Homer Thompson Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 What happened to policy? Do WLC apply "sustainable" criteria to all of its tenants? The council did NOT evict a sitting tenant. The tenant was Livingston Football Club...............and it still is. C'mon Jimbo, this isn't about grudges. Look at the relationship for what it actually is, not for what they want you to believe it is. The council have opened a can of worms with this. It's up to the tax payers whether or not they want to take issue with it. The council have made ot very easy for the right lawyer to tear them to pieces. Look at it in square foot terms..........as the council supposedly do, and it ain't right. It seems that the council have chosen to look at it in terms of turnover. Do the council afford this facility to all of their business tenants? You know the answer to that one. It's a helluva push to paint this as a straightforward business decision that meets existing policy criteria, because it doesn't.Here's a comparable version of events and tell me if this is something the council would do. A family ain't paid their rent for months and months and months. The council take them to court, and force Dad out of the house, but allow the family to stay. They then tell the family to forget about all the old rent that they owe. They also tell them not to worry about the rent, because as a gesture, they'll knock off 85% for the next year. It'll have to go back up, but it will only ever go up to one third of its original figure until the family start earning top money. Is that how WLC negotiate with all of their tenants? The only bit that is missing so far would be the cherry on the top. That would be the council then selling the house to the family for a fraction of its value, and allowing them to move it on for whatever they can get. But that will never ever happen, will it. .........and was it not just three days ago your illustrious council leader said he "hoped to get back some of the money owed". Fast forward three short days, and he presides over a decision to not only write it off, but to reduce future rent by 85%. Sounds like a man that should either be listened to, or watched. I know which one I would choose. You forgot the bit where the family invites the council round to their house for tea, once a fortnight, and lets them sit on the comfy sofa to watch X-Factor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Oh dear God! I think I'll head to general nonsense for a while! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Oh dear God! I think I'll head to general nonsense for a while! Aren't we? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 What happened to policy? Do WLC apply "sustainable" criteria to all of its tenants? The council did NOT evict a sitting tenant. The tenant was Livingston Football Club...............and it still is. C'mon Jimbo, this isn't about grudges. Look at the relationship for what it actually is, not for what they want you to believe it is. The council have opened a can of worms with this. It's up to the tax payers whether or not they want to take issue with it. The council have made ot very easy for the right lawyer to tear them to pieces. Look at it in square foot terms..........as the council supposedly do, and it ain't right. It seems that the council have chosen to look at it in terms of turnover. Do the council afford this facility to all of their business tenants? You know the answer to that one. It's a helluva push to paint this as a straightforward business decision that meets existing policy criteria, because it doesn't.Here's a comparable version of events and tell me if this is something the council would do. A family ain't paid their rent for months and months and months. The council take them to court, and force Dad out of the house, but allow the family to stay. They then tell the family to forget about all the old rent that they owe. They also tell them not to worry about the rent, because as a gesture, they'll knock off 85% for the next year. It'll have to go back up, but it will only ever go up to one third of its original figure until the family start earning top money. Is that how WLC negotiate with all of their tenants? The only bit that is missing so far would be the cherry on the top. That would be the council then selling the house to the family for a fraction of its value, and allowing them to move it on for whatever they can get. But that will never ever happen, will it. .........and was it not just three days ago your illustrious council leader said he "hoped to get back some of the money owed". Fast forward three short days, and he presides over a decision to not only write it off, but to reduce future rent by 85%. Sounds like a man that should either be listened to, or watched. I know which one I would choose. Come come Duncan, now you know fine well that doesn’t happen. They take the family and put them up in a hotel for a bit and then rehouse them later while another government dept pays their rent for them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djn Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I was going to try borrowing some cash from the RBS, but I think I might see if I can borrow money straight from West Lothian Council instead - the Cooncil that like to say YES 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) I was going to try borrowing some cash from the RBS, but I think I might see if I can borrow money straight from West Lothian Council instead - the Cooncil that like to say YES Maybe not the council that likes to say yes, but maybe a few councillors that like to say yes. Again, it can be viewed two ways. It's councillors who are magnanimous in all they do, and this is how they look after all their tenants, and they can support this with lots of case evidence, or this is people who are speculating public money for private gain. I'm trying hard to make my mind up as to which one my grudge addled brain should choose............. Lets just say the first couple of phases have been completed. Get Massone out, council write off the debt, council reduce the rent. So far, you have to say it is going pretty much to plan. Nothing has happened to undermine the cynical view of what is going on. In fact, there are just more and more bricks in the wall to support it. Now we all know what comes next...... but wait, still no CVA. Edited September 4, 2009 by Guest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I was going to try borrowing some cash from the RBS, but I think I might see if I can borrow money straight from West Lothian Council instead - the Cooncil that like to say YES But you MUST be a Livi fan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I feel really sorry for Duncan's wife! I bet the poor woman has never won an argument in their whole married life! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedV Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I feel really sorry for Duncan's wife! I bet the poor woman has never won an argument in their whole married life! Well, I'm sure if she'd any sort of case, she might. Duncan doesn't strike me as an unreasonable or unfair guy - it's just the fact he's 100% correct you can't handle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsson. Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 What happened to policy? Do WLC apply "sustainable" criteria to all of its tenants? The council did NOT evict a sitting tenant. The tenant was Livingston Football Club...............and it still is. C'mon Jimbo, this isn't about grudges. Look at the relationship for what it actually is, not for what they want you to believe it is. The council have opened a can of worms with this. It's up to the tax payers whether or not they want to take issue with it. The council have made ot very easy for the right lawyer to tear them to pieces. Look at it in square foot terms..........as the council supposedly do, and it ain't right. It seems that the council have chosen to look at it in terms of turnover. Do the council afford this facility to all of their business tenants? You know the answer to that one. It's a helluva push to paint this as a straightforward business decision that meets existing policy criteria, because it doesn't.Here's a comparable version of events and tell me if this is something the council would do. A family ain't paid their rent for months and months and months. The council take them to court, and force Dad out of the house, but allow the family to stay. They then tell the family to forget about all the old rent that they owe. They also tell them not to worry about the rent, because as a gesture, they'll knock off 85% for the next year. It'll have to go back up, but it will only ever go up to one third of its original figure until the family start earning top money. Is that how WLC negotiate with all of their tenants? The only bit that is missing so far would be the cherry on the top. That would be the council then selling the house to the family for a fraction of its value, and allowing them to move it on for whatever they can get. But that will never ever happen, will it. .........and was it not just three days ago your illustrious council leader said he "hoped to get back some of the money owed". Fast forward three short days, and he presides over a decision to not only write it off, but to reduce future rent by 85%. Sounds like a man that should either be listened to, or watched. I know which one I would choose. So why are the good people served by WLC not up in arms about all of this. Surely it must be front page local news. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Well, I'm sure if she'd any sort of case, she might. Duncan doesn't strike me as an unreasonable or unfair guy - it's just the fact he's 100% correct you can't handle. I suppose that's more or less what I was trying to say! Damn him! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) So why are the good people served by WLC not up in arms about all of this.Surely it must be front page local news. Maybe they want their football club to survive. You know even local Celtic fans I have spoken to are pleased it is still there. Edited September 4, 2009 by jimbo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCL Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 What happened to policy? Do WLC apply "sustainable" criteria to all of its tenants? The council did NOT evict a sitting tenant. The tenant was Livingston Football Club...............and it still is. C'mon Jimbo, this isn't about grudges. Look at the relationship for what it actually is, not for what they want you to believe it is. The council have opened a can of worms with this. It's up to the tax payers whether or not they want to take issue with it. The council have made ot very easy for the right lawyer to tear them to pieces. Look at it in square foot terms..........as the council supposedly do, and it ain't right. It seems that the council have chosen to look at it in terms of turnover. Do the council afford this facility to all of their business tenants? You know the answer to that one. It's a helluva push to paint this as a straightforward business decision that meets existing policy criteria, because it doesn't.Here's a comparable version of events and tell me if this is something the council would do. A family ain't paid their rent for months and months and months. The council take them to court, and force Dad out of the house, but allow the family to stay. They then tell the family to forget about all the old rent that they owe. They also tell them not to worry about the rent, because as a gesture, they'll knock off 85% for the next year. It'll have to go back up, but it will only ever go up to one third of its original figure until the family start earning top money. Is that how WLC negotiate with all of their tenants? The only bit that is missing so far would be the cherry on the top. That would be the council then selling the house to the family for a fraction of its value, and allowing them to move it on for whatever they can get. But that will never ever happen, will it. .........and was it not just three days ago your illustrious council leader said he "hoped to get back some of the money owed". Fast forward three short days, and he presides over a decision to not only write it off, but to reduce future rent by 85%. Sounds like a man that should either be listened to, or watched. I know which one I would choose. Keep in mind that Jimbo is on the "Trust" board so is a wee bit biased towards the cooncil Hi Orco 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Pickleton Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Find it so sad that WLC have cleared their debts, i would see the point (ever so slightly) if a large percentage of the county supported them, but clearly that is not the case, must be in the region of 0.1/ 0.2%, total disgrace 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) Maybe they want their football club to survive. You know even local Celtic fans I have spoken to are pleased it is still there. That's because the LAC occasionally like to go to games and act as the fannies they are. Edited September 4, 2009 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord Shiny Helmet Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 From West Lothian Council Website, dated 23 July 2009: "Council Leader Peter Johnston said: "A secure future for senior football in West Lothian remains our priority, and we have taken this legal action with great reluctance. "We have been flexible, patient and reasonable with regards to the club's plight and have given the club's owners ample opportunity to meet their outstanding obligations. "However, we have a clear duty to all residents and businesses in West Lothian to make every effort to ensure the debt is re-paid. We hope Livingston's loyal fans will appreciate that this regrettable action is both necessary and appropriate." From West Lothian Council Website, dated 1 September 2009: ""We have decided to work with the Administrator and the new owners who are prepared to put substantial sums of their own money into providing a new start for Livingston FC. We believe this is a far better option than forcing the club into liquidation. Like other creditors we hope that, in due course, the Administrator will be able to make partial repayment of the sums due to us." The revised rent will be payable monthly in advance by Direct Debit at a level, which reflects the Division the Football Club is in for the season.The rent and non-domestic rates are both the subject of a claim submitted to the Administrator of Livingston Football Club." So, to paraphrase, in July, WLC had no alternative but to seek to ensure that the outstanding debt owed to them by Livingston F.C. was repaid. All in the interests of the taxpayer, you understand. Fast forward two months and WLC are hoping that they can recover some money from Livingston F.C., whilst at the same time reducing the rent they charge them for the stadium. Something smells like fish, and it isn't my wife standing in front of the gas fire... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 That's because the LAC occasionally like to go to games and act as the fannies they are. Do you have a wee thing for them? You do go on about them a lot, shall I set up a wee date for you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Do you have a wee thing for them? You do go on about them a lot, shall I set up a wee date for you? Define 'a lot'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Define 'a lot'. Eh twice! But it's twice more than they deserve! Do you want the date or not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Eh twice! But it's twice more than they deserve! Do you want the date or not? I've enough irons in the fire at the moment. I'll pass. 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.