The Master Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) 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. They have not. For crying out loud, will people read and digest the following: 76.3 Any club, club official or player aggrieved by a decision of the Management Committee, otherthan a decision taken in terms of Rule 28, which shall be final and binding, or any club aggrieved by a decision of the Management Committee in terms of Rule 31, 32 or 70 concerning the suitability of its ground, shall have power, within ten days from the date of decision, to appeal to a Special General Meeting of the League on payment of a deposit of £500.00 which shall be forfeited in the event of the appeal being dismissed. 76.4 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. The facts pertaining to this: 1) Livingston have paid a deposit of £500 2) Livingston have not yet appealed because the meeting has not been convened 3) Livingston, therefore, are still a third division club But by far the biggest thing is this: The appeal is made to the Special General Meeting. Therefore no appeal has been made until someone from Livi addresses said Special General Meeting. Edited August 8, 2009 by Sir Calum Melville 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I don't particularly buy Sir CM's intepretation of the rules there either. To me it's more natural to read 76.4 as applying only as and when the vote as taken, rather than assume it to apply throughout the period between the appeal being made and the vote being taken. But it's not explicit either way and it's wrong to claim otherwise. And of course it doesn't matter a f**k what we think anyway, it's down to the SFL to interpret. This bit may all be a storm in a teacup in any case, the SFL already seem to have indicated that they'd have postponed the game themselves if the appeal had been received early enough for them to do so, so they might decide Livingston's decision is neither here nor there. Let's wait and see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 They have not.For crying out loud, will people read and digest the following: The facts pertaining to this: 1) Livingston have paid a deposit of £500 2) Livingston have not yet appealed because the meeting has not been convened 3) Livingston, therefore, are still a third division club But by far the biggest thing is this: The appeal is made to the Special General Meeting. Therefore no appeal has been made until someone from Livi addresses said Special General Meeting. The £500 and relating documentation means they have appealed and upheld their requirements in convening a meeting,they don't have a say in when an SGM is held. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 The £500 and relating documentation means they have appealed and upheld their requirements in convening a meeting,they don't have a say in when an SGM is held. They have not not appealed. They have paid the £500 which allows them to appeal. The appeal is literally made to the Special General Meeting...which has not yet been convened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 They have not not appealed. They have paid the £500 which allows them to appeal.The appeal is literally made to the Special General Meeting...which has not yet been convened. And they don't have a say in convening the meeting,think their u-turn last night shows how confident they are,can't imagine them being able to punish Livi for a game the SFL called off officially themselves. Semantics can be used all day but I've got to go and earn a crust so I can avoid demotion to the mingers house down the street,I can assure I have no right of appeal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 And they don't have a say in convening the meeting, Er...yes they do. Upon expressing a wish to appeal, the SGM is convened. think their u-turn last night shows how confident they are,can't imagine them being able to punish Livi for a game the SFL called off officially themselves. They didn't. Not once did they say the word "postponed" in their statement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 The £500 and relating documentation means they have appealed and upheld their requirements in convening a meeting,they don't have a say in when an SGM is held. Paying five hundred quid does not an appeal make. They have begun the process, but until the meeting takes place they have not made their appeal. Either way, Livingston should, irrespective of what they believe to be the injustices of the matter (and make no doubt, their views do not represent the wider football community, rather they represent the views of the interim administrator) have played East Stirlingshire. As of this moment, Livingston are a third divsion team. They have failed to fulfil a third division fixture. They should be given a secondary punishment. The lack of respect it shows the rest of the third division, two teams in the first division and two teams in the second division should be deemed utterly unacceptable. Livingston will have made few friends and many enemies at Ross County, Airdrie, Cowdenbeath, Arbroath and East Stirling irrespective of the results of their impending appeal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Derry Boy in getting lairy without provocation shocker! Perhaps because you are a notorious P&B troll who spends far more time writing about every other club bar your own - the usual sign of a right wee shitstirrer. In short, a grand total of 629 posts in the space of 2 months! How many about Morton? One comment in passing in an Old Firm thread. That's it. For a supposed "Morton fan", you do spend an incredible amount of time over on the thread reserved for the Old Firm lowlifes to argybargy... http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=112402&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111774&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=112137&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=109662&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111490&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=110994&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111522&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=110563&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111067&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=110812&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=110521&st= Ironically you posted : http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...p;#entry3593831 regarding what P&B members you would not like to meet, "Any three Rangers fans and any two Celtic fans. I don't enjoy spending time with embittered bigots." Which doubtlessly explained why over half your posts in the last two months have been...erm...over at the Old Firm threads (the percentage would be even higher if we took out your multiple Livingston fan baiting here) Or taunting St Mirren like a f**king 5 year old... http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111874&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=109558&st= Or Aberdeen... http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111670&hl= Or Falkirk http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111344&hl= "I'm on Falkirk TV. What a shite home support." or just jumping into any old fight over on the Nonsense board where you can get attention to yourself (mostly about religion and sectarianism...oooo, just like those Old Firm supporters on their thread...there's a surprise!). http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111919&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111576&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...c=84645&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111574&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111532&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111311&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111311&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111124&hl= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=111022&st= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=110368&st= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=110888&st= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=110831&st= http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.ph...=110228&st= So to recap, the evidence is that you are a troll. And I'm far from the first to have said this, am I 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (to Swampy) Is this guy an alias? He posts a quite remarkable amount of shite with impressive consistency (if that's not too grotesque an image for you). What's this RedV, new friends? From you, earlier this month, about your new mate Swampy... Ignore him. Swampy can be an utter fud sometimes and this is clearly going to be one of them.Better watch he doesn't go running off to the mods in floods of tears, though. He does that too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 They have not not appealed. They have paid the £500 which allows them to appeal.The appeal is literally made to the Special General Meeting...which has not yet been convened. Not quite sure if we are on the same side of the rules fence Sir CM but my understanding is that when the SFL acknowlege receipt of the appeal papers (ie all the commas are in the right place) then the decision is set aside until the appeal is heard so why they did not postpone the affected games to "preserve the integrity of their league" is beyond me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Nothing to do with "democratic right", mate, its just that so many threads get started about Livi that they have to be merged into one big one. Saying that, having one 265 page thread about Livingston and all the problems they have, rather than a few smaller ones dealing with specific issues is a bit cumbersome, but its a lot better than having 800 seperate threads about it. If only the mods would do the same with Dundee... Anyway, I give it 20 minutes before this thread is merged/closed. Edited to say: Didnt notice the "another pointless thread" part of the title, I'm a moron who needs to think before posting. :-/ Edited August 8, 2009 by Thistle_do_nicely 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 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 clubI 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. Well said WJR. One can hope that UEFA sit up and take notice of this protracted wrangle and use it as an opportunity to step in and give Scottish football's administrative structure the damn good shake it needs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Not quite sure if we are on the same side of the rules fence Sir CM but my understanding is that when the SFL acknowlege receipt of the appeal papers (ie all the commas are in the right place) then the decision is set aside until the appeal is heard so why they did not postpone the affected games to "preserve the integrity of their league" is beyond me. No, that's wrong. Only once Livingston have actually appealed are the SFL obliged to, by their own rules, reverse the decision until such times the SGM supports the original decision by a vote (which, I would imagine, will always be on the same day). I once again call on the common law analogy: a criminal appealing against his sentence does not get released whilst the appeal is in progress. Edited August 8, 2009 by Sir Calum Melville 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuartcraig Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (Think of Death Row as an example ). Somehow I can't see the result of an execution being declared null and void, and the execution being replayed with different participants. Stuart 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) 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 ). Death Row is a completely different situation, because it's a sentence in two parts: being on death row, then actually being executed. Whilst an appeal is pending, you remain on death row...you just don't run the risk of execution. With Livingston (and with every other sentence in law), the punishment stands until it is overturned (which may be never). Edited August 8, 2009 by Sir Calum Melville 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Silverheels Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 If the SFL statement that McGruther could not guarantee Livingston would be able to fulfill their obligations in the First Division, and that no bond was posted, contrary to SFL requests, is true, then where is the problem in relegating Livingston? The SFL sought two things from Livingston, both of which they could not supply. The SFL had very little option but to relegate Livingston, just as they did with Gretna. Of course, I may be accused of being just another Airdrie profiteer, looking to jump back into the First on the back of Livi's misfortune, but think about this; if we had finished stone bottom, and Clyde had finished above us, it would be Clyde who were in Airdrie's position, and the facts surrounding Livi's breaches of SFL rules would still remain. It could have been any club other than Airdrie in a similar situation, but for some reason, a sizable portion of the Livingston fanbase seems to think that it is Airdrie's fault. Think again. The Livi forums are awash with complaints of the SFL being full of "self preservationists" who have an axe to grind with Livingston. Presumably these "blazers" wish ill upon all things Livingston, but I would argue that this is not the case. Last season, Livingston were in breach of the SFL rules regarding players' wages on several occasions, but they made it through the season unpunished. Yes, they did pay the wages, but they were late. It doesn't alter the fact that they broke the rules last season and got off with it. The Self-Preservation Society at the SFL didn't seem to have a problem with them then, so why should they all of a sudden grab their pitchforks and besiege Castle Amondvale? I don't believe they are pulling an old pals act, I just think they are extremely incompetent. I have read several posts on the Livi message board which conflicted with each other. One position was that "the club is bigger than the owner," while another was that "the SFL were unfairly penalizing the potential new owners of the club. They cannot be held accountable for past mistakes." You cannot have it both ways. Which is it? Is the club bigger than the owner? In that case isn't punishment justified? If they are penalizing the new owners unfairly, then what axe do you believe they have to grind with them? Rightly or wrongly, the SFL are clearly of the position that the club is bigger than the owner. As I have stated continuously throughout this fiasco, the SFL have been incompetent in the extreme. Heads should roll over the whole affair. At the very least, they have known the situation surrounding Livingston for months, and should have had Plans A, B, and C in place to deal with all eventualities. These are not stupid men, so they should have known what was around the corner. Everyone else seemed to, after all. The have lost the confidence of the paying customer, and that is unforgivable. The whole lot of them should stand down at the earliest opportunity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 No, that's wrong.Only once Livingston have actually appealed are the SFL obliged to, by their own rules, reverse the decision until such times the SGM supports the original decision by a vote (which, I would imagine, will always be on the same day). I once again call on the common law analogy: a criminal appealing against his sentence does not get released whilst the appeal is in progress. Hmm, Sir CM, I can't be bothered with re-visiting the SFL rule book but, and this may be comparing apples with oranges, if you appeal to the SFA then their acknowledgment says that the original decision is set aside until the appeal is heard. Either way, interpretation of SFL rules by lawyers on the one hand and the SFL administrators on the other make uneasy bedfellows. It will be a shambolic outcome whatever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Hmm, Sir CM, I can't be bothered with re-visiting the SFL rule book but, and this may be comparing apples with oranges, if you appeal to the SFA then their acknowledgment says that the original decision is set aside until the appeal is heard. If that's explicit in the SFA rulebook, then fair enough. But there is no such provision in the SFL rules and those are what Livi are governed by at present. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Just dropped in briefly, having posted my match report on an excellent Berwick victory earlier... 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. If the result of the appeal - and the disgraceful actions of appealing 10 minutes before close of business on a Friday AND scratching a scheduled league fixture - is further sanction, which then results in potential investors/saviours/buying of time disappearing... it's a very bad gamble IMO. I don't see what kind of shuttle diplomacy McDougall or anyone else can be carrying out. Can we seriously envisage a situation where the 28 voting clubs - having barracked their own SFL Management Committee for being too weak a fortnight ago - then sit down next week, and let Livingston FC remain in the First Division? It would be bedlam. Totally aside from the point that Livingston FC's appeal is heard by their peers... many of whom will have been utterly appalled by the club deliberately scratching from a fixture they could have completed, out of "pettiness"... 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? well firstly, someone quoting (with sub-standard spelling and grammar) an supposed private conversation by telephone on a Livi internet forum hardly comprises that... and secondly, David Thomson (apart from being a decent bloke) is simply an employee of the SFL with no executive powers. If the tea-lady + cleaners issued a statement in favour of Livi, it'd be equally irrelevant. 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? Can I pick up on this: Livingston FC, surely, haven't appealled being in breach of the rule? Surely they're only appealling the severity of the sentence? In which case the punishment stands until over-turned by a SGM of eligible voting clubs. I don't understand where this concept that you're a First Division club comes from. Livingston are a Third Division club. Until you get changed back. 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. I take it John Robertson will be happy for St Mirren to spend the same as Celtic on wages ...? 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 Unusual for me to disagree with you WJR, but I see nothing in the SFL rules to support that... if for example a club is banned from playing at home due to rioting (by the Management Committee using the same mechanism), would they get to continue playing at home (and continue having riots) if they appealled? The rulebook seems pretty clear that the Management Committee take the decision, which stands as the final decision unless a SGM is convened and votes against it. Leaving the rules aside... Livi could still elect to take this to court... If that happened - it could take months. What do you do - leave them in Div 1? Keep them in Div 3? Or wait for a decision? 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. Very heroic and altruistic of them. Not quite to heroic and ultruistic to appeal at 4:50pm, and in fact leave it till mid-evening to get confirmation that they were scratching a scheduled SFL fixture . I have to say that I'm generally with Sir Calum Melville's interpretation on the issue... which also seems to be the SFL's interpretation. Unless a majority of clubs are going to vote against their own administration (and/or unless Livi take it to the Court of Session), that's what counts IMO. On an entirely seperate matter... Livingston can be punished for scratching today's game, even if they do survive in Div 1. The rules have no status for 'provisional', 'annulled' or any other sort of game. They do have a status for a fixture officially issued by the Secretary... Livi scratched from such a game and therefore should be punished under Rule 28 (to which there is no appeal). One can hope that UEFA sit up and take notice of this protracted wrangle and use it as an opportunity to step in and give Scottish football's administrative structure the damn good shake it needs. I'm not even sure if UEFA can step in and do anything about SFL... but even if they could they won't, and even if the could they shouldn't. I'm seriously struggling to identify where the SFL has gone wrong here, bar the week's delay between the 'mild' Management Committee meeting and the subsequent 'harsh' one. Otherwise they applied their own rules as they interpret them. Livi will surely lose their appeal next week - and will surely be fined points for scratching today. Edited August 8, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Hmm, Sir CM, I can't be bothered with re-visiting the SFL rule book but, and this may be comparing apples with oranges, if you appeal to the SFA then their acknowledgment says that the original decision is set aside until the appeal is heard.Either way, interpretation of SFL rules by lawyers on the one hand and the SFL administrators on the other make uneasy bedfellows. It will be a shambolic outcome whatever. Firstly it should be pointed out that an appeal to the SFA takes 2 forms: an appeal that the SFL has not followed it's own or the SFA's rules; or an appeal that the punishment was too severe. In the former case the SFA almost invariably upholds the appeal, and annulls all punishments. In the latter case the SFA almost invariably passes the matter back to the other body (e.g. SFL) to 'reconsider'. It won't be a case of the SFA saying "Livi, your punishment is now -10pts in Div 1". Edited August 8, 2009 by HibeeJibee 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.