Aleksandar Tonev

Dont know if its true or not, but regardless he'd have been better off saying he got angry, said something he shouldnt have and apologise. Theres no way to win these things.

 

From someone who would have no problem with a racist so long as he improved the team:smiley-laughing002:

 

Probably not,but thats not hows it done is it now?

Theres a way of dealing with one word against the other and thats way it was done ,the rules were followed ,there was no wrongdoing from the big bad sfa in this case when you see they followed procedure in place for this sort of thing.

 

So you would find him not guilty but believe the SFA are justified in finding him guilty. What then would be the point of appealing if he will be deemed guilty regardless? Should he just do so to be humiliated again?

If you cannot get justice why try to seek it?

 

I wouldn't, but I dont own any football clubs or manage any so tonevs out of luck on that one,not that id sign the useless * anyways.

There is managers who will look at him now though say he might be worth a go and than the chief executive will say that we dont want a rascist at the club wholl probably do more bad than good as he isnt that good in the first place when they would be deciding to take him on in.

When tonev is released and the league 1 clubs start considering him thats what will happen 9/10 times. Hes career is * as it stands,he needs to fight on prove his innocence and save his career

 

Just because the sfa sees him as guilty doesn't mean higher courts will. They probably have a more fair way of dealing with one mans word against the other than the sfa.

 

are you genuinely trying to tell us that there is legislation that says 'If there is no proof but somebody else says he has done he must be found guilty' dont be ridiculous

if i went into the police station tomorrow and said that you had murdered somebody do you honestly think you would get done for it?? it might be looked into but when they realised there was absolutely no proof it would be dropped

 

Wonder if he's lying through his teeth or if Logan is a lying *. One of them is.

 

When the movie finished the leaders image came up on the screen, they shouted and cheered for 15, maybe 20 minutes or more, There was one man who sat there unmoved. He was advised by the man next to him “I feel the same way as you comrade, but if the authorities see you there will be trouble”<o></o>
<o></o>
In fact the man refusing stand was the same man whose image was on the screen, Joseph Stalin. He had gone to the cinema, undercover, to see how much his people loved him. At first he was encouraged, but when the man next to him gave that friendly advice, he realised the truth.<o></o>
<o></o>
<o></o>
Have you cottoned yet? You are the man with the sage advice. In a way I should thank you, but I also feel sorry for you and resent you for basically being corrupt or stupid. I cant decide which. <o></o>
<o></o>
In your reply you have recited every cliché in the book. The very thing I was trying to dispel.<o></o>
<o></o>
Let me see if I can help you along<o></o>
<o></o>
In order:<o></o>
<o></o>
I am serious.<o></o>
<o></o>
Shay Logan should not have to suffer “abuse” for the colour of his skin, something he cannot control, buts lets no pretend it bigger than it is.<o></o>
<o></o>
There are 3 ways of looking at racism (that is against blacks, all other kind is allowed) It could be the equivalent of <o></o>

• • Murder<o></o>
  • GBH<o></o>
  • Petty name calling<o></o>

<o></o>
From you grandiose answers I assume you are in the 1<SUP>st</SUP> category, whereas I am in the 3<SUP>rd</SUP> category. That said we can at least agree that it is an offence. One that should have met with laughter and derision for being a grass and a wee clipe and not be declared a criminal offence, which you, I and everyone reading knows would have been Tonevs fate if Shay Logan had called him a Bulgarian so-and so. <o></o>
<o></o>
That the funny thing about “History of racism against black people”. It seems to entitle Shay Logan to some sort of sage status because a few people that looked like him had a hard time of it a few hundred years ago. Boo * Hoo. The only problem black people have with slavery is that they never got their first. Black people are not infallible moral guardians about what is right and what is wrong. <o></o>
<o></o>
Just as the man in the cinema was both expedient and cowardly, can I (in the nicest way possible) ask you to place your advice right up your *? It is true I have expressed views that are dead set against the political narrative. That is the appeal of UKIP. They call it as they see it. Every other party wants people to swallow a view of life and society that is completely untrue, part of which is that blacks are all innocent victims and whites are just baaaaaad. Yeah, yeah and as a standard response they are called racist. Boring.<o></o>
<o></o>
Deniers of racism must be racist. Oh what logic.<o></o>
<o></o>
“Protesters in America” are race baiters, to which, for example, Barack Obama is the head of this movement. Everything he says is usually controlled and measured but sometimes he lets slip his true feelings of his resentment against white people. The race baiting protests are opportunistic political grandstanding by Marxists (who call themselves liberals, what as * joke) and black people, to attempt to gain political advantage by putting themselves forward as poor sad, innocent victims. <o></o>
<o></o>
Let me ask you something. What would you reaction be if Allan McGregor had walked from the field upon hearing Celtic fans chant “Beast Beast Beast Beast” every time he touched the ball? He had never suffered a conviction in a court of law for what he was accused of. I suspect that he would have suffered a reaction worse from his own people than from us, and rightly so. If someone can’t take a bit of petty name calling (category number 3 remember) then the big babies can go * themselves. <o></o>
<o></o>
Russia paid most for the World Cup FFS. <o></o>
<o></o>
I already have revaluated my way of thinking. When I was a boy, not as knowledgeable in general as I am now, i parroted everything that was accepted about society. I thought racism against blacks was the worst thing ever because everyone else thought so. I also thought Thatcher was the devil incarnate because everyone else thought so. When I learned to think for myself I thought black people were a bunch of thin skinned cry babies and that Scottish people would blame Thatcher if there was a grain of sugar less in their tea (or a grain of sugar too much). <o></o>
<o></o>
The thing about South Africa is that Apartheid was bad, but it was also a BOG STANDARD DICTATORSHIP. It was not a pleasant place to live, I’m sure, but it certainly wasnt the worst. Going back to my World Cup 1978 example, do you believe that a black South Africans life is more valuable that an Hispanic Argentinean? That is the judgement that FIFA made, and no-one has challenged it since. In my opinion you can have two options. 1 FIFA or 2. 1 FIFA with all countries or 2 FIFA’s split right down the middle between democracies and dictatorships. I would prefer 1 FIFA myself. <o></o>
<o></o>
I consider it just that all people in society have equal rights. A view not held in any black society incidentally. Consider it from the view of White Americans. It is their view that black culture does not fit into white society. To be fair I do not think that white people fit into black society either. I would advise any white people in South Africa and in Zimbabwe to leave, for their long term good. I do not consider this to be racism. Racism is irrational. I consider this to be entirely rational. <o></o>
<o></o>
It is an unfortunate that the Jews must oppress the Muslims in Israel. Unfortunate but necessary. The Muslims have made it known on many occasions that they will kill Jews simply for being Jewish. All genuine racism comes from blacks and Muslims. <o></o>
<o></o>
Irish immigrants have suffered more in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK. I have tried to understand why. I cannot. The fact is that had Celtic been a “black club”, assuming you can have such thing, then the poetically just implosion across the City would never have happened because the authorities would have found ways to destroy Rangers long ago. But because it’s the Irish (read non black) it’s OK. <o></o>
<o></o>
I don’t hate racism, no more than I hate any other form of petty name calling. If someone made fun of someone who had red hair or who had glasses or a funny haircut, I may consider it in poor taste, but I would not hate it. I certainly would not participate in a political witch hunt against such perpetrators.<o></o>
<o></o>
I have seen many black players play for Celtic, British, European and some African Nationals. Some good, some not so good. One who put in performances that have attained him the name the King of Kings. The idea of judging them for anything other than their footballing ability would be absurd. But let’s not set them above the law, which right now is where black people are.<o></o>

 

There is a procedure to deal with it and it was used. Its that simple.
Look it up if you dont believe it.

I dont why that blue icon is up there

 

FIFA do not like footballers going outwith football authorities with their appeals. Were he guilty he could just as easily go to a higher court to be found not guilty due to lack of evidence. Therefore not doing so has no implication on his guilt or innocence. Your criteria for calling him a racist does not hold water

 

him being found not guilty at higher court wont ruin his career, as it stands it * with the sfa decision.

 

You have said yourself he he was good enough it would not matter. Have you now changed your mind?

 

No he isn't. You're plainly reading what you want or just making it up.

There are rules for this. * rules, but there are rules.

And you can drop the murder stuff, now that IS * ridiculous.

Look we all agree the decision is an absolute * joke, but there's little doubt that they have followed the correct rules to come to the decision. Otherwise Celtic would drive a bus through it (as we have done before ie Lenny's concurrent match ban)

 

Hes career here is * no two ways about it. But in general it could be salvaged to a respectable standard if he took it further and was found not guilty.

 

Any sane person knows that he has not been proved guilty. John Terry who was proved guilty has continued to play as normal. Luis Suarez who has been found guilty or numerous offences has only moved up the football ladder.

If he took this to non football court he would be found not guilty as there is no evidence. Do you contend then he must be guilty because his conscience would not let him take this to a point where he is found not guilty.:smiley-laughing002:

 

Such a boring topic now. He's gash anyway

 

As I said before there two top players,tonev is *,last thing he needs is further denting his chances of finding another club because of something hes been wrongly accused of,so if he has he should go to whatever lengths necessary to prove hes innocent because he is * otherwise.
It just makes sense that he would ,what hes currently doing makes bo sense if he is innocent and has been wrongly accussed.

 

It does not make any more sense if he is guilty. Where is the evidence to prove it? Innocent until proven guilty in civilised countries. If he is treated otherwise then he is right to say "* this I give up"

If he is as * as you say he has no career to ruin so why let yourself be dragged through the mud again

 

Hes * by celtic standard could still carve himself out a career in league one or a * team in the big European leagues. If he was to take it as far as he can to peove hes not guilty.