Livingston fined and given registration embargo for 'dual ownership' issues

[Frankie 8,150]

Relevant to us I'd say...

 

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=14557

 

The Disciplinary Tribunal convened in accordance with the Judicial Panel Protocol to consider the case involving Livingston Football Club made the following determination

 

Alleged Party in Breach: Livingston Football Club.

 

Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached:

 

Rule 1 – By failing 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;

 

Rule 7 – By providing false, misleading and/or inaccurate information in respect of Neil Rankine’s eligibility as a fit and proper person by declaring in an Amendment to Official Return form, dated 11th November 2013, that there were no matters to be brought to the attention of the Scottish FA in terms of Article 10, nor any interest in any other club in membership of the Scottish FA in terms of Article 13, the truth being that Neil Rankine then held and continues to hold interests in East Fife FC in addition to his shareholding in Livingston FC through Livingston 5 Ltd;

 

Rule 21 - By holding interests in East Fife FC, through Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, whereby Livingston FC holds power to influence the management or administration of East Fife FC;

 

Rule 86 – Not acting in the best interests of Association Football by not disclosing to the Scottish FA that Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, also holds interests in East Fife FC.

 

Outcome: All breaches established. The tribunal considered that the imposition of a substantial financial penalty would not be in the best interests of the club or the wider interests of Scottish football. The panel did, nonetheless, require to illustrate the gravity of the breaches and imposed a ‘global sanction’ in respect of the four breaches, which arise out of a set of circumstances. The global sanctions are determined in two parts:

 

1. Fine of £5000 imposed on Livingston FC.

 

2. Livingston FC prevented from registering any player, either on loan or permanently, or extending the contract of any player currently registered with the club until such time as the club has resolved the ongoing breach of Disciplinary Rule 21.

 

If the ongoing breach is not resolved it would be a matter for the Compliance Officer to consider raising further proceedings.

[Rousseau 9,373]

This is relatively small punishment. Surely influence over two clubs that can come up against each other is infinitely worse than holding sway over two clubs that can't - at least not within the next few years, if ever?

[Frankie 8,150]

This is relatively small punishment. Surely influence over two clubs that can come up against each other is infinitely worse than holding sway over two clubs that can't - at least not within the next few years, if ever?

 

The fine is pointless, the embargo much more severe.

 

I'd agree with your rationale in terms of the differences in the Ashley/Rankine cases but it seems clear Ashley will now be unable to put more people on the board (or invest in any share issue) without the club being punished.

[Frankie 8,150]

SFA are due to rule on Rangers part in Ashley's influence at the club on the 16th April.

 

Given the result in this case and the fine already given to Ashley, I can't see how the Newcastle owner can increase his say in the club going forward. Clearly board stooges are punishable while further investment has been denied as well.

 

While any fine is negligible a new embargo placed on the club would cause of huge problems - promotion achieved or not. Remember, like Livi, we have over ten players out of contract this summer.

[26th of foot 5,834]

The open ended nature of the second part of that punishment, could cause our club all sorts of problems over a substantial period.

[simplythebest 0]

And would anyone would it past the Lawwell controlled SFA to give us another kicking?

[Davie P 4]

Why aren't East Fife punished? Is it because Rankine was a shareholder in them first?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

The easdales and sommers have a lot to answer for a lowing Ashley control

[der Berliner 3,247]

Rule 21 - By holding interests in East Fife FC, through Neil Rankine, shareholder of Livingston 5 Ltd, whereby Livingston FC holds power to influence the management or administration of East Fife FC;

 

That was very much the case till earlier last month, not so now. Hence, IMHO, the quick suspension handed to Llambias and Co.. While Mash Holdings is still a major minor shareholder, the deal with SportsDirect.com Retail Limite can be viewed and argued as a different thing, if it comes to that. Ashley has no saying in these things mentioned above, as far as we know.

 

Hence ...

 

2. Livingston FC prevented from registering any player, either on loan or permanently, or extending the contract of any player currently registered with the club until such time as the club has resolved the ongoing breach of Disciplinary Rule 21.

 

... should not be applicable to us right now.

Edited April 1, 2015 by der Berliner

[the gunslinger 3,366]

And would anyone would it past the Lawwell controlled SFA to give us another kicking?

 

We will have brought it on ourselves greenco sought deliver us into Ashley's pockets and tried to force the sfa to accept that by refusing investment then voting to make it impossible at the AGM.