Jump to content

Casual Bystander

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    2,549
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Casual Bystander

  1. Ah, yes the Bulgarian FA is clearly the role model in all this. Recently when Levski Sofia fans held up a banner saying "Say Yes To Racism", in English no less so it is clear it was intended for Western audiences, the Bulgarian acted by sanctioning them with one of the lowest fines possible, roughly £8000.
  2. He hasn't been branded, he's been found guilty based on probable cause. Something that criminal courts rule upon on a regular basis. I think it's entirely right that Celtic have the option to appeal this, but you seem to be of the assumption that there is absolutely no basis for the claim what so ever. What is happening about Virgil van Dijk's claims of racist abuse at one of the grounds, can't remember which but I have yet to hear of any charges being brought. Do you feel it is right that he was to bring up this allegation when there has been no evidence of others hearing it?
  3. With respect, your answer "seems to suggest" you have little experience with most decision making processes. For example, do you think a judge when presiding over a non-jury case walks into the court "blind". No, they have already read up on the evidence and the relevant positions that the defence/prosecution will be taking. As for "pre-ordained beliefs", that is way to vague a term, as technically everyone has some level of opinion on any matter. However if they will be used to prejudice the final decision then you have chosen the wrong person to make that decision. That isn't a reflection on the ability to study the details before the day of decision but on the person making that decision.
  4. The irony, of course, is that if there is a conspiracy it's in favour of the very teams who whine the loudest when any decision goes against them.
  5. So the Appellate Panel are entirely independent to the SFA? They are not requested by, or report back to, them? I think the "haven't seen the evidence" is a pathetic excuse btw. Absolutely no body that makes judgements, whether civil, criminal or any other form, would go into a decision making process like this entirely blind. It also still doesn't change the simple fact that if this was any other club it would have been handled with considerably more expediency and also with a lot less cotton wool.
  6. I have to say that is top quality copping out by the SFA. Either they stick with the decision made, or they consider the initial panel's decision incorrect. It's not like they haven't had enough time to deliberate over the issue and considering there is hardly a wealth of evidence to wade through you have to question why an adjournment was needed. Something is rotten in Denmark. The only thing I can think of is whether Celtic have threatened legal action if the original decision wasn't overturned and the SFA are seeking their own legal guidance on the matter. It would certainly not be beyond the realms of possibility that Celtic would be litigious to the hilt, they certainly have been in the past or at least threatened to be so. Edit: What disappoints me most is not that the initial decision went one way or the other, or that Celtic appealed (it is their right after all), or even the very public media campaign they are engaging in (although that is distasteful if not downright lacking in any class). No the most disappointing thing is if this was a player from any other club then all this would have been done and dusted (including any possible appeal) long before now. It's nigh on 3 months and we still have no final decision. The level of pussy footing and kid gloves really puts the mockers on any suggestion that every team should be treated equally when it comes to the rules. Celtic can't be blamed for the SFA arsing about though, that has to be said.
  7. Like him or not, and personally I am not a huge fan, but he has a point. It's embarrassing for Doncaster and co for the league to still have no sponsor, and coming on the back of them slagging it during the Rangers fiasco it really makes you wonder how he and his lot have kept their jobs.
  8. Well being a Dundee fan, I understand you find shite daubed on the wall quite aesthetic.
  9. So, a minority, while a majority acted within decency? I think you can see where I am going with this, so I'll not bother. Some Celtic fans can be loathsome to say the least, but this holier than thou attitude by some fans on here (not singling you out btw) is a bit rich.
  10. Au contraire, I think you'll find I'm a fan of Jackson Pollok.
  11. Late to this thread, but weren't the Hearts fans the ones responsible for vandalising Easter Road while wiping their own shite all over the walls of the toilets? Stones and glass houses.
  12. If asking a simple question counts as winding you up, I'd recommend not doing any pub quizzes. There we go. Thank you. Now the question is, should he? After all Goodwin seems to have been forced into his apology.
  13. Are you just throwing as many irons in the fire and hoping one is relevant. Goodwin has apologised to Connolly for his actions. In the very same game, Paton was guilty of exactly the same conduct the only difference being Connolly ran into Goodwin, while Paton didn't make contact. The intent was clear in both cases, so to suggest it's somehow out of context is just bizarre. Perhaps you just haven't seen the incident, perhaps you just don't get it, either way it's entirely right I ask the question as both incidents happened in the same game. Strangely enough despite numerous toys being thrown out of the pram, no United fans have seen it fit to answer what is such a simple question. Why is that?
  14. Again, another post that doesn't really make sense. Is this your modus operandi? Back to the case, Delia was just on the radio there saying, "You couldn't do this in court". I appreciate that he is Norwegian and may not understand Scottish justice, but he's completely wrong on that.
  15. Not entirely too sure the point you are trying to make. I will however just go on the assumption that you agree with me.
  16. If you had followed this conversation then you wouldn't need to ask. Do keep up.
  17. I refer to my earlier statement. It's clear the intent and if there was equality regarding the retrospective punishments then he should have been brought up on a charge. Of course, I expect the United fans to somehow twist this, they seem to see their players as angels and the whole world is out to get them.
  18. You sound extremely defensive. I merely asked a question. That really isn't my fault though, the context of my reply really should have been obvious. And you are wrong again. I honestly don't think Pollok have ever played Dundee United, even in a friendly.
  19. Intent. You don't need to make contact for it to be an offence.
  20. Hardly deflection. In the same game Goodwin clashed with Connolly, Paton was seeing trying to elbow Goodwin. The only difference being that Paton was too shit and missed. If he had landed it would have been a much worse offence. Goodwin has apologised. I merely asked if Paton has apologised for his actions. You failed to answer.
  21. On another matter I see Delia is now getting fluent in that specific Glaswegian form of whataboutery... That would most likely be because nobody has been guilty of such a blatant dive, but, you know, it's all about how badly the officials treat Celtic isn't it?
  22. For all the Celtic fans who seem to be getting all worked up about the charge being based on "probable cause" and that how such a thing wouldn't happen in a "real court". Have a look at the way the High Court adjudicated that Andrew Mitchell did call that police officer a pleb despite it being one word against another. This is the highest court in England and they have ruled on an issue in almost exactly the same manner. Do Celtic have a right to appeal? Of course they do, that is right under any fair legal process, but are they correct when they question the validity of it being "one word against another", no, they are most certainly not, and to do so shows a complete lack of understanding of "probable cause" and it's value within the legal system.
  23. I think I've always had a "soft spot" for the local town. That doesn't normally stay with me once I move though. When I grew up my local team was Rangers and I was sure as hell not going to support them (or the other half for that matter). I have "supported" Aberdeen and Hibs in my time, and by that I mean they were the closest team and paid to watch them. I lived near Pollok stadium for maybe a year or so and I like the ridiculous clumsiness of the juniors, so I sort of have them as my team these days.
  24. Aberdeen house prices are ridiculously high and houses are in short supply, the land at Pittodrie is prime for residential development. Stewart Milne owns a building company. Aberdeen would get money from the council to make a "community stadium" meaning they wouldn't need to fund a new stadium all by themselves. Put all those things together and I think it's entirely obvious why they would wish to move stadium. I don't believe for one minute that it's intended to benefit the fans directly, although indirectly of course they would (although you could argue it will cost them more in travelling costs.
×
×
  • Create New...