phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 When you scatter all the political stuff off the table, I am left feeling that Livingston FC are only interested in righting perceived wrongs when it is of financial benefit to them. When they have committed the wrongs, they have on every occasion, sought to prevent them from being put right. As a club (not the people who choose to follow such a shower), they have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be the parasites of the Scottish game. Was going to do this; then read the words in brackets so its this; (I'm still waiting for the sting in the tail though!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Mcgruther has stated that Livi will exist regardless of the appeal,but the creditors will get nowt if Livi are in the 3rd division. I think it's blatantly obvious that if the Creditors get "nowt" then Livingston will no longer be in existence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadio Delle Almondvale Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Is there any livi fans who are actually backing this appeal? If so , can you justify it? Cos I bloody well cant see any justice in this carry on. I just wish it was all over. I can understand why they appealed though as the financial difference between the two divisions is obvious. McGruther has a responsibility to get a good deal for the creditors and therefor he has to appeal. I would be interested to know if McDougal is carrying out a version of shuttle diplomacy between now and the meeting on Thursday. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Naitch Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Apparently there's going to be an announcement from the Livingston camp at 3pm today - wonder what that'll be about... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livi 293 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 i said saying we are division 3 like the sfl have and forcing us to play division 3 fixture suggests our appeal will have no affect ? surely we must remain a division 1 club until such a time that our appeal is rejected ? - he replied this normally the case not here for some reasonHe stressed that when an appeal is lodged any decision taken before is put on hold and new decision is reached. Statement from David Thomson, Operations Director at the SFL, yesterday evening. Has he not just compromised the SFL's position there, and thus legitimised Livingston Football Club's stance? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Was going to do this; then read the words in brackets so its this; (I'm still waiting for the sting in the tail though!) Nah, there is none. We are all the same at the end of the day. The instigator of all of this has been Livingston FC. They have had a 14 year run up to this moment, and it has been one long run of consistent malpractice. It needs to be brought to a halt. No more blackmail (financial or emotional). Yes, the SFL should have nailed LFC a week ago. By now, the furore would have died down, and people would be moving on. Instead, here we are with LFC putting the power of money ahead of any other consideration, and painting it as some new found caring and sharing for creditors they have always treated with complete and utter disdain. They are a club without dignity. People should not underestimate the timing of administration this time around. This was no happy coincidence. It was pre-planned to make anything and everything difficult for the SFL to the point where it was hoped they would not give LFC any sort of long overdue penalty for fear of causing confusion and chaos. This situation has been engineered by two or three key individuals, and none of them are in the employ of the SFL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Statement from David Thomson, Operations Director at the SFL, yesterday evening. Has he not just compromised the SFL's position there, and thus legitimised Livingston Football Club's stance? Y'see this sounds like another grasp at "letter of the law" rather than "spirit of the law". It is this eternal bolthole/loophole seeking that everyone wants to bring an end to. This isn't about scrutinizing every conjugated verb uttered by the SFL. It should be about scrutinizing and penalizing the very real wrongdoing of Livingston FC. McGruther has said he had an acceptable offer for Livvy as a third division entity. He is shrouding it in mumbo jumbo as being not good for creditors. It's a sham. Livingston care not a jot for creditors. They never ever have cared for creditors. This isn't about what's in it for creditors, it's about what's in it for LFC, and seeking to escape with the minimum of penalties rather than accepting a little bit of what they have dished out for 14 years. And in terms of the moronic, try this from LL. I can only hope the poster is twelve. If he's a grown man, he IS a moron.......... QUOTE Good to see wee Robbo dispelling the myth about us overspending on wages compared to other clubs. As a one time manager of the club he should know. UNQUOTE Yep, that's why wee Crabbo left to a club generating no more cash than Falkirk for a salary increase of 280%. David Hagen was a little less at 200%. More revisionist horseshit at play. One supposes LFC ran up £10,500,000 of debt in a few short years by donating inordinate sums of cash to the poor of WL, and never ever overpaying on signing on fees and salaries. It must be true because John Robertson, once the articulate commercial voice of LFC says so. People just need to stop lying on behalf of LFC. It serves no useful purpose. Edited August 8, 2009 by Guest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livi 293 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Y'see this sounds like another grasp at "letter of the law" rather than "spirit of the law". It is this eternal bolthole/loophole seeking that everyone wants to bring an end to. This isn't about scrutinizing every conjugated verb uttered by the SFL. It should be about scrutinizing and penalizing the very real wrongdoing of Livingston FC.McGruther has said he had an acceptable offer for Livvy as a third division entity. He is shrouding it in mumbo jumbo as being not good for creditors. It's a sham. Livingston care not a jot for creditors. They never ever have cared for creditors. This isn't about what's in it for creditors, it's about what's in it for LFC, and seeking to escape with the minimum of penalties rather than accepting a little bit of what they have dished out for 14 years. It's about seeing whether the SFL are right to make us play a fixture, and the cost that implies, if, in actual fact, by the very "letter of the law" that is being used against us right now, we should not be in that Division until an appeal decision is reached. If the club feel the punishment is harsh (which they obviously do) and appeal (which they have) and that then means we are not as of yet a Third Division Club (one SFL source claims we are, and now another appears to have claimed the opposite) then why are we playing a Third Division fixture? I have no problems playing in Division 3 if our appeal is rejected. But if we have a case to stay in Division 1, I'd hope the club persue that. Surely the statement about creditors is true, though? (And why would Donald McGruther only be concerned with what is good for Livingston Football Club? I thought it was his job to secure the best deal for all concerned with our debts?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mybitchunderprotest Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 John ( I ate all the pies) Robertson, on Radio Scotland today was leaping to the defence of Livingston (what a surprise) against the criticism that what they had been doing was tantamount to cheating by paying more on wages than they could afford. The basis for this defence is that they didn’t spend anymore on wages than half the other teams in the league. He claims the wage bill was no more than £400K to £450K. What he fails to grasp is that the other half who didn’t match the spending on wages were therefore at a significant disadvantage when it came to attracting players to the club and also on the size of squad they were able to have. To put it in the simplistic terms which he would understand, Livi had an advantage in spending terms over, in his words, half the teams in the league when the income of the club was not able to sustain it. If the other clubs who were matching them in terms of wage bill, and I doubt it was half, were able to come close to balancing their books or at least be in the position where they paid the other bills then so be it. The crux of the whole argument is that Livingston retained 1st division football by signing and retaining players that they couldn’t afford. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 It's about seeing whether the SFL are right to make us play a fixture, and the cost that implies, if, in actual fact, by the very "letter of the law" that is being used against us right now, we should not be in that Division until an appeal decision is reached. If the club feel the punishment is harsh (which they obviously do) and appeal (which they have) and that then means we are not as of yet a Third Division Club (one SFL source claims we are, and now another appears to have claimed the opposite) then why are we playing a Third Division fixture? I have no problems playing in Division 3 if our appeal is rejected. But if we have a case to stay in Division 1, I'd hope the club persue that. Surely the statement about creditors is true, though? (And why would Donald McGruther only be concerned with what is good for Livingston Football Club? I thought it was his job to secure the best deal for all concerned with our debts?) Absolutely right, if Livi had not appealed until Monday they would have been a 3rd Div club today but they appealed on Friday so remain a 1st Div club I hear what Duncan is saying re the spirit of the law but that is not how Scottish football authorities work - although if they get the details wrong they seem to be able ignore their own oversights. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 It's about seeing whether the SFL are right to make us play a fixture, and the cost that implies, if, in actual fact, by the very "letter of the law" that is being used against us right now, we should not be in that Division until an appeal decision is reached. If the club feel the punishment is harsh (which they obviously do) and appeal (which they have) and that then means we are not as of yet a Third Division Club (one SFL source claims we are, and now another appears to have claimed the opposite) then why are we playing a Third Division fixture? I have no problems playing in Division 3 if our appeal is rejected. But if we have a case to stay in Division 1, I'd hope the club persue that. Surely the statement about creditors is true, though? (And why would Donald McGruther only be concerned with what is good for Livingston Football Club? I thought it was his job to secure the best deal for all concerned with our debts?) It's not a popular opinion right now but I agree with this. In most walks of life sentences are not fully acted upon unil the appeals process is exhausted. (Think of Death Row as an example ). That said what DF said earlier about Livingston manufacturing the current chronology to make it as difficult as possible for the SFL is undeniably true, and I assume that this petulant scheming has not gone unnoticed by the blazers. Rightly or wrongly, then, I would expect the appeal to not only fail but to result in further punishment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livi 293 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 although if they get the details wrong they seem to be able ignore their own oversights. Indeed, the contradictions in their various positions over the last week or so are staggering, no matter who you agree with... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SloppyJag Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Y'see this sounds like another grasp at "letter of the law" rather than "spirit of the law". It is this eternal bolthole/loophole seeking that everyone wants to bring an end to. This isn't about scrutinizing every conjugated verb uttered by the SFL. It should be about scrutinizing and penalizing the very real wrongdoing of Livingston FC.McGruther has said he had an acceptable offer for Livvy as a third division entity. He is shrouding it in mumbo jumbo as being not good for creditors. It's a sham. Livingston care not a jot for creditors. They never ever have cared for creditors. This isn't about what's in it for creditors, it's about what's in it for LFC, and seeking to escape with the minimum of penalties rather than accepting a little bit of what they have dished out for 14 years. And in terms of the moronic, try this from LL. I can only hope the poster is twelve. If he's a grown man, he IS a moron.......... QUOTE Good to see wee Robbo dispelling the myth about us overspending on wages compared to other clubs. As a one time manager of the club he should know. UNQUOTE Yep, that's why wee Crabbo left to a club generating no more cash than Falkirk for a salary increase of 280%. David Hagen was a little less at 200%. More revisionist horseshit at play. One supposes LFC ran up £10,500,000 of debt in a few short years by donating inordinate sums of cash to the poor of WL, and never ever overpaying on signing on fees and salaries. It must be true because John Robertson, once the articulate commercial voice of LFC says so. People just need to stop lying on behalf of LFC. It serves no useful purpose. I was shouting at the radio at what Robertson was saying - the wife thought I was having an epileptic fit!! Fair enough if Livingston had a similar budget to Dundee, Thistle, St Johnstone, etc but they were only able to pay those wages (eventually) by NOT PAYING rent, Inland Revenue bills, electricity bills, non-playing staff wages, etc, etc. If they had paid those other liabilities their budget and playing squad would have been much, much smaller and likely resulted in a battle with Clyde and Airdrie for relegation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livi 293 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 That said what DF said earlier about Livingston manufacturing the current chronology to make it as difficult as possible for the SFL is undeniably true, and I assume that this petulant scheming has not gone unnoticed by the blazers. Rightly or wrongly, then, I would expect the appeal to not only fail but to result in further punishment. Certainly it's a possibility. I suspect insuring players to play in a 'provisional' league game in a league they are not yet in may also have caused reluctance. However, the consortium may believe that, in fact, the SFL have made it as difficult as possible for Livingston to survive given their demotion decision. It may well be a very silly position to take, but I would imagine the entire u-turn performed by the SFL last week from the first to second meeting caused a lot of anger... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Certainly it's a possibility. I suspect insuring players to play in a 'provisional' league game in a league they are not yet in may also have caused reluctance. However, the consortium may believe that, in fact, the SFL have made it as difficult as possible for Livingston to survive given their demotion decision. It may well be a very silly position to take, but I would imagine the entire u-turn performed by the SFL last week from the first to second meeting caused a lot of anger... The consortium can believe whatever they wish, because above all else it is not the SFL's mandate to help Livingston survive at the expense of a competition as a whole, something virtually everyone involved at Livi seems to be missing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livi 293 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) The consortium can believe whatever they wish, because above all else it is not the SFL's mandate to help Livingston survive at the expense of a competition as a whole, something virtually everyone involved at Livi seems to be missing. I think McGruther has manufactured the current situation to give him the best chance of dealing with the debt, and to keep costs (from his own company's point of view) at a minimum, while keeping the club alive. I was merely offering an explanation for your claim that the consortium are deliberately making it akward for the SFL. I don't know that that is their primary aim... Edited August 8, 2009 by Livi 293 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghBlue Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Gordon McKenzie said on Radio Scotland today that Livingston had appealed yesterday rather than wait 10 days in order to get to a final decision as soon as possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Hopefully someone will re-post the clauses pertaining to Livi. Then if everyone reads them carefully they will be able to see that the SFL are indeed an absolute shower of useless wankers,McGruther and therefore Livi have done everything required of themselves since Wednesday so it's time to open minds and see through the hate filled haze. The SFL have fcuked it up and by forcing 4 teams to play today have went against THEIR OWN rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stimpy Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Just exercising my democratic right not to post in the already existing "all Livi threads merged" thread and start my own. It's got nothing to do with ego, honest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Hopefully someone will re-post the clauses pertaining to Livi.Then if everyone reads them carefully they will be able to see that the SFL are indeed an absolute shower of useless wankers,McGruther and therefore Livi have done everything required of themselves since Wednesday so it's time to open minds and see through the hate filled haze. The SFL have fcuked it up and by forcing 4 teams to play today have went against THEIR OWN rules. See that's just not true. It's *a* way of interpreting the rules, but to present it as being explicit is simply wrong. 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.