HibeeJibee Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) Firstly, I think it's important to remember exactly what the SFL did when they handed Hamilton a 15 point penalty and why they did it. Most people only look at the number and don't think about it any further. I don't actually think the 15 point number is a precedent for anything much at all.... This is different. If Livingston fail to fulfil this fixture tomorrow (which clearly they will) and their appeal later fails then, given this is start of the season, there's no real reason 15 points should be a precedent. 3 or 6 is more likely. True Skyline, but at the same time you have to discourage people from scratching. In fact you have to make it an utterly heinous crime... For me, awarding the game 3-0 to East Stirling and docking Livingston 6 points would be the very minimum suitable punishment. Bearind in mind the circumstances (they left it until the evening before, and have a suitable team), perhaps more... Other points:I think Livingston have conducted themselves deplorably all day today and frankly any sympathy at all for them has now evaporated. ... It's been designed to cause maximum disruption and Livingston are behaving like a spoiled child. Pram overturned, toys everywhere. As I've said previously, I come to this from the perspective of the 'historian'... Scratching ties is incredibly rare in Scottish League history. It happens because of strikes, or financial collapse of divisions, or World Wars. Yet Livingston see fit to add "taking the huff" to the list of reasons...? In the midst of World War I, some clubs played 2 games a day - to avoid scratching league ties. That they can apparently guarantee they'd be able to play at Dingwall tomorrow but won't play at East Stirling is ridiculous so there can be no argument that it is anything other than a point of principle (to be fair that's exactly what Livingston say it is but we had all sorts of nonsense about players unpaid and insurance floating about because Livi let it run so long).... The brinksmanship and gun to the head attitude of Livingston's "White Knights" this week has been disgraceful. Perhaps "Horsemen of the Apocalypse" would now be more appropriate? I think what will play out is as follows: Livingston's appeal will be heard ASAP (presumably Fri 21 August, unless the SFL get the clubs to lay aside the 14-day principle?). Livingston lose appeal. Livingston get hammered for scratching tomorrow's game (and next weekends?). Livingston live on if there really is a rescue bid involving Div 3 football - if it's another bluff, the simply fold IMO... As for the SFL, I remain by and large sympathetic.... It's an utter nonsense and the blame for that mostly lies squarely with Livingston, starting with Massone, continuing with McGruther and culminating in the 'Horsemen'. I'll climb off my soapbox now! I also largely remain sympathetic, but my issue is why they didn't make it clear that discussions with Fraser Wright and the Livi 5 had been held - and the postponement proposal rejected. That would have immediately cancelled out any possibility of Livi dropping a bombshell at 4:50pm... as there would be no advantage, publicity-wise or argument-wise, in doing so. SFL missed a trick... Edited August 7, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 They would have to be registered by the club as trialists otherwise I'd turn up for a laugh They don't need to be registered anywhere but they do need to be written up on an offical teamline and signed by an authorised club representative. Like I said, 11 random punters couldn't do it (and to repeat I'm sure there's a limit to the number of trialists who can play in each game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 They don't need to be registered anywhere but they do need to be written up on an offical teamline and signed by an authorised club representative. Like I said, 11 random punters couldn't do it (and to repeat I'm sure there's a limit to the number of trialists who can play in each game. It's three, I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 True Skyline, but at the same time you have to discourage people from scratching. In fact you have to make it an utterly heinous crime... For me, awarding the game 3-0 to East Stirling and docking Livingston 6 points would be the very minimum suitable punishment. Bearind in mind the circumstances (they left it until the evening before, and have a suitable team), perhaps more... I tend to agree. I'm merely saying the Hamilton 15 points thing isn't a precedent because of the reason it was arrived at. I also largely remain sympathetic, but my issue is why they didn't make it clear that discussions with Fraser Wright and the Livi 5 had been held - and the postponement proposal rejected. That would have immediately cancelled out any possibility of Livi dropping a bombshell at 4:50pm... as there would be no advantage, publicity-wise or argument-wise, in doing so. SFL missed a trick... I'm sorry, this one is going over my head so I presume I've missed something somewhere. Who is Fraser Wright and what discussions did he have with Livingston? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantR Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 It's three, I think. It's two. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 assuming they dont win... or.. if the rules are correct and "legitamitely" livingston are still a 1st division club then how can they dock points for a game we werent actually legitimately meant to play? risky tactic tho.. i would most definitely agree as those bunch of tw@ts at the SFL will no doubt ignore any rule book and inflict more punishment In theoretical terms, it doesn't matter whether a tie was 'official' or otherwise. You scratched a scheduled SFL match with a fit team and transport. It's an immensley serious offence in football. Neither of which will be much use once Livi get expelled for non-fulfilment, irrespective of any appeal. Rightly or otherwise, if McGruther says they'll continue even in Div 3, I'd expect a only big fine. Btw Skyline - in theoretical terms, can Livi's players (even U-19s) turn up and play anyway...? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 He must have taken advice or be confident that McDougall/Rankine will get enough of their SFL contacts on board to be gambling like this.Could 11 folk turn up at Ochilview and play as trialists for Livi tomorrow? I'll bring my boots if you like although I'd need subbed after, ahem, 25 minutes. Didn't realise it took 20 minutes to get the stretcher sorted at third division level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archies'bald Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I assume that the suspensions to all concerned will not count for this game or will that depend if we (Shire) turn up tomorrow? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I believe he is referring to this:(With thanks to HibeeJibee) However, he (and the club, apparently) have grossly misinterpreted it. Can someone break it down into English? I'm struggling a wee bit 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) I tend to agree. I'm merely saying the Hamilton 15 points thing isn't a precedent because of the reason it was arrived at.I'm sorry, this one is going over my head so I presume I've missed something somewhere. Who is Fraser Wright and what discussions did he have with Livingston? Fraser Wishart was the man I meant (stop being so pedantic would you!!)... I believe he held a meeting with the SFL today, regarding the players (this has been mentioned elsewhere). It looks as if the administrators also held some kind of contact, seperately, about the game being put off. If the SFL had made it clear they'd considered and rejected these moves... it would have taken a lot of the sting out of McGruther's last-minute appeal submission IMO. Not because it would've stopped the appeal being submitted at 4:50pm or anything, but because it would've been clear to all that something was afoot. As it was - the SFL put out an incorrect statement at 11am: it was correct in literal terms (all games are on), but clearly others were proposing different ideas. Edited August 7, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Can someone break it down into English? I'm struggling a wee bit A club can appeal. When the meeting to hear the appeal is convened, and has heard the appeal, it has succeeded. It is then up to the meeting to defeat the appeal (i.e. uphold the original decision) with a majority vote. It is actually how argument works in day-to-day life: you say something, I defeat it and until you defeat that, I've "won". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) Actually, there's no need to quote the rule now: I know what one you mean.You've misinterpreted it, though. It doesn't mean that the appeal has succeeded just by submitting it and it then needs reverted back. It just means that once the meeting has taken place, the appeal stands unless a majority of the votes cast at the meeting support the Management Committee. Precisely. And more importantly, even if the SFL are wrong and Livi 5 are right : you can only prove it in a court of law. The SFL have commercial funds. Livingston FC are skint. End of story... EDIT TO ADD: Although that said the Livi 5 people aren't simpletons. More twists to come I wager. Edited August 7, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southview Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Didn't realise it took 20 minutes to get the stretcher sorted at third division level. GIRUY 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Can someone break it down into English? I'm struggling a wee bit LLD, and presumably Livi themslves, are interpreting "The appeal shall, however, be deemed to have succeeded unless the decision of the Management Committee is supported by a majority of the votes cast at the said Special General Meeting" as "The appeal shall, however, be deemed to have succeeded until the decision of the Management Committee is supported by a majority of the votes cast at the said Special General Meeting." Which is one possible interpretation I suppose, but I'm not really convinced. More pertinently, it's self-evidently not the SFL's own interpretation, and unless they actually are thinking of taking it to the courts that's the one that counts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 It's an absolute disgrace. It's not as though Shire, or any other 3rd division club for that matter can afford to be wasting expense for nothing. Livingston are a fucking stain on Scottish football. Hopefully they go under and we can get a real team into the third division. If Livi survive in Div 3 (or 1!) Shire can pursue them for losses. Under (unappeallable) Rule 28.4.1. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loondave1 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 This is the most publicity the SFL have had in ages "all publicity is good publicity"if only..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 A club can appeal.When the meeting to hear the appeal is convened, and has heard the appeal, it has succeeded. It is then up to the meeting to defeat the appeal (i.e. uphold the original decision) with a majority vote. It is actually how argument works in day-to-day life: you say something, I defeat it and until you defeat that, I've "won". Gotcha. So, Livvy have said they will appeal but the appeal only becomes a 'real thing' when presented at the SGM 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) This is the most publicity the SFL have had in ages "all publicity is good publicity"if only..... I got an E-mail from a friend in Argentina earlier, taking the p*ss over this . That's Argentina - where the start of the new league season has just been postponed because so many clubs are bust ... even they're finding solace in the story of "Butch McGruther and the Sundance Livis". Edited August 7, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I saw that about Argentina, we've got nothing on them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southview Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Slightly off-topic, and I know some of us disagree with SFL cuplability regarding Livi, but I'd like to think (naive perhaps) that this situation could be the catalyst for some sort of "action" from us fans. A colleague of mine at work said the authorities and clubs get away with so much incompetence and treating fans with contempt simply because of our love for the game and the fact we don't turn our back on it. No matter what scandal/carry on happens, we just keep coming back for more because we love football. But the fact is our game is a nonsense at times. I mean, we have been talking for years about a pyramid system, for example, and we are no closer now than at any time in the past. That is simply unacceptable. This last week or so has been incredible regarding Livi and I've enjoyed reading some of the posts on here but it has also been a negative as it has completely overshadowed the beginning of the season. I don't know what supporters can do, if anything, but the people at the top running our game either need to be part of a revolution that starts to solve some of our problems or stand aside and give someone else a crack at it. 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.