Livingston - all the threads merged

[TheDoctor]

I had a quick look through last night's thread and couldn't see this mentioned, so apologies if it has and I missed it, but did anyone else hear Jim Traynor's "Paper Talk" on Radio Scotland last night?

Rob Robertson (Daily Mail) was arguing strongly that Livi had been "royally shafted" by the SFL and other clubs with vested interests. He was claiming that Livi had never actually entered administration; that "two reputable businessmen" had agreed to buy the shares of Massone, honour all debt and that all this had been done within the required timescales of the SFL. In otherwords, he was saying this was a "clean deal" and Livi should be in Division 1 with no punishment whatsoever.

He even suggested it would be no different to Sir David Murray agreeing to sell his shares in Rangers to a reputable businessman. He asked if Rangers would be relegated to Division 3 in such circumstances.

I think he has missed some crucial points and am stunned that such an experienced journalist could be taken in by the PR of the Rankine/McDougall/McGruther crowd:

1. It's not the first time Livingston have been in some form of Administration;

2. They shafted their creditors last time;

3. They are currently in Interim Administration, against SFL rules;

4. The proposed rescue package will only honour football debts. Even with their First Division football plan, these "reputable businessmen" are only offering Xp in the pound to ordinary creditors under the CVA, i.e. Livi intend to shaft their creditors yet again;

5. The Consortium initially promised to put up a Bond guaranteeing they could fulfil their SFL1 fixtures but these "reputable businessmen" then appear to have played silly buggers and withdrawn that guarantee, resulting in the severe punishment of demotion;

Not to mention that Livingston could easily fall foul of the catch-all "bringing the game into disrepute" rule with their late payment of players, resulting media coverage, refusal to fulfil a scheduled SFL3 fixture etc.

The discussion can be heard on BBC's "Listen Again" function - Sportsound (Monday 10th August). The Livi discussion starts around 24 minutes into the show.

CHEAP PLUG ALERT:

The Arch and I also pick over the bones of what's gone on at Livingston over the last few weeks in "The Away End" podcast. The latest one is out today

www.theawayend.libsyn.com

[Homer Thompson]

Hell of a gamble isn't it. You would think they would be advised to walk away or accept the LMC decision.

Absolutely. I wasnt saying thats what they should do, just that thats the only option I could see if they wanted to pursue it.

[The ghost of Jim Morton]

VIKINGTON ENTERS PIE & BOVRIL'S LIVI THREAD ASKING "CAN I DANCE YET? THESE BLOODY SHOES ARE SO SHINY THEY ARE BLINDING ME & ME BUNIONS ARE GIVING ME GRIEF!!!

Hilarious. Even the man himself will have to laugh at that. Great work

[The ghost of Jim Morton]

It wasn't a bloody joke, it was irony. It's meant to be ironic, not funny.

Are you still going on about this...Take a deep breath and let it go..

[Skyline Drifter]

Do you think, and are they allowed to, initiate legal action on behalf of the club against the league SD?

No, not without being the legally registered owners I wouldn't have thought. I wasn't suggesting they could, merely that it would be daft to suggest they "hold no sway" over the club's actions at this point. Quite clearly they do.

I'm not actually clear at this point on who the owners actually are? 'Someone' paid Massone £50k for his shares apparently. McGruther said he had made the offer on behalf of the creditors did he not? Not sure whose name those are in at this second if they haven't actually been bought by the consortium?

[Skyline Drifter]

Are you still going on about this...Take a deep breath and let it go..

Well excuse me for being offline all last night and only addressing the point Edinburgh Livi made this morning.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Skyline Drifter

[ayrmad]

I had a quick look through last night's thread and couldn't see this mentioned, so apologies if it has and I missed it, but did anyone else hear Jim Traynor's "Paper Talk" on Radio Scotland last night?

Rob Robertson (Daily Mail) was arguing strongly that Livi had been "royally shafted" by the SFL and other clubs with vested interests. He was claiming that Livi had never actually entered administration; that "two reputable businessmen" had agreed to buy the shares of Massone, honour all debt and that all this had been done within the required timescales of the SFL. In otherwords, he was saying this was a "clean deal" and Livi should be in Division 1 with no punishment whatsoever.

He even suggested it would be no different to Sir David Murray agreeing to sell his shares in Rangers to a reputable businessman. He asked if Rangers would be relegated to Division 3 in such circumstances.

I think he has missed some crucial points and am stunned that such an experienced journalist could be taken in by the PR of the Rankine/McDougall/McGruther crowd:

1. It's not the first time Livingston have been in some form of Administration;

2. They shafted their creditors last time;

3. They are currently in Interim Administration, against SFL rules;

4. The proposed rescue package will only honour football debts. Even with their First Division football plan, these "reputable businessmen" are only offering Xp in the pound to ordinary creditors under the CVA, i.e. Livi intend to shaft their creditors yet again;

5. The Consortium initially promised to put up a Bond guaranteeing they could fulfil their SFL1 fixtures but these "reputable businessmen" then appear to have played silly buggers and withdrawn that guarantee, resulting in the severe punishment of demotion;

Not to mention that Livingston could easily fall foul of the catch-all "bringing the game into disrepute" rule with their late payment of players, resulting media coverage, refusal to fulfil a scheduled SFL3 fixture etc.

The discussion can be heard on BBC's "Listen Again" function - Sportsound (Monday 10th August). The Livi discussion starts around 24 minutes into the show.

I heard his rant,he certainly put his neck on the block with the things he was saying.

While I'm not saying everything he said is correct I certainly don't think it's as clearcut as the SFL supporters are stating.

With regard to any bond not being posted I'd assume the fact that The Consortium were hunted from last weeks meeting may just have had something to do with it,IMO they were intending to negotiate amount or perhaps timeframe,ask any club to put up such a bond in such a tight timeframe and Dundee would be playing themselves this season,or is the credit crunch just a bad dream.

Livingston were not in administration and had until August 18th to avoid Administration,in an attempt to alleviate the fears of the SFL the process involving the Consortium has been sped up at an unnatural pace especially in the current climate,there are not many people in business who don't use the OPM approach and this takes time,months not days/hours.

[ayrmad]

No, not without being the legally registered owners I wouldn't have thought. I wasn't suggesting they could, merely that it would be daft to suggest they "hold no sway" over the club's actions at this point. Quite clearly they do.

I'm not actually clear at this point on who the owners actually are? 'Someone' paid Massone £50k for his shares apparently. McGruther said he had made the offer on behalf of the creditors did he not? Not sure whose name those are in at this second if they haven't actually been bought by the consortium?

I would assume that the shares are owned by The Consortium, but due to paperwork and legalities they will only become active at some point in the near future.

Edited August 11, 2009 by ayrmad

[Fife Saint]

No, not without being the legally registered owners I wouldn't have thought. I wasn't suggesting they could, merely that it would be daft to suggest they "hold no sway" over the club's actions at this point. Quite clearly they do.

I'm not actually clear at this point on who the owners actually are? 'Someone' paid Massone £50k for his shares apparently. McGruther said he had made the offer on behalf of the creditors did he not? Not sure whose name those are in at this second if they haven't actually been bought by the consortium?

McGruther had already said they wouldn't pursue the matter after the second appeal but I guess his mind could have been changed by whoever put up the money to buy out Massone.

Thursday is going to be interesting.

[The ghost of Jim Morton]

Depends on the outcome of the enquiry. If Livingston are not happy they may well take the case to a Court of Law.

McGruther has already stated that this Thurday will be the end one way or another with NO MORE appeals. I imagine as intrim manager he cannot take it further( law courts) due to the costs invovled.. The only other appeal that might take place is if Livi are relegated AND deducted points for the ES no show as this would only cost £500. They have NO MONEY and it would be irresponsible of McGruther to actually INCREASE the debt...Nah, this Thursday is the end of the line...

[The ghost of Jim Morton]

Well excuse me for being offline all last night and only addressing the point Edinburgh Livi made this morning.

apology accepted

[mike rankine]

With regard to any bond not being posted I'd assume the fact that The Consortium were hunted from last weeks meeting may just have had something to do with it,IMO they were intending to negotiate amount or perhaps timeframe,ask any club to put up such a bond in such a tight timeframe and Dundee would be playing themselves this season,or is the credit crunch just a bad dream.

But the difference between Livingston and Dundee (or any other club) is that Livi were already legally on the precipice. By entering Provisional Administration they had reached a milestone whereby the SFL were perfectly entitled to seek guarantees that they could fulfil their SFL1 fixtures - just as they did with Gretna last year.

The only person the SFL could formally deal with was McGruther as Provisional Administrator/Manager. That is why Massone and the Consortium were both denied a face to face hearing. At the first meeting it seems that McGruther (with the blessing of the Consortium) agreed to the Bond, hence all the "Livi Saved" headlines. At the follow-up meeting that offer was apparently withdrawn.

Either the Consortium were struggling to come up with the Bond (which as you say, would be understandable in the current climate) or they were trying to blackmail the SFL; back-tracking at the last minute when they (wrongly) assumed the SFL would be too weak to implement fixture changes impacting all three divisions so close to the start of the season.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

I heard his rant,he certainly put his neck on the block with the things he was saying.

While I'm not saying everything he said is correct I certainly don't think it's as clearcut as the SFL supporters are stating.

With regard to any bond not being posted I'd assume the fact that The Consortium were hunted from last weeks meeting may just have had something to do with it,IMO they were intending to negotiate amount or perhaps timeframe,ask any club to put up such a bond in such a tight timeframe and Dundee would be playing themselves this season,or is the credit crunch just a bad dream.

Livingston were not in administration and had until August 18th to avoid Administration,in an attempt to alleviate the fears of the SFL the process involving the Consortium has been sped up at an unnatural pace especially in the current climate,there are not many people in business who don't use the OPM approach and this takes time,months not days/hours.

The Bond

The bond isn't a large cheque that the consortium had to write in order to be allowed to play out the season. It's simply a document they require to sign to guarantee they are able to fulfil their fixtures, and should they fail to do so, the consortium are responsible for paying a sum of money as compensation to the SFL on a pro-rata basis. The fact that McGruther stated last week he could not guarantee the fulfilment of fixtures is the most likely reason the punishment was increased to demotion, and justifiably so.

Administration

Livi are currently in Interim Administration, which is still a breach of SFL rules.

Yes, there is a fair argument that the SFL's rulebook isn't exactly crystal clear. But it's worked fine for X number of years until now, and it's the same rulebook Livi agreed to abide by in being league members.

This situation is 100% the fault of Livingston FC, and no amount of kicking, screaming and spitting of Livi and their fans that it's the "big bad SFL's" fault is going to cut any ice.

[ayrmad]

But the difference between Livingston and Dundee (or any other club) is that Livi were already legally on the precipice. By entering Provisional Administration they had reached a milestone whereby the SFL were perfectly entitled to seek guarantees that they could fulfil their SFL1 fixtures - just as they did with Gretna last year.

The only person the SFL could formally deal with was McGruther as Provisional Administrator/Manager. That is why Massone and the Consortium were both denied a face to face hearing. At the first meeting it seems that McGruther (with the blessing of the Consortium) agreed to the Bond, hence all the "Livi Saved" headlines. At the follow-up meeting that offer was apparently withdrawn.

Either the Consortium were struggling to come up with the Bond (which as you say, would be understandable in the current climate) or they were trying to blackmail the SFL; back-tracking at the last minute when they (wrongly) assumed the SFL would be too weak to implement fixture changes impacting all three divisions so close to the start of the season.

I can't agree/disagree just giving my impression but the journo last night certainly was adamant even after probing by others that the bond was ok.

[mike rankine]

The Bond

The bond isn't a large cheque that the consortium had to write in order to be allowed to play out the season.

This situation is 100% the fault of Livingston FC, and no amount of kicking, screaming and spitting of Livi and their fans that it's the "big bad SFL's" fault is going to cut any ice.

My business understanding of a Bond is it is shorthand for a "Bank Guarantee." The Consortium would need to convince their bank to issue a bond stating that, in certain well-defined circumstances (e.g. failure to fulfil fixtures / pay players etc.) the bank would pay the 750k (or pro-rata) to the SFL. Businesses with a strong asset base, a creditable trading history and a good relationship with their bank can usually issue these without their bank requiring the equivalent amount of money to be blocked / frozen in a bank account. However, Charlatans and those with a less established trading relationship would need to put the money up front with the bank.

I agree 100% with your summing up though - bottom line is Livi have brought this on themselves.

[ayrmad]

The Bond

The bond isn't a large cheque that the consortium had to write in order to be allowed to play out the season. It's simply a document they require to sign to guarantee they are able to fulfil their fixtures, and should they fail to do so, the consortium are responsible for paying a sum of money as compensation to the SFL on a pro-rata basis. The fact that McGruther stated last week he could not guarantee the fulfilment of fixtures is the most likely reason the punishment was increased to demotion, and justifiably so.

Administration

Livi are currently in Interim Administration, which is still a breach of SFL rules.

Yes, there is a fair argument that the SFL's rulebook isn't exactly crystal clear. But it's worked fine for X number of years until now, and it's the same rulebook Livi agreed to abide by in being league members.

This situation is 100% the fault of Livingston FC, and no amount of kicking, screaming and spitting of Livi and their fans that it's the "big bad SFL's" fault is going to cut any ice.

The situation regarding the bond is a catch 22 as I certainly wouldn't put a bond up without knowing which league I was in as the sums involved are very different.

I'd assume that running the club in the 3rd would be a bigger gamble fanancially than in the 1st,why would anyone in their right mind place a 1st div bond with the chance of being demoted to the 3rd,that is why IMO McDougall wanted to be heard last week.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

The situation regarding the bond is a catch 22 as I certainly wouldn't put a bond up without knowing which league I was in as the sums involved are very different.

I'd assume that running the club in the 3rd would be a bigger gamble fanancially than in the 1st,why would anyone in their right mind place a 1st div bond with the chance of being demoted to the 3rd,that is why IMO McDougall wanted to be heard last week.

Yeah but my point was that if they hadn't fucked about over the bond, they WOULD be in Division One. It's the reason the punishment was increased.

Even if that wasn't the reason. a bond for 3rd Division football would have been a fraction of the amount.

[phantoms-livi-lass]

Well excuse me for being offline all last night and only addressing the point Edinburgh Livi made this morning.

Part timer!

[ayrmad]

My business understanding of a Bond is it is shorthand for a "Bank Guarantee." The Consortium would need to convince their bank to issue a bond stating that, in certain well-defined circumstances (e.g. failure to fulfil fixtures / pay players etc.) the bank would pay the 750k (or pro-rata) to the SFL. Businesses with a strong asset base, a creditable trading history and a good relationship with their bank can usually issue these without their bank requiring the equivalent amount of money to be blocked / frozen in a bank account. However, Charlatans and those with a less established trading relationship would need to put the money up front with the bank.

I agree 100% with your summing up though - bottom line is Livi have brought this on themselves.

While I agree that a BG would depend on an individuals track record I think it's naive to think financial institutions will just give these out at the drop of a hat in the current climate,I know that things have changed and even for those with far greater assets than the sum required are now being asked to jump through hoops.

Edited August 11, 2009 by ayrmad

[Sergeant Wilson]

What if they say on Thursday, they can fulfil the bond and guarantee completing the fixtures?