07 Nov 2014 20:52:17
I have just been reading Derek Mcinnes' s comments, where he is criticising Ronny deila and Scott Brown for defending Tonev in the race row.
I think the SFA should come out and say what evidence they had to find him guilty,
I hope they haven't just accepted logan's version of events without some corroboration.
If Tonev is guilty, then he deserves everything he gets, but if he is innocent, this ruling could finish his career, no club will want to sign him.
I hope they're not just assuming that as Tonev is from Eastern Europe, then he must be guilty.
Such a serious charge should warrant more evidence than that,
{Ed007's Note - Gerry that's actually a racist assumption YOU yourself are making.}
The whole thing has entered the realm of the absurd. McInnes claiming Broony and RD had no right speaking out in defence of Tonev, while speaking out to attack him, is ridiculous.
The facts, at the moment, are the player claimed he was racially abused. Tonev has denied this. As far as we know there is no evidence to support this claim, so it is two players word against each other.The SFA, those beacons of openness and transparency, have decided Tonev is guilty.Unless they have evidence they are keeping back in anticipation of an appeal, this cannot be right.
A couple of weeks ago fat 'boydy' was up on a charge of using his head aggressively against an opponent. He was brought up using video footage. The film was then watched and they decided there was no case to answer, AFTER WATCHING THE SAME FILM USED TO CHARGE HIM! Think about that for a minute, it is nonsense. just like the SFA infact.
{Ed007's Note - As I said at the time GJ, nobody knows what evidence was produced at Tonev's hearing and as racism is such a contentious subject we have to accept the decision as it stands until any appeal is heard, everything else is just guesswork and conjecture. As you said yourself 'As far as we know...' so why are you assuming he is innocent if you yourself don't know what evidence - if any - was presented. You really think in a case of racism 'they' would hold back evidence in case there was an appeal, are you serious?
I would also have expected better from you than a game of whataboutery, or are you saying Tonev should have been found not guilty, irrespective of the evidence, because Boyd got off the headbutt?
Would you accuse your wife of lying if she said a guy you've known for years had touched her up or tried it on, even if he denied it? One of them's lying or at least being economical with the truth, you'd listen to what happened then decide, just like the SFA done with Tonev.}
Bottom line, without proof he cannot be found guity.
Assumptions are all we have unless Ed you have additional information?
The SFA comment of guilty by probability does throw up an alternative racist angle as alluded to by other posters.
As for the manager & club captain not being vocally supportive, what do you expect? That's the least I would want if I was innocent n they knew it true
{Ed007's Note - You're assuming there's no evidence, I'm saying you don't have any clue what evidence was produced, neither do I. Do you seriously think there was no evidence produced, statements read out and questions asked and answered? That's what you're saying?}
Ed I hate to disagree with you, but I think I am not alone in thinking the SFA have acted partially in this case .
They wouldn't necessary have had to create precedence by ruling in a bias way .
{Ed007's Note - You've hit the nail on the head, Chris, you're thinking you're not alone bit everyone's thinking instead of dealing with the facts. I usually save this for the Zombies and their new club argument but it seems very apt for here, a lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right and evil doesn't become good just because it's accepted by a majority. Just because you're in the majority doesn't mean you're right.
When it comes to something like this we have to deal with the facts, all of our opinions mean nothing. Think back to how Liverpool stood by Suarez even to the point of wearing T-shirts to support him, who was left with egg on their face over that? That was one of the main things that cost Dalglish his job down there, Suarez dragged the name of a great club through the mud and cost a good man ($hitty manager but a good man) his job.
How do we know it's not the same kind of scenario, could Tonev had said something he thought was acceptable but it wasn't to Logan? Where do you draw the line at offence, Chris, Fenian B*stard? Taig or KAT? What about bead-rattler, or do we go into the sick and depraved songs Zombies sing about our greatest ever manager and our club?
Perhaps Logan thought he heard something that wasn't there due to Tonev's accent, none of us know so we can't guess just because it suits us, what would you say if it was VvD or Izzy accusing an Aberdeen player of the same thing, whose side would you be on then? My money's on CFC fans would be up in arms that the 7 game ban wasn't enough and if the SFA had found X player guilty there must have been evidence so why appeal it?
It's a serious accusation and until the appeal is heard nobody can say with any certainty what is going to happen. See that's me just doing what you're doing and saying what COULD have happened, it doesn't mean any of it is true does it?
Personally I hope Tonev wins his appeal and is cleared of any wrongdoing but I want to see him cleared because the evidence shows his innocence, not because Kris Boyd got off with something that I haven't even seen, what Kris Boyd does holds no interest for me, lower league football isn't my thing since Accies came up.}
@2, you answered you're own question, stevo, there must have been proof.
In the appeal, do they re-look at the situation from scratch, or do they look at the findings of the first panel?
If he is now found not guilty, why should we believe this new case over the first one.
I think we should have just sent him home to villa. At the end of they day he is there player, here on loan. If they want to salvage his/their reputation then could they not take it to court so as he is not a 'proven racist'. But for Celtic, we should surely act on the fact he has been found guilty.
Then again, I am not well informed as to how the sfa makes decisions on such matters, I can only hope they do it fairly.
This is only my opinion, the subject is such a hard one. We should obviously have zero tolerance to racism but this can only fully be done if we have confidence within the body behind the decision making, which obviously a lot of people dont
I'm waiting till I hear more before I waste my energy having an opinion on it. Would it not have been a lot more transparent for everyone and could we not have avoided all the debate and mud slinging from the clubs if the SFA had not just came out with a verdict but also what made them reach the verdict? Markie
Edinbhoy, that last paragraph of yours, having faith in the SFA, I think that's a more important issue than a bit of name calling. Well said.
08 Nov 2014 08:18:43
@edinbhoy, I agree with you that we should have shipped him back to Villa when the verdict came out against him. Initially I believed we could not do that but seemingly we can treat this as gross misconduct which allows us to "sack" him without any issue. As it has been said, no one knows the evidence that was put forward, however the verdict is the verdict. At the end of the season I assume he is going back to Villa, so let them deal with it. If Villa as his club want to file an appeal them well and good, and of the guy is innocent then I hope he manages to clear his name, but let his Parent club deal with it.
Yes, if he is innocent I would hope he could get this overturned.
there is now an old referee asking for transparency in the case, would this help or just lead to all cases being fully disclosed which might undermine things
Ed you are saying there must be evidence that we don't know to find him guilty. Is ronny deila lying when he says it was one mans word against another after the verdict and are the Bulgarian fa also wrong when they say it's one mans word against another, I would assume both of these parties actually spoke to tonev who was found guilty and heard all the evidence against him or was it just a kangaroo court?
{Ed007's Note - It was a kangaroo court Jim. The panel was made up of McCoist, Durrant and Donald Findlay. Nobody heard any evidence, they hid in the toilet passing Findlay's pipe around for an hour and shouted out the window to the waiting CFC fans with their 'Down with this sort of thing!' banner that it was a guilty verdict. They thought that banning Tonev would really put a spanner in the works with us aiming for a domestic treble and EL qualification. There does that make you feel better? In fact, but keep this to yourself, I heard it was all arranged at a Masonic meeting where they all pulled together and conspired just to pi$$ you off. They're all out to get you, Jim, best get the tinfoil hat on.
Obviously the rules only apply when it suits you. Would you be feeling so unjustly treated if the roles were reversed and it was a CFC player that accused an Aberdeen player? I'll hazard a guess that it would be '7 games isn't enough, he should be kicked out of football' and 'The SFA aren't going to find him guilty without evidence' or even 'Why would X make it up if it didn't happen'.
If NL came out and said what The Slug said in his ear and The Slug denied that's what he said, who would you believe and who would the Zombies believe? Just like here you'd believe exactly what suits you.
As for the Bulgarian FA, what did the Polish FA do after the Legia game? Read what Boniek had to say on the matter, with your support of a foreign FA over our own I take it you thought Boniek and the Polish FA were in the right, why else would they get involved? Read up on the corruption at the Bulgarian FA before holding them up as some bastion of righteousness.}
Very witty ed, the way I see it he's a celtic player and without any conclusive evidence I won't call him a racist and will support him. All opposition fans will target him now for being a racist on the say so of shay Logan who could be a victim or could be a liar. I totally understand aberdeen for backing their man and we should do the same as the sfa have once again made a farce of it through incompetence not bias.
{Ed007's Note - If you have proof the SFA have made a farce of it through incompetence, I'd love to see it, likewise if you have proof Tonev is innocent then let's see it. Since you claim to know what evidence the SFA used then share that as well as, all of this evidence of yours will clear up any confusion, I take it you've got that or at least seen it as you've said it isn't conclusive. I've not seen the evidence so I can't say if it conclusive or not. You should have made this information available before now, you helping to cover it up isn't doing Tonev any good now, is it?}
I'm not privvy to inside info obviously but 2 months after the event in today's information media world all the known info we have is one mans word against another. All you hear is people saying I believe shay/tonev not any other source. If you're going to brand a man a racist from football administrators then I think we should know how you reach that decision
{Ed007's Note - You obviously missed the post where I've quoted the actual REGULATIONS regarding the release of evidence. What you, I or anyone else thinks is not really that important to the SFA.}
Are you sure the Bulgarian FA are more corrupt than the SFA .
Funny enough I would believe the Kangaroo court bit before that 😋