From the TSFM Manifesto 🙂
A spectre is haunting Scottish Football — the spectre of Sporting Integrity. All the powers of the old firms have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Billy and Dan, Blazer and Cassock, Record and Sun, Balance Sheet and P&L.
Where is the football fan in opposition to these that has not been decried as a “sporting integrity bampot” by his opponents in power?Two things result from this fact:
I. Sporting Integrity is already widely acknowledged to be itself a power for good.
II. It is high time that Lovers of Sport should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Sporting Integrity with a manifesto of fair play.
To this end, Lovers of Sport of various partisanship have assembled on TSFM and sketched their manifesto, to be published on tsfm.scot.
Those who love sport though are challenged not just by the taunts of the monosyllabic automatons in the MSM, but by the owners of our football clubs who have displayed an almost total disregard to our wish to have a fair competition played out in the spirit of friendly rivalry. In fact the clubs, who speak those fine words, are not nearly as outraged as we are by the damage done to the integrity of the sport in the past few years .
In fact the term Sporting Integrity has become, since the latter stages of the Rangers era, a term of abuse; a mocking soubriquet attached to those who want sport to be just that – sport.
Sporting integrity now lives in the same media pigeon-hole as words like Islam, left-wing, militant, Muslim – and a host of others; words which are threats to the established order now set up as in-jokes, in order to reduce the effectiveness of the idea.
In fact, a new terminology has evolved in the reporting of football by both club officials and The Succulent Lamb Chapel alike;
“.. Sporting Integrity but …”.
For example
“We all want sporting integrity, but finance is more important”
Says who exactly?
Stated in such a matter of fact way that the obvious question is headed off at the pass, it is sometimes difficult to re-frame the discussion – perhaps because crayon is so hard to erase?
This is the backdrop to The Scottish Football Monitor and the world in which we live. Often the levels of scrutiny employed by our contributors are far in excess of any scrutiny employed by the MSM. Indeed our ideas and theories are regularly plagiarised by those very same lazy journalists who lurk here, and cherry-pick material to suit their own agendas; regularly claiming exclusives for stories that TSFM and RTC before us had placed in the public domain weeks earlier.
This was going to lead into a discourse about the love of money versus the love of sport – of how the sacred cows of acquisitiveness, gate- retention and turnstile spinning is far more important to the heads of our football clubs (the Billys, Dans and Blazers of the intro) than maintaining the traditions of our sport.
However events of Friday 14th November have given me cause to leave that for another day. The biggest squirrel of all in this sorry saga has always been the sleight of hand employed instil a siege mentality in the Rangers fans. The press have time and again assisted people (with no love of football in general or Rangers in particular) to enrich themselves – legally or otherwise – and feed on the loyalty of Rangers fans.
A matter for Rangers fans may also be the identity of some of those who had their trust, but who also assisted the Whytes and Greens by their public statements of support.
Our contention has been that rules have been bent twisted or broken to accommodate those people, the real enemies of the Rangers fans – and fans everywhere.
Through our collective research and group-analysis of events, we have also wondered out loud about the legality of many aspects of the operating style of some of the main players in the affair. That suspicion has been shared most notably by Mark Daly and Alex Thompson, but crucially now appears to be shared by Law Enforcement.
I confess I am fed up with the self-styled “bampot” epithet. For the avoidance of doubt, the “bampots” in this affair are those who have greater resources than us, and access to the truth, but who have lacked either the will or the courage or the imagination to follow it through.
We are anything but bampots. Rather, we have demonstrated that the wisdom of the crowd is more effective by far than any remnants of wisdom in the press.
I have no doubt that the police investigation into this matter is proceeding in spite of great opposition in the MSM and the Scottish Football Authorities – all of whom conspired to expose Rangers to the custodianship of those for whom football is a foreign language.
I have no doubt that the constant exposition of wrong-doing on this blog, in particular the questions we have constantly raised, and anomalies we have pointed out, has assisted and enabled the law enforcement agencies in this process.
If we are to be consistent in this, our enabling of the authorities, we MUST show restraint at all times as this process is followed through. People who are charged with a crime deserve to be given a fair trial in the absence of rumour or innuendo. We must also, if we are to continue as the spectre which haunts the avaricious – and the real bampots – be seen to be better than they, and give them no cause to accuse us of irresponsibility.
This affair has now evolved way beyond one club gaining unfair advantage over others. For all the understandable Schadenfreude of many among us, the real enemy is not Rangers, it is about those who enabled and continue to enable the farce at Ibrox.
This is now about systematic cheating at the heart of the Scottish game (in the name of cash and in spite of lip service to sporting integrity), and how the greed of a bunch of ethically challenged officials allowed another group of ethically challenged businessmen free rein to enrich themselves at the expense of the fans.
Whether laws were broken or not, the players at Rangers have come and gone and are variables, but the malignant constant at the SFA and SPFL are still there. Last night, even after the news that four men had been arrested in connection with the takeover at Ibrox in 2011, they were gathered together at Celtic Park with their Irish counterparts, tucking into succulent lamb (perhaps) and fine wines, doing some back slapping, making jokes about the vulgarities of their fans, bragging about the ST money they have banked.
The revolution won’t be over until they are gone, and if they remain, it is Scottish Football that will be over.
weeman says:
December 4, 2014 at 9:51 pm
—
Ouch. You wouldn’t want to be Donald Cowey when he has to look the sports editor in the eye over leaving the PR company’s contacts at the bottom of the press release, er, I mean incisive report, he has run.
And he will have to look the sports editor in the eye … next time he looks in the mirror.
ianagain
The papers fault this time but it gives us a clue on how they ALL go about their business – sleekit self protectionism.
We need to know not only who ordered the information released but why?
I think we already know why now!
Esteban
Just imagine if Donald Cowey was on Twitter then somebody could ask him as well as Craig Stewart those searching questions.
I wonder if he is?
weeman says:
December 4, 2014 at 9:51 pm
…
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/spfl-could-cash-in-on-rangers-in-play-offs.113958631
The silly billys, although attributing the story to Donald Cowey (who?) have left the PR primer’s name and numbers on the bottom of the story.
===========================================================
Looks like a churnalist needs a copy/paste refresher course…? 😉
easyJambo says:
December 4, 2014 at 9:01 pm
‘..Appellate Tribunal have adjourned Aleksandar Tonev appeal ‘
———-
And no fewer than 3 BBC sports hacks tweet wondering why.
And this baffles me! Why are they asking the twitter world why, instead of, say, asking the Panel ( ok, they wouldn’t be told, but at least they could say they asked!) or asking some street-wise QC for a view on the range of possible reasons -strong disagreement among the panel, requiring a cooling-off period? Doubts about upholding a decision when there is no witness corroboration ( racial abuse is a criminal matter, not merely a ‘red card’ sporting thingy)? Doubts about how the Court of Arbitration thingy would deal with an ‘upheld’ decision?
I know nuffink about these things, but if I had any pretensions of being a journalist, I think I would aim to fill a para or two telling people how I had tried to find answers, not simply ask stupid questions on Twitter!
gunnerb says: hmmm ,just how DO we get the goat back down the mountain.
forget that one and get a new one from goats direct?
scapaflow says:
December 4, 2014 at 5:58 pm
18 0 Rate This
Cygnus X-1 says:
December 4, 2014 at 5:08 pm
Getting rid of Curly, Mo & Larry will change nothing, unless you also get rid of the asses who employed them.
_________________________________________________________________________________
What an excellent idea & of course that’s the thing with purge’s, where does one stop?
On a serious(slightly) note, my previous post was backing up Barry Hearn’s comments & no matter what one thinks of him, he’s absolutely spot on with regard to the people who run(ruin) our game both at CEO & Presidential level. They are utterly useless & getting worse,and if the appetite for change that is evident on here is reflected among the entire game, then it simply will never be realised, while we have these goons in place…….and that may also include those who run many of our clubs
Time for fans to take back the game, you bet!
The SFA judicial panel process continues to amaze.
Tonev was found guilty on what most would agree was tenuous evidence. One man’s word versus another always seemed tricky, if not downright ridiculous, when forming a verdict.
Today we have had an appeal and the appellate tribunal who could reach an on-the-day guilty verdict now need up to two weeks to rule on the appeal.
This suggests, to me at least, that the review /SFA may be more concerned on justifying their original decision rather than natural justice. A two week delay suggests massive uncertainty, either way, and adds additional uncertainty and unfairness to both players.
Sadly it seems that everyone involved here will be a loser with doubts remaining on the evidence of both the accused and accuser.
What seems in little doubt is the SFA panel’s original decision was questionable.
What have we all done to deserve these people running our game?
Surely to God, whatever the outcome, the full details rather than a one line sentence will come from the SFA officials.
Surely?
It should go without saying but will add for the avoidance of doubt that if hard evidence is produced confirming racial abuse took place that Tonev should be kicked out do Scottish football. Equally if Shay Logan is shown to have misled the panels in a mischievous manner the book should be thrown at him but again only if there is no dubiety about his evidence / motives.
What a sad, sad case and yet another demonstration that those on the sixth floor are not fit to run our game.
John Clark says:
December 4, 2014 at 10:41 pm
4 0 Rate This
easyJambo says:
December 4, 2014 at 9:01 pm
‘..Appellate Tribunal have adjourned Aleksandar Tonev appeal ‘
———-
And no fewer than 3 BBC sports hacks tweet wondering why.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
IMO
Its sticking out like sore thumb
The Tribunal have had legal advice that they do not have the evidence to win an appeal to the CAS or perhaps being sued for defamation
So
They offered Tonev a lower punishment and he refused
Meaning
A climbdown is the only way of halting the case.
This moves the focus into finding another way out
Either they pick a busy news day for announcing the appeal has been succesful
or perhaps Tonev is being sent back to England at the transfer window when the case can be abandoned
If so
Hell mend them for doing nothing about TRFC taking the SFA to court in 2012
Its come back to bite them
weeman says:
December 4, 2014 at 9:51 pm
========================================================
Churnalism.
The power of PRs.
Phil
If CW detained tomorrow how do the SC get him back?
GoosyGoosy says:
December 4, 2014 at 11:10 pm
———————-
The current case under investigation has nothing whatsoever to do with TRFC.
I’m lead to believe that it is one players word against anothers.
The result will either see one branded as a racist or the other branded as a liar who tried to get a fellow professional branded as a racist.
That’s certainly not a decision to be taken lightly.
GG at 11.10pm. Fifa and Uefa rules state that all sport related disputes ultimately must go to CAS for their final decision, indeed both organisations rules can carry punishment for clubs and Associations for going to the civil courts in their respective countries. IIRC Sion and the Swiss FA were severely censured and threatened with expulsion from Uefa if they did not abide by CAS final judgement. I still don’t understand why no action was taken when the SFA was forced to the Court of Session two years ago.
Donald Cowey is a former colleague of Big Pink and two time editor of the Celtic View. He left in 2001 after his second stint at CP to become Sports Editor at the Herald. Didn’t know he was in PR.
I’m still forecasting a EC v SC stushie.
James
Don’t suppose you can make this? In Glasgow still?
I def cannot.
GoosyGoosy says:
December 4, 2014 at 11:10 pm
‘..A climbdown is the only way of halting the case.’
—————-
Well, ‘climbdown’ is maybe not the most helpful word to use!
What we have initially is an allegation of a ‘sporting’ offence.
The judicial panel, not an actual court of law, deal with the allegation as if it were a simple civil matter, a matter to do with ‘sporting’ offences like diving, or stud-showing physical tackles, or hand ball on the goal line or any such stuff.They look for evidence to support the allegation. They question the accuser and the accused. There are no independent witnesses. They have to make some kind of assessment of the reliability and truthfulness of both accuser and accused in the context of the game of football in which the alleged incident happened.
Fair enough. In the ordinary give and take of football decisions a decision for or against is only a matter of a fine, or suspension or temporary ban.
But a decision that an individual has been guilty of an actual crime? To arrive at such a decision on the uncorroborated testimony of the accuser is, perhaps, a step too far for a ‘sporting’ judicial panel to take. Or to take precipitately.
And for an Appellate body to uphold too readily the perhaps well-intentioned but precipitate decision of the panel of first instance, in a matter which the wider view sees as going far beyond the sports field,would be recklessly injudicious.
To make racist comments is a criminal offence.To be found guilty of it, therefore, requires the same kind of evidence that other crimes require.Not simply the word of the accuser.
I think the Appellate body adjourned to take serious advice on the extent of their powers to deal with the Tonev case simply as a ‘civil’, in-house sporting matter, instead of the serious criminal allegation that it is.
Not so much a climbdown, as a proper appraisal of the issue involved and the legal basis on which it should have been dealt with.
in my opinion.
ianagain says:
December 4, 2014 at 11:18 pm
‘.If CW detained tomorrow how do the SC get him back?’
———
There is really no question of CW being ‘detained’ tomorrow- a ‘committal hearing’ is merely a two-minute kind of affair that bumps the case to a higher court for trial?
jimmci says:
December 4, 2014 at 11:08 pm
‘..The SFA judicial panel process continues to amaze…’
————–
Does anyone remember the extraordinary circumstance when a police officer at an English league game walked on to the pitch to caution a player for committing an assault in ferociously tackling another player? A tackle which if made on the street would have to be considered a crime?
I’m damned if I can remember the details- must have been about 20 years ago- but at the time it raised questions ( quickly dropped!) about whether ‘sport’ was exempt from the law when it comes to physical assault on the pitch in the shape of actual punch-ups, or homicidal tackles or elbows in the throat and such like.
I initially applauded the introduction of the idea of a Judicial Panel, ostensibly removed from ‘control’ by the ‘blazers’ into the ‘pure’ realm of impartial experts in the business of objective application of the ‘rules’ to the facts of the case.
But, in the light of experience of the LNS enquiry, I think I’ve changed my mind.
A ‘judicial’ panel that does not have the power to take evidence on oath and send to jail people who lie, or conceal evidence, or provide misleading information, or who spout absolutely Alice-in-wonderland nonsense about players being eligible while ineligible ,is pointless.
Liars will lie, and continue to lie, when there is no danger of them being seriously called to account and being prosecuted for lying..
weeman says:
December 4, 2014 at 9:51 pm
27 0 Rate This
Can’t help but think Donald has got a tad lazy. He does the same again with his Calum Gallagher story but this time, his supplier is Andrew Dickson.
In the Scotsman today, Andrew Smith is inviting the police to pop in to give him some security advice with his piece
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/ally-mccoist-a-good-man-but-not-a-good-manager-1-3625732
Which includes such lines as
“Perhaps most damning of all is that the result and performance served up at the Indodrill Stadium could have come at any juncture since the liquidation of the old Rangers in 2012 forced a reincarnated version to start again at the lowest tier of the senior game.”
and
“Rangers, two-and-a-half years, two dozen signings, and a shedload of spondulicks on from their Third Division start-out,”
or
“When Queen of the South, at Ibrox, ended the club’s first tilt at the Challenge Cup, it was dismissed as teething problems for the new, reduced Rangers.”
Is the fear finally disappearing from the MSM?
John Clark says:
December 5, 2014 at 1:09 am
9 0 Rate This
GoosyGoosy says:
December 4, 2014 at 11:10 pm
‘..A climbdown is the only way of halting the case.’
===========================
As we witnessed with the case of Kris Boyd a few weeks back, the SFA appeals system allows for a not proven verdict. If ever there was a case of not proven being the right verdict then the Tonev case is surely it.
On a wider note my view is this case highlights yet again flaws in the SFA disciplinary process. A secret group of people can condemn a man as a racist for life with no hard evidence. That is the long and the short of it. It is not about this tackle was worse than that and why was so and so not hauled up etc. Imagine a young Scottish player plying his trade in Bulgaria was being branded a racist in the same way. I wonder what the reaction would be in Scotland?
For all that Derek Johnstone is paid to be a cartoon clown even by his standards this is pretty pathetic…in fact it is so bad that even Mark Guidi calls him out……..
http://youtu.be/j32Gzae6FfE
If an opposition player had allegedly used racist language towards a Celtic player, that opposition player would have been figuratively nailed to a wall right now.
[]
The handling of the Tonev/Logan case by the SFA brings to mind the conduct of the authorities last season in regard to Nadir Ciftci, around this time of year.
The Ciftci case dragged on and on, from initially being feverishly reported by the media as a full on assault of an official, to the hearing dates being cancelled and reconvened, to Dundee United providing their own video evidence from an angle which proved otherwise: a much reduced charge resulted in a far lesser punishment.
As far as I know, Dundee United and the player accepted a small penalty to get closure on the matter. He was suspended for one match while out injured anyway.
Totally agree GoosyGoosy. The SFA likes to “push things back a few weeks” in cases where they have or are likely to make a massive faux pas. It is likely they wanted some form of compromise agreement, and none is forthcoming.
It is to the advantage of the SFA when the clubs bicker with each other on matters such as these, as it deflects from the authority’s own incompetence. Similarly with the Hearts/Celtic web press releases this week: without going into the rights or wrongs of either stance, surely the SFA should have had comment to make or action to take, rather than sit at Hampden in silence.
Here we go again! Folks we don’t know what evidence was provided to the panel regarding the Tonev situation. Yet, over and over again I’m reading comments here basically implying Tonev must be innocent. I don’t know the facts presented, and I don’t believe anybody here knows what they are either. It doesn’t matter how much noise your club, your manager, co-players or your captain makes because reading between the lines they frankly don’t know either – and they should be keeping their mouths shut to allow justice to be done.
Be aware that when you claim Tonev must be innocent you are calling Logan a dirty liar. Please try and forget the clubs involved, that should always be completely irrelevant. God knows I have read plenty statements here about how rules should be applied without fear or favour regardless of who is “in the dock”.
The problem we do have is that none of us any confidence that justice is being done. One side is screaming “they don’t have evidence”, while if the original decision is overturned the other side will scream “typical SFA backing down to bullying tactics from one of the (ex)Old Firm”. Trouble is none of us know which side is right, we have no faith that the SFA does either, such that until the clubs sort themselves out chaos will prevail. I’m on the red side of this, if Logan is guilty of telling porkies, I will be deeply saddened (and surprised). I do think Aberdeen have handled this situation with the appropriate decorum, I wish I could say the same about Celtic.
If these comments upset you, then please read the paragraph below before giving me the thumbs down. I don’t care if it sounds arrogant, frankly it’s too important an issue for TSFM’ers to ignore or for me to worry about what people think of my views.
TSFM has a reputation problem in that it is perceived by many as merely another Celtic centred forum. Some comments such as those posted over the last week regarding Budge and now Logan provide ammunition for those who wish to poo-poo this forum as an irrelevance. That would be fatal for the stated aims of this place.
I’ve stated it before and I’ll state it again, when (I’d like to say if, but alas worryingly I am being led to say when) TSFM becomes irrelevant to all fans outside Celtic, it loses all it’s potential power for good.
UTH, I think the SFA appeals procedures have only two options – Proven or Not Proven. The standard of proof required in SFA Tribunals is on the “balance of probabilities,” not “beyond reasonable doubt”, as in in a criminal case. The Rules allow plenty of flexibility on this and my guess is that this is what is being examined. I’d tend to John Clark’s view on this being beyond the scope of a football association’s rules because racism is a criminal offence. Shay Logan seems to clearly believe that he heard a racist comment and Tonev insistent that he made no such comment. There’s no John Terry-type lip reading evidence so both players end up coming out of this badly even though both could be innocent.
Has anyone here seen the evidence presented in the Tonev case ? It may well be one mans word against another or there may be other evidence presented. If one mans word against another then it should be not proven otherwise the risk is that either of the 2 parties could have their careers ruined.
I think this threat by Celtic to go to CAS if they do not get the verdict they want is at best a disgrace and at worst a willful attempt at blackmail and should be treated as such.
I really struggle to see the point of running off to CAS/court if a decision by the ruling bodies in Scottish football does not go a clubs way. Any club that does this is basically saying “we do not accept the rules as laid down by the national body”. If this is the case then their really is only one answer. Rangers running off to court previously and the lack of any sanction for that is the root cause of this problem and if that incident had been dealt with properly then there would not be a problem now.
I’m going to the Royal Courts of Justice this morning where a certain Motherwell born billionaire is due to be appearing.
Will be tweeting anything interesting
@jamesdoleman
berrty says:
December 5, 2014 at 9:14 am
Has it been confirmed anywhere that Celtic have said they’d go to CAS if the appeal fails?
The debate about corroboration and what level of evidence should be required to find a player guilty of such a serious charge is an interesting one and there are some good points being made.
However I have to say I find the overall reaction and tone of a number of posters quite sad.
Its quite clear that a lot of fans want to see criminal court requirements for evidence where their own club is involved but are more than happy to accept a far lower bar where opposition players, fans or clubs are involved.
I have hardly seen any acknowledgment that this is a case that involves 2 football players, not just Tonev.
OR acknowledgement that the judicial panel have in fact based their decision in the testimony of the 2 players – they have not merely plucked a decision out of no where. And we have to assume they found the version of events recounted by 1 player to be more believable and more likely truthful than the other.
I don’t think I’ve seen any acceptance of the strong possibility that Tonev might in fact be a racist. Merely an indignant anger that the SFA should find him guilty without “enough evidence”.
If the SFA are forced to overturn this decision as a result of the pressure brought to bear I do wonder if Celtic and Celtic fans may regret this in future but going by some of the comments on here I am not sure how many of the fans will be able to see this through the foggy thinking of a football fan.
Something trigger in my minds eye, the sight of McCoist whispering something into Neil Lennon’s ear and the widespread and very strongly held belief that McCoist MUST have said something completely unacceptable – after all its obvious isn’t it?
Personally, I can think of no reason whatsoever for Logan to make up a false accusation nor can have I seen any evidence to question his testimony.
We see the SFA being pressured to review their case as if they were operating a crimninal court and consider the level of evidence required therein. I think the outcome is quite likely they will be forced to reverse their decision.
Perhaps we will see Tonev being held up as some paragon of virtue whose good name has been bismarched by the SFA and by Logan. Some PR seems to be working that direction already IMO.
I would not be surprised to see Logan requiring to exit Scottish Football at the nearest opportunity and who could blame him if he has been victim of a racist attack and indeed given such an underwhelming level of support from the media and fans in our game.
But then Logan doesn’t seem to be deserving of any sympathy, that reserved simply for Tonev.
And Tonev might after all be a racist, I certainly don’t know and wouldn’t like to be jumping to the sort of assumptions it appears others are.
blu says:
December 5, 2014 at 9:19 am
0 0 Rate This
berrty says:
December 5, 2014 at 9:14 am
Has it been confirmed anywhere that Celtic have said they’d go to CAS if the appeal fails?
===================================
It has been intimated in the press that Celtic are considering this course of action.
Of course that could just be press chatter and not placed PR couldn’t it. I mean we don’t see much evidence of PR influence on our sports hacks do we?
Quote from BBC interview with Deila.
When asked if Celtic could take the case to Cas, Deila said: “We’ll see, this is a very serious accusation.”
And he added: “We will have to do everything in our power to get this away from Alex, we believe him.
“It’s been word against word and they are thinking the other guy is telling the truth and Tonev is lying, and for me that’s not how a court should be, for me it should be real proof.
“This is a very serious accusation and you have to absolutely know you’re right. If it’s still going to go on and there’s no proof we will have to do everything we can to help Alex.
upthehoops says:
December 5, 2014 at 6:46 am
Oh dear, are you really Alistair Dog-Whistle from East Kilbride?
And the thumbs down already tell an interesting tale.
People losing their sense of perspective and balance quite clearly IMO.
Logan v. Tonev
I can’t help but feel that the SFA appeal tribunal may well have had a member parachuted in with a legal background which I believe was probably missing from the first hearing.
I really wonder how much investigation was carried out by the SFA to be presented to the first Hearing. Was every player – including subs and coaching staff – from both teams inteviewed individually or was it simply just a verbal acceptance from both managers that no one heard anything?
Who reviewed all the evidence in the shape of audio, video and whatever?
From what we know it apparently all boils down to one player’s word against another.
But is it really? I can’t help but think that if this very serious allegation had been investigated by the police that players might not have been so willing to close ranks if they had to provide a signed, witnessed statement to the police without knowing what other players – from both teams – might reveal.
The normal dressing-room closed-ranks camaraderie might well have evaporated in a police station interview room.
If the police had carried out the level of investigation required for such a serious case and found no witness to the incident then no prosecution would have followed IMO and I doubt it would be regarded as enough corroboration that Logan informed his manager after the event.
The SFA’s first Hearing obviously decided to accept Logan’s version of events because they regarded him as the more credible witness or perhaps because his lawyer was more persuasive.
I simply find it difficult to understand how on an issue with such a narrow focus that there would be enough material to establish individual credibility.
Does it simply boil down to the fact that Tonev looked a bit shifty or maybe that he’s a foreigner. Or is it some kind of reverse racism that Logan must be telling the truth because of his own generic make-up and ergo wouldn’t fabricate that type of accusation? Or is it that he made a complaint to his manager?
That’s the problem – we don’t know why the panel preferred Logan’s credibility to Tonev’s – and I wouldn’t be surprised if the panel was individually asked to explain how they each reached their conclusion then we would get three different explanations which might well be at odds with each other.
An accusation of alleged racism such as this on a football field is an extremely serious offence and should not be dealt with by anonymous, probably well-meaning worthies, doing their best for the game.
This incident goes way beyond that kind of ‘mechanism’. It deserves proper investigation for a start and if it is decided to prosecute then it should be in open court where we can all judge the credibility of all witnesses.
But the case would never be brought to court IMO if the police investigation revealed no corroboration of the event.
The SFA should have stayed its hand until the police had investigated and the prosecution service decided whether there was enough evidence and it was in the public interest to bring the matter to trial.
And really the SFA should stop trying to impose its toy-town justice on issues which are far too serious to be dealt with by one of its tribunals. It is not a footballing offence but one that affects all of society which allegedly took place in a public football arena which should remove it from the Hampden Ivory Tower.
If my whole fate and career was going to be determined on an uncorroborated accusation by another individual I would want to be judged in an open court with work colleagues – from various stages throughout my life – to testify to my non-racist attitudes.
I’m not even sure whether such reputational evidence is allowed before an SFA disciplinary tribunal. Afaik the players aren’t even represented by their clubs but their own lawyer who may well be supplied by the Players’ Union.
I haven’t a clue who is telling the truth on this occasion and I don’t know if there are any grounds for confusion in what was said and what was heard. It does happen.
I said in my first post on the subject IIRC – There are no winners here – and nothing has happened since to change my mind.
For those who did not get the chance to listen to Barry Hearn’s Talksport interview yesterday here are the Bullet points.
1. The reaction in the room to his statements was stunned silence
2. He took the gig on a no rules basis
3. His several weeks of research into the situation made very dismal reading
4. He hopes that his points are taken on board and he has given some clues on how to progress
5. Asked if he would like to get to grips with the situation, he replied “No, no, no!”
6. There must be people out there who can take a grip of this who have a love and passion for the Scottish game
7. The whole thing seemed moribund
8. They were like a boxer who had taken a right old battering, covering up on the ropes rather than fighting back
9. They had chased the TV pound note too much, ITV Digital/Setanta, rather than building with Sky
10. There has been no clear policy
11. There has been a lack of technical work and optimism on the commercial side especially on overseas TV and streaming
12. Matchroom have between 10 and 20 people working on Social media, a vitally important part of his business, whereas the SFA/SPFL have 1 and they need to move with the times.
13. There is a lack of commercial energy.
14. If it was a boxing match where a fighter was taking a beating, the referee needs to take him out and put a new boxer in but he doesn’t know where they will find one
15. They need either a shot in the arm or a kick up the backside
This is not a full and exact transcription.
berrty says:
December 5, 2014 at 9:27 am
Matty Roth says:
December 5, 2014 at 9:23 am
============================
Thanks – looks like the usual media fishing and story creating to me.
The other points you make re. the reaction to the case, I agree with Matty but a racism charge is a serious business and you should be certain that it happened before declaring someone guilty. With the rider that we don’t have access to the evidence that the Tribunal did, what we know is that Shay Logan is reported to have told his captain, manager and the referee that he was racially abused, nothing about corroboration has come out. It’s seems clear Tonev denies it. The clubs support their players (and not like in the Suarez case because it had a huge financial value to them). According to Deila Logan was believed and Tonev wasn’t – on the balance of probability. It’s a shit position for a tribunal to be in. Everybody loses.
The most interesting thing from the Hearn radio interview for me was the revelation that Matchroom have 10 to 20 people working on social media to the SFA’s 1 (poor Darryl).
This confirms 2 things to me:
1. the importance of social media in manipulating and spreading the right message and that paid posters are on every site that can have a commercial impact.
2. those who have been doubting the usefulness of TSFM should reassess in light of this information.
peterjung says:
December 5, 2014 at 7:22 am
&&&&&
DJ’s ‘comic’ character has become extremely irritating.
It dies explain why Barry Hearn is treated like a messiah for his bleedin’ obvious commentary on the state of Scottish football.
Why doesn’t the league have a sponsor?
Because the people who run it are more concerned with the goings on down govan way than they are with a supporting the game in general.
The sale of TV rights is predicated on one game.
It’s time for a clear out at SFA HQ.
Eco.
As you say (sorry haven’t worked out how to quote yet)
“I simply find it difficult to understand how on an issue with such a narrow focus that there would be enough material to establish individual credibility.”
Sorry, you don’t know what the evidence is! So how can you state the above? I’d be inclined to suggest you might be right, it might be one man’s word against the other – we just don’t know.
Yet the tone of so many comments is that the SFA has got it wrong cos apparently they simply can’t have any other evidence. Therefore Tonev must be innocent and the other guy will have to leave cos he’s obviously a bad egg.
Re the Tonev case and input from football Managers
Was driving last night and heard a bit of an interview with Ronny Deila.
Wasn’t paying a great deal of attention as concentrating on busy traffic but it did strike me from the bits I did catch that Mr Deila was being asked to comment (or was he volunteering his thoughts) in far too much detail about the case and some other wider issues around Scottish football.
I have taken poor Ally McCoist to task many a time for being an expert in all manner of things, however I do sympathise when managers ask that they be restricted to footballing matters.
My guess is Ronny Deila has little qualification with regard to legal matters, especially the UK legal system on which the panel system is based. Similarly all he knows of Tonev up to the date of the incident is that he was a two month loan player. He can provide a character reference based on a few months of knowing Tonev but that is about it.
Can’t help feel that because they are the public face of the football club some managers (and more often or not it will be Deila and McCoist) end up getting dragged into issues by the media that would be far better dealt with by a spokesperson or CEO from the administrative side of the club.
I think some folk are getting themselves into the position of saying that racism can only be dealt with the courts and if a referee hears racist comments he should not intervene…
If a racist remark is made is it realistic to ask the perpetrator to repeat in front of the cameras? Should we ask victims to think I better shut MY mouth because I am not sure there is corroborating evidence and I’ll be judged a liar?
Cases should not be based on tribalism. Unlike some on this forum (apparently) I have not seen the evidence, but there should be huge distance between saying there is not evidence to meet the standards of the rules – and the implication that one player has fabricated a charge. That slippage is appalling.
In his book Andy Goram tells us that he used racial and sectarian language to verbally abuse Pierre Van Hoydonk during an old-firm game. He recently repeated this tale in his red- top column. I was very surprised that he was allowed do so as I felt it simply made light of a very serious issue.
There is another key angle in the Logan/Tonev case (not that I particularly want to continue the debate per se) and that is the sentence chosen. I cannot think of another offence that merited a 7 game penalty but no doubt the blogosphere will keep me right.
Now, firstly, that clearly infers the guy was found guilty, although it is clear we all have our own thoughts, from level/quality of evidence through to “why” he was found guilty so I don’t particularly want to pursue that element.
More importantly, though, it is the level of punishment that has gotten the SFA to where they are, rather than the offence (or otherwise). Yes a rascist claim against a player is serious (as is, incidentally, a claim of troublemaking liar) but I wonder if Celtic had had the option that one of our arabian contributors described re ciftci, of a one game sentence during a period that the player was injured anyway, would have let the matter die a natural death. (with CFC claiming lost in translation or similar and AFC similarly defending their player).
It is the level of sentence that has caused the practical problem here, although no doubt stemming from the principled core problem of the claim of racism itself.
Much comment on the Tonev/Logan situation and agree some club “partiality” beginning to shine though which is a great pity on this blog.
I recall saying at the time of the decision that I think a lot of the problem the SFA created for themselves was announcing the decision in a one line sentence.
Nobody knows what evidence was heard, witnesses- if any – and why the panel reached their conclusion.
The SFA Compliance officer is a qualified lawyer so one expects he believes there was a real cause for concern otherwise no charge would have been laid on Tonev.
What must be done in all fairness to all involved is that the SFA follow the example of the FA and publish a report as to why the reached their outcome.
Had they done so as the initial verdict was announced much of the questioning that has followed could have been avoided and the SFA would finally have looked to be getting their act together.
Matty Roth says:
December 5, 2014 at 9:19 am
It strikes me that if the original panel approached its task with your mindset then they reached the ‘correct’ decision.
There is no ‘strong possibility’ that Tonev might be a racist. What we have is an allegation that he made an apparently uncorroborated allegation of a racist nature.
You haven’t heard any of the evidence, don’t even know what was allegedly stated, and aren’t in a position to judge the credibility of either player because you didn’t hear their evidence or observe how they gave it.
And yet with no actual grounds you declare there is a ‘strong possibility’ that one of the two may be a racist.
I also don’t think I have seen much ‘indignant anger’ that the SFA should find him guilty without ‘enough evidence’. Indeed I expressed a lot of indignant anger at fellow Celtic supporters elsewhere who were happy at the original SFA decision as it meant they could get rid of a poor player. They were certainly in the majority at that time.
The question isn’t about ‘enough evidence’ it’s about zilch corroborated evidence in an extremely serious accusation which could ruin not only a career but bring a lifetime of grief which may or may not be warranted. Personally as I have posted above I don’t believe this matter should have been investigated by the SFA but because of the very serious nature of the allegation it should have been a police matter ab initio.
And what exactly do you mean if the SFA is ‘forced’ to overturn this decision. The SFA Rules allow the original tribunal decision to be appealed and this is what has happened. If the Appeal Panel reverses the original decision and clears Tonev, or gives a Not Proven verdict or, indeed, dismisses the case for lack of evidence or whatever – that is the SFA system in operation and isn’t ‘forcing’ it to do anything.
I haven’t bothered looking at the details of the SFA rule book on this but presumably the SFA as well as Tonev and Logan have the right to request a judicial review if any of the parties feel aggrieved at the decision. Indeed this is one that could go all the way in terms of Human Rights IMO.
As to your rather narrow observation that: ‘Celtic and Celtic fans may regret this in future’. I would say that what is more important for all clubs and their supporters is to have clear rules applied without fear or favour which deal with footballing matters.
I have little reason to believe that the SFA can effectively investigate and deal with serious criminal allegations such as racism and they should have brought the issue to the attention of Police Scotland and asked them to investigate.
If a prosecution and trial followed then – dependant on the result – then the SFA would be in a position to address the specific footballing issues which might arise.
And as to generally labelling football fans with ‘foggy thinking’ or perhaps that is meant to only apply to Celtic fans what can I say other than say that most football fans have x-ray vision for spotting the true intentions of the suits and their PR disseminators as well as the odd squirrel.
Talking of squirrels I will make no reference to your point regarding a much-loved Ibrox legend 🙄
You state:
I don’t know whether Logan made a false accusation or not just as I don’t know whether Toney made a racist remark or not. Unlike you I am not prepared to come to even a tentative conclusion before hearing all the evidence and how it was given by the only two parties who might know what actually happened.
I say ‘might know’ because there may well have been a misunderstanding as to what was actually said and what was heard. It happens quite frequently in relatively calm and quiet circumstances never mind in the middle of a football match with plenty of on and off-field noise and so much occupying the brains of players every single instant.
And the your final par I quote above repeats the falsehood that the ‘SFA are being pressured to review their case’. They are simply following their own appeal procedure.
Personally as I have explained in detail I think the allegations were far too serious to be dealt with by an SFA Tribunal but they made the decision to go down that road which means those accused have the right to appeal and also to seek a judicial review and then a further referral to the European Court.
Sorry Eco, you keep referring to the element of doubt in the matter.
Per my point above, a 7 game ban does not infer any doubt in the matter on the part of the disciplinary tribunal. Yes, any player has the right to appeal but common sense, and scarf off, nothing but common sense would suggest to me that someone handed a 7 game ban has less chance of an appeal succeeding than someone getting a 1 game ban assuming the appeal is on establishing guilt or otherwise, not simply appealing the penalty which I don’t think is the case here? 😕 ). If is the case that the tribunal has handed down its stiffest penalty that I can remember on ill founded terms then it is the SFA tribunal and disciplinary procedures that should be getting caned, no-one else.
Smugas says:
December 5, 2014 at 11:01 am
It is the level of sentence that has caused the practical problem here.
————————
I simply disagree with that view and believe that with a serious criminal allegation – such as an alleged racist remark – no matter whether it takes place on a football field or George Square it should be investigated by the police and the decision whether to prosecute or not should be taken by the relevant prosecuting authorities.
In my book it is simply beyond the resources of the SFA to carry-out the necessary level of investigation and implied sanctions – which are implicit in a police investigation.
I also happen to believe the matter is not just a football issue but indeed a very important much wider public interest issue especially because of the positive role model attributes which we want footballers and other sportspeople to exhibit.
A behind closed-doors inquiry with anonymous judges might be acceptable to some for strictly footballing matters – it most certainly isn’t good enough for allegations of a serious criminal nature IMO.
Ecobhoy
—
Very well put, in my view. Celtic could have shown the lad the door and, I hope, would have if they had substantial grounds to disbelieve his version of events (which they might have had if he really was a racist; what I mean is, although it’s only been a few months, there will have been opportunities to observe how he interacts with lots of colleagues, opponents and other people from different ethnic backgrounds during training, matches, flights, bus journeys, shared meals, hotel stays et cetera).
To do so would, in all likelihood, have made it even more difficult for Tonev to take his career forward than it already is and Celtic have a duty of care towards him. The Bulgarian FA does too and it, too, has been vocal in its support for the lad; it, too, has had time (more than Celtic) to witness Tonev’s attitude to other people.
And as you say, this is not to call Logan a liar. Tonev says the Aberdeen lad misheard or misunderstood him. This may be right. We don’t know and we don’t know enough about him to know whether to be surprised by the accusation or not. What we know is that Celtic and his national FA, who know a lot more about him, say they are surprised.
Eco @ 12.04
I don’t necessarily disagree with that view albeit you would be opening the door to all manner of claims and counter claims which I doubt either side (football and law enforcement) would relish.
If I could put my question another way. Do you feel that for similar unconnected cases in the past that a lower level of penalty has allowed clubs to take tribunal findings ‘on the chin,’ their player misses a game or two and everyone moves on?
Smugas says:
December 5, 2014 at 11:57 am
Sorry Eco, you keep referring to the element of doubt in the matter.
====================================================================
I would assume that you believe all SFA Tribunals and other tribunals always get it right 100% of the time.
I haven’t heard one word of the evidence given at the tribunal and didn’t observe any of it being given and don’t even know what the alleged racist remark was. That’s why I retain a 100% open mind on what happened because I don’t have a clue what happened.
My argument is quite simply that the SFA shouldn’t have been dealing with the matter as I believe it should have been investigated by the police and a decision as to whether prosecution followed made by Crown Office or the PF.
No matter the decision made that doesn’t preclude the SFA from taking action later.
As to ‘doubt’ the fact that the appeal tribunal felt unable to endorse the decision of the original tribunal without a 2-week pause for deliberation certainly IMO appears to introduce an element of ‘doubt’ to the proceedings.
Quick report of today’s hearing
Craig Whyte committal hearing RCJ 5 December
Before Justice Newey
Ticketus LLP & anr v Whyte & others
The barrister for Ticketus addressed the court first.
On 1 May 2014 Master Marsh made an order in private for Whyte to attend court. He did not attend three hearings. A suspended committal order was in place so a warrant of arrest was issued on 20 November.
Whyte is now in court so order should be discharged Ticketus barrister says. He has also had his passport removed due to criminal proceedings in Scotland. He has only recently returned to the UK and many documents are under the control of the authorities so Whyte would like time to prepare for any questioning.
Tickitus barrister said that given the circumstances he agreed to Whyte’s application to adjourn the hearing.
Justice Newey then asked the barristers that due to forthcoming criminal proceedings would it be preferable that any questioning of Whyte happen in private?
Both legal teams agreed.
Mr Habiz for Whyte then formally made an application for adjournment. He told the court his client will co-operate as fully as he can in these proceedings, with the caveat he does not want to jeopardise his position in the criminal case. Habiz also noted that beyond the trial process, that a guilty verdict could lead to proceedings under the proceeds of crime act there would then be asset recovery procedures which again could delay this case.
He added that in the Scottish case executives from Ticketus may be called as witnesses and that since his client has had his computers and hard drives seized by police he may not be able to produce relevant documents.
Because of strength of feeling in Scotland (person in the back shouts “and in England”) Whyte has been advised by the police to keep the address private, judge agreed that it not be read out in court.
The judge then rose with date of next hearing set for January 2015.
Smugas, I cannot think of a similar ban in Scotland, but Luis Suárez got eight games in December 2011 for his comments to Patrice Evra. On the face of it, this looks like a parallel.
For this very reason though, it is possible that if the SFA decided to believe Logan’s version of events and to disbelieve Tonev’s such a lengthy ban was inevitable. They could not very well say they believed Tonev was guilty of an offence similar to Suárez’s but had decided to mete out a vastly different penalty, even though it was in another country.
Eco @ 12.16
Fair do’s.
I stand by my point that if there was any doubt in the finding that the time for that to creep in was prior to throwing a 7 match ban about, not after it!
Eco – the strong possibility that Tonev might be racist could be drawn from the fact that a panel has found him guilty of such an offence. But that’s not good enough for many here. We are all left in the dark because no evidence was released for the general consumption. If the SFA had handed out a report, that would (may) have killed any debate stone dead. But they haven’t, such is their approach to transparency these days, and so this rumbles on destroying any goodwill built up between clubs/fans.
I’ve seen plenty indignant anger about the SFA decision, there has been plenty here, anger in a restrained TSFM way but you can tell how people feel about it (on both sides). I know from Aberdeen fan sites what their viewpoint is and it’s a million miles from the general tone here I can assure you! I can only imagine the same for the Celtic fan sites. These sites are always going to be partisan, TSFM though….
“And what exactly do you mean if the SFA is ‘forced’ to overturn this decision.” – We had a club threatening to take the SFA to court over this if they don’t get the decision they want, we have a club making statements to the press about how “unfair” all this is to them and to the player. We have the smsm, making similar sound bites about it all. Yes, sorry I know many here may believe the press is strictly pro-Rangers, but non “big two” fans I’m afraid have a slightly different viewpoint on the Scottish press.
EDIT Esteban
Sentence 1. That is what happened is it not?
Sentence 2. (I don’t know the details of the Suarez case particularly re evidence) but regardless, Yes technically they could precisely because they are a different association.
Where are we now? Re/ Tonev:
The original disciplinary hearing produced the following:
Disciplinary outcome: Aleksandar Tonev
Thursday, 30 October 2014
A Disciplinary Tribunal convened today in accordance with the Judicial Panel Protocol to consider the following case:
Alleged Party in Breach: Aleksandar Tonev (Celtic FC)
Match: Celtic v Aberdeen (SPFL Premiership) – 13th September 2014
Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached:
Disciplinary Rule 202: Excessive Misconduct by the use of offensive, insulting and abusive language of a racist nature.
Outcome: Complaint established.
Sanction: Seven-match immediate suspension applied.
We do not know what evidence was presented at the hearing but clearly the panel felt that it was sufficient to support the claim that Disciplinary rule 202 on balance of probabilities had been broken.
Mr Tonev chose to appeal the decision as is his right under the SFA disciplinary rules. We do not know what the grounds for appeal are but the SFA disciplinary protocol allows for an appeal against a decision to take place on one or more of the following conditions:
14.8.1 The tribunal failed to give the Appellant a fair hearing;
14.8.2 The tribunal acted outwith its powers;
14.8.3 The tribunal issued a Determination which it could not properly have issued on the facts of the case;
14.8.4 The sanction(s) imposed by the tribunal was excessive or inappropriate.
The appellate hearing which was conducted last night was adjourned with the SFA tweeting that a verdict would be produced within two weeks.
Scottish FA @ScottishFA
Appellate Tribunal have adjourned Aleksandar Tonev appeal for consideration before reaching a determination within the next two weeks.
SFA disciplinary hearings are not conducted in either a civil or criminal court and consequently comment and opinion can be freely exchanged and we are seeing this on TSFM and in other blogs and forums.
I would urge posters here to ‘keep the heid’ and allow the process of hearings to run their course even if that eventually leads to a hearing at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Racism in sport (and in our society as a whole) is something which needs to be identified and dealt with.
Whatever one thinks of the SFA’s ability to run Scottish Football it’s worth remembering the disciplinary panels are made up of volunteers with a legal background who are entirely independent of the sport’s governing body.
It’s also worth remembering that the accused in this case who is appealing the decision against him is Aleksander Tonev.
Some seem to have come to the view that if the appeal is upheld then by implication Shay Logan has lied. This seems to be the basis for a ‘taking sides’ debate that has ensued.
To be clear Shay Logan is not facing a disciplinary hearing and has not been accused of anything by any authority. He is the victim and it’s important to remember that.
It is entirely possible for the decision against Aleksander Tonev to be overturned without implying and wrong doing on the part of Shay Logan.
Mistakes do happen and for now at least the onus is on the appellate tribunal members consider the evidence and come to a decision.
It strikes me that the adjournment reflects the serious of the matter rather than anything else. The panel members are taking time to consider their verdict.
I hope they use it wisely.
Sorry Smugas, I was only trying to answer the question you asked.
On your point 1, it’s a chicken and egg thing. They say they think he made racist remarks, so the penalty must be severe. Your earlier comment seems to suggest that if the penalty is so severe, they must believe that he made the remarks.
You are correct to say that, technically, a much more lenient penalty may have been possible, Scotland being a different country, but I still think the Suárez case may be a parallel and that it would have been difficult for the SFA to suggest that racist remarks in Scotland only merit half the ban or a quarter that they do in England. Maybe not, but I think it’s possible and I also think it’s feasible that this may be one of the reasons for last night’s impasse. If the guy made racist remarks and ‘gets off’ with a one-match ban, Scotland looks lenient towards racism.
Whilst not really wishing to get involved, I have to agree. The length of the ban doesn’t reflect the strength of evidence (in which case Stevie Smith would have been banned for months for that tackle the other week, given that it was all caught live on TV and replayed endlessly), it reflects the seriousness of the offence. Could you imagine the reaction if, whatever the strength of evidence, Tonev had been found guilty of racist abuse and got merely a one game ban? The SFA would have been absolutely destroyed in the press for it, and quite rightly so.
For my part, I just don’t know. I suspect that something must have been said, but that’s all they are – suspicions, and they, correctly, don’t count for a lot in the legal world. The SFA should have published a full report on how and why, and it would have made things a lot smoother for them in the long run. Even if the ban was overturned, they’d at least have been able to point at the reasons why they arrived at the ban in the first place, even if those reasons were found to be flawed on appeal, but there would be something to at least hang what’s left of their credibility on, rather than one bland line.
Smugas says:
December 5, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Eco @ 12.04
I don’t necessarily disagree with that view albeit you would be opening the door to all manner of claims and counter claims which I doubt either side (football and law enforcement) would relish.
If I could put my question another way. Do you feel that for similar unconnected cases in the past that a lower level of penalty has allowed clubs to take tribunal findings ‘on the chin,’ their player misses a game or two and everyone moves on?
===============================================================================
You seem fixated on the level of penalty whereas I don’t believe it matters.
Indeed going back to the opinions originally expressed by lots of Celtic fans the longer penalty may well have allowed Celtic to immediately walk-away from Tonev’s loan deal.
I honestly doubt any decent football club would have supported any player in this position if the dressing room had any inclination that he had racist leanings.
As to who is responsible for ‘opening the door to claims and counter-claims’ – It strikes me that the SFA did that by taking on the case when there appears not to be a scintilla of corroboration.
However that was their decision. My position remains that this was far too serious an allegation to be dealt with by the SFA and it should have been dealt with under criminal procedures.
Indeed had it been done so it might have had the effect of preventing either spurious allegations or racist remarks on the field by showing the seriousness the matter was being dealt with rather than brushing it under the carpet with a 1-match ban.
As regards evidence in the Suárez case, there are, again, parallels (up to a point). Liverpool’s position at first was that it was Evra’s word against Suárez’s and insisted no one else had heard anything. Later, Suárez admitted using some of the insults Evra accused him of (he said the then-Liverpool player had racially abused him at least ten times during that match).
Ultimately, Suárez’s defence was that what he admitted to saying did not mean what Evra thought it meant. This is different from the Scottish case because Suárez and Evra agreed on what some of the comments, at least, were. Tonev and Logan do not agree, as far as we know. The FA looked at the comments Suárez admitted to making and concluded that they constituted insults that made a reference to colour and handed out the eight-match ban.
AmFearLiathMòr says:
December 5, 2014 at 12:36 pm
—
Thanks. That’s what I have been trying to say and you have put it better.
Sorry to perpetuate but to be absolutely clear, I am not implying the downplaying of racism in Scotland in any way shape or form.
I hear what you say that the length of ban does not reflect the evidence heard but what I have been trying, incoherently, to say is that it should. There was no way on earth that a seven match ban was going to stick if the evidence was flimsy, which is to say that it was unsubstantiated, so should never been issued. They (should) then (have) had two options. A/ basic declaration about zero tolerance but for this particular case a verdict of ‘not proven’ or B/ a lesser sentence acceptable to both clubs based on whatever grounds they had for issuing the 7 game ban in the first place.
Martin, in view of your excellent summary above, I’ll say no more.
Smugas – agree! Well apart from they could have C/ the original finding stands..
Unfortunately in two weeks time when the next decision comes out this will all be dragged out again. Imagine if we all had an FA we could trust and respect to get things right in an open and inclusive way. We would all get so much more work done 😀
Tayred
Agreed on all three counts!
C/, the untrusted incompetent SFA and the level of work I could (and should) be doing 😆
AmFearLiathMòr says:
December 5, 2014 at 12:36 pm
The SFA should have published a full report on how and why, and it would have made things a lot smoother for them in the long run.
======================================================
Tbh – stange as it may seem given my normal attitude towards the SFA – I support them in not issuing what you suggested after the initial hearing.
The interests of fairness IMO means that an explanatory statement couldn’t be released prior to an appeal hearing being concluded or the expiry of the peiod in which an appeal could be lodged.
I would assume that some kind of explanatory statement will require to be issued at the end of the SFA portion of any proccedings.
Regan tells the Daily Record (below) that allowing the sale of alcohol inside grounds will solve all of Scottish football’s problems (MY original spin). He obviously prefers to look back rather than forward or maybe he just shuts his eyes and sing “la-la-la”!
STEWART Regan insists Scottish football’s top brass must listen to Barry Hearn and take action on his hard-hitting views on the game in this country.
And the SFA chief executive has vowed to team up with SPFL counterpart Neil Doncaster in a bid to sort out the problems.
Colourful former Leyton Orient chairman Hearn gave a frank assessment of where Scottish football is going wrong after being invited to speak, along with Helmut Sandrock of the German FA, at the SFA’s inaugural convention at Hampden on Wednesday.
Hearn criticised the lack of leadership and was scathing of the SPFL’s failure to land a sponsor for two-and-a-half years.
Attendances are plummeting and the 66-year-old claimed not enough is being done about it, pointing out he can sell out the Glasgow Hydro for darts which punters can’t even SEE.
Regan now wants to devise an action plan and vowed to:
● Persuade the government and police to end the 34-year alcohol ban.
● Join forces with Doncaster to agree a strategy to take the game forward.
● Market Scottish football better to get punters back.
● Improve the matchday experience the way Hearn has done with darts.
Regan said: “Barry comes across as a brash east London guy but behind the noise and front is a very sharp, astute businessman and we can learn from his marketing expertise.
“Barry has turned around unfashionable sports like snooker, darts and boxing and made them of interest to 11,000 people to watch entertainment they can’t physically see.
“I know there are changes required and things we need to do differently. Probably the biggest home truth that came out for me is the leadership of Scottish football needs to take responsibility for sorting the game out.
“Helmut Sandrock of the German FA talked about sitting down with the Bundesliga when there was a catalyst which was a poor performance in an international tournament.
“That caused the German FA to sit down together and create a plan. We have to do the same and take a long hard look at how we’re operating.
“What was said two years ago – ‘Armageddon’ – was said at the time. We’ve moved on and are in a different place.
“We’re trying collectively to turn Scottish football around. There are still a huge amount of challenges. We are not in the best of places financially or in terms of customer experience and we must listen and learn.”
One of the key points at the convention was the benefits of selling alcohol with Hearn joking he sold an average of 11 pints per head in Scotland and Sandrock admitting it helped boost Bundesliga crowds.
Regan is pressing ahead with plans to get it back in Scottish football following the ban put in place after the 1980 Old Firm Scottish Cup Final riot.
He said: “The sale of alcohol at grounds has been on the agenda within our Professional Game Board for months.
“Police and government have issues over what happened in the 1980s. We need to persuade people we’re a responsible nation in a very different place.
“Australia introduced lower alcohol beers and it’s now a wide selling product there. In Scotland people are still having a drink in the pub and running in to the stadium at five to three.”
Says it all. Stewart Regan Leader of Scottish Football says,
Is it wrong to be amused by this? 🙄
http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/302350-craig-whyte-says-rangers-will-inevitably-return-to-the-top/
Just imagine the leadership of Scottish football having responsibility for sorting the game out. 🙄 Who’d have thunk it? The guy Hearn needs his head examined. 😉
Re: Tonev and SFA racism investigation.
FWIW I do not believe that the SFA is a remotely appropriate body to deal with such behaviour.
This is a criminal act that Tonev has been accused of. All evidence should be gathered and investigated by prosecuting authorities.
Only once that legal process has delivered a verdict and the facts are then in the public domain should any disciplinary action be taken by the footballing authorities.
It is fundamentally beyond the powers of the SFA to adjudicate on matters which of themselves are breaches of the law, solely because they take place on a football pitch.
Racist behaviour is not a footballing offence, therefore it cannot be tried as such. Anyone, however found guilty of breaching laws governing racist abuse on a football ground can then be dealt with by the footballing authorities.
The accusation is a grave one. If found guilty on this charge, a player’s reputation and future livelihood is imperilled. It seems to me that the only body fit to adjudicate on any such action is a court of Law. For all concerned and in the interests of justice nothing less can do.
If Tonev has committed no criminal offence of racism or had no criminal complaint of racism levelled against him, then the SFA, IMHO, has no business investigating the allegation at all.
Can I just make a couple of points re L v T?
After which I’ll get back under the duvet to avoid any incoming.
Been reading all of the excellent posts so far but I have to say that throughout all this farrago, I have always tried to be partial and concentrate on the matter of ‘evidence’ and the law surrounding it.
I even dusted off an old textbook of mine (A Practical Approach to Evidence by Peter Murphy) and instantly reminded myself of the terrors of studying it years ago.
In basic terms, when a court or tribunal is hearing a case where A (Logan) avers that he has suffered at the hands of B(Tonev), then 2 things come into play.
Firstly, the Burdon of Proof and, secondly, the Standard of Proof.
A carries the Burdon of proving what he says is true.
B has no Burdon.
In this Civil Tribunal, the Standard of Proof is then applied by the panel members and is ‘on the balance of probabilities’.
None of us know what evidence A adduced.
We do know B denied saying what was alleged.
How A discharged his Burdon of proof we don’t know, but it seems there is common acceptance that there was no corroboration.
The panel duly considered and applied their sanction which B is appealing against.
Mention has been made of ‘other evidence’ coming to light at appeal.
My view is that if there were any other evidence either way, then that evidence would have made it into the public domain by now and, in all probability, at the hands of he who stood to benefit from its existence.
You can bet your sweet bippy on that one!
Apologies for being didactic but hopefully this might help with some background knowledge.
Let’s now wait and see the outcome plus any accompanying report which will, hopefully, explain the full details which we can then discuss to the cows come home.
As to CFC threatening CAS action, from what I’ve read, Ronnie Deila was being ambushed by one of the press pack (surely not???) into saying something along those lines when he was asked if they were going to go to the CAS if the appeal was lost.
All he said was “we’ll see”.
Oh, and it would be Tonev and not CFC who’d go there.
Finally, Eco mentioned about it going all the way to Judicial Review and then Europe.
JR is not, I believe, applicable here as the SFA is not a public or Govermental body whose administrative decisions can be challenged for being either illegal, irrational or improper.
The SFA is a Limited Company registered at Companies House
(SIC 93199)
Right, that’s me back under the duvet.
PS I’m not ill. Honest.
“I know there are changes required and things we need to do differently. Probably the biggest home truth that came out for me is the leadership of Scottish football needs to take responsibility for sorting the game out.
Perhaps this should read….’Scottish football needs to take responsibility for sorting the leadership out’
ecobhoy says:
December 5, 2014 at 11:44 am
24 10 Rate This
Matty Roth says:
December 5, 2014 at 9:19 am
==================
Thanks for the detailed response Eco. I’ll pick over it later if I have time but from first reading I think you have rather underlined my own point.
There seem to be some people willing to jump to one assumption but arguing prefusely they we must not jump to the other.
Personally I couldn’t agree more that I do not have sight of any of the evidence. And neither do any of the Celtic fans declaring that Tonev is undoubtedly innocent.
Hence my disappointment that there is a degree of imbalance in the attitudes of some.
I make no argument about the legal requirement for corroboration or the strength of the evidence. I’ve no problem with a “not proven” verdict if there is no evidence to make a solid case.
But I am concerned at the tone of a lot of what I read which seems to discard the possibility that Tonev might be guilty and Logan telling the truth or at least to refuse to discuss or admit this possibility.
cmontheshire,
The more I think about it the more I conclude that there is grounds for dismissal just in that one statement. Did Barry say his employees go to him and say “heh boss I’ve made a right Horlicks of this Darts/Snooker/Tiddlywinks tournament and I feel its only right I take responsibility for sorting it out.”
No he blumin well did not. I recall jackets and car parks were mentioned (although not in the Glasgow sense right enough!).