Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Share
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 2115
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Bertie Bassett on Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:08 am

So far I've only seen it on the BBC web site but no doubt it will hit the papers tomorrow...however it does smack of old news to me too; since when does anyone get paid on Christmas day? Which suggests poor journalism.

Also with the finger pointing at him with regard to the unpaid taxes for alleged bonus payments that no one seems to have received, surely we would have a counter claim?
avatar
Lexi Collector
Admin

Posts : 785
Join date : 2014-06-10
Age : 24

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Lexi Collector on Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:24 am

Hate to sound like a dick, Bertie, but I got paid on Christmas day last year.

Jarvo

Posts : 2
Join date : 2014-11-24

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Jarvo on Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:13 am

In the Ahmed vs The Rangers case Ahmed was looking for the Court to ring fence a proportion of the Clumpany's money i.e. they still had more working capital. If a Judge rules for Nixon it'd likely immediately shut Livi down from a cashflow perspective. With the main case still to come I'm hoping that will work in our favour....
avatar
mozam76

Posts : 206
Join date : 2014-06-10

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by mozam76 on Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:49 am

The main thing I noticed about the BBC piece yesterday was that the wording changed ever so slightly as the day went on - most noticeably, the line about a hearing happening on Wednesday. That was in the early piece, and totally removed in the afternoon. It strikes me as a rehash of an old story; they gave it some amount of prominence though, it was one of the lead stories yesterday morning.

I can't remember who it was, but the poster who suggested that this may have come to light because Nixon knows now that there won't be a Petrofac final windfall - that might just be bang on the money.

Durnford

Posts : 776
Join date : 2014-10-23

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Durnford on Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:13 am

mozam76 wrote:The main thing I noticed about the BBC piece yesterday was that the wording changed ever so slightly as the day went on - most noticeably, the line about a hearing happening on Wednesday. That was in the early piece, and totally removed in the afternoon.  It strikes me as a rehash of an old story; they gave it some amount of prominence though, it was one of the lead stories yesterday morning.

I can't remember who it was, but the poster who suggested that this may have come to light because Nixon knows now that there won't be a Petrofac final windfall - that might just be bang on the money.

Guilty as charged mi'laud. Yes it was very likely that the original hearing was moved to coincide with the potential windfall from the proposed Sevco cup final; now that it isn't going to happen he's sh#ting himself as the longer he'a waited the less money will be available.

I think I heard somewhere that he has two pals on the Livi for Life board, (Don Paul and David Stoker?); maybe they would be prepared to comment?
avatar
mozam76

Posts : 206
Join date : 2014-06-10

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by mozam76 on Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:09 am

It does make sense Durnford. My apologies, I normally keep track of what's been happening on the boards but things have been hectic at work and at Casa Mozam.

On the matter or whether Don Paul or Dave Stoker should be commenting on the matter because they may be mates with him - I'm not sure that's fair, to be honest. Nixon is big enough and ugly enough to come out with his own press, if he won't say anything then that's that.

Durnford

Posts : 776
Join date : 2014-10-23

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Durnford on Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:38 am

Nixon is "unavailable for comment" apparently which isn't surprising sub judice.

Would be interested to hear a comment from the trust to be honest but suspect that's not going to happen as they feel they're caught between a rock and a hard place. Might be a little easier if one side was whiter than white....

With regard to comments from his pals I was more suggesting that they may wish to separate themselves from his actions rather than comment directly. Nixon's actions were, and are, far worse than those of Keane and yet the latter was pilloried for them.
avatar
Afro

Posts : 558
Join date : 2014-06-14

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Afro on Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:09 am

Durnford wrote:Nixon is "unavailable for comment" apparently which isn't surprising sub judice.

Would be interested to hear a comment from the trust to be honest but suspect that's not going to happen as they feel they're caught between a rock and a hard place. Might be a little easier if one side was whiter than white....

With regard to comments from his pals I was more suggesting that they may wish to separate themselves from his actions rather than comment directly. Nixon's actions were, and are, far worse than those of Keane and yet the latter was pilloried for them.

Irregardless of the Trust's past connections with Nixon, the lack of word from their end over this whole matter has been quite surprising. When Massone's mismanagement directly threatened the existence of the club, they were very vocal if I recall correctly? Now the same thing is happening again and there's not a peep from them, save Don Paul's comment on the Scotsman's article here.

I'm not slating the Trust or trying to get a rise out of anyone, but I just feel that the Supporters' Trust should be doing more. Maybe they are behind the scenes, I don't know.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 2115
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Bertie Bassett on Tue Dec 09, 2014 1:46 pm

Lexi Collector wrote:Hate to sound like a dick, Bertie, but I got paid on Christmas day last year.
Fair enough, I haven't heard of that unless it is cash payments, any company I have worked for pays via the bank and if pay day falls on a bank holiday they usually pay early.

The Scotsman carrying the story lends some credence to it being a new development

djs9750

Posts : 56
Join date : 2014-06-10

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by djs9750 on Tue Dec 09, 2014 4:35 pm

This is on the court Roll for the Court of Session for tomorrow
By Order

Between 9.00am and 9.30am


1 CA75/14 Gerard Nixon v Livingston Football Club Ltd

So the so called superfan is going directly for the club, knowing full well that his actions will kill it off completely. I am sure there are plenty of ex employees who could list exactly what this man is like. Unfortunately to list here our true feelings toward someone like this could see an invite to visit Mr Mulholland.
I bet he still sleeps soundly, and I bet he still doesn't have to watch the pennies like the rest of us.

avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3775
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Liviforever on Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:53 pm

Can't be much in the club funds, the ST money will prob be used up by now and we've not had a home game for a while, last month only had Dumbarton at home. Only money he's trying to freeze here is staff/players wages and the cash for day to day bills Looks very much like a move to end the club.

Also don't see why he'd be entitled to his split of director loans when others have also put money in, so why should he get his all back separately? Must be more complicated than that.

Even if he fails he'll be doing damage to the club with this adverse publicity, win, win for him in that score. Any investors will be seeing this and thinking how long term would their sponsorship etc be worth.

Durnford

Posts : 776
Join date : 2014-10-23

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Durnford on Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:12 pm

Liviforever wrote:Can't be much in the club funds, the ST money will prob be used up by now and we've not had a home game for a while, last month only had Dumbarton at home. Only money he's trying to freeze here is staff/players wages and the cash for day to day bills Looks very much like a move to end the club.

Also don't see why he'd be entitled to his split of director loans when others have also put money in, so why should he get his all back separately? Must be more complicated than that.

Even if he fails he'll be doing damage to the club with this adverse publicity, win, win for him in that score. Any investors will be seeing this and thinking how long term would their sponsorship etc be worth.

Don't forget the money for Marc McNulty and the appearance money for Scougall
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3775
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Liviforever on Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:11 pm

Rankine will have paid that back to himself to stop Nixon getting it.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 2115
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Bertie Bassett on Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:58 pm

Here's hoping the court sees him for the "delightful person" he is & sends him packing with his tail between his legs.
avatar
mozam76

Posts : 206
Join date : 2014-06-10

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by mozam76 on Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:54 am

Postponed until Dec 23rd. Absolutely no idea why.
avatar
Lexi Collector
Admin

Posts : 785
Join date : 2014-06-10
Age : 24

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Lexi Collector on Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:14 pm

Another postponed court case, how thrilling. Just get this arsehole dealt with, beyond a joke now.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3775
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Liviforever on Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:51 pm

Arguing over the amount Nixon is due, whatever the amount is we cant afford the arrestment of funds so not liking it being adjourned till the 23rd.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 2115
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Bertie Bassett on Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:54 pm

The impression I got from the report on STV was that they were trying to resolve it without the need for court. But that could be me getting my hopes up.

I can't see how arguing over the amount would stop Nixon trying to ring fence the amount he is claiming to be owed as ring fencing his amount would also ring fence a lesser amount that the board claim he is owed; so no need for Nixon to seek adjournment. Of course it could be that our guys sought the adjournment, Nixon objected but the court upheld our guys position...which would suggest a good result.

Also...what has happened to the adjudication on Rankine's alleged East Fife influence? That was supposed to be finalised this past Monday.

avatar
HoudaBetsy

Posts : 55
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by HoudaBetsy on Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:11 am

Bertie Bassett wrote:The impression I got from the report on STV was that they were trying to resolve it without the need for court. But that could be me getting my hopes up.

I can't see how arguing over the amount would stop Nixon trying to ring fence the amount he is claiming to be owed as ring fencing his amount would also ring fence a lesser amount that the board claim he is owed; so no need for Nixon to seek adjournment. Of course it could be that our guys sought the adjournment, Nixon objected but the court upheld our guys position...which would suggest a good result.

Also...what has happened to the adjudication on Rankine's alleged East Fife influence? That was supposed to be finalised this past Monday.

It was meant to be monday, but for some reason didn't happen.
avatar
mozam76

Posts : 206
Join date : 2014-06-10

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by mozam76 on Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:40 am

Large piece in the Metro this morning with quotes from Nixon and Rankine - can't find the piece on the Web to link though. When I get into work I'll see what I can do.

It may be the quotes from last night's STV piece, which I didn't see.
avatar
HoudaBetsy

Posts : 55
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by HoudaBetsy on Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:57 pm

mozam76 wrote:Large piece in the Metro this morning with quotes from Nixon and Rankine - can't find the piece on the Web to link though. When I get into work I'll see what I can do.

It may be the quotes from last night's STV piece, which I didn't see.

Haven't seen either, much appreciated if you share either.
Just seen this though:
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/livingston/ex-livi-chief-nixon-speaks-out-about-court-case-1-3630471
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3775
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Liviforever on Thu Dec 11, 2014 2:10 pm

Nixon denying everything in this article. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/ged-nixon-denies-claim-puts-livingston-in-danger-1-3631298

He doesn't accept him freezing the clubs funds will put it in any danger. Aye ok.


Durnford wrote:

Don't forget the money for Marc McNulty and the appearance money for Scougall

Liviforever wrote:Rankine will have paid that back to himself to stop Nixon getting it.

Looks like I was right.

Nixon, who stepped down from his post in October 2013, said: “It’s been put to me that this could put the club in jeopardy but I don’t accept that. The club has received over £400,000 in transfer fees this calendar year, it’s had record season ticket sales, record gate receipts this season to date and if Mr Rankine was carrying out the cost-cutting measures that he was proposing, then I see absolutely no reason why it is in jeopardy.

“If it is in jeopardy then I question why he [Rankine] himself has taken back a significant six-figure sum, by his own admission, and paid back other directors of both Livingston 5 and the football club.

“By that I mean [club vice-chairman] Robert Wilson and Carolyn Sumner, to whom he has admitted paying back all of the loan. Gordon McDougall also receives repayment of his loan on a regular basis.”

Durnford

Posts : 776
Join date : 2014-10-23

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Durnford on Thu Dec 11, 2014 3:25 pm

There might have been a grain of truth in some of that but he totally lost the plot when he started going on about a plot to remove Gordon McDougall. As Neil Rankin is the majority shareholder he presumably could have done that without anyones help if he wanted - it sounds like complete nonsense.

Undoubtedly we've had better income this year than last and no compensation payments for sacked managers etc. or under the table payments to agents etc.

To be honest though; Rankin does remind me of a bomb-site used car dealer.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3775
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Liviforever on Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:57 pm

Well he didn't step down without being pushed, and certainly wasn't happy about it when he was forced out by Rankine. Bit of revisionism to save pride there, and mischief making with the McDougall story.

Not sure how he knows what monies are being paid to who and any other goings on in the club now he's gone either.
Of course he's going to say he doesn't accept it will put the club in danger, that'll be his argument for getting it through the court, and Rankine's for him not being able to, wouldn't think the judge would give him the verdict if it put the club in admin.
avatar
EdinburghLivi
Admin

Posts : 774
Join date : 2014-06-09
Age : 25
Location : Edz

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by EdinburghLivi on Thu Dec 11, 2014 6:12 pm

Nixon is a snake, I have no doubt most of his claims will be utter pish and an attempt to massage his own ego.

Sponsored content

Re: Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:41 pm