Livingston - all the threads merged

[Durnford]

If I recollect correctly, was there not a board member who was employed by HMRC? If true, then it would be a bit embarrasing (at best) if it was proven that payments/bonuses were made without income tax and/or National Insurance not being deducted!

Close; as far as I can recall the HMRC employee was a fans representative on the board I think.

[LIVIFOREVER]

Except you made that up. That never happened. Rangers had a registrations embargo imposed to 31st August 2013 and it was not lifted until the stroke of midnight on that date.

Yeah registration embargo, transfer embargo, they couldn't sign players. Ran in my mind they already had it put on them and McCoist complained they wouldn't be able to field a competitive team so it was lifted for a few weeks until they had assembled a team. Maybe that was just paper talk and the ban hadn't been implemented yet though, not sure enough to argue about it.

Point still stands would be stupid announcing this when we hadn't a team assembled and were well short of having one. Not even sure it would've come to this if Rankine had just approached the tax man and squared up what was due before the SFA had to know. If it was paid would they have anything to do with this? I take it the ban stands till the tax is resolved so paying it would resolve the situation.

Looks like Rankine wants this put on Nixon and isn't that bothered about the SFA sanction in putting a registration embargo as we've already signed everyone we were going to. Means the tax man will be investigating it now and if it is on Nixon then Rankine has got ammunition in the court case.

[LIVIFOREVER]

IIRC The Rangers weren't allowed to register players but from a date in the future from the announcement- 1st Sept I think - so it gave them time to tie up some players ahead of the ban whereas our ban is immediate with no end date.

I think Rankine is being quite cute here and it's worth the aggro to get an advantage over Nixon in the court case.

Didn't they have the embargo under oldco and challenged it in the court of sessions and won when newco had it imposed on them? Then agreed to having an embargo when they got their membership transferred, so that gave them time to get players in. Think it was something like that anyway.

[Yoss]

Yeah registration embargo, transfer embargo, they couldn't sign players. Ran in my mind they already had it put on them and McCoist complained they wouldn't be able to field a competitive team so it was lifted for a few weeks until they had assembled a team. Maybe that was just paper talk and the ban hadn't been implemented yet though, not sure enough to argue about it.

You're still making shit up. They couldn't sign players until 1st September, and although they had numerous signings lined up and announced before then (and had even played some as triallists in the early games) they didn't sign anyone until that date.

As for Livi, it's true that the ban would have been an awful lot more inconvenient had it been in place a few weeks earlier. But any suggestion that that influenced their actions or when they realised there was an issue to be reported is, at best, speculation.

[AND180Y]

Have to laugh at the "fair minded Livi fans" who are almost refusing to discuss these amazing revelations on their new forums. The usual suspects are visible by their absence

Theres a post on that board "Unlike other fans websites, there's no need for War & Peace type rules and diktats here. The rules are clear - if you're an *rsehole, you're gone. Simple ....................."

They have probably fallen on their own sword.

[Skyline Drifter]

You're still making shit up. They couldn't sign players until 1st September, and although they had numerous signings lined up and announced before then (and had even played some as triallists in the early games) they didn't sign anyone until that date.

This.

They signed a couple of players like Ian Black and David Templeton before they were actually put under a ban by the SFA and then a ban was imposed covering the next two windows. It was never lifted, varied or moved in any way whatsoever from the minute it was imposed to the minute it expired. I've no idea where he gets the idea McCoist moaned about his squad so it was lifted temporarily from. Completely imagined.

Of course Rangers could afford to employ some big names (Nicky Clark, John Daly, Cammy Bell, etc) before the ban expired and played a few as Trialists as you say but none of them were registered as players before 1st September 2013.

[LIVIFOREVER]

You're still making shit up. They couldn't sign players until 1st September, and although they had numerous signings lined up and announced before then (and had even played some as triallists in the early games) they didn't sign anyone until that date.

As for Livi, it's true that the ban would have been an awful lot more inconvenient had it been in place a few weeks earlier. But any suggestion that that influenced their actions or when they realised there was an issue to be reported is, at best, speculation.

The original ban was in April, they appealed to a court of session that ruled in Rangers favour that the SFA had acted beyond its powers. So if they were then on an embargo from Sept after agreeing to it so they would get their registration it gave them 4 months to sign players after they originally had the ban imposed in April didn't it?

[LIVIFOREVER]

This.

They signed a couple of players like Ian Black and David Templeton before they were actually put under a ban by the SFA and then a ban was imposed covering the next two windows. It was never lifted, varied or moved in any way whatsoever from the minute it was imposed to the minute it expired. I've no idea where he gets the idea McCoist moaned about his squad so it was lifted temporarily from. Completely imagined.

Of course Rangers could afford to employ some big names (Nicky Clark, John Daly, Cammy Bell, etc) before the ban expired and played a few as Trialists as you say but none of them were registered as players before 1st September 2013.

Yes it was.

They wouldn't have been able to sign those players had it not been lifted in April after they won their court case. Not putting it back on until Sept allowed them to sign up the players they needed to "compete" as McCoist had put it.

[Cowden til i die]

Are you trolling?

[Yoss]

Apologies LF, I at least see where you're coming from now - I thought you were referring to 2013 but you mean back in 2012, right?

That's still not my understanding of what happened. The previous club were hit with a 12 month transfer embargo; Rangers attempted to argue that the punishment could not be applied to the newco, but were eventually made to accept it as part of the condition for rejoining. So, yes, the twelve month period started (and finished) later for the newco, being as they didn't even exist at the time the original punishment was mooted. But once the ban was applied and accepted there was no movement on it.

[Skyline Drifter]

The original ban was in April, they appealed to a court of session that ruled in Rangers favour that the SFA had acted beyond its powers. So if they were then on an embargo from Sept after agreeing to it so they would get their registration it gave them 4 months to sign players after they originally had the ban imposed in April didn't it?

Yes it was.

They wouldn't have been able to sign those players had it not been lifted in April after they won their court case. Not putting it back on until Sept allowed them to sign up the players they needed to "compete" as McCoist had put it.

Ok, there was an attempt to impose a penalty on Rangers that was deemed to be outwith powers and lifted on appeal. However it was later reimposed as part of the conditions of their re-entry into the SFA and League. That's not remotely the same as you initially claimed, ie that the ban was lifted temporarily because McCoist moaned he didn't have enough players and it was lifted to allow them to assemble a competitive team and only re-imposed once they'd signed a squad.

The initial ban was removed only because it turned out not to be an available penalty of the Tribunal that levelled it on Rangers and it was reimposed as soon as they found a way to do it. It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with allowing Rangers to get some players signed first and the idea the League would have had to let you do the same of it had come to light before you'd signed up your whole squad is ludicrous.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Skyline Drifter

[Livingston51455145]

Noticed this today,

Looks like Rankine will get off lightly with East Fife link but think he is in for a ball booting for Dumbarton.

fifeno1

Aug 25, 2014 - 1:49PM

Quote Reply Re: Club in crisis

In todays courier

Rankine denies claims he is influencing East Fife

By Craig Smith, 25 August 2014 12.18pm.

Under-fire Livingston shareholder Neil Rankine has insisted he is not pulling any strings at East Fife, despite facing an SFA investigation into claims he holds interests in the Methil club.

Fans concerned at the Bayview club’s direction of travel have claimed Rankine somehow holds sway at East Fife through named majority shareholders Lorraine Johnston and Samantha Twigg.

The situation has seen Livingston, where Rankine is a co-owner, hit with a notice of complaint by the Scottish FA for failing to disclose Rankine’s interest in both East Fife and Dumbarton, and facing a disciplinary hearing on September 10 for five alleged breaches of SFA ownership rules.

But, speaking to Courier Sport ahead of the hearing, the former Dumbarton chairman denied the alleged link to East Fife.

He said the only advice he had given the Methil club was a recommendation to now ex-chairman Lee Murray about a managerial appointment.

“There is no one in Methil whose strings I have pulled or even attempted to pull,” he said.

“I gave Lee Murray one piece of advice: hire Gary Bollan, who was unfairly sacked at Livi. But he chose a taxi driver instead. End of advice.

“I don’t even pull any ‘team’ strings at Livi, as seen with them firing Bollan unfairly when they should have waited for compensation as he would have moved on to bigger clubs.

“I help as an unpaid consultant on stadium and strategy matters at Livingston because I have 30 years’ experience and many football club officials keep in touch with me for advice.”

He added: “In my early Dumbarton days, after having put substantial sponsorship money into Falkirk FC and other local teams, I got my football education from Jack Steedman and Bill Barr. Jack taught me how to run a football club as a business and Bill Barr how not to.

“Dumbarton were £500,000 in the red and had an unsafe stadium — when I sold it, it had a new stadium, no debt and well over £100,000 in the bank.”

Mr Rankine claimed former East Fife chairman Bruce Black needed “substantial funds” to save the club from folding in the early 2000s, so he “encouraged” the Johnston Twigg family to invest.

He claimed the family had been expecting “realistic” offers to sell for the last seven years, and said a £600,000 buyout deal — to be paid over 12 years — had been agreed last summer with a consortium led by former club physio Brian McNeill.

He said that “seems to have been scuppered”, adding his solicitors have advised him to “not assist or advise in any capacity” after the pending SFA complaint was lodged.

But he said he “never had or will have any shares or loans” relating to East Fife, and hopes to draw a line under the continued speculation.

“I have never married and have no family relationship with the Johnstons or Twiggs — indeed I am engaged to the second largest shareholder at Livingston FC,” he said.

“I have had a past personal relationship which is over, and indeed also sold Mr Johnston Sr some seaside holiday property which he can’t now give away after dealing with their family for many years in the antiques trade.”

The SFA allege Livingston failed “to act towards the Scottish FA with the utmost good faith by not disclosing to the Scottish FA that Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, the parent company of Livingston FC, also holds interests in East Fife FC and Dumbarton FC”.

The governing body also say the club provided “false, misleading and/or inaccurate information in respect of Neil Rankine’s eligibility as a fit and proper person” in 2013 and that Livingston had failed to “specify Neil Rankine” on the club’s “official return”.

By continuing to “hold interests in East Fife and Dumbarton in addition to his shareholding in Livingston”, the SFA also say the East Lothian club “holds power to influence the management or administration of those two aforementioned other clubs”.

The final alleged rule breach charges Livingston with “not acting in the best interests of Association Football” by not disclosing Mr Rankine’s alleged interests in East Fife and Dumbarton.

GoF

Aug 25, 2014 - 7:18PM

Quote Reply Re: Club in crisis

Quote: fifeno1

He said the only advice he had given the Methil club was a recommendation to now ex-chairman Lee Murray about a managerial appointment.

“There is no one in Methil whose strings I have pulled or even attempted to pull,” he said.

“I gave Lee Murray one piece of advice: hire Gary Bollan, who was unfairly sacked at Livi. But he chose a taxi driver instead. End of advice.

A literal LOL from that part. Great line from Rankine and sadly also what I've been wondering as to where we may have been without that appointment.

Email

[Yoss]

"I gave Lee Murray one piece of advice: hire Gary Bollan, who was unfairly sacked at Livi. But he chose a taxi driver instead. End of advice."

Yeah, that gave me a laugh too.

Rankine seems to be missing the point that a breach of the rules (and an actual conflict of interest) doesn't require someone to be actively exercising an influence over any of the clubs involved. And as the previous poster has observed, nowhere does he actually seem to deny the Dumbarton allegations. (But obviously I have no idea whether there's any truth to them or not.)

[The Moonster]

"I gave Lee Murray one piece of advice: hire Gary Bollan, who was unfairly sacked at Livi. But he chose a taxi driver instead. End of advice."

Yeah, that gave me a laugh too.

Rankine seems to be missing the point that a breach of the rules (and an actual conflict of interest) doesn't require someone to be actively exercising an influence over any of the clubs involved. And as the previous poster has observed, nowhere does he actually seem to deny the Dumbarton allegations. (But obviously I have no idea whether there's any truth to them or not.)

He said previously that he's owed £200K from the owners at Dumbarton, stating that if that's a conflict of interest then he would have to either sue our owners for his money or step away from Livi.

[orco]

All this has been common knowledge in football, including the members of the SFA for ever. So if they were ever serious about fit and proper persons and the like (ha!) why haven't they acted before now? There is currently a battle going on at Livi between the money men past and present with accusation and counter accusation being thrown around. As usual the club and fans are caught in the middle in no man's land. It's become a way of life for Livi fans. Great fun. Not!

[Bigrabbyd]

How is gallagher getting on at livi ?

[andylivi1]

How is gallagher getting on at livi ?

Strolling it, can see he is a class above, certain looks like he should be playing at a higher level, had helped out back line a lot, we actually look organised.

An amazing signing for us.

[LIVIFOREVER]

He deals with every high ball that comes his way and very little gets past him on the deck, brilliant signing for us. His passing isn't so good at times but you can't have everything.

[Broony88]

Him and Durnan together on last nights showing at this level would have the cigars out. Gallagher was by far the best on the park. Got a gem there but I think the big question is, will he be going to jail or has that all settled down ?

[MCL]

Changes happening at Livingston 5 Ltd this week.

APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR ANDREW GEMMELL

APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR GORDON MCDOUGALL