The Master Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 In other words I have you bang to rights and deep down you know it. Yes, funny how the "Burn Livingston as a witch" brigade hate it when a bit of rational thought gets in the way of a good lynching Quite how you managed to draw that conclusion... What? And you are with the ridiculous court analogy that would be laughed at by Sun readers? It probably would be laughed at by Sun readers, because they have difficulty understanding basic concepts. Actually, that probably explains why you're having problems. Oh please! No player goes to the SFA and say "I wish the conviction to be quoshed but am not appealing against the ban?" I didn't say they did. But the principal stands: appealing a red card is an appeal against the accusation that you carried out the offence (and a successful appeal against that results in the punishment being scrapped as well). As Jimbo said, the SFA and SFL do not operate under Common Law anymore than the Lawn Tennis Association or any other sporting body does. Again, I didn't say they did. This is a simple case of drawing on an analogy to illustrate that, during an appeal against a punishment, it is not uncommon for the punishment to continue to be served. It fact, it's pretty normal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stimpy Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Did you get your wee winkle out and have a wee piss? Well let me explain, in the real world normal decent folk don't just randomly pish in rivers, I, as others with me also did, waited until we got to Wetherspoons and used the toilet. Please try to understand and not ridicule our strange ways, I'm sure the next time you see someone from Livingstone pishing in the river you'll be able to say to them, "hey mister, ken whit they dae in Montrose when thir needin a piss..........?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Well let me explain, in the real world normal decent folk don't just randomly pish in rivers, I, as others with me also did, waited until we got to Wetherspoons and used the toilet. Please try to understand and not ridicule our strange ways, I'm sure the next time you see someone from Livingstone pishing in the river you'll be able to say to them, "hey mister, ken whit they dae in Montrose when thir needin a piss..........?" I will pass on that advice. What the hell were you doing down at the river then? Oh maybe I shouldn't ask! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 There are too many threads here about the same Livi problem. Can't they all be blended together? It is fairly tedious answering the same question on a dozen differant threads! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Your absolutely right .. It is not quite as simple and would take much more work to take anomalies into account but the basic jist has got to be that clubs CANNOT spend more than they MAKE and that the sanctions for such behaviour must be clear and HARSH leaving nobody in any doubt ..And clubs CANNOT be loaned money that they will not be able to pay back to be used for wages and other bills....Live within your means and you will never feel the force of these sanctions.. That's the easy bit... Each club should be forced to present a working budget forcast for the coming season covering both income and out goings and then stick to it.. If for some reason they need to change that during the season , they would apply to the SFL for permission to do so , stating the grounds for the application and also submit a modified budget for the remaining part of the year showing where the money was coming from.. I keep hearing this INVESTMENT shite.... Football is probably ( after the bookies) the worst financial investment opportunitty in the entire solar system....It's not investment...They usually loan at very low or no interest to clubs which is fine until they need to get their money back which in the cases of Gr£tna and Livi has been all or part of the reason they are where thay are now... All I'm saying is stop the loans. If somone is passionate about a football club then by all means GIVE them some of your money.Just don'e expect it back..DONATION not INVESTMENT... You're correct Ghosty,I don't believe for one minute that Mileson and some of those at Livi in the past had anything other than their clubs best interests at heart,if you're business interests are struggling or need a serious cash injection then that can only lead to desperate measures to protect your interests as a whole. Cash injections should be done via shares where your investment can go up or down,Sir Jack Hayward wrote off £50m at Wolves proving his love for the club,where would Wolves be today if instead Sir Jack had insisted on getting his cash over a set timeframe? Probably Div 2 or somewhere equally exotic at best,football clubs should not be subject to chance as when the crunch comes nobody knows how an individual investing cash in a club will react. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Scottish football administration at the SFA and SFL is an absolute joke. I'm pleased that we are in the EoS. Yes, it's a joke. As long as we have people sticking up for them, Skyline Drifter for one, we'll never see commonsense. A 20 point deduction would have been adequate. Relegation this year from DIV 1, or promotion next year from DIV 3, the end result is going to be the same, Livi in DIV 2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Your absolutely right .. It is not quite as simple and would take much more work to take anomalies into account but the basic jist has got to be that clubs CANNOT spend more than they MAKE and that the sanctions for such behaviour must be clear and HARSH leaving nobody in any doubt ..And clubs CANNOT be loaned money that they will not be able to pay back to be used for wages and other bills....Live within your means and you will never feel the force of these sanctions.. That's the easy bit... Each club should be forced to present a working budget forcast for the coming season covering both income and out goings and then stick to it.. If for some reason they need to change that during the season , they would apply to the SFL for permission to do so , stating the grounds for the application and also submit a modified budget for the remaining part of the year showing where the money was coming from.. I keep hearing this INVESTMENT shite.... Football is probably ( after the bookies) the worst financial investment opportunitty in the entire solar system....It's not investment...They usually loan at very low or no interest to clubs which is fine until they need to get their money back which in the cases of Gr£tna and Livi has been all or part of the reason they are where thay are now... All I'm saying is stop the loans. If somone is passionate about a football club then by all means GIVE them some of your money.Just don'e expect it back..DONATION not INVESTMENT... Broadly agreed, in principle certainly. A wage cap is a fairly blunt tool though, some clubs can afford to pay, say 70% of turnover on wages, some can't. It would be a huge effort to police effectively as presented there. As far as investment goes, no football is not a good investment for anyone looking for a fiancial return int eh traditional sense but some people do like to put money into the game for their own reasons, and that's fine and shouldn't be legislated against or even discouraged. I'm not sure about (effectively) banning soft loans. I know several of the clubs who've got into trouble (including Livi and Gretna) have had soft loans and those have been included in the total level of debt that gets quoted when it comes to a head, but it wasn't those debts that actually caused them to reach that stage - how many examples are there of clubs who have been put into difficulty by an investor attempting to call in a soft loan? In Gretna's case, say, the financial commitments (made more than a year ahead in amny cases) were impossible to meet once Mileson's funding was withdrawn, that woudln't have been any different if his money had been given rather than lent, the only difference would have been that Mileson himself wouldn't have been a creditor. Which I suppose might have made it easier for someone to mount a rescue package but that's not really the point. I'm not sure it would have stopped the Livingston scenario either, not in the past twelve months anyway. Maybe previously if it could have been effectively enforced. Circumstances vary so much and the world in general so difficult to plan for that it's more or less impossible to set hard and fast rules for the good governance of a club or indeed any other business, but it is easily possible to detect when things are starting to go wrong - as said by myself and others earlier, late wages and missed Inland Revenue payments being obvious and easily knowable examples. I'd probably be in favour of sanctions at that stage aimed at nipping trouble in the bud. (NB Once again I'm not trying to piss on any bonfires here, I'm picking holes in it precisely because I do think you're making serious suggestions and ones that need to have holes picked in them if they're to be given consideration.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/sport-news/sco...78057-21584282/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stimpy Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I will pass on that advice. No, really, use a toilet, it's the way forward. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/sport-news/sco...78057-21584282/ What are the SFL playing at though? announcing the results before the appeal is held? They have obviously had words with all concerned to publish this as decided which I think is very unfair. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 No, really, use a toilet, it's the way forward. Did you not realise we are rather backward? What were you doing on the riverbank in the fist place? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stimpy Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Did you not realise we are rather backward? What were you doing on the riverbank in the fist place? I'm an otter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 It's a disgrace quite frankly. They cannot go about like that before the decision has been made. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainspotter Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Yes, it's a joke. As long as we have people sticking up for them, Skyline Drifter for one, we'll never see commonsense. A 20 point deduction would have been adequate. Relegation this year from DIV 1, or promotion next year from DIV 3, the end result is going to be the same, Livi in DIV 2. I don't think anyone is particularly sticking up for the SFL, just pointing out it is difficult to step in to a highly-charged situation based on little more than hearsay. The SFL should be more than aware of its own shortcomings after the PKF report two years ago (link), however since it it is not a sizeable organisation, there are limits as to how it applies its resources. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Yes, it's a joke. As long as we have people sticking up for them, Skyline Drifter for one, we'll never see commonsense. A 20 point deduction would have been adequate. Relegation this year from DIV 1, or promotion next year from DIV 3, the end result is going to be the same, Livi in DIV 2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 It's a disgrace quite frankly. They cannot go about like that before the decision has been made. What's he done other than confirm when asked that expulsion or a points deduction is a possibility now you've failed to fulfil a fixture? Livingston FC's conduct on Friday was a disgrace. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I'm an otter. I'm surprised you lived to tell the tale then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I don't think anyone is particularly sticking up for the SFL, just pointing out it is difficult to step in to a highly-charged situation based on little more than hearsay. The SFL should be more than aware of its own shortcomings after the PKF report two years ago (link), however since it it is not a sizeable organisation, there are limits as to how it applies its resources. No, he's right, by and large I AM sticking up for the SFL. I already said I thought they should have acted much more decisively after the first meeting a fortnight ago and personally I probably wouldn't have relegated them, I'd have gone for a points deduction, but I think they ultimately handled the situation about as well as they could have. I personally think it's quite bizarre that a sizeable number of people seem to have turned the focus of blame of this whole thing onto the SFL when it is let us remember Livingston that breached rules and then refused to fulfil a fixture. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Silverheels Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Skewed journalism is all that it appears to be. It depends which questions the journo asked Longmuir and how they were phrased. Q: "In a hypothetical worst-case scenario, could Livingston be kicked out of the league?" A: "The matter has been referred to the committee - and yes, Livi could be kicked out." OR Q: "Do you think that the SFL self-preservation society will stick together and kick Livi out of the league?" A: "The matter has been referred to the committee - and yes, Livi could be kicked out." Q: "Do you believe that McGruther and the consortium broke any rules other than the one they have already breached when they decided to refrain from playing on Saturday? Do you think they acted in the best interests of all SFL clubs, or do you think they acted in their own interests?" A: "They have breached another rule by telling us they are not turning up to fulfil a fixture. We have a responsibility to clubs, fans and sponsors and were not going to have a gun held to our head by Livi trying to put the blame on us." OR Q: "Have Livi pissed you off more by throwing their rattle out of the pram on Friday and holding their breath until they got their own way?" A: "They have breached another rule by telling us they are not turning up to fulfil a fixture. We have a responsibility to clubs, fans and sponsors and were not going to have a gun held to our head by Livi trying to put the blame on us." Q: " How many times in recent history have Livi gone into administration? Do you think the SFL should take steps to stop this sort of thing happening repeatedly? A: "It is the second time in four years they have gone into administration and it is time people got the message and we resolve it." OR Q: "Aren't you sick and tired of Livi pissing on everyone else's shoes? Who runs the league, you or them? Are you going to do anything about it? Pussy." A: "It is the second time in four years they have gone into administration and it is time people got the message and we resolve it." It's not what Longmuir said, it's the questions that he was asked. It's easy to take words out of context to make things appear whatever way you want them to appear. Anyone who picks up any newspaper should know that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 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. Does the phrase clutching at straws mean anything to you? I really, really wouldn't expect Ross County to vote in favour of Livingston at all. 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.