AberdeenBud Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Decision overturned. Excellent news. Justice.Well down Celtic and Tonev for fighting this all the way. Shite talker found Scottish FA @ScottishFA 2m2 minutes ago Appellate Tribunal have adjourned Aleksandar Tonev appeal for consideration before reaching a determination within the next two weeks Belfast Dim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 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. "The SFA" haven't done anything here. The appeal has been heard by a different independent panel, who wouldn't have seen the evidence until today, so they haven't had any time to "deliberate over the issue". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 "The SFA" haven't done anything here. The appeal has been heard by a different independent panel, who wouldn't have seen the evidence until today, so they haven't had any time to "deliberate over the issue". 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainbowrising Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Why cant the SFA just make these decisions themselves instead of turning them over to independent panels ffs isn't that the agreed process these days? as the SFA neded to get away from being accused of any decisions that seemed deliberately favourable/biased one way or the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 isn't that the agreed process these days? as the SFA neded to get away from being accused of any decisions that seemed deliberately favourable/biased one way or the other? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 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. The SFA is made up of the representatives of the clubs who are on the board. It is almost certain that none of these guys are on the Appellate panel, so therefore it is independent of the SFA. They are appointed by the SFA (at random?) from a list of potential panel members and report to them, but they are not SFA employees or representative of "the SFA". Your middle paragraph seems to suggest that you think the panel should go into this process with pre-ordained beliefs which could prejudice the case. It should be imperative that these guys make their decision based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing, and not what has been reported in the media or elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted December 5, 2014 Author Share Posted December 5, 2014 The SFA is made up of the representatives of the clubs who are on the board. It is almost certain that none of these guys are on the Appellate panel, so therefore it is independent of the SFA. They are appointed by the SFA (at random?) from a list of potential panel members and report to them, but they are not SFA employees or representative of "the SFA". Your middle paragraph seems to suggest that you think the panel should go into this process with pre-ordained beliefs which could prejudice the case. It should be imperative that these guys make their decision based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing, and not what has been reported in the media or elsewhere. Which is why rasellicks behaviour is so disgraceful. Claiming stuff in the press that they have no way of backing up and threatening to take this all the way if they don't get the result they want. I have huge sympathy with the panel members on this, the pressure exerted on them by the club must seem horrific. I would also imagine that Celtic were instructed (or asked politely) to not discuss this case in the press before the appeal. As unless the panel members have been kept in a box underground leading up to the hearing and during the two week decision holiday, they have already been prejudiced. By the actions of Victim FC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Your middle paragraph seems to suggest that you think the panel should go into this process with pre-ordained beliefs which could prejudice the case. It should be imperative that these guys make their decision based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing, and not what has been reported in the media or elsewhere. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Which is why rasellicks behaviour is so disgraceful. Claiming stuff in the press that they have no way of backing up and threatening to take this all the way if they don't get the result they want. I have huge sympathy with the panel members on this, the pressure exerted on them by the club must seem horrific. Correct. Reminds me of McCoist's 'who are these people?' rant. They are indeed two cheeks of the same arse and it's a shame to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gormley Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Correct. Reminds me of McCoist's 'who are these people?' rant. They are indeed two cheeks of the same arse and it's a shame to see. That's completely different. Salary was looking people's names in the public domain so they could be harassed and abused by the hordes. Celtic just believe it's a disgrace that someone has been branded a racist and handed a punishment on the basis of one person's word with no corroborating evidence. It's a dangerous can of worms to open. This has already tarred Tonev for the rest of his career, even if he wins his appeal. At the very least we need another player backing up Logan's version of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garngad Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 U think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 DhenBhoy showing us his usual legal prowess. No one is saying they can't appeal to CAS if the appeal is rejected, what they shouldn't be doing is advertising that fact or constantly discussing the case in the media in an attempt to intimidate and pressurise. Shameful but unsurprising behaviour from celtic, the way they've handled this whole thing has been atrocious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Celtic just believe it's a disgrace that someone has been branded a racist and handed a punishment on the basis of one person's word with no corroborating evidence. It's a dangerous can of worms to open. This has already tarred Tonev for the rest of his career, even if he wins his appeal. At the very least we need another player backing up Logan's version of events. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 But, but , but if it's all so cut and dried why 2 weeks? To let TGFITW suffer more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboMikey Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Celtic Football Club - A rotten hive of scum and villainy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 A move backed by the Bulgarian FA. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 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? Nobody in Scotland is found guilty on probable cause AFAIK, this is a test used by PFs to determine whether or not to send a case to trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Celtic Football Club - A rotten hive of scum and villainy. See also Rankers and Hertz.All three are home to sectarian muppets. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/you-deserve-shot-stokes-bigoted-4744943 Hello hello, we are the billy boys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 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. Whataboutery by TGFITW methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.