design for the club? To hear him proudly boast of there being "two sets of books" at Livingston....one for the taxman, and one for him and a couple of others?

I'm sorry if my version of events doesn't fit with what you seem to want them to be. That really has to be your issue and not mine. Discuss with me or not, it's your choice. I'm sure neither of us will lose much sleep whatever your decision.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Guest

[jimbo]

???? A zealot? Why? Because I point out where you are factually wrong? Because I was in a position to talk to your man Keane at the peak of his powers and listen at length to his grand design for the club? To hear him proudly boast of their being "two sets of books" at Livingston....one for the taxman, and one for him and a couple of others?

I'm sorry if my version of events doesn't fit with what you seem to want them to be. That really has to be your issue and not mine. Discuss with me or not, it's your choice. I'm sure neither of us will lose much sleep whatever your decision.

Very true!

[Sergeant Wilson]

Will the Chief Executive be a paid post? Why would a realtively small club need a role like that?

Livi was run as if it was some sort of corporation with to many staff, players and to few supporters. The really need to look at all areas of their business.

How many other 1st Div or even SPL clubs have this post? Delusions of granduer again or is it just a title to keep him happy while Rankine gets on with things?

[LLD]

Will the Chief Executive be a paid post? Why would a realtively small club need a role like that?

Livi was run as if it was some sort of corporation with to many staff, players and to few supporters. The really need to look at all areas of their business.

How many other 1st Div or even SPL clubs have this post? Delusions of granduer again or is it just a title to keep him happy while Rankine gets on with things?

It was said last week that no board member at Livingston would be remunerated.

[Guest]

It was said last week that no board member at Livingston would be remunerated.

...and if they stick to that, it'll be a great way to go. Falkirk have an MD who used to be a fundraiser in BtB. He is now a net taker from the club rather than a contributor. I don't care for that kind of stuff at all. The one thing I might suggest is that he not be allowed to get entrenched in that role. It's amazing how quickly people can slip from viewing the support at large as "us" to "them".

[AND180Y]

Will the Chief Executive be a paid post? Why would a realtively small club need a role like that?

Livi was run as if it was some sort of corporation with to many staff, players and to few supporters. The really need to look at all areas of their business.

How many other 1st Div or even SPL clubs have this post? Delusions of granduer again or is it just a title to keep him happy while Rankine gets on with things?

Chair, vice chair, chief exec and Rankine on the sidelines. Wages now or dividends later? No-one does anything for nothing.

Relatives of the chair eased into employment with the club.

If they can do what they say they will then fair play to them, but..................

[Sergeant Wilson]

Will there be a role for any of Rankines child relatives, like at East Fife?

Oh, I forgot wee Andy, what's he going to do? Will he reprise his Dumbarton post as Executive Court Jester. At least his wee Punto won't take up much space in the car park........while you still have a car park that is........assuming there will still be something to park next to, of course.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Sergeant Wilson

[Homer Thompson]

Sorry, I'll put that better.

The point is that it is very easy for clubs (& for that matter fans) to be holier-than-thou about "clubs must not live beyond their means", when the truth is that some clubs have no choice but to live within their means solely because no-one will invest in them or give them credit for major improvements that might propel them to greater things. It's like Aesop's Fox dismissing the grapes as "probably sour anyway" simply because he cannot reach them.

The sad truth is that most businesses - and football is no exception - live beyond their means in order not merely according to the old adage of "you've got to speculate to accumulate", but simply to survive. Ask your local supermarket manager about how many of their products are 'loss leaders' just to get people into the habit of regularly using their store instead of the other supermarket down the road.

So it is with football, eg. running up a players' wages bill beyond your current earnings in anticipation of increased attendences and merchandise sales; cup runs producing big pay-day matches against prestigious clubs, etc; all on the back of a better squad producing regular wins and more entertaining games.

Airdrieonians tragically lived beyond their means so because they were desperate to get back into the top tier rather than face a slow death outside of it, having already forked out for a brand new stadium that would not be just SPL compliant but UEFA competition compliant as well.

If they didn't, no one would come to watch them, their income would decline even more, and they would endure a slow lingering death - especially as in the post-Bosman world they were no longer guaranteed to get anything back for star players that moved on to bigger and better things.

Had they succeeded in being promoted in 2002 to the SPL, everyone would have been slapping them on the back for their bold business acumen, rather than jumping on the corpse with tackity boots with hideous glee (as they soon did). And what happened to them nearly happened to Falkirk, St Mirren, Motherwell, and Lord knows how many others that didn't make the papers.

Hence why I'm cross at the current array of "Burn The Witch" merchants. It could easily have been them. In some cases it was them, but they lived to tell the tale (sometimes by hook, sometimes by crook). They should remember that what goes around, comes around - and may come back round again...especially in a global recession.

Nice try, but your analogy doesnt really hold up.

My local shopkeeper might well be living beyond his means from time to time and no doubt borrows money in the form of overdrafts and bank loans, but there is on major difference. My local shopkeeper isnt borrowing way beyond his means to try and compete with Tescos. This is, in effect, what Livingston did and have continued to do since the last time they went into admin. Football clubs can easily live within their means and find "their level" within the divisions. Of course, there will always be clubs punching above their weight and those who think that they should be playing at a higher level, but it all evens itself out in the long term. Its those that try to artificially prop up their level that get into the most serious trouble. Gretna did it and more recently Clyde have paid the penalty for it, but have chosen to deal with it in a different way. This is the second time Livy have gone into admin because they (whether it be the owners or the fans, although I think the former are more guilty) have tried to remain at a level that wasnt sustainable with the clubs existing income. Rather than generate this income, as someone like St Johnstone have, they've simply ran up debts and then not paid them. Not only that, but they've escaped any kind of serious footballing sanction, up till now anyway.

For me, this is what is annoying other football fans. Those that have seen their club stumble through from season to season cutting costs left right and centre like Clyde, or watch their club plod along in the lower divisions have seen Livy over spend and over achieve not once but twice now. Not only that, but get away with it.

[Ever the Optimist]

Sorry, I'll put that better.

The point is that it is very easy for clubs (& for that matter fans) to be holier-than-thou about "clubs must not live beyond their means", when the truth is that some clubs have no choice but to live within their means solely because no-one will invest in them or give them credit for major improvements that might propel them to greater things. It's like Aesop's Fox dismissing the grapes as "probably sour anyway" simply because he cannot reach them.

The sad truth is that most businesses - and football is no exception - live beyond their means in order not merely according to the old adage of "you've got to speculate to accumulate", but simply to survive. Ask your local supermarket manager about how many of their products are 'loss leaders' just to get people into the habit of regularly using their store instead of the other supermarket down the road.

So it is with football, eg. running up a players' wages bill beyond your current earnings in anticipation of increased attendences and merchandise sales; cup runs producing big pay-day matches against prestigious clubs, etc; all on the back of a better squad producing regular wins and more entertaining games.

Airdrieonians tragically lived beyond their means so because they were desperate to get back into the top tier rather than face a slow death outside of it, having already forked out for a brand new stadium that would not be just SPL compliant but UEFA competition compliant as well.

If they didn't, no one would come to watch them, their income would decline even more, and they would endure a slow lingering death - especially as in the post-Bosman world they were no longer guaranteed to get anything back for star players that moved on to bigger and better things.

Had they succeeded in being promoted in 2002 to the SPL, everyone would have been slapping them on the back for their bold business acumen, rather than jumping on the corpse with tackity boots with hideous glee (as they soon did). And what happened to them nearly happened to Falkirk, St Mirren, Motherwell, and Lord knows how many others that didn't make the papers.

Hence why I'm cross at the current array of "Burn The Witch" merchants. It could easily have been them. In some cases it was them, but they lived to tell the tale (sometimes by hook, sometimes by crook). They should remember that what goes around, comes around - and may come back round again...especially in a global recession.

You are right. What indeed goes around comes around. Indeed with livingston failure to pay debts comes round and round again. It's an interesting analogy to use with the supermarkets one which I'm afraid is totally wrong. As Yoss pointed out the food producers pay for the loss leaders, and if the food producers don't like it the supermarkets go elsewhere for their products. Even massive multinationals such as Coca-Cola, Mars, Nestle etc have to dance to the supermarkets tune.

Tesco is a multi billion pound profit organisation using ruthless business practices. Sainsbury's, Morrison's et al use identical business methods. As business models go, they are perfect and will always make money.

When it comes to small businesses again, yes it takes borrowing via a bank or an investor to start up, but again as Yoss pointed out you have to be able to prove that you have a sustainable business to merit the loan or investment. Howeever should that plan go tits up your business ceases to exist. It has been pointed out several times on this thread that it is a crime in this country to run a business that is insolvent, so in the real world in this scenario, the business ceases to exist.

So let me use a couple of analogies of my own from the real world.

If you rent a property you pay rent. If you don't pay the rent eventually you are evicted.

If you are a business and you don't pay HMRC they will chase you and if you can't afford to pay the taxman he comes down hard on you and shuts you down and even sometimes sends you to jail depending on the manner of the non payment.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Every taxpayer has been shafted by Livingston as they will no doubt have their repayments dramatically slashed to WLC and HMRC. And I fall into the taxpayer bracket so therefore I am p'd off. I pay my taxes and when I see someone not paying them I see an injustice.

Just one final point from your rant. Yes a lot of football clubs have borrowed over the years, but what you seem to forget is that they are all borrowing against assets. What have Livingston been borrowing against? Very few clubs are insolvent as they usually own a large chunk of land that can be sold off if the debts become too much. Also you seem to miss the point that many clubs...not all I grant you...mine included have paid every penny they owed. In our case it was about £350k. We struggled for several years, and now we are on a decent footing. All done without the need of administration. Just a shame not every football club can do the same.

[Ivo den Bieman]

We shouldn't just be thinking of "Livi" here. It's the future governance of Scottish football that's at stake.

If "Livi" get to walk away from this with a token points deduction the message is clear. The SFL will not do anything when clubs find themselves in serious financial trouble, particularly if that clubs latest "white knights" happen to be very well connected with the blazer circuit in the first place (Rankine and MacDougall).

Now I can understand the SFL not wanting to be seen to kill clubs off, and that, to some extent, is fair enough. But there comes a point where severe sanctions have to be applied and "Livi", to my mind, passed that point a very long time ago, not long after Massone took over and the first rumblings of discontent were heard from Almondvale.

I support a team that has festered in the alimentary canal of Scottish football for almost all its life. We don't have an overdraft, largely because we don't own Links Park. Several times in the last ten years directors and fans alike have put their hands in their pockets to simply keep the club alive. Never at any point did we consider spending the £300,000 that's probably necessary to build a title winning third division side and sustain it at a higher level than we could afford because we had no way of paying that money back. If the clubs one or two major investors withdraw their funding, for whatever reason, we will be back to signing cast offs from the Tayside juniors and bumping along in the bottom three, whilst holding regular gala days and the like to try and keep money coming in.

If the SFL don't punish Livingston the it will have two consequences; league management will be seen as so weak that club owners will feel that they can do what they like and sort it all out over a sherry at Hampden, plus financial institutions will just laugh when Scottish football clubs come looking for a loan to keep going through a difficult time. In the long run that will force many more clubs to the wall.

I plead guilty to having despised Livingston ever since they were shat into existence in 1995, but in the broader picture that's irrelevant. Either the league all our clubs play in has some kind of integrity and tries, in an ever more commercialised and corporate world, to maintain as level a playing field as possible for all its participants- or it doesn't. Either we play in a competition that treats every participant fairly and equitably, or we don't. "Livi's" treatment last week strongly suggests the latter and that's why so many fans (and, seemingly, club officials behind the scenes) are furious at the SFL's craven spinelessness.

Even if nothing much happens tomorrow, which is the likeliest scenario, some good may come out of this utter debacle- pressure for reform of the SFL from fans and club officials alike. The whole organisation has to be professionally run, with the ability of the blazers to do grubby backstairs deals of convenience restricted, if not removed altogether. It's not an amateur carpetbowls league for fucks sake- it's a national competition which is supposed to be held up as an example of fairness and good practice. Instead, it's a national embarrassment, which, season on season, attracts ever declining interest from the paying public. I hope that Henry McLeish has been taking careful notes in the last week and coming up with strategies to try and get the SFL professionally run, with agreed codes of practice so that all clubs know what will happen when members like "Livi" piss all over the rule book, and expect to get away with it.

The SFL has to ignore MacDougall and Rankine's power play from last week, face them down and apply the severest penalty to Livingston. I would be happy (and seemingly most of the "Livi" fans with their heads screwed on don't object) with a demotion to the second division, as it will show that clubs simply can't behave as though the articles of the SFL, and the laws of business, don't apply to them.

I'm not holding my breath though.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Ivo den Bieman

[Nowhereman]

I guess both you and Captain Sensible are in agreement then - Airdrie and Livingston are cheats.

Just as a matter of interest, which rules and conventions (plural in both instances) did Ballantyne circumvent? 21.7? 51B? 70?

If I recall correctly, Clydebank were in financial straits, and they were offered up to the highest bidder, lock, stock, and league membership.

21.7 Except as aftermentioned no club shall be entitled, either directly or indirectly, to transfer its

membership of the League to another club

Think you answered your own question there.Clydeband, albeit indirectly, transferred their league membership to Airdrie United

[SloppyJag]

21.7 Except as aftermentioned no club shall be entitled, either directly or indirectly, to transfer its

membership of the League to another club

Think you answered your own question there.Clydeband, albeit indirectly, transferred their league membership to Airdrie United

Actually, Clydebank changed their name (to Airdrie United) and moved to a new registered ground. Both perfectly legal under league rules.

[Wee Bully]

21.7 Except as aftermentioned no club shall be entitled, either directly or indirectly, to transfer its

membership of the League to another club

Think you answered your own question there.Clydeband, albeit indirectly, transferred their league membership to Airdrie United

I know this is difficult, but no, they didn't. There has been no transfer of league membership. Airdrie United ARE Clydebank - the company is the same legal entity, it has merely had a change of name.