vikingTON Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Are you trying to be vikingTON's sniveling sidekick? No sidekicks, child: disciples. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I haven't raked through the thread, but a quick search of t'interweb suggests that Livi were relegated after a meeting on 5 August, yet Livi 5 only took over on 13 August. Happy to be put right if that is not the case.I agree that any individual case should be judged on its merits I've not raked myself, but now you mention the dates you are right enough, McGruther was in control for the original meeting (5th) but the consortium had taken over prior to the appeal meeting (13th) in which the bond was required, however the consortium were not allowed into that meeting so it was attended only by McGruther. Although to be honest none of this matters now, the debate is about whether it's thought that a precedent has been set by the demotion from 1st to 3rd of Gretna then Livi, which I don't think there has, & I still don't see how they can be viewed as the same circumstances, fair enough it was initially financial problems that started it but that's where the comparison ends. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 The issue is not whether or not the new owners had taken control of the club, it's whether or not an arrangement was in place to allow them to continue in business - ie a CVA. Until that happens it doesn't matter hwo confident the administrator or the new owners are that such an arrangement will be made, the administrator is not - legally - in a position to confirm it because it doesn't depend on them, it depends on the creditors being willing to accept an offer lower than the debt they're owed. jimbo: regardless of our disagreement as to the specific rights or wrongs of the SFL's action towards Livingston, I'm a bit perplexed by your logic that doing it to Gretna didn't set a precedent, but doing the same thing to Livi twelve months later does so, how does that work? And yes, contrary to what was suggested above, the decision was made for the same reason - inability to guarantee completing the season - and not because of anything to do with Gretna's ground. (I made the same error somewhere earlier in the thread and had to be put right, there'll be links to the SFL's statements at the time if anyone wants to go back and look for them.) Anyway, I may not have been posting on the thread for some weeks but I've still been reading it. It's about time to stop even that though because it's all become a bit silly with nothing happening. I'm going to chip in my thoughts on outstanding issues before disappearing though. The postponed fixture: It's pretty poor that the SFL are allowing this one to drag on so long; I know they're not a full-time professionally run outfit but it's not almost three months without a decision or any peep of one, for a matter that's potentially serious. I guess the fact they don't seem bothered suggests they don't deem it that serious, but Longmuir was still talking about the possibility of points deductions last time I heard him speak on it, and if that were to happen Livi would need to know asap so they know what they need to do this season. Personally, as noted at the time, and unlike most of my fellow Livi-bashers on here, I don't see the need for any such points deduction, I don't see it as that serious - a compensation payment to the Shire would cover it for me. The more interesting issue going forward is Livi's on-going financial situation. Even with reduced costs and better management there's no way they can be running that current squad on a break-even basis on gates well under a thousand (and remember that includes three hundred season ticket holders whose money disappeared into the ether with the previous owner). I'm not going to ascribe any sort of underhand motives to anyone involved, I think Rankine and McDougall both just like being involved in football and the perks that go with it, and I suspect by the time the scale of the difficulties became clear they were already more or less committed. (And they overestimated the leverage they had with their mates on hte SFL / SFA committees.) So I don't see any reason to look for ulterior motives with land deals or anything like that, but it'll be interesting to see how long things carry on for as they are going, and what the future holds. I'll still be watching. Nice to see you all again in the meantime. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I agree they took the above in to account, but was the public reason given for demotion not the ground issue. Failure to get the ground up to standard. If they hadn't been promoted The SFL would have needed to take action then.In effect they got booted out for embarrasing league officials, by bullshitting that they would get the work done and not bothering. Sorry, that's wrong. They couldn't do it up because they were building an eco-stadium. I didnt realise we were extending revisionism beyond Livingston. Gretna were not building an eco-stadium. Mileson mentioned it, at one point, along with a hotel complex, trust fund to pay the bills after he'd gone and a state of the art training complex on the moon, amongst other things. They were all pie in the sky with no basis whatsoever in reality. I've not raked myself, but now you mention the dates you are right enough, McGruther was in control for the original meeting (5th) but the consortium had taken over prior to the appeal meeting (13th) in which the bond was required, however the consortium were not allowed into that meeting so it was attended only by McGruther.Although to be honest none of this matters now, the debate is about whether it's thought that a precedent has been set by the demotion from 1st to 3rd of Gretna then Livi, which I don't think there has, & I still don't see how they can be viewed as the same circumstances, fair enough it was initially financial problems that started it but that's where the comparison ends. The consortium had not taken control by the 13th. AS HJ said, McGruther was still in control, which is why he was the only one in the meeting. I cant believe the amount of points Livy fans are trying to claim confusion over when they were all clarified at the time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 .I'll still be watching. Nice to see you all again in the meantime. Yoss not quoting the whole of it since it's there for all to see but your post is a pretty fair assessment of a lot of what has gone on. We will agree to disagree on the precedent thing (I cant be bothered going over the old ground again anyway) The punishment was harsh but having accepted it and got on with things I am enjoying life in the third division. I'll wait till things have settled down next season before I make any judgement on the financial running of the club by the present consortium. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I didnt realise we were extending revisionism beyond Livingston. Gretna were not building an eco-stadium. Mileson mentioned it, at one point, along with a hotel complex, trust fund to pay the bills after he'd gone and a state of the art training complex on the moon, amongst other things. They were all pie in the sky with no basis whatsoever in reality. Really! I'm glad you're here to keep me right. Do you think it was all made up. Well I never. Need I say WHOOSH? Oh, I have now haven't I? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Really! I'm glad you're here to keep me right. Do you think it was all made up. Well I never.Need I say WHOOSH? Oh, I have now haven't I? Given some of the nonsense being spouted on this thread it always prudent to clarify the reality of the situation for those who are hard of understanding 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Given some of the nonsense being spouted on this thread it always prudent to clarify the reality of the situation for those who are hard of understanding I suppose so. I wish it had been real though. I wanted it built on a cloud, accessed from a beanstalk, with gold seats and free pies. With llamas working the turnstyles. I believe the real plans were very similar to that and the daft Morton supporter still thought it was real and worked on it. When he asked for his money Mileson gave him a chicken that laid golden eggs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Given some of the nonsense being spouted on this thread it always prudent to clarify the reality of the situation for those who are hard of understanding In other words, there is nothing new to bitch about so in order to keep the thread going old issues are being revisited? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) The postponed fixture: It's pretty poor that the SFL are allowing this one to drag on so long; I know they're not a full-time professionally run outfit but it's not almost three months without a decision or any peep of one, for a matter that's potentially serious. I think they'd rather it just go away. There's scheduled SFL MC meeting end of November, possible conclusion then. and unlike most of my fellow Livi-bashers on here, I don't see the need for any such points deduction, I don't see it as that serious - a compensation payment to the Shire would cover it for me. The problem is that you're effectively saying "feel free to refuse a game if unhappy with a decision, just pay £X"... Edited November 2, 2009 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I don't think you are, each case on its merits - and in this case it was a game they were going to postpone themselves anyway if the appeal had been received in time to enable them to do so. That doesn't mean Livi weren't nonetheless wrong to do so unilaterally, but I think compensation is sufficient both to cover it and to act as deterrent. I seriously doubt they're setting themselves up for more similar incidents. And cheers, jimbo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I suppose so. I wish it had been real though. I wanted it built on a cloud, accessed from a beanstalk, with gold seats and free pies. With llamas working the turnstyles. I believe the real plans were very similar to that and the daft Morton supporter still thought it was real and worked on it. When he asked for his money Mileson gave him a chicken that laid golden eggs. In other words, there is nothing new to bitch about so in order to keep the thread going old issues are being revisited? As I said a few pages ago, but you conveniently ignored, theres plenty still to discuss and plenty of questions still unanswered - although, at least some of your fans made an effort to answer them, well jimbo anyway. It seems the rest of you are happier to try and reinvent history or simply stick your heads in the sand 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Any court appearances today that we should know about? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Any court appearances today that we should know about? Tosser. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Tosser. Is he old enough to do that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borys Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Is he old enough to do that? If he's twelve - yes. Borys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Tosser. I don't think she'd like that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 I don't think she'd like that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marty_j Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) I got sick of waiting and rumours flying so emailed SFL last week. Below is response. Hopefully we get some closure: Hi Martin, We have had on-going correspondence with Livingston F.C. and the upshot is that representatives of Livingston F.C. will attend the next meeting of our Management Committee on 19th November, when all aspects of the case will be discussed and dealt with accordingly. Hope this is of assistance. Regards, Carol Apologies if this has been posted elsewher been offline for a few days From Carol@ScottishFootballLeague.com Edited November 6, 2009 by marty_j 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) This was confirmed a while back... this is a scheduled meeting of the SFL MC and therefore the likely place for any decision to be taken. However whether any action is actually taken is another matter... EDIT TO ADD: Wouldn't it be better to just merge this in with the mammoth gargantuan Livi thread? Edited November 6, 2009 by HibeeJibee 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.