Rankine v Nixon: The fall Out.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”