Homer Thompson Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Please correct me if i'm wrong (and that may very well be the case as i'm now losing track of whats happenning!) Livi were placed under interim management and the league asked for a meeting to confirm they could complete their fixtures Livi attended that meeting and McGruther couldn't confirm this (although he said that there were interested parties). Livi were then asked to put up a bond and confirm that all fixtures could be met and were given a week or so to comply At the second meeting this confirmation was not given and as such the lmc demoted them. McGruther appealed at the 11th hour and didn't play East Stirling the following day. *at this point the 'Livi 5' still didn't 'own' the club* At the appeal hearing the decision to relegate was upheld. (new owners now in place as of that morning) Given that the club wasn't actually in the hands of the new owners until the after the original decision..can they ask for a decision to be overturned based on the situation that was in place when the punishment was applied? What you mean, that they were in interim admin, therefore directly contravening the SFL rule that they were then punished for? Not the best basis for an appeal, I would have thought. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 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... Thats what I've been saying. There seems to be a few people on this thread who think their view has to be right and Livi are undoubtedly wrong. I just don't think that the rules and interpretation of them are that black and white. and as you say McDougall and Rankine are not fools and they must think they have a reasonable chance of ultimately winning 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 God, yiou're like a broken bloody record. That's decidedly ironic. I don't think anyone on here needs lessons in interpreation from a man who three days ago could not distinguish between "principal" and "principle" I made a spelling mistake. Big deal. Unless you have seen all the paper work between Livi and the SFL and know what was discussed you are no better informed than anyone else I don't need to see the paperwork. All that's needed is the ability to understand basic English. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 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 think the important part is the and/or in para 4. That to me means that the penalty can be reduced even if the decision is left in place 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 God, yiou're like a broken bloody record. I don't think anyone on here needs lessons in interpreation from a man who three days ago could not distinguish between "principal" and "principle"Unless you have seen all the paper work between Livi and the SFL and know what was discussed you are no better informed than anyone else We all know what has been publicly announced and what public (official) decisions have been made. Surely if Livy had some other document/written agreement with the SFL then we would all have heard about that too. Livy seem to be basing their appeals on the fact that they dont agree with the decisions/punishments. Are you saying that actually they might have some written evidence somewhere that proves their case, but just havent told anyone about it? Come on. Thats what I've been saying. There seems to be a few people on this thread who think their view has to be right and Livi are undoubtedly wrong. I just don't think that the rules and interpretation of them are that black and white. and as you say McDougall and Rankine are not fools and they must think they have a reasonable chance of ultimately winning Livy are undoubtedly in the wrong. That doesnt mean, unfortunately, that they wont win their appeal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I think the important part is the and/or in para 4. That to me means that the penalty can be reduced even if the decision is left in place That requires them to be found guilty of a "lesser offence"... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) I know we disagree on much of this and that's fair enough but I can't understand where you're coming from there at all, on any count. I want the SFL to take the self-interest out of their rules,put the punishments in black & white so the fans of all clubs know what will happen if they are in pre-admin,admin,insolvent,how much of a bond etc. Introduce wage to turnover ratios etc,to protect teams from nutters,dreamers etc. Where do they relegate an insolvent div 3 team to? If nowhere then that's unfair. The 2 clubs that have been relegated to the 3rd were new clubs in relative terms,what happens when a long established club with loads of history does similar? Will we just relegate them as well risking extinction. Why can't we just dish out a large points deduction giving them a slim chance of avoiding relegation,importantly this gives a club a season to sort their shit out with the highest income possible rather than punishing teams in footballing and financial terms,perverse IMO. Edited August 14, 2009 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I want the SFL to take the self-interest out of their rules,put the punishments in black & white so the fans of all clubs know what will happen if they are in pre-admin,admin,insolvent,how much of a bond etc. Fair point. But there are advantages to leaving the rules open, allowing the flexibility to deal with individual scenarios. Introduce wage to turnover ratios etc,to protect teams from nutters,dreamers etc. Anyone who wanted to could easily get round this. Theres nothing wrong with people investing in football clubs, its when they stop investing that the problems start! I think the SFL needs to be far tougher on clubs that dont pay players wages, or are obviously behind with rent payments or supplier bills. They need to be able to step in and impose sanctions/penalties at an earlier stage. Im not sure how this could be practically achieved though. Where do they relegate an insolvent div 3 team to? If nowhere then that's unfair. They get expelled from the league. Whats unfair about it? The 2 clubs that have been relegated to the 3rd were new clubs in relative terms,what happens when a long established club with loads of history does similar? Will we just relegate them as well risking extinction. Yes, of course. It shouldnt make any difference which club it is or how much history they have. If they break the rules on insolvency and then cant provide any guarantees that are asked for then they should be dealt with in the same way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 He's correct.However, he has grossly misunderstood when the appeal is actually made. It's not when Livi send a letter and a cheque (or whatever); it's when someone actually stood up at yesterday's meeting and said "here is our appeal..." and proceeded to talk. The rule is clear: the appeal is made to a Special General Meeting. It therefore cannot be made until that meeting is convened...and it wasn't convened until yesterday. So going by your logic Livi indicate their intention to appeal and at that stage the appeal has not started so they are still a third division club. At Thursday's meeting when the appeal hearing starts the penalty is set aside. So Livi are reinstated as a first division club for the couple of hours that the hearing takes before becoming a third division side again when they lose the vote. Doesnt really make sense does it ? The general practice is for a punishment to be set aside during an appeal - that happens in civil scottish court cases, it happens under SFA rules and it happens under certain aspects of the sfl rules. That is what Livi are relying on when they have refused to turn up and its a sustainable argument. You just can't see it as you have convinced yourself that you are right 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 That requires them to be found guilty of a "lesser offence"... No it doesn't. Thats why it says ' and/or ' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Breaking news - Livi will play Montrose tomorrow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Fair point. But there are advantages to leaving the rules open, allowing the flexibility to deal with individual scenarios. One of them being that the cuddly clubs can get treated differently. Anyone who wanted to could easily get round this. Theres nothing wrong with people investing in football clubs, its when they stop investing that the problems start! There are plenty of regulations that can be introduced making it slightly harder to get round,all monies invested should be done through shares. I think the SFL needs to be far tougher on clubs that dont pay players wages, or are obviously behind with rent payments or supplier bills. They need to be able to step in and impose sanctions/penalties at an earlier stage. Im not sure how this could be practically achieved though. I agree. They get expelled from the league. Whats unfair about it? Don't see that being a likely outcome unless it happens at an opportune time window. Yes, of course. It shouldnt make any difference which club it is or how much history they have. If they break the rules on insolvency and then cant provide any guarantees that are asked for then they should be dealt with in the same way. I agree,I find it strange that the decision making process at the 2nd meeting stage didn't allow those signing their life away to attend and be heard in person. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 So going by your logic Livi indicate their intention to appeal and at that stage the appeal has not started so they are still a third division club.At Thursday's meeting when the appeal hearing starts the penalty is set aside. So Livi are reinstated as a first division club for the couple of hours that the hearing takes before becoming a third division side again when they lose the vote. Doesnt really make sense does it ? That's not really what the rule is saying. It is a roundabout (some might say more formal) way of saying "the appeal succeeds unless the original decision is upheld by the meeting". The general practice is for a punishment to be set aside during an appeal - that happens in civil scottish court cases, And yet it doesn't, generally, happen in criminal cases. But either way, it's been pointed out that the SFL are not a legal body so can work to whatever method they want. it happens under SFA rules Which has got nothing to do with the SFL rules. and it happens under certain aspects of the sfl rules. "Certain aspects". But not this aspect. That is what Livi are relying on when they have refused to turn up and its a sustainable argument. It's not. The appeal is made to the meeting. That's it. There's absolutely no ambiguity. You just can't see it as you have convinced yourself that you are right I don't need to convince myself of anything. I know I'm right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Breaking news - Livi will play Montrose tomorrow. Are they prejudicing their own appeal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 No it doesn't. Thats why it says ' and/or ' Fair enough. Not that it makes much difference; the SFL acted within their rules, so for the SFA to turn round and impose a lesser punishment would (as I've been saying) completely undermine the SFL rulebook. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Breaking news - Livi will play Montrose tomorrow. If this is true, then they've completely undermined their own argument from last week. Excellent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghPar1975 Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 What you mean, that they were in interim admin, therefore directly contravening the SFL rule that they were then punished for? Not the best basis for an appeal, I would have thought. Thats what i'm trying to get to, the relegation (and subsequent appeal) were based on things that were happenning before the Livi 5 took over. Had they wanted to have a strong case for appeal I think that they would have needed to be in control before the LMC meeting that relegated them. In my eyes the new board are only able to appeal any decision based on their management from the point they took over....just before yesterdays meeting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 If this is true, then they've completely undermined their own argument from last week.Excellent. Probably just fed up listening to the wnakers moaning about them not turning up. Hope the SFL are correct as it will be cash compen they're seeking if they start playing games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Thats what i'm trying to get to, the relegation (and subsequent appeal) were based on things that were happenning before the Livi 5 took over. Had they wanted to have a strong case for appeal I think that they would have needed to be in control before the LMC meeting that relegated them. In my eyes the new board are only able to appeal any decision based on their management from the point they took over....just before yesterdays meeting. According to the LivvyLions website front page - McGruther is *still* in charge. It may be that handing formal control to the consortium will be a rubber-stamp exercise in the court but the control apparently still lies with him 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 According to the LivvyLions website front page - McGruther is *still* in charge. It may be that handing formal control to the consortium will be a rubber-stamp exercise in the court but the control apparently still lies with him Think you'll find Donny was at Albion b4 his shares in Dumbarton were sold. 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.