Livingston - all the threads merged

[Yoss]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by self-interest, the interest of the league? Of course that's what the rules are there for. As far as set penalties go, that's tricky, the various leagues down south have a set penalty of a ten point deduction but have found that circumstances vary so much that they've had to vary from it on at least five occasions I can think of in the past three seasons. They're also hamstrung by hard and fast rules such as not allowing teams to start the season without an agreed CVA in place, which they've then had to back down on. You end up with tha absurd situation that also happened yesterday, where Chester are initially not allowed to start the season because the rules don't allow it, then realise the rules don't work so break them anyway, and then the FA have to fine the Conference for breaching their rules.

It's something that should be looked at but there's a lot to be said for flexibility. Something like a bond, in aprticular, is going to vary wildly down to circumstances, you can't put in a fixed rule or sum for that.

Introduce wage to turnover ratios etc,to protect teams from nutters,dreamers etc.

There's general agreement and a fair amount of discussion during the course of the thread that some such measures are needed. I don't see how that's relevant to where we are now. More can and should be done in future to try and stop teams getting into such trouble, but that's unrelated to the fact that Livingston have already done so and bear 100% responsibility for it.

Where do they relegate an insolvent div 3 team to? If nowhere then that's unfair.

I think the SFL were fairly explicit that the relegation was not intended as a punitive measure, either in the case of Gretna or Livingston. In Livi's case at least they openly said they would allow them to start in the first division *if* they could provide the necessary guarantees. They were placed in the third division because, like Gretna, they were unable to do so, and a midseason withdrawal at that level would cause least damage or disruption (the third division teams might not see it that way but I think the league as a whole has to). If that's the logic they're applying then no, there'd be no reason to expel or demote a third division club in a simialr scenario, though I like to think they'd at least get a hefty points deduction.

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.

I'm not sure if you have a point there - if you're suggesting the SFL are applying different rules then there's no evidence to back it up, unless and until such a scenario happens. Ungrounded speculation that they might treat Raith or Ayr differently doesn't have any bearing on our discussion of the rights and wrongs of the current situation.

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.

There are two separate issues there though, there's the issue of any punishment for going through administration (or other such insolvency procedure) - I agree a mandatory points penalty should be applied, as in England and the SPL.

There's a second issue of clubs being able to guarantee that they're on a legally sound footing and able to complete the season. Points penalties don't come into it there, and England are far stricter here as well - in theory at least. As I said above, clubs in Livingston's position down south who are under insolvency proceedings but yet to agree a CVA are not supposed to be allowed to start the season *at all*. As they've discovered themselves this is far too strict, and they've had to break those rules again for Chester as they did for Leeds a couple of years ago.

The SFL have a different tack, clearly. They have more flexible rules,a dn they prfer to allow teams to play, even with no guarantee they can complete the season, but put them int he division where it will do elast damage in terms of overall fiancial cost or the image / reputation of the league. Whether or not you agree (I'm not sure I agree myself) I don't think that's such an unreasonable position as to justify calling the SFL for being useless or incompetent. (Still less for claiming the stance is illegal and likely to be overturned by the court.) It's not even a particularly strict position - the English rules are much harsher.

[Homer Thompson]

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.

I dont think it matters though. Its not the owners who are being punished, its the club. The new owners will take over the same club that Mcgruther did when Massone "went", the same club that Massone "bought" from good ol' Errol.

If thats the basis of their appeal, they might as well go for a big boy did it and ran away!

[Sergeant Wilson]

If this is true, then they've completely undermined their own argument from last week.

Excellent.

Or, they have been tipped the wink on how to win over another couple of friends, should The SFA ask The League to reconsider. (Probably not, but maybe)

The way it has gone, the more I think McDougall knew it would get to this stage.

[Yoss]

Anyway, my article on the recent developments at Livi can be read here, if anyone's interested:

http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=1810

[ayrmad]

I'm not sure what you mean by self-interest, the interest of the league? Of course that's what the rules are there for. As far as set penalties go, that's tricky, the various leagues down south have a set penalty of a ten point deduction but have found that circumstances vary so much that they've had to vary from it on at least five occasions I can think of in the past three seasons. They're also hamstrung by hard and fast rules such as not allowing teams to start the season without an agreed CVA in place, which they've then had to back down on. You end up with tha absurd situation that also happened yesterday, where Chester are initially not allowed to start the season because the rules don't allow it, then realise the rules don't work so break them anyway, and then the FA have to fine the Conference for breaching their rules.

It's something that should be looked at but there's a lot to be said for flexibility. Something like a bond, in aprticular, is going to vary wildly down to circumstances, you can't put in a fixed rule or sum for that.

There's general agreement and a fair amount of discussion during the course of the thread that some such measures are needed. I don't see how that's relevant to where we are now. More can and should be done in future to try and stop teams getting into such trouble, but that's unrelated to the fact that Livingston have already done so and bear 100% responsibility for it.

I think the SFL were fairly explicit that the relegation was not intended as a punitive measure, either in the case of Gretna or Livingston. In Livi's case at least they openly said they would allow them to start in the first division *if* they could provide the necessary guarantees. They were placed in the third division because, like Gretna, they were unable to do so, and a midseason withdrawal at that level would cause least damage or disruption (the third division teams might not see it that way but I think the league as a whole has to). If that's the logic they're applying then no, there'd be no reason to expel or demote a third division club in a simialr scenario, though I like to think they'd at least get a hefty points deduction.

Yes.

I'm not sure if you have a point there - if you're suggesting the SFL are applying different rules then there's no evidence to back it up, unless and until such a scenario happens. Ungrounded speculation that they might treat Raith or Ayr differently doesn't have any bearing on our discussion of the rights and wrongs of the current situation.

There are two separate issues there though, there's the issue of any punishment for going through administration (or other such insolvency procedure) - I agree a mandatory points penalty should be applied, as in England and the SPL.

There's a second issue of clubs being able to guarantee that they're on a legally sound footing and able to complete the season. Points penalties don't come into it there, and England are far stricter here as well - in theory at least. As I said above, clubs in Livingston's position down south who are under insolvency proceedings but yet to agree a CVA are not supposed to be allowed to start the season *at all*. As they've discovered themselves this is far too strict, and they've had to break those rules again for Chester as they did for Leeds a couple of years ago.

The SFL have a different tack, clearly. They have more flexible rules,a dn they prfer to allow teams to play, even with no guarantee they can complete the season, but put them int he division where it will do elast damage in terms of overall fiancial cost or the image / reputation of the league. Whether or not you agree (I'm not sure I agree myself) I don't think that's such an unreasonable position as to justify calling the SFL for being useless or incompetent. (Still less for claiming the stance is illegal and likely to be overturned by the court.) It's not even a particularly strict position - the English rules are much harsher.

I'm after a clearout on Scottish football in general,we are a shambles of a football playing nation from top to bottom,clubs in similar positions have received wildly varying treatment(some with no punishment) and still we are governed by the same fcukwits with much the same structure and regulation.

If some imaginary company came in and sponsored the SFL for a significantly higher amount than the SPL telly deal the SPL clubs would want to rejoin and have SFL 1,2,3 and 4,everything appears to be run or changed solely for financial reasons nothing else,we can't as a nation even produce players that can control a ball or pass more than 10 yards without missing their intended target.

Our priorities are all wrong.

[The Naitch]

Breaking news - Livi will play Montrose tomorrow.

Good news, if true. Can't help but think that they're only doing this because it's a home game though...

[ayrmad]

Or, they have been tipped the wink on how to win over another couple of friends, should The SFA ask The League to reconsider. (Probably not, but maybe)

The way it has gone, the more I think McDougall knew it would get to this stage.

I don't think McDougall is as misguided as some on here seem to think,his track record points to someone who knows how to run a club responsibly with their best interests at heart,I'd assume that if he continues down this road that he has good reason to,or perhaps he's just lost his marbles.

[Guest Flash]

All this stuff about them being a First Division team until any appeal is settled is hogwash and they know it.

If you are found guilty of a crime and successfully lodge an appeal, they don't let you out of the pokey while you await the retrial whatever.

The SFL rules are similar - Livi have been found guilty and sentenced. If their appeal had been successful, they would have been be reinstated. If by some miracle their appeal to the SFA overturns the SFL verdict and sentence, they will be reinstated. Unless and until that happens, they are a Third Division club.

Perhaps the penny has dropped with them now that they have nothing to gain by not playing and the only thing that will happen is a loss of points, with a bigger loss for every game they fail to show up for.

[Guest WJR]

That's decidedly ironic.

I made a spelling mistake. Big deal.

I don't need to see the paperwork. All that's needed is the ability to understand basic English.

Bollocks! It was obvious from your posts that you had completely missed WTM's point.

Also pretty obvious you have never actually submitted an appeal to the football authorities.

If I am like a broken record it is because self important opinionated twats like you don't answer simple questions eg how many many appeals have you actually made.

To say you don't need to see the paperwork is a quite astonishing statement of your ignorance.

[Yoss]

The decision to play tomorrow is a slightly odd one, because this time they'd actually be right. Unlike the SFL, the SFA's rules do indeed explicitly state that the decision would be set aside pending the appeal being heard. And why is it going to prejudice such an appeal any less than it did last week? It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that they simply care less about another club's home fixture than they do about their own. But maybe I'm imputing motive where none exists.

[Homer Thompson]

Bollocks! It was obvious from your posts that you had completely missed WTM's point.

Also pretty obvious you have never actually submitted an appeal to the football authorities.

If I am like a broken record it is because self important opinionated twats like you don't answer simple questions eg how many many appeals have you actually made.

To say you don't need to see the paperwork is a quite astonishing statement of your ignorance.

I've never killed anyone, but I know enough about the law of the land to know I'd get put in prison if I was found guilty.

Like I said earlier, what is this magical paperwork of which you speak, that no-one involved has ever mentioned?

[MB]

The decision to play tomorrow is a slightly odd one, because this time they'd actually be right. Unlike the SFL, the SFA's rules do indeed explicitly state that the decision would be set aside pending the appeal being heard. And why is it going to prejudice such an appeal any less than it did last week? It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that they simply care less about another club's home fixture than they do about their own. But maybe I'm imputing motive where none exists.

That thought immediately sprung to my mind as well. Home fixture = much needed revenue.

Anyway, it has been confirmed now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ton/8199728.stm

[The Master]

Bollocks! It was obvious from your posts that you had completely missed WTM's point.

No it wasn't.

I made a common spelling error. Simple as that.

Also pretty obvious you have never actually submitted an appeal to the football authorities.

And neither have you.

But I have read the rules, which state that an appeal is made to the SGM...so it's impossible to have appealed until that meeting has been convened.

If I am like a broken record it is because self important opinionated twats like you don't answer simple questions eg how many many appeals have you actually made.

Considering that's the first time you've asked it...

To say you don't need to see the paperwork is a quite astonishing statement of your ignorance.

Why do I need to see the paperwork to understand the SFL's rules?

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Bollocks! It was obvious from your posts that you had completely missed WTM's point.

Also pretty obvious you have never actually submitted an appeal to the football authorities.

If I am like a broken record it is because self important opinionated twats like you don't answer simple questions eg how many many appeals have you actually made.

To say you don't need to see the paperwork is a quite astonishing statement of your ignorance.

How terribly strange.

I was under the impression this was a football forum whereby we were all entitled to state our opinions on the current situation.

I wish someone had told me we required to consult some sort of paperwork in order to be permitted to make a point.

[Yoss]

I would also hate to think that Montrose's current injury and suspension problems were any kind of a consideration.

WJR - it's not obvious to me why anyone would need to see the paperwork relating to a specific appeal in order to interpret, or at least to have an opinion on interpretation of, the SFL rulebook.

[The Master]

I would also hate to think that Montrose's current injury and suspension problems were any kind of a consideration.

Why would that matter? Livi should surely be viewing this as little more than a friendly, played under competitive conditions (i.e. 3 subs).

There's also the cost of staging the game; they'll be lucky to break 1,000 so there's a good chance that stewarding, police, electricity etc. will cost more than they take in at the gate. So why go through with it if the game is just going to be annulled anyway?

Unless, of course, they know that the appeal to the SFA is doomed to failure...

Edited August 14, 2009 by Sir Calum Melville

[Nowhereman]

That thought immediately sprung to my mind as well. Home fixture = much needed revenue.

Anyway, it has been confirmed now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ton/8199728.stm

Totally baffled by that decision. Up until now I could understand their logic but this contradicts completely what has gone before

[Nowhereman]

Why would that matter? Livi should surely be viewing this as little more than a friendly, played under competitive conditions (i.e. 3 subs).

There's also the cost of staging the game; they'll be lucky to break 1,000 so there's a good chance that stewarding, police, electricity etc. will cost more than they take in at the gate. So why go through with it if the game is just going to be annulled anyway?

Unless, of course, they know that the appeal to the SFA is doomed to failure...

Or alternatively that they know it is going to be succesful ...

[Guest WJR]

And neither have you.

Wrong again chummy!

It's a pretty simple point I was making, I wouldn't presume to pass a view on the rights or wrongs of any set of cirtsamces without being in possession of all the relevant facts. If others like you choose to do so that is up to you.

[Guest WJR]

Wrong again chummy!

It's a pretty simple point I was making, I wouldn't presume to pass a view on the rights or wrongs of any set of cirtsamces without being in possession of all the relevant facts. If others like you choose to do so that is up to you.

Oops spelling. Sorry about that, wasn't even close!

And for the record I was commenting on my own personal experience in appeals