Livingston - all the threads merged

[The Master]

Depending on what was said in this correspondence prior to the relegation even if Livi loose all their appeals they could have a strong civil claim against the SFL for damages based on actions taken on their representations.

Really think the SFL need to back down now and save what face they can before Livi drag them into a troublesome and costly legal battle.

How can the SFL back down? As far as they're concerned, it's done and dusted and only need to act if instructed to by the SFA.

But even then, it could simply be a case of reconvening either the Management Committee or SGM and simply voting again, which could ultimately re-impose the same sanction. At which point, all football lines of appeal are cut off, because the SFA have made their decision (to hand it back to the SFL) and that's binding.

[Nowhereman]

Of course it would.

If the SFA decide to change Livi's sanction, it would be undermining one of the SFL's rules. In turn, that means none of the rules are safe from SFA intervention.

I seem to understand them a lot better than you do.

It wouldn't undermine the rules in any way at all if they merely changed the penalty or sent it back to the sfl for them to reconsider.The SFA are an appeal body after all and what is the purpose in having an appeal to the SFA if they are never expected to do aything which might interfere with an sfl decision

[roy of the rovers]

Who will hear this appeal to the SFA?

Donnie McIntyre (Chairman + Casting vote) (SFL, formerly Dumbarton FC?)

Donnie is now a Rovers director!

[The Master]

It wouldn't undermine the rules in any way at all if they merely changed the penalty

How can you possibly say that?

The SFL's rule is clear:

76.2 The Management Committee shall also have full power to deal with as it thinks fit, including power to deduct championship points before or during a season and/or to impose a player registration

embargo on any club guilty of conduct contrary to the interests of the League and its member

clubs or any registered player or former registered player, or potentially likely to prejudice the orderly

progress of the League Championship and/or the League Challenge Cup competition in any

season. Such conduct, for the avoidance of doubt, may include a club in or going into

Administration, Liquidation, Receivership, Sequestration or any other insolvency procedure by

whatever means or having a Judicial Factor appointed to its undertaking. For the further avoidance

of doubt, a club in or going into any such procedure will remain responsible for the purposes of this

Rule for the conduct of its undertaking by any Administrator, Liquidator, Receiver, Trustee in

Sequestration, Judicial Factor or other such officer appointed to it.

Livi clearly breached the rule and the very first line gives the SFL the power to impose any sanction "it thinks fit". So for the SFA to change that sanction would completely undermine the rule.

[Nowhereman]

True but what is uniquely revolutionary about this case? / No, they normally just 'send it back'...

Well how many other teams have been relegated two divisions for a breach of the rules in recent history ( excluding Gretna because they were about to go under anyway and the league knew that when they imposed the penalty )

[centralparker]

There is virtually no chance of the SFA interfering in SFL matters. Technically they have the power to do so but in nearly all cases they let the Scottish League get on with running their own affairs.

[southview]

I think Livi should let this go now. I think they will lose any remaining shred of sympathy if they pursue this through the SFA, especially if more games end up being postponed.

I don't see what grounds there are for appeal and I simply can't see half a dozen guys overuling not just a management committee, but the will of the SFL membership (yes, it was 16-10 but that means the majority of clubs wanted the punishment to stand.

Maybe McDougall feels he has a better chance of winning with the SFA guys deciding their appeal...? I think he would be better off concentrating on trying to get his club out of the third division.

I think the more important issue now is what happens when a club falls into insolvency. Now that Gretna and Livingston have been demoted to the third division in successive seasons, does that mean that will be the fate of clubs in the future?

This rule which allows the SFL can do anything they like if a club falls into any insolvency leaves far too much room for grey areas. This matter needs to be addressed now so that everyone knows what will happen.

If the SFL think automatic demotion is what should happen, fine. Say so. I believe it would be outrageously harsh and very hard to implement, particularly if a club falls into administration during the season. What happens then?

I feel a points deduction is sufficient for insolvent clubs and that's what should have happened to Livi on the day the SFL gave McGruther the go ahead to bypass Massone and give McDougall/Rankine preferred bidder status.

I also feel an independent panel with no connections to SPL/SFL should be installed so that issues such as this one can be decided without their being vested interests all over the place.

I haven't watched press conferences on bbc websites yet but the tag line to the SFL one is "Livi crisis handled impeccably - Longmuir".

Is he having a laugh? Whilst Livi's conduct throughout this saga, and particularly over this last week, has been shocking, the SFL's judgement has been poor at times and only helped escalate the situation.

[Doink]

It's pointless for Livvy to appeal again. The SFA won't interfere with the actions of an individual league. Why should they, it's really none of their business.

Why is it pointless?

[Doink]

I also feel an independent panel with no connections to SPL/SFL should be installed so that issues such as this one can be decided without their being vested interests all over the place.

Never thought of that

[Nowhereman]

How can you possibly say that?

The SFL's rule is clear:

Livi clearly breached the rule and the very first line gives the SFL the power to impose any sanction "it thinks fit". So for the SFA to change that sanction would completely undermine the rule.

So what is the point in having the SFA as an appeal body if they are never going to overrule anything that the sfl do?

[The Master]

So what is the point in having the SFA as an appeal body if they are never going to overrule anything that the sfl do?

I didn't say that.

The SFA are there for appealing when a club feels it hasn't broken the rules, or an organisation doesn't implement its rules correctly. An example I gave earlier on was imposing a greater fine than the (organisation's) rules allow.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Sir Calum Melville

[HibeeJibee]

Howdo HJ, can't quite understand why you oppose Livi's actions and the possible fixture chaos which could result from that - surely unexpected fixture chaos at short notice could throw up a consultancy project for an acknowledged fixtures specialist - now where would you find one of these?

, actually Livi leaving Berwick sitting free on Sat 22nd August might prove quite useful, WJR...

One thing must be sure, McDougall and Rankine know how the league and management committee work, almost certainly better than every poster on this thread and they will have access to all the relevant correspondence and meeting notes.

Barrack room lawyers like Sir Calum amuse me.

The one thing I'd never take McDougall or Rankine to be are fools... If they are appealing, it's as they think they can win. McDougall in particular knows his way round Scottish football very well.

In defence of Sir Calum Melville... he's been making reasoned comments to often ludicrous ideas. Personally, I agree with a lot of his intrepretations and, to date, so have the governing bodies. I remain to be convinced the SFA Appeals Panel will have the balls to defy 30 SFA member clubs.

It wouldn't undermine the rules in any way at all if they merely changed the penalty or sent it back to the sfl for them to reconsider.

Of course it would. It would be revolutionary. It would emasculate all governing bodies bar SFA.

Really think the SFL need to back down now and save what face they can before Livi drag them into a troublesome and costly legal battle.

IMO we're now far too far down the road for the SFL to do anything but fight this to the death.

The SFA are an appeal body after all and what is the purpose in having an appeal to the SFA if they are never expected to do aything which might interfere with an sfl decision

The purpose is to right any injustice, or provide a suggestion to look again... Livi were in breach of SFL rules... so unless the SFL have done something improper, the appeal is about severity of punishment. It would be a big step into the unknown for the SFA to set a new punishment here.

I was very sure that Livingston's grounds for appeal to the SFL were wrong and that they'd lose today's appeal, and I was right. I'm also very sure that they should lose the appeal to the SFA, but I'm nothing like as confident that they will - SFA Appeals Panels move in mysterious ways...

We may even see Livi back to the SFA in a few weeks - appealling a points fine for scratching...?

Edited August 13, 2009 by HibeeJibee

[HibeeJibee]

So what is the point in having the SFA as an appeal body if they are never going to overrule anything that the sfl do?

For example: if Livi had been demoted without having been in court. Or if the SFL had held SGM without waiver from all clubs. SFA verdicts are usually about rules, and not morality of punishment.

At the same time, this is a relatively unique case, so don't be 100% cock-sure SFA will chuck it out. As McDougall and Rankine wouldn't be appealling if it was that clear-cut (whereas they could well have known they'd lose today... but strung McGruther on, on assertions of no further appeals, in order to get the issue into SFA hands). So there are more twists to come yet in this saga, IMO...

Edited August 13, 2009 by HibeeJibee

[Guest WJR]

Well how many other teams have been relegated two divisions for a breach of the rules in recent history ( excluding Gretna because they were about to go under anyway and the league knew that when they imposed the penalty )

I've posted this before but it will be lost in the mists of this thread

In the Gretna situation the SFL used their wide ranging powers to bin them to the 3rd in the sure knowledge that they would go bust at some later date which could disrupt the SFL league programme and they wanted to make sure the 1st Div and 2nd Div fixtures would be unaffected.

That way they didn't care about the diddy team coming into the 3rd as they would simply slot into the free spot

Annan are not a diddy team by the way!

[The Master]

On closer scrutiny, I don't think Livingston can use "too harsh a punishment" as grounds for appeal. Look:

133.1.4:

The Appeals Committee shall have the power to:-

(1) affirm the decision of the body whose decision is appealed against;

(2) uphold the appeal by setting aside the decision appealed against and quashing any

penalty imposed;

(3) uphold the appeal in part by setting aside part only of the decision appealed against;

(4) substitute for the decision appealed against a decision to find the appellant guilty of

a lesser offence and/or to impose a lesser penalty or penalties in respect thereof;

(5) refer the case, or any part of it, back to the body whose decision is appealed

against;

(6) take any step which, in the exercise of its discretion, the Appeals Committee

considers it would be appropriate to take in order to deal justly with the case in

question.

I've placed in bold the key points: it seems that only a decision can be appealed against and not the penalty.

EDIT: use of the word "the" is also important; it implies that an appeal is always against a decision. Otherwise, it would have said "a".

Edited August 13, 2009 by Sir Calum Melville

[HibeeJibee]

On closer scrutiny, I don't think Livingston can use "too harsh a punishment" as grounds for appeal. Look:

I've placed in bold the key points: it seems that only a decision can be appealed against and not the penalty.

That is the case, but there's always the "catch-all" of (6) - which effectively gives carte-blanche!!

Edited August 13, 2009 by HibeeJibee

[The Master]

That is the case, but there's always the "catch-all" of [6] which effectively gives carte-blanche.

I've now edited with a further thought that may rule that out as well

[phantoms-livi-lass]

On closer scrutiny, I don't think Livingston can use "too harsh a punishment" as grounds for appeal. Look:

133.1.4:

I've placed in bold the key points: it seems that only a decision can be appealed against and not the penalty.

EDIT: use of the word "the" is also important; it implies that an appeal is always against a decision. Otherwise, it would have said "a".

I'm not following on this, explain?

[Guest WJR]

In defence of Sir Calum Melville... he's been making reasoned comments to often ludicrous ideas. Personally, I agree with a lot of his intrepretations and, to date, so have the governing bodies. I remain to be convinced the SFA Appeals Panel will have the balls to defy 30 SFA member clubs.

Of course it would. It would be revolutionary. It would emasculate all governing bodies bar SFA.

/quote]

No it wouldn't be revolutionary HJ. Sir Calum is basing his posts on his interpretation of the rules. You need to look at all the dealings between parties on any dispute, phone calls, meetings, correspondence as well as the rules.

I have also posted this on this thread but again ignored.

In a matter we raised with the SFA they threw it out relying on their rules saying the matter could not be proved. Case closed.

Well the courts took a different view and the player we complained about was convicted.

Not sure how Livi will do but they are not stupid people.

[The Master]

I'm not following on this, explain?

"The" is the definite article. That is, in the context of an appeal, it is definitely a decision being appealed against.

"A" is an indefinite article. That is, in the context of an appeal, it's not necessarily a decision that's being appealed against, but if it was then these actions can be carried out.