|
|
Post by livijimbo on Nov 26, 2014 22:19:04 GMT 1
I was just thinking there on who put Livi FC into this position?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobafett on Nov 27, 2014 9:48:01 GMT 1
St Ged Nixon The Good Guy is to blame.
He is claiming that he paid money out to Gary Bollan and some players as cash bonuses and in his lawsuit he is seeking reimbursement, however as the Club have no record of such transactions, and those on the board at present felt that they had to bring it to the attention of the SPFL.
Strangely though, as far as I am aware, the individual recipients are denying such payments were made and if in the March Court Case there is deemed not enough evidence that Nixon paid anyone in this way then is there a mechanism for us to appeal the points deduction and fine if no wrong doing was actually undertaken?
|
|
|
|
Post by monkeysocks on Nov 27, 2014 14:12:42 GMT 1
We get stuffed by the powers that be when Mike Astley owns Newcastle Utd and significant interest in Rangers. SFA say he cannot influence matters at Rangers but surprise surprise he has control over Murray Park and another part of their portfolio which escapes me at the moment as conditions of his latest " loan" to the club. Couple that with looking to appoint 2 bodies of his choosing on the Rangers Board how can he not exert influence? He sticks 2 fingers up at the authorities and nothing happens. Perhaps we are just not clever enough in our dealings with the authorities .
|
|
|
|
Post by livi1995 on Nov 27, 2014 15:29:05 GMT 1
Problem is that the SFA rules are for dual interest in football clubs that are in Scotland. If both Newcastle and Rangers were to be drawn together in a UEFA competition then Mike Astley would have conflicts of interest. What I find funny is that the clubs that Rankin is meant to have intrests in both pumped us the last two weekends.
|
|
|
|
Post by livimoaner on Nov 27, 2014 16:57:45 GMT 1
St Ged Nixon The Good Guy is to blame. He is claiming that he paid money out to Gary Bollan and some players as cash bonuses and in his lawsuit he is seeking reimbursement, however as the Club have no record of such transactions, and those on the board at present felt that they had to bring it to the attention of the SPFL. Strangely though, as far as I am aware, the individual recipients are denying such payments were made and if in the March Court Case there is deemed not enough evidence that Nixon paid anyone in this way then is there a mechanism for us to appeal the points deduction and fine if no wrong doing was actually undertaken? Putting together what you are saying to what was posted about the statement from the club, it looks like we have been punished but with want of evidence! If the players that are alleged to have received the money say they did not do so, there is no record of it in the club accounts, the we are being punished by want of the statement by Nixon? I take it we are not appealing as we cannot afford to hire a brief of a suitable quality? |
|
|
|
Post by livi1995 on Nov 27, 2014 18:22:53 GMT 1
I guess all will be revealed at the court case we are contesting. I don't think we need a "brief" to appeal. I am more concerred about whether there is time bar. Also maybe there is evidence that he paid over monies from some of his now defunct companies. Who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Nov 28, 2014 1:32:51 GMT 1
Problem is that the SFA rules are for dual interest in football clubs that are in Scotland. If both Newcastle and Rangers were to be drawn together in a UEFA competition then Mike Astley would have conflicts of interest. What I find funny is that the clubs that Rankin is meant to have intrests in both pumped us the last two weekends. When did we lose to East Fife? |
|
|
|
Post by livi1995 on Nov 28, 2014 16:54:45 GMT 1
My mistake. Forgot it was our chairman who once had shares in Cowdenbeath
|
|
lexis
New Member
Posts: 1 
|
Post by lexis on Nov 30, 2014 20:58:57 GMT 1
I am slightly concerned that the club rolled over so easily and pled guilty to the charges levied against them by the SPFL
The club statement advises that "Livingston Football Club wish to confirm that we are working with our accountants and HMRC to establish exactly how much tax is due to be paid ". In other words there has been no actual bill or assessment levied by HMRC on the club as yet
What Livingston pleaded guilty to were very specific charges . The SPFL statement advised that "Livingston pleaded guilty to breaches of SPFL rules E20, E22 and E29 having failed to advise the SPFL that it had been in default of its tax obligations in relations to payments made to players "
Was the club actually in breach of its tax obligations as defined in the SPFL rules . Before you go rushing off to the SPFL website to read the rules in question you need to look at the definition of "Tax Liabilities' which appears in the definitions section at the start of the rules
I will leave it to you all to read them for yourselves but my view is that there was a stateable defence to the effect that as there had been no actual assessment or bill ever issued (after all according to the club statement HMRC are still working out what the tax liabilities are ) LFC were not in fact in default and in breach of rule E20 and consequently not in breach of E22 either .They may well have been in breach of E29 (failure to keep proper financial records ) but that is a much lesser offence and I am sure that LFC are not the only SPFL club in breach of that rule .
In addition even when an assessment or demand is issued and you can't pay the sum due or requested you can enter into a Time To Pay Agreement with HMRC and the SPFL rules take account of that by providing that if you enter into a TTPA and stick to it you are not in breach of E20 (and therefore E22)
It is clear that the Nixon V LFC case brought this issue to the fore . It is not clear whether GN was seeking to use the question of cash payments to staff against the club or vice versa . One side or other must have referred to the cash payments in their written pleadings as part of the court action . I suspect it was the club but either way the cat was out of the bag and the club must have thought it best to come clean to the SPFLand hope that the SPFL would cut them some slack .
For whatever reason the club decided to come clean. Some may think that a better approach might have been to discuss matters privately with HMRC ,get their view of what is due and pay it or enter a TTPA and then approach the SPFL and own up to what had happened .Could have prevented a lot of grief,saved £10k and more importantly 5 crucial points .
Despite the above I do not think that the Board are clueless . I think that the club would have considered a defence . My concern is that if they did know they had a possible defence why did they plead guilty to everything that was thrown at them ?
|
|
