Armageddon? What Armageddon?


Twopanda, good man! …

Comment on Armageddon? What Armageddon? by Martin.


good man!

Martin Also Commented

Armageddon? What Armageddon?
EJ and AJ

Good to see Hearts exiting administration, and they didn’t even have to get liquidated first – amazing! 😆

Armageddon? What Armageddon?

put me down for Spain.


Armageddon? What Armageddon?
James Doleman,

It seems Daffy Duck is the Rangers land bear, I have to say I never expected Warner Bros to be active in this! 🙄

Recent Comments by Martin

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
John Clark says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:50 pm

with respect, I don’t think any evidence has been withheld in any recent disciplinary cases.

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
There is it seems a developing question.

Who do we get to judge on issues that occur in football games if we cant accept the view of an independent panel and a process which allows appeal to an equally independent panel?

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
Smugas says:
December 18, 2014 at 10:39 pm

exactly so.

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
TSFM says:
December 17, 2014 at 12:10 am

Yes, everyone needs to grow up. Now.

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
Aleksandar Tonev Appellate Tribunal Outcome
Tuesday, 16 December 2014

An Appellate Tribunal convened in accordance with the Judicial Panel Protocol has considered the following case:

Appellant: 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: The appeal has been rejected and an immediate seven-match suspension will be applied (with one match having already been served).

Having read through the decisions given, firstly the initial hearing and latterly at the appellate tribunal I think it’s worth noting that the decisions taken and the reasons for them have been made public.

We have The Right Honourable Lord Bonomy to thank for that and his reasons for doing so in a postscript to the appellate tribunal decision are worth noting.

“There has inevitably been ill-informed speculation about the reasons for the Disciplinary Tribunal deciding to uphold the complaint and impose a seven match suspension. Against that background the Appellate Tribunal consider that it would be in the interests of the parties, in the interests of the wider football community and in the general public interest to publish this decision and the terms of the original Disciplinary Tribunal decision, thus ensuring that any debate is informed.”
I have no firsthand experience of the evidence given or any knowledge of Aleksander Tonev as a person but I am persuaded that those who passed judgement at the hearings did so fairly having considered the matter within the terms that the rules provide.
The suspension from playing football for seven matches also seems appropriate and within the rules.

Perhaps the Right Honourable Lord Bonomy had Twitter in mind when he wrote his postscript.

Immediately after the Appellate decision had been made all manner of opinion apppeared.

Polls were being conducted and questions raised.

Should Aleksander Tonev be sacked? Are the SFA equipped or appropriate in dealing with issues of racism? It’s wrong to convict someone of racism on no more that the evidence of his accuser?

I’m paraphrasing but you get the idea.

Going back to the original judgement it’s worth taking a look at the complaint in question.

Disciplinary Rule 202: Excessive Misconduct by the use of offensive, insulting and abusive language of a racist nature.

The result of the tribunal is damning in its conclusion, there is no place for this kind of abusive language in football and the penalty imposed is appropriate.

The question of whether or not Aleksander Tonev is a racist is not one that was asked of the judicial panel nor should it have been.

The judgement given and supported at appeal is limited to Disciplinary Rule 202 and applicable penalties.

If anyone wants a wider judgement on this the SFA is not the place to go. Those who have given their time and experience to the case have completed their task, thoughtfully and incisively.

If you apply their answer to a different question you are likely to run in to problems.

I’m not sure TSFM is the place for me to comment further on this. So I’ll leave it at that.

About the author