The Master Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Actually, something else has crossed my mind. When a club is appealing against the punishment as opposed to the "conviction" (as it were), what does the SGM actually look at: is it the entire case again, or is it whether or not the SFL had the right to impose such a punishment? If it's the former, then it may well succeed; if it's the latter, then I don't think it will. Edited August 8, 2009 by Sir Calum Melville 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I also think that any team who is struggling financially will support us at the risk that they could face relegation as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Does it seem likely that they'll get that?I know that Dundee think it was too harsh a punishment but I don't know about other clubs. Let's work on the assumption that Annan don't have a vote, but Livi do and use it... (Desperate times and all that). That leaves them needing 14 votes from a pool of 28 i.e. exactly 50% of the clubs. To me it seems very unlikely that half the clubs will revolt against their own Management Committee decision. If they do, it would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in them IMO. Putting that aside... are there 14 clubs who benefit enough from giving Livi a punishment other than demotion to the Third Division, to uphold their appeal? Possibly some First Division clubs like Dundee who disagree on points of principal; possibly a few who fear Airdrie and would rather Livi were in, starting off -15pts (or such like). Possibly a few Third Division worried that Livi will walk away with the division... or worried that keeping them down will see them fold = 9 team division. But many clubs will vote on principal or decency. Many will dislike Livi for scratching. So I cannot see Livi getting anything like 50% of the SFL membership to defy their Management Committee. Edited August 8, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mybitchunderprotest Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 As posted by Skyline Drifter on another thread, the only reason Hamilton were deducted 15 points was to put them at the bottom of the league. So it's not as simple as saying there's a precedent of 15 points. All manner of factors come into play. Quite right, the accies were docked their 15 points in the April with, what 6 or 7 games remaining. Given that Livi, if docked points, will receive theirs at the start of the season with 36 games in which to make it up their punishment should be far more severe, especially given the calculating way in which they have gone about the whole business. The accies as a club couldn't fulfil the fixture because the players went on strike and it was the club who were punished, in this instance it is the club or the interim manager on behalf of the club who made the decision and the SFL should rain hellfire upon them for this blatant disregard for the competition. Regardless of which league they find themselves playing in, a penalty of at least 20 points is appropriate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Actually, something else has crossed my mind.When a club is appealing against the punishment as opposed to the "conviction" (as it were), what does the SGM actually look at: is it the entire case again, or is it whether or not the SFL had the right to impose such a punishment? If it's the former, then it may well succeed; if it's the latter, then I don't think it will. I don't think it's set out as such. I think it's simply that Livingston FC have been found guilty of a breach of rule 76.2 and have had punishment dolled out by the Management Committee... Now Livingston FC have appealled but, presumably, their appeal is about the severity of the sentence (and not a claim that they didn't break the rule). As such, presumably the SGM has to [1] vote on whether or not to uphold the appeal; and [2] if upholding the appeal, apply a new punishment. I really can't be bothered trawling through the rules again - but does the SGM vote upon a new punishment for Livi, if they uphold an appeal on severity? Presumably so, but I'm aware of other organisations in Scottish football whose rules would see it sent back to Management Committee for another look. My gut instinct would be that the SGM will vote on a replacement punishment. Talk on the LiviLions forum of appeals to the SFA is stupid. It will take ages, and wouldn't work. I don't go that far back in years, but I've no knowledge of SFA ever doing anything in an appeal on severity case other than... [1] pass it back to the body for another look; or [2] just throw it out. Edited August 8, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy of the rovers Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Bear in mind also that each management committee member is attached to a member club and is therefore almost certain to have the club vote in the same way they did (having said that its possible some committee members didn't agree with their colleagues and it could have been a majority decision to relegate them). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Talk on the LiviLions forum of appeals to the SFA is stupid. It will take ages, and wouldn't work. I don't go that far back in years, but I've no knowledge of SFA ever doing anything in an appeal on severity case other than... [1] pass it back to the body for another look; or [2] just throw it out. Dundee appealed to the SFA over the severity of the punishment handed out to Livingston in 2005, when they were found guilty of fielding an ineligible player (by the SPL). I believe Livingston did also appeal, but I'm not sure if that was about being found guilty, or about the size of the fine (they had a cheek if it was the latter -- £15,000 for paying a player registered as an amateur was scandalous). Edited August 8, 2009 by Sir Calum Melville 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Naitch Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Talk on the LiviLions forum of appeals to the SFA is stupid. It will take ages, and wouldn't work. I don't go that far back in years, but I've no knowledge of SFA ever doing anything in an appeal on severity case other than... [1] pass it back to the body for another look; or [2] just throw it out. Just on this point - McGruther has already come out and said that whatever happens at the SGM will be final. If Livingston lose this appeal then they won't take it further. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Just on this point - McGruther has already come out and said that whatever happens at the SGM will be final. If Livingston lose this appeal then they won't take it further. Well that is good. The last thing we'd have wanted would be a long and protracted appeal case. And there is no appeal over a Rule 28 infraction: so any punishment for scratching today is final. Last word from me is a prediction: appeal rejected by SGM. SFL MC fine Livi points for scratching. Edited August 8, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 This isn't about what's in it for creditors, Exactly, for if it was, and they had any intentions of even paying a substantial amount if not all of the debt then they would adjust the figures/length of time the CVA lasted. They (Livingston 5) are trying to buy the club as cheap as possible as they don't have the cash required, this is why the bond (that they claimed to have paid, but now apparently haven't) is such a problem. It means they have to find money!! On Livi Lions they are screaming that the bond is unfair and that other clubs could go bust so should have to furnish a similar bond, thing is they haven't bumped creditors three times, Livi have!! The league and it's members are no different to normal trade suppliers will be in the future, they want security. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) And there is no appeal over a Rule 28 infraction: so any punishment for scratching today is final. Presumably there's a right of appeal to the SFA, though? Also, they could take it to CAS if they had both the money and the inclination. And their decision would be final. Edited August 8, 2009 by Sir Calum Melville 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Presumably there's a right of appeal to the SFA, though? Remember what I was describing before. Livingston FC have subscribed to the SFL rules, and to the principal that they abide by the SFL rules... An appeal to the SFA can effectively be for 1 of 2 things: incorrectly found guilty (or incorrect procedure used), or over-severe punishment if guilty. In the former case, the SFA will throw the appeal out or uphold it... In the latter case, the SFA will throw out the appeal or pass it back to the body involved. And I cannot think of a differing case. I cannot envisage a situation where SFA tells SFL "yes Livi are guilty, but fine them Xpts not Y". Also, they could take it to CAS if they had both the money and the inclination. And their decision would be final. well... I'd imagine that if Livi 5 have the money for that, they'd have bought the club out long ago... and regardless, the routes of appeal listed by SFL Rule 65 don't include CAS. Livi could go to FIFA and argue that SFL is in breach of its statutes by not allowing route to CAS ... a fantasy!! Edited August 8, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 East Stirling would support us as well from what Spencer Fearn is saying. Are you surprised? Say today's game had gone ahead. And some of their best players had been injured. Then next week they are told by the SFL muppets "Games a bogey, it's Cowdenbeath after all." So not only has a game been played for nothing but a squad weakened for it as well And if I hear one more word from anyone making a stupid analogy about "it's just like when appealing a prison sentence, you still have to serve it until...blah, blah, blah..." I will scream. How quickly these people forget the cynicism from all of us year in year out when Scott Brown or some other Old Firm toerag gets booked for the umpteenth occasion and is due to be suspended for the next match - as it is a crucial one, they appeal the decision, during which time he is free to play as before until the hearing is heard and then - and only then - if unsuccessful will the suspension take place. So if there is any precident to this, it's not the one the SFL in their finite wisdom came up with. The matches should have been suspended pending the SFA meeting - full stop. Of course that would mean mid week matches for the affected teams to catch up...but frankly so what's so bloody new there then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southview Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) Heard McDougall on the radio today. He seems to think Livi are doing everything by the book and also quoted 76.4 as being one of the reasons why they didn't turn up today...? (might have misheard but perhaps someone could clarify). As he has been involved in football for over 20 years, he must know what is at stake here. He surely can't have given his blessing to all of this without making a few calls. I base this view on the Cowdenbeath fans acknowledging his work with them over the years. As for the vote, it simply says it all that the clubs will decide. There are vested interests all over the place here and I find it staggering that some sort of independent board isn't available for issues such as this. HibbeeJibbee: Would Airdrie and Cowdenbeath be expected to abstain along with Livi as a result of their clear benefit if Livi lose appeal? Working on the assumption that everyone is going to have their vote (except Annan) then I reckon Livi will vote for appeal to be successful (unsurprisingly) From what I have read, it sounds like East Stirling and Dundee may support them. Could the links McDougall and Rankine have with Cowdenbeath, Dunfermline, Dumbarton and East Fife mean they will get another four votes there. That's seven. Raith and Ayr have a choice - Livi in division three or division one with hefty points deduction? Could be nine votes. We can assume Albion Rovers will vote in favour of LMC. Perhaps Stranraer will feel sympathy for Livi's financial plight given their own circumstances - 10. Maybe Clyde in second division feel worried about possible precedent of relegation to third division for entering insolvency - maybe 11. Getting 15 votes may not be as difficult as many are thinking. Edited August 8, 2009 by southview 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I think Ross County are likely to vote for us as well due to Siegel's threat of suing if their game wasn't played. I realise it was played but there could still be a feeling of animosity there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 But you're presuming that animosity toward the Management Committee will = a vote in defiance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zupa Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 East Stirling would support us as well from what Spencer Fearn is saying. Thats everything solved then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 well... I'd imagine that if Livi 5 have the money for that, they'd have bought the club out long ago... and regardless, the routes of appeal listed by SFL Rule 65 don't include CAS. Livi could go to FIFA and argue that SFL is in breach of its statutes by not allowing route to CAS ... a fantasy!! It wasn't an entirely serious suggestion But I suppose with all the other stuff that's been flying around in the past 24 hours or so, it's not entirely unrealistic... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southview Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/s...v_1/8187408.stm Interesting article and audio. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) And if I hear one more word from anyone making a stupid analogy about "it's just like when appealing a prison sentence, you still have to serve it until...blah, blah, blah..." I will scream. How quickly these people forget the cynicism from all of us year in year out when Scott Brown or some other Old Firm toerag gets booked for the umpteenth occasion and is due to be suspended for the next match - as it is a crucial one, they appeal the decision, during which time he is free to play as before until the hearing is heard and then - and only then - if unsuccessful will the suspension take place. So if there is any precident to this, it's not the one the SFL in their finite wisdom came up with. Thank God! At last! Someone who sees that the SFL do not operate under common law. They make up their own rules Sir Calum. And because they make up their own rules as they go along we have the farce that is currently under discussion. See above re appealing a red card and being allowed to play in the next game. The matches should have been suspended pending the SFA meeting - full stop. Of course that would mean mid week matches for the affected teams to catch up...but frankly so what's so bloody new there then? Exactly. I have been watching football for many years and cannot recall a league game being played with the rider that..eh.. maybe the result of this will not stand. See above re making up the rules as you go along. Can I also point out that rather than Livi finishing higher than Airdrie in the league for the reason that they paid big wages ( quote lost in the hundreds of posts) it would be more correct to say that they finished further up because they had an 18 year old striker from their youth system who scored a lot of goals. The constantly repeated mantra that Livi will have lost a lot of goodwill because of their stance on the appeal is laughable. This thread started last October. It has over 9000 posts the vast majority of which have Livi bashed from the start. When the hell was there ever goodwill towards Livi? I wish McGruther hadn't appealed because I just want it all to stop but in principal he was perfectly justified in doing so. Edited to add : I can't see the two teams that beat Airdrie and Cowdenbeath voting for something that would take away the three points they have just won. More farce! Edited August 8, 2009 by jimbo 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.