Livingston - all the threads merged

[AND180Y]

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.

None of your consortium members have the kind of cash required. In any event it didn't and won't matter two fcuks if they don't get agreement on a CVA as the club will move straight to liquidation!!

Saint McGruther, Saint McDougall and probably the Pope himself could not at that meeting guarantee that Livi will complete the season. Given that there has been no creditors meeting to approve CVA proposals that guarantee still cannot be made as of todays date.

[Airdrie76]

Livi weren't in admin at that point either.

they were in breach of a rule relating to adminstration as you are fully aware. Apologies for not writing it out in full

[jimbo]

None of your consortium members have the kind of cash required. In any event it didn't and won't matter two fcuks if they don't get agreement on a CVA as the club will move straight to liquidation!!

Saint McGruther, Saint McDougall and probably the Pope himself could not at that meeting guarantee that Livi will complete the season. Given that there has been no creditors meeting to approve CVA proposals that guarantee still cannot be made as of todays date.

And you know this, how?

And you are sure that pulling together they couldn't have put together the bond?

And none of the saintly people you mentioned have ever been asked the question though have they?

And do you imagine there has been no correspondence with the main creditors?

As I have previously mentioned I have no problem with watching my team play in the third but in this instance if we are talking transparency and consistency from one of the ruling bodies then I have to say that Livi appear to have been stitched up good and proper.

[Guest]

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.

That's a hell of a leap Jimbo. You had an interim manager. It has been Livingston's way of avoiding the payment of legitimate debt. It has worked for you spectacularly well in the past. Yet when it comes an aspect of it that you feel will work against you (a powerless chairman unable to put in his tuppence worth because the club had begun proceedings to avoid debt yet again and an Interim Manager had been appointed), then it's the SFL's fault.

The bit about "at least ten member clubs" isn't worth the pixel's mate. I could say "at least ten clubs didn't think this through properly". If I did, it would be opinion. Ultimately, that is what justice is...................it is settling old scores.

The punishment isn't to be dropped two divisions. It is to be demoted to the bottom division. If a soldier is demoted to the ranks, he goes to the bottom rung of the ladder. The SFL ruling is comparable.

Jimbo, if Livingston had had £12,000,000 removed from it's expenditure over the past 14 years, then SFL3 is very likely to have been Livingston's place of residence. Your club's actions have repeatedly damaged other businesses, and you guys have carried on without a care in the world. Now the boot is on the other foot, and LFC are pretty much reaping what they have sown, it would appear to be a major crime.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Guest

[AND180Y]

And you know this, how?

And you are sure that pulling together they couldn't have put together the bond?

And none of the saintly people you mentioned have ever been asked the question though have they?

And do you imagine there has been no correspondence with the main creditors?

As I have previously mentioned I have no problem with watching my team play in the third but in this instance if we are talking transparency and consistency from one of the ruling bodies then I have to say that Livi appear to have been stitched up good and proper.

Creditors meetings have to be advertised, it hasn't as yet!!

All this money they claim to have, how much have they invested in Livi to date, and not just in paying the family and hangers on wages?

You cannot pick and choose which debts are included in a CVA, it is all or none.

Livi being stitched up? That's a laugh.

[Aberdeen Cowden]

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.

We've all been there. and yes we have to keep things in perspective.

But we are drifting off the point.

How can Livi be throwing about full-time contracts when they have so much debt and other clubs be paying players a peanuts? How can anyone condone this?

[ayrmad]

We've all been there. and yes we have to keep things in perspective.

But we are drifting off the point.

How can Livi be throwing about full-time contracts when they have so much debt and other clubs be paying players a peanuts? How can anyone condone this?

I have never commented on their current wage structure,I don't see it as a prudent approach unless you think almost 100% that your appeal will succeed,even then 1st div football and full time doesn't appear prudent to me.

Edited September 3, 2009 by ayrmad

[jimbo]

That's a hell of a leap Jimbo. You had an interim manager. It has been Livingston's way of avoiding the payment of legitimate debt. It has worked for you spectacularly well in the past. Yet when it comes an aspect of it that you feel will work against you (a powerless chairman unable to put in his tuppence worth because the club had begun proceedings to avoid debt yet again and an Interim Manager had been appointed), then it's the SFL's fault.

The bit about "at least ten member clubs" isn't worth the pixel's mate. I could say "at least ten clubs didn't think this through properly". If I did, it would be opinion. Ultimately, that is what justice is...................it is settling old scores.

The punishment isn't to be dropped two divisions. It is to be demoted to the bottom division. If a soldier is demoted to the ranks, he goes to the bottom rung of the ladder. The SFL ruling is comparable.

Jimbo, if Livingston had had £12,000,000 removed from it's expenditure over the past 14 years, then SFL3 is very likely to have been Livingston's place of residence. Your club's actions have repeatedly damaged other businesses, and you guys have carried on without a care in the world. Now the boot is on the other foot, and LFC are pretty much reaping what they have sown, it would appear to be a major crime.

Duncan, as you know I accept that the deeds of some of the previous incumbents of the chairman's seat at Livi FC have been dastardly and that there needs to be meaningful punishment meted. That however is not the issue I am highlighting. The actions of the Sfl and a few of the members club reps in the affair are almost comparable to the way Livi has conducted business in the past. I think you know this but your need for some kind of retribution for what you have suffered clouds your perception of it. There is something rotten (or at best naive) at the core of those who legislate in the corridors of Hampden. If the failings of the the Sfl can can be addressed and their ways of doing things improved the perhaps something good will have come out of it all.

The soldier analogy is apt but in his/her case there has been clear acceptance of the rules at the outset. No such rules are in place in the Sfl at present which is why clubs are able go down the route of appeal and cause disruption in the system.

[MCL]

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.

And you know this, how ?

If the consortium had said they would post the guarantee money why was McGruther not able to give the guarantee that the club could fulfill the fixtures ?

[jimbo]

And you know this, how ?

If the consortium had said they would post the guarantee money why was McGruther not able to give the guarantee that the club could fulfill the fixtures ?

Gordon McDougall was heard to say at the fan's evening in the Almondvale suite after the CIS cup game against Albion Rovers that steps were in place to have the bond posted. But it was not he who was asked any of the questions at the Hampden meeting. I have no idea why McGruther answered in the way he did. I can only assume that he was in no position, personally or professionally, to give any such assurances and if that was the case then I can understand it.

PS Any reason why you have such an unflattering picture of G McD as your avatar?

Edited September 3, 2009 by jimbo

[Yoss]

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.

So while some posters are criticising them for incosistency you're criticising them for being too consistent? Okay. I find that a bit odd and I don't see any reason why the circumstances this year needed to be treated any differently.

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.

Memories are very short. When Livingston went into that first meeting with the Management Committee, Livi were still owned by Massone, McGruther had said they were insolvent, he'd started making redundancies and the expectation was that Livingston would cease to exist that afternoon. Instead, the SFL bent over backwards to try and prevent that happening, they were prepapred to change their own rules, and they were even prepared to let Livi remain in division one, with little or no punishment for going through the insolvency.

They weren't, however, prepared to do so if it involved signficant financial risk to their other members, and since Livingston's future was still very much up in the air and their seeing out the season could not be guaranteed, they were asked for a bond to protect the other members. Maybe that was too mcuh to ask, maybe no club could have provided it. Whatever, none of that matters, it was their only condition to what was overall a far more lenient stance than anyone had expected them to take prior to that meeting.

Within a week, Livi are grumbling about having to meet that one condition, not meeting it, and then blaming the SFL for taking different action in the absence of its being fulfilled.

It's really quite astonishing how little sense of self-responsibility their continues to be at Livingston, by which I mean the new owners and the fans and not just all the previous chairmen you like to blame when you present yourselves as innocent victims in all this. It's quite staggering.

[jimbo]

.

Memories are very short. When Livingston went into that first meeting with the Management Committee, Livi were still owned by Massone, McGruther had said they were insolvent, he'd started making redundancies and the expectation was that Livingston would cease to exist that afternoon. Instead, the SFL bent over backwards to try and prevent that happening, they were prepapred to change their own rules, and they were even prepared to let Livi remain in division one, with little or no punishment for going through the insolvency.

They weren't, however, prepared to do so if it involved signficant financial risk to their other members, and since Livingston's future was still very much up in the air and their seeing out the season could not be guaranteed, they were asked for a bond to protect the other members. Maybe that was too mcuh to ask, maybe no club could have provided it. Whatever, none of that matters, it was their only condition to what was overall a far more lenient stance than anyone had expected them to take prior to that meeting.

Within a week, Livi are grumbling about having to meet that one condition, not meeting it, and then blaming the SFL for taking different action in the absence of its being fulfilled.

It's really quite astonishing how little sense of self-responsibility their continues to be at Livingston, by which I mean the new owners and the fans and not just all the previous chairmen you like to blame when you present yourselves as innocent victims in all this. It's quite staggering.

You could have knocked me down with a feather after that first meeting when the Sfl showed leniency. I did appreciate the fact that they recognised a club, albeit not one of the historical elite, could have folded purely on the whim of one mad Italian not signing a bit of paper. In that one instance they showed common sense and I commended them for it. However that does not hide the fact that once the rest of the blazers got in on the act the usual subterfuge began and subsequent events saw the whole shebang revert to form.

I have never presented Livi as innocent victims. How on earth could anyone!! The point I am trying to make is that too many in the Sfl are as shifty as those criticised at Livi and that something needs to be done to stop the vested interests being able to do deals outwith the places where decisions are supposed to be made. I am making that statement in global terms - not just in this specific case.

[Guest WJR]

So while some posters are criticising them for incosistency you're criticising them for being too consistent? Okay. I find that a bit odd and I don't see any reason why the circumstances this year needed to be treated any differently.

Not at all Yoss, that is not what I said and actually I don't think they are being consistent here.

Make no mistake, demoting a club by 2 divisions was no carefully thought out and planned solution which would benefit Scottish football as a whole and at a single stroke. It was nothing more than an expedient solution to the Gretna situation.

[Homer Thompson]

Not at all Yoss, that is not what I said and actually I don't think they are being consistent here.

Make no mistake, demoting a club by 2 divisions was no carefully thought out and planned solution which would benefit Scottish football as a whole and at a single stroke. It was nothing more than an expedient solution to the Gretna situation.

Gretna couldnt guarantee they would fulfill their 1st div fixtures and so were relegated to the 3rd. Livy couldnt guarantee they would fulfill their 1st div fixtures and so were relegated to the 3rd. What exactly is wrong with this?

A 3rd div club going under has less impact on the SFL than a 1st div club, which is why both were relegated to the 3rd, given that their was every chance they would fold. Gretna did the only thing left available and resigned - with time for another club to be elected. Had Livy been forced to do the same, the outcome would have been the same. As it turned out Livy found a buyer and continue their existence in the 3rd division.

Im really not sure how the fact that you dont agree with the Gretna "punishment" in anyway makes the Livy one inappropriate.

I havent read this thread for quite a while, but I never thought I would come back to so much distortion of the facts or wriggling around as I have just read on the last few pages

[Guest]

Duncan, as you know I accept that the deeds of some of the previous incumbents of the chairman's seat at Livi FC have been dastardly and that there needs to be meaningful punishment meted. That however is not the issue I am highlighting. The actions of the Sfl and a few of the members club reps in the affair are almost comparable to the way Livi has conducted business in the past. I think you know this but your need for some kind of retribution for what you have suffered clouds your perception of it. There is something rotten (or at best naive) at the core of those who legislate in the corridors of Hampden. If the failings of the the Sfl can can be addressed and their ways of doing things improved the perhaps something good will have come out of it all.

The soldier analogy is apt but in his/her case there has been clear acceptance of the rules at the outset. No such rules are in place in the Sfl at present which is why clubs are able go down the route of appeal and cause disruption in the system.

That's fair enough, but the clouding of my perception doesn't extend to the degree that Livvy being demoted from the first to the third was in some way an unjust outcome. The rights or wrongs of SFL management did not result (in the Livvy case) in the application of a punishment that was disproportionate to the crime. Livingston will from now to doomsday seek to have every wrong act judged in isolation. They never ever want to see their record reviewed in full for very obvious reasons.

Here's a few questions. Do you think you have an honest and above board consortium in charge at Almondvale? Do you think they are in this wholly for the betterment of LFC? If not, then why are they there?

Edited September 3, 2009 by Guest

[MCL]

Gordon McDougall was heard to say at the fan's evening in the Almondvale suite after the CIS cup game against Albion Rovers that steps were in place to have the bond posted. But it was not he who was asked any of the questions at the Hampden meeting. I have no idea why McGruther answered in the way he did. I can only assume that he was in no position, personally or professionally, to give any such assurances and if that was the case then I can understand it.

PS Any reason why you have such an unflattering picture of G McD as your avatar?

Funny how you believe everything the new consortium say but everything Massone said was lies.

If the new consortium had given McGruther the assurances that the bond would be posted then why didn't McGruther give the guarantee to the SFL meeting ? Doesn't McGruther trust the new consortium ? Does it mean the money for the bond wasn't actually there ?

PS The picture was taken at the CIS Cup game at Cliftonhill of our new chairman. It might be unflattering but it's not my fault he looks like he does ! Maybe he should get a SuBo makeover ?

[Guest WJR]

Gretna couldnt guarantee they would fulfill their 1st div fixtures and so were relegated to the 3rd. Livy couldnt guarantee they would fulfill their 1st div fixtures and so were relegated to the 3rd. What exactly is wrong with this?

A 3rd div club going under has less impact on the SFL than a 1st div club, which is why both were relegated to the 3rd, given that their was every chance they would fold. Gretna did the only thing left available and resigned - with time for another club to be elected. Had Livy been forced to do the same, the outcome would have been the same. As it turned out Livy found a buyer and continue their existence in the 3rd division.

Im really not sure how the fact that you dont agree with the Gretna "punishment" in anyway makes the Livy one inappropriate.

I havent read this thread for quite a while, but I never thought I would come back to so much distortion of the facts or wriggling around as I have just read on the last few pages

I'm actually pretty well informed of the goings on in Gretna's case Mr X so no distortion on my part. I am in any case giving only my opinion, too many folk on here talk about facts when they mean opinions.

I didn't actually say anywhere in earlier posts that I disagreed with the Gretna punishment if by that you mean I think that Gretna did not deserve it but as you have raised the point I think relegation as a penalty is completely inappropriate in both cases - it just didn't matter in the case of Gretna because everyone knew they would be out the box very shortly. Very different scenario with Livi.

Good luck to Livi however this pans out.

[jimbo]

That's fair enough, but the clouding of my perception doesn't extend to the degree that Livvy being demoted from the first to the third was in some way an unjust outcome. The rights or wrongs of SFL management did not result (in the Livvy case) in the application of a punishment that was disproportionate to the crime. Livingston will from now to doomsday seek to have every wrong act judged in isolation. They never ever want to see their record reviewed in full for very obvious reasons.

Here's a few questions. Do you think you have an honest and above board consortium in charge at Almondvale? Do you think they are in this wholly for the betterment of LFC? If not, then why are they there?

I think that there is an element in the new consortium that will have to be monitored carefully. I also believe that there are others who do have the good of the club at heart. I am hopeful that the days of financial silliiness are at an end and that there will be no more people who find themselves in the situation you experienced. Only time will tell. Certainly Livi fans have had a rude awakening and I detect an air of realism among them. I am but one fan but I would like to think that others like me will be keeping n eye on the actions of the board.

[phantoms-livi-lass]

I'm sick to death of all this off pitch dramatics so I'm just going to post about the football side of things now, I've totally lost the plot with the boardroom/ appeal/ SFL shenanigans!

[Homer Thompson]

I'm actually pretty well informed of the goings on in Gretna's case Mr X so no distortion on my part. I am in any case giving only my opinion, too many folk on here talk about facts when they mean opinions.

I didn't actually say anywhere in earlier posts that I disagreed with the Gretna punishment if by that you mean I think that Gretna did not deserve it but as you have raised the point I think relegation as a penalty is completely inappropriate in both cases - it just didn't matter in the case of Gretna because everyone knew they would be out the box very shortly. Very different scenario with Livi.

Good luck to Livi however this pans out.

Sorry, my last comment wasnt actually directed at you at all! Apologies if it looked that way.

Im still not really sure what you're objection is though. Gretna could have been bought, although financially they were in a worse state than Livy, or so it would seem anyway. Livy could still go under if a CVA cant be agreed, although its probably unlikely that will happen. Im not sure how the two scenarios are different. When both decisions were made their were serious doubts about whether or not both clubs could make it through another season. Why is the Livy situation so different?

I think that there is an element in the new consortium that will have to be monitored carefully. I also believe that there are others who do have the good of the club at heart. I am hopeful that the days of financial silliiness are at an end and that there will be no more people who find themselves in the situation you experienced. Only time will tell. Certainly Livi fans have had a rude awakening and I detect an air of realism among them. I am but one fan but I would like to think that others like me will be keeping n eye on the actions of the board.

You dont think having players on FT contracts, at this time, is financial silliness?