Livingston - all the threads merged

[Livi Willie]

er, he was unattached, which means that you could have signed him at any time, regardless of whether the transfer window was open or closed.

In any case, he signed his deal on August 28, ahead of the window closing, although in this instance that's irrelevant.

HTH.

He was offered more elsewhere-including Airdrie-but wanted the chance to play with his brother.

Fact not bile.

[Ivo den Bieman]

He was offered more elsewhere-including Airdrie-but wanted the chance to play with his brother.

Fact not bile.

did I suggest otherwise?

[Monster]

Explain how we signed Robbie Winters after the transfer window closed.

Or can we cheat that as well?

er, he was unattached, which means that you could have signed him at any time, regardless of whether the transfer window was open or closed.

In any case, he signed his deal on August 28, ahead of the window closing, although in this instance that's irrelevant.

HTH.

As the kids might say:

P3WND.

[Livi Willie]

did I suggest otherwise?

I can feel the waves of hatred all the way down the A90/M90.

[nofixedability]

He was offered more elsewhere-including Airdrie-but wanted the chance to play with his brother.

Fact not bile.

But you still signed him full time.

How can a team in third with crowds like that and debts to pay off (oh sorry you're not going to do that are you?) possibly "live within means" while signing any full-time players / manager /assistant?

Head in sand stuff.

[Ivo den Bieman]

I can feel the waves of hatred all the way down the A90/M90.

or, you asked a couple of really stupid "righteously indignant" questions which were answered.

[EdinburghLivi]

But you still signed him full time.

How can a team in third with crowds like that and debts to pay off (oh sorry you're not going to do that are you?) possibly "live within means" while signing any full-time players / manager /assistant?

Head in sand stuff.

You could argue that we should have signed him part-time but with a full-time status anyway, it would have been arguably stupid to do so. The argument that we shouldn't have signed him at all is better.

Quite frankly, we can't which is why we'll be making cuts next year. We were thrown into this situation, quite frankly, with a full-time setup and unable to cancel contracts.

The bills and wages are obviously being paid by the consortium (or are going to be in due course in the former's case) because there are no stories of non-payment, as yet. I think scrutiny is at an extremely high level and if people weren't getting paid, there would be stories about it after the rubbish that went on last year.

Not head in sand, simply tiring going over the same things again and again. I'm actually tempted to say this thread should be closed because of that fact. Any new stories should be in their own threads, in my opinion, as this one has descended into a self-righteous wankfest against our club with shit-stirring and non-news making up the rest of the posts.

Whatever happened to that meeting

[ObserverFromAfar]

You could argue that we should have signed him part-time but with a full-time status anyway, it would have been arguably stupid to do so. The argument that we shouldn't have signed him at all is better.

Quite frankly, we can't which is why we'll be making cuts next year. We were thrown into this situation, quite frankly, with a full-time setup and unable to cancel contracts.

The bills and wages are obviously being paid by the consortium (or are going to be in due course in the former's case) because there are no stories of non-payment, as yet. I think scrutiny is at an extremely high level and if people weren't getting paid, there would be stories about it after the rubbish that went on last year.

Not head in sand, simply tiring going over the same things again and again. I'm actually tempted to say this thread should be closed because of that fact. Any new stories should be in their own threads, in my opinion, as this one has descended into a self-righteous wankfest against our club with shit-stirring and non-news making up the rest of the posts.

Whatever happened to that meeting

Hello EdinburghLivi

I'll try not to be too negative or put the boot in an unconstructive manner.

Maybe its somewhere in the other 500+ pages, but do you know if making the Full Time players redundant was ever considered by the new owners or the Interim Manager/Administrator? Would that have been acceptable to the SFL or resulted in a harsher footballing "punishment" for Livingston?

Interesting comments on the owners probably underwriting any wage/creditor shortfalls post-administration. Do you know if these ae genuine "donations" that are being made with no repayment expected, or IOUs that would be liabilities on the club's/company's balance sheet? For the health of Livi, I hope it is a donation.

Cheers

[EdinburghLivi]

Hello EdinburghLivi

I'll try not to be too negative or put the boot in an unconstructive manner.

Maybe its somewhere in the other 500+ pages, but do you know if making the Full Time players redundant was ever considered by the new owners or the Interim Manager/Administrator? Would that have been acceptable to the SFL or resulted in a harsher footballing "punishment" for Livingston?

Interesting comments on the owners probably underwriting any wage/creditor shortfalls post-administration. Do you know if these ae genuine "donations" that are being made with no repayment expected, or IOUs that would be liabilities on the club's/company's balance sheet? For the health of Livi, I hope it is a donation.

Cheers

First point, I don't think it was considered by the new owners. McGruther was close to doing so on the day before the first meeting with the SFL. Presumably it would have been alright, albeit extremely heartless given the timing and situation, because we were in adminstration but I can't confirm that for certain.

I have not got a clue on the second point.

Edited October 20, 2009 by EdinburghLivi

[MCL]

First point, I don't think it was considered by the new owners. McGruther was close to doing so on the day before the first meeting with the SFL. Presumably it would have been alright, albeit extremely heartless given the timing and situation, because we were in adminstration but I can't confirm that for certain.

I have not got a clue on the second point.

Other staff at the club were made redundant and the players could have been too. Motherwell and Dundee paid off a few when they were in admin and we did the same first time round.

So saying the new owners had no choice but to keep them on full time contracts is wrong.

Making players redundant is a heartless process to go through but when creditors are only getting 5p in the £ then the highest paid players should have expected to take a cut or leave.

[Lorels mum]

You could argue that we should have signed him part-time but with a full-time status anyway, it would have been arguably stupid to do so. The argument that we shouldn't have signed him at all is better.

Quite frankly, we can't which is why we'll be making cuts next year. We were thrown into this situation, quite frankly, with a full-time setup and unable to cancel contracts.

The bills and wages are obviously being paid by the consortium (or are going to be in due course in the former's case) because there are no stories of non-payment, as yet. I think scrutiny is at an extremely high level and if people weren't getting paid, there would be stories about it after the rubbish that went on last year.

Not head in sand, simply tiring going over the same things again and again. I'm actually tempted to say this thread should be closed because of that fact. Any new stories should be in their own threads, in my opinion, as this one has descended into a self-righteous wankfest against our club with shit-stirring and non-news making up the rest of the posts.

Whatever happened to that meeting

Oh dear oh dear.........what blind faith........you truely believe your club has done nothing wrong.

[AND180Y]

Other staff at the club were made redundant and the players could have been too. Motherwell and Dundee paid off a few when they were in admin and we did the same first time round.

So saying the new owners had no choice but to keep them on full time contracts is wrong.

Making players redundant is a heartless process to go through but when creditors are only getting 5p in the £ then the highest paid players should have expected to take a cut or leave.

Correct! A CVA (as can admin) can be used to unravel any contract, employment or commercial. The fact that they didn't renegotiate player contracts would seem to fit the "fcuk the world as long as the Livingston FC gravy train is okay" mantra.

[TAFKAC]

I'm not defending them in any way, but surely if we paid people off or ripped up contracts you would be criticising that too?

[Homer Thompson]

I'm not defending them in any way, but surely if we paid people off or ripped up contracts you would be criticising that too?

Yes, probably But then going into admin again deserves criticism whatever the steps taken to get out of it are ... no?

All this nonsense about being forced to honour contracts is just that, complete and utter nonsense.

At least if an effort had been made to reduce the wage bill then this talk of only spending 99p for every pound might have actually seemed like a realistic aim, rather than the obvious spin that its turned out to be.

[AND180Y]

I'm not defending them in any way, but surely if we paid people off or ripped up contracts you would be criticising that too?

I think the point is that your mob claimed that there should be no more sugar daddies but jumped into bed with the first one that puffed smoke in their direction and having done so then said that the club would not spend more than 99p in the pound.

Both patently untrue!!

[TAFKAC]

Agreed. I'm not denying it in the slightest. Livi did wrong and should shut up and accept it. Rather than dragging on with appeals, etc. Take the points deduction (which will likely come) and try to build, SENSIBLY, from there.

[Airdrie76]

Is it not the case that all football debts must be honoured these days? And players contracts fall into that category? As such the only option they had was to renegotiate the terms as opposed to getting rid of the players. Apologies if wrong

[qpsnapper]

Livi signed players on 1st Division contracts. The SFL decided to drop Livi 2 divisions after the transfer window closed leaving us no option but to honour them.

If livi emptied the players on the FT contracts, that would leave them open to all sorts of breach-of contract cases, as the players could not then sign for another team until January.

Simples

Who knows what The next transfer window will bring.

Livingston were relegated to the Third division on 5th August, well before the window closed.

[diamonds2002]

He was offered more elsewhere-including Airdrie-but wanted the chance to play with his brother.

Fact not bile.

Well thats just balls - he was offered a trial at Airdrie but opted to sign for Livvy instead.

[Sergeant Wilson]

Is it not the case that all football debts must be honoured these days? And players contracts fall into that category? As such the only option they had was to renegotiate the terms as opposed to getting rid of the players. Apologies if wrong

There are ways and means, though. Clyde binned all the contracted players last season. I don't think the offer those players got could be termed renegotiation.