ayrmad Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Obviously missed your vocation with the Diplomatic Corps Ayrmad Some things are better left unsaid. I don't think they are,if as you posted they were assured of a place in Div 1 if a bond was posted, then took last weeks decision regardless of wether or not a bond was posted then IMO that's is totally wrong and against the whole ethos of sport. Regardless of Livi's behaviour if the above happened then I think that is a very dangerous course of action for SFL clubs to be taking in the current climate,unless they are all financially sound and all have credit facilities that is. I know my club can hardly get a pie on tick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I don't think they are,if as you posted they were assured of a place in Div 1 if a bond was posted, then took last weeks decision regardless of wether or not a bond was posted then IMO that's is totally wrong and against the whole ethos of sport.Regardless of Livi's behaviour if the above happened then I think that is a very dangerous course of action for SFL clubs to be taking in the current climate,unless they are all financially sound and all have credit facilities that is. I know my club can hardly get a pie on tick. But that isnt what happened. The rest of the quote, from McMaster, that I posted earlier today was - "We've done our best to avoid fixture chaos. Mr McGruther was asked if he (was certain he) could fulfil all 36 fixtures in the First Division next season and he said, 'No'. "We thought the lowest risk was to have them in the Third Division." Again, I dont see any room for interpretation of mis-understanding. McGruther couldnt guarantee the club could fulfill Div 1 fixtures, whether that be because the bond was posted or not is irrelevant, so the decision was to demote them to the 3rd. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I think he has an uncanny resemblence to Dominic Keane. Maybe it is just the clown suit that is pushing me that way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike rankine Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I don't think they are,if as you posted they were assured of a place in Div 1 if a bond was posted, then took last weeks decision regardless of wether or not a bond was posted then IMO that's is totally wrong and against the whole ethos of sport. That's not what I'm saying. I'm agreeing with you that the non-appearance of the Bond may have given the SFL MC an opportunity to reconsider their initial decision / punishment. The MC's job is to apply the rules fairly and consistently for the benefit of all member clubs. If a significant majority of member clubs have made it known to the MC in the interim that they are furious at the apparent leniency shown to Livi, then I can understand why the MC would take those views on board when reconsidering the sanction. However, it would be madness for them to say so - like I noted...some things are better left unsaid. However, the only reason the MC got the chance to reconsider their decision was the Consortium's failure to provide the Bond. The two things are clearly linked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Again, I dont see any room for interpretation of mis-understanding. McGruther couldnt guarantee the club could fulfill Div 1 fixtures, whether that be because the bond was posted or not is irrelevant, so the decision was to demote them to the 3rd. Exactly. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 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. Do you remember the "professional journalists" who spouted the line of Livingston being "the new model by which all aspiring clubs should judge themselves"? The punters thought somewhat differently. Guess who was right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsson. Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Sorry. There is too much happening, keep them coming though if I don't laugh right now I'll have a breakdown! Is The Ghost of Jim Morton your dad? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Do you remember the "professional journalists" who spouted the line of Livingston being "the new model by which all aspiring clubs should judge themselves"? The punters thought somewhat differently. Guess who was right? I wasn't sticking up for the journo,he certainly was convinced that Livi done all that was required last week. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djn Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 It'll still be here by Tuesday I reckon (admittedly, Mr X did show his face) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike rankine Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 McGruther couldnt guarantee the club could fulfill Div 1 fixtures, whether that be because the bond was posted or not is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant. If McGruther had said "Yes, I can guarantee we have the financial means to fulfil all 36 fixtures" then the SFL MC would have asked for proof - i.e. show me the money. The way that is done in businessland is a Bond/Bank Guarantee. There is no way the SFL would simply have accepted McGruther's (or the Consortium's) word. The Bond was critical in all of this, and the Consortium couldn't (or wouldn't) deliver it, despite their earlier reassurances. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Why is this not back on the 1st Div forum? According to the SFL rather strangely after all the pish of the last week Livi,Airdrie and Cowden are in the 1st,2nd an 3rd respectively. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Is The Ghost of Jim Morton your dad? No, much more intimate than that! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 No football = No life. Oh please no.............not that line. All I can say is that those who believe that have yet to sample a hand of the shitty cards life can sometimes deal out. Believe me, "no football = no life" is one of Western Europe's biggest lies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Why is this not back on the 1st Div forum?According to the SFL rather strangely after all the pish of the last week Livi,Airdrie and Cowden are in the 1st,2nd an 3rd respectively. Oh please don't send us back up there. They are bad up there! It's much more fun here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 It's not irrelevant. If McGruther had said "Yes, I can guarantee we have the financial means to fulfil all 36 fixtures" then the SFL MC would have asked for proof - i.e. show me the money. The way that is done in businessland is a Bond/Bank Guarantee.There is no way the SFL would simply have accepted McGruther's (or the Consortium's) word. The Bond was critical in all of this, and the Consortium couldn't (or wouldn't) deliver it, despite their earlier reassurances. That may well be the case but I think its unrealistic in the current climate to expect these things to be forthcoming in the timeframe required,perhaps the Consortium misjudged the time required in the same way some of the posters on here have,after all neither of them are in the top echelons of non-billionaires. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike rankine Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Do you remember the "professional journalists" who spouted the line of Livingston being "the new model by which all aspiring clubs should judge themselves"? Yep - that's always annoyed me. Plus the nonsense spouted by Flynn during his time in charge where he tried to set up SPL2, jettosing clubs like my own which were founder members of the League and have tried to live within their means, floating between Div 2 and Div 3 as a result, while charlatans buy artificial league positions with money they can't pay back. And don't get me started on the pundit apologists, led by Alan Preston and John Robertson. Rant over...for now 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I hope you see the irony in your post? I did. I even quoted it and wrote out a post about the irony in it but figured I'd just let it go and never posted it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) Looks as if Livi will not have a game this weekend. The SFL ought to get their act together. I what way is Livi not having a full safety certificate... or scratching another SFL game because the appeal hasn't been heard this week... the SFL's fault? Surely both these things are Livi's fault - for failing to have had the work done (if it hasn't been), or for failing to play a scheduled league tie? Edited August 11, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I what way is Livi not having a full safety certificate... or scratching another SFL game because the appeal hasn't been heard this week... the SFL's fault? Surely both these things are Livi's fault - for failing to have had the work done (if it hasn't been), or for failing to play a scheduled league tie? I suspect he shit-stirs. According to LL there will be an inspection before Saturday and the game will go ahead. If it doesn't and it's Livi's fault (again) they can expect another points deduction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) I suspect he shit-stirs.According to LL there will be an inspection before Saturday and the game will go ahead. If it doesn't and it's Livi's fault (again) they can expect another points deduction. Hope the stadium is OK for you. Btw what would Livi have done this weekend if still in Div 1 ? Edited August 11, 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.