jimbo Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Why does this keep getting repeated? Other clubs weren't/aren't in administration. That's the whole point. There is no reason to doubt that they will not complete their schedule fixtures. Livi on the hand.... hence why the bond was asked for. To compensate for if you go t1 ts up AGAIN. Which may still happen if your appeal fails! Because I do wonder how many ther clubs could do this. I am allowed to wonder aren't I? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) And as also stated repeatedly in the thread, providing a bond of £750K does not mean being able to put your hands on that money up front, during that week. Anyway, speaking of mismanaged clubs, this statement from Bournemouth the other day made for interesting reading, they came out of admin last summer but ran up another millions quids worth of debt last season. Some clubs just never learn: http://www.afcb.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,1...1779943,00.html Edited September 2, 2009 by Yoss 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) Correct me if I'm wrong, but would this not be available under The Freedom Of Information Act 2000? It doesn't really matter what the level of rent is. The council line is that it would cost them £80,000 for care and maintenance of an empty stadium and given that no one else is likely to want to rent it, then they are as well to get what they can. The stadium should have been offered to the open market and if there were no takers at a proper rent, not one written on the back of a brown envelope, then the it should have been demolished, the land sold and the proceeds returned to the council for the benefit of all the local residents. What would be more interesting as a F.O.I. request is the amount of money the council has lost to LFC and the amount of money donated by way of sponsorship. Anyone know if you have to be a WL resident to make a request? Edited September 2, 2009 by AND180Y 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) It doesn't really matter what the level of rent is. The council line is that it would cost them £80,000 for care and maintenance of an empty stadium and given that no one else is likely to want to rent it, then they are as well to get what they can. It's an utter nonsense. If that is the case then the local authority should take the hit and board the thing up and leave it to rot, while trying to sell the land. Not slash the rent and (in effect...) subsidise a business which in the past has repeatedly shafted it!! WLC built the stadium and has ended up footing much of the ongoing costs etc. (because Livi, have failed to pay the rent as a matter of routine). Least you can expect Livi to do is pay a decent market rate, going forward... I was not aware of any responsibility for local government to subsidise loss-making football clubs (especially not ones which have repeatedly run up debs then baulked them). I can see why WLC wants to retain Scottish League football at Almondvale, but it shouldn't be 'at any price', surely? Edited September 2, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I don't have a problem with WL Council's actions. If they (and, indirectly, their electors) think it's an appropriate use of their cash for the prestige of having a senior club or for the money it brings into the town or whatever, that's up to them. None of my business. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Gray Ate My Hamster Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I don't have a problem with WL Council's actions. If they (and, indirectly, their electors) think it's an appropriate use of their cash for the prestige of having a senior club or for the money it brings into the town or whatever, that's up to them. None of my business. Surely it's taken far more out than it's put in? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Like Phantom's Livi Lass I am not unduly upset at playing in Division 3. I am content watching my team compete wherever they find themselves on a Saturday and to be honest it can be more pleasant than the cut throat, segregated, almost strip search you at the gate, pay an arm and a leg to get in, SPL. Also like P-l-l, I don’t take issue with the need for suitable punishment. However the point I have quoted does make me wonder about the motives and integrity of the sfl management committee. The interim manager (an insolvency practitioner!) was asked if he could guarantee that Livi would complete all games in Division 1. He would have been a very brave insolvency practitioner if he had said yes to this question. The new Livi chairman who could have given that assurance was standing outside the room having been barred from entering and was never asked. Livi were also given a week to get together £750k as a bond of guarantee. If asked, I have to wonder how many current Division 1 clubs would be able to set aside such a sum. It was my understanding that Livi were actually in a position to do this. I am not sure however if it was ready on the day. That Livi are guilty of shady practice over a number of years cannot be refuted and certainly won’t be by me. However let’s not ignore the fact that what goes on in the committee rooms at Hampden is not always transparent or whiter than white. There is something that smells surrounding this whole situation and it is not all coming from those based at Almondvale. The Interim Manager had to make the call. The new Chairman was in name only. He had no decision making powers whatsoever at that stage. Ask yourself why the new guys appear on the horizon, the Council Leader makes numerous newspaper quotes about seeking to get the money owed, yet he is the man rolled out at Hampden to speak up for the new owners......he couldn't possibly be there representing the club, as by his own words, he had set the administration ball rolling. Ask yourself why he got into bed so quickly with the new guys, and why now he isn't so fussed about getting the public funds re-couped. Given the very short time twixt meeting Rankine and MacDougal to appearing at Hampden as a key supporter, it really begs the question of what that relationship is all about, and why it blossomed so quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) I don't have a problem with WL Council's actions. If they (and, indirectly, their electors) think it's an appropriate use of their cash for the prestige of having a senior club or for the money it brings into the town or whatever, that's up to them. None of my business. Time will tell, but the lack of transparency speaks volumes. If they wish to make a single exception to policy, then yes, that is their right. It's up to those affected by that action to ultimately sanction it. I certainly think other tenants in WL will be sitting up and taking notice, and rightly so. There is this ongoing myth that Livingston represent WL. They don't and they never will. It is as it says on the tin. They represent one town. Just as Falkirk do not represent the Central Region, and neither Rangers nor Celtic represent Strathclyde. Other than Barcelona, it is hard to think of any football club that truly represents a district or region......maybe Ross County, by their very name, go some way towards it. LFC can claim to be the only "senior" side in WL, but that does not and never will mark them out as some sort of default club that has the sympathies of the region's tax payers. That bit of rhetoric keeps getting rolled out again and again, and it is one of the shifting sands upon which this club was founded. Edited September 2, 2009 by Guest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCL Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The Interim Manager had to make the call. The new Chairman was in name only. He had no decision making powers whatsoever at that stage. Ask yourself why the new guys appear on the horizon, the Council Leader makes numerous newspaper quotes about seeking to get the money owed, yet he is the man rolled out at Hampden to speak up for the new owners......he couldn't possibly be there representing the club, as by his own words, he had set the administration ball rolling. Ask yourself why he got into bed so quickly with the new guys, and why now he isn't so fussed about getting the public funds re-couped. Given the very short time twixt meeting Rankine and MacDougal to appearing at Hampden as a key supporter, it really begs the question of what that relationship is all about, and why it blossomed so quickly. ...or had been months in the making ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 ...or had been months in the making ? Is that possible? Say it ain't so, Joe. (and a point for naming the book, and another for the film based on the book). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Relegating a club by two leagues for insolvency is pretty severe - they don't even do that in England. This shambles has its origins in the Gretna situation. Gretna were in the SPL when they went into administration towards the end of the SPL season. The SPL were cacking themselves that Gretna would go bust before the end of the season with all the ramifications that would bring with fixtures, particularly in respect of the Old Firm fixtures/results. As I understand it, the SPL tried their best to get an SFL hopeful to bail them out by keeping Gretna going until the end of the season but when said SFL hopefuls said no thanks the SPL managed to find the cash to keep Gretna going until the end of the season thereby transferring the "Gretna problem" from the SPL to the SFL. The SFL in turn were cacking themselves that Gretna would go bust before the start of the season with all the fixture chaos that would bring. Solution? Relegate Gretna to the 3rd allowing the two re-instated teams to plan for their season. When, as was inevitable Gretna fell over, have an application for Team X to slot into Div 3 with no fixture disruption. A great and neat solution for last year but, as said before, hard cases make bad law and the SFL are now applying the same procedure to a different set of circumstances. I have no idea where this will end up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Relegating a club by two leagues for insolvency is pretty severe - they don't even do that in England. Okay. We've got several hunderd pages of the same thing over and over again but I'm going to try getting this through one more time anyway. They haven't been relegated for being in insolvency, they've been relegated for being in insolvency at the start of a season and being unable to guarantee completing the season (ie not having a CVA in place). Once again, English rules are *even more strict* in such circumstances, and in theory clubs aren't even granted an FA licence / league membership and allowed to start the season at all. (Though, unsurprisingly they've discovered that rule is a bit daft and doesn't really work.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Okay. We've got several hunderd pages of the same thing over and over again but I'm going to try getting this through one more time anyway.They haven't been relegated for being in insolvency, they've been relegated for being in insolvency at the start of a season and being unable to guarantee completing the season (ie not having a CVA in place). Once again, English rules are *even more strict* in such circumstances, and in theory clubs aren't even granted an FA licence / league membership and allowed to start the season at all. (Though, unsurprisingly they've discovered that rule is a bit daft and doesn't really work.) My point Yoss which you didn't address is that the English leagues don't relegate teams for insolvency, they impose points penalty. Insolvency isn't really the issue, it provides the trigger for sanctions though. The SFL are applying last year's solution to this year's different problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 My point Yoss which you didn't address is that the English leagues don't relegate teams for insolvency, they impose points penalty. Insolvency isn't really the issue, it provides the trigger for sanctions though. I did address it - you're comparing the penalty England apply to one thing with the penalty Livingston have had for something else altogether, and ignoring that England have a different and much harsher penalty for that something else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJR Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I did address it - you're comparing the penalty England apply to one thing with the penalty Livingston have had for something else altogether, and ignoring that England have a different and much harsher penalty for that something else. Sorry Yoss, my reference to the English approach was not really central to my post and I am not really sure what you are saying in your post above. The point I was making was that the SFL are applying a "solution" from last year to a completely different set of circumstances this year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) The SFL knew damn fine that, unlike Gretna the year before, Livi were being taken over and that there was every likelihood they would be able to complete the season in Division 1. If Gordon McDougall had got the opportunity to address the question put he would have given that assurance. In any case the consortium had also agreed to post the guarantee money. At least ten of the member clubs had no problem with allowing Livi to continue in the first and I’d say that there were probably some unsettled score types of reasons for a goodly number of the others who voted against us taking the position they did. It is maybe time now for the Sfl to work out some kind of consistent points penalty in the event of clubs going into administration since dropping two divisions is an impossible punishment for two thirds of the teams who make up the 3 leagues. Edited September 3, 2009 by jimbo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) You are the desperate one pal - most Cowden fans not happy about how they were "promoted"We had a team which could have done well in the third but not the second. We still cannot sign anyone as we cannot be sure which league we will be in. Meantime the gangsters are throwing about full-time contracts like they were going out of fashion. We just have to get on with it. Maybe we'll see you in the second div. next season - you don't seem fussed whether your teams wins or gets fcuked - aye right. Don't know where you get me not being fussed about my team,I was gutted coming up the road on Saturday,but do you know what, when I got off the bus and went to my work, more pressing things took over my mind like earning enough to pay my bills and feed my family. If I got a phone call telling me one of my family were poorly just b4 a game,do you really think I would be attending the football. Got a phone call in the middle of a game last season regarding a beareavment,to this day I don't know the score,I left immediately as it didn't matter. Edited September 3, 2009 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) 1. They were in Interim Administration, which is still a contravention of the rules i believe, ie part of Insolvency Proceedings. Think you'll find that I was answering a post stating they were in admin for the 2nd time. 2. Of course they won't be demoted to the 3rd. They are under the auspices of the SPL, which has a procedure set in stone. They will if they're relegated similar to Gretna,which was my point. 3. You're getting desperate now. Why would I get desperate,I know larger clubs demoted to the SFL would be treated differently. 4. Livi were not demoted for being in Interim Administration. They failed to submit to a previously promised bond, which is by far the most likely reason. They may well have failed to submit a bond in time,then again those able to give the assurance perhaps weren't asked to produce it. We've been over all this before in this thread Ayrmad. Only a few pages back in fact.I can only assume you have the attention span of a goldfish, or more likely, are shit-stirring. I don't shit stir on matters of such importance to Scottish football,what was the other part. Edited September 3, 2009 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Why does this keep getting repeated? Other clubs weren't/aren't in administration. That's the whole point. There is no reason to doubt that they will not complete their schedule fixtures. Livi on the hand.... hence why the bond was asked for. To compensate for if you go t1 ts up AGAIN. Which may still happen if your appeal fails! Livi weren't in admin at that point either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Why in this wonderous world of fairness and do-goodery are only 10 clubs subject to the same punishment as Livi or Gretna? 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.