Aleksandar Tonev

A player does not need to prove his innocence to play at his level. Teams that he is good enough to play for will still take him. You have even said this yourself

If he is guilty why does he not take this further to clear his name? Surley he cannot be found guilty in a real court. Guilty or innocent it seems he has nothing to lose by taking this further. Yet he is not. The reasons for this unknown to us unless you are privy to advice he has received from Celtic ot his lawyer.

 

no they won't that is absolute bullshit,no team that might be taking the smallest risk in him playing at their level will take him on,he will at best now play maybe only one tier below his level.
You have absolutely no idea how damaging this will be to his career when he leaves do you?
You keep assuming just because he might not be guilty his future employers will see it that way and will be nice to him and guve him a chance at their club,but it doesn't work like that.

 

You seem to be happy for him to stay if he is good enough.

I refer you again to this part of my post which you did not respond to.
"If he is guilty why does he not take this further to clear his name? Surley he cannot be found guilty in a real court. Guilty or innocent it seems he has nothing to lose by taking this further. Yet he is not. The reasons for this unknown to us unless you are privy to advice he has received from Celtic or his lawyer."

 

Theres other posts you could have highlited with the answer to that.

What do you mean " if he is guilty why does he not take this further to clear his name"

 

Exactly as it reads. Innocent or guilty he should be found not guilty in a fair and impartial trial due to lack of evidence. Therefore the fact he is not perusing it does not indicate guilt rather it could just as easily be the actions of a disillusioned innocent man.


Saying he will not take it any further because he is guilty is just not factual unless you know the circumstances behind his decision.

He may well be guilty but with the absence of any proof I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt

 

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/LawsoftheGame/LawsandInterpretations/interpretation_law12_en.pdf

theres a link to sfa guidelines you find me this imaginary guideline your telling me about

 

Can't understand why logan make this up, what has he to gain from it.
This guy not our player, let's just sent him packing back to villa.
He done nothing since September to make us want keep him.

 

Just find any newspaper report of the cases events in the last few days . I don't know what the procedure is called or what it involves but it wss used ;rules were adhered and tonev was found guilty by using these rules.

 

If you accused somebody of something and it went as far as an investigation would you just turn around and go nah I was only joking lad's?

He would look like a * and get sanctioned himself

 

But logan told his captain seconds after it supposedly happened, he didn't wait till after the game thats what is giving logan the benefit of the doubt.

 

Neither can I. However that doesn't mean he didn't or couldn't have.

 

its the same motive as a player diving. In football do you honestly think the players give a * about apposing players? they will do whatever it takes to gain an advantage and if logan has falsely said to his captain he has been racially abused and the referee sends tonev off for it then it is a big advantage gained

 

How the * was logan trying to gain an advantage a ref cant send someone off for something no official seen.

 

straight from the SFA guidelines i sent you earlier

Sending-off offences
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:
• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
• denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match

 

also if you are saying that a ref cannot send somebody off purely on what somebody says how can you still argue that the SFA can ban a player purely on what somebody says?

your argument is laughable and you are contradicting yourself

 

I never heard player been sent off for racist remark yet?
Have you?

 

i dont look out for it

can you admit that it is possible?

 

I admit it could happen,
But I think tonev said something and is guilty
Can't get my head round what logan get out it if wasn't true.
If it's to gain advantage every week we have case with teams cheating, but we don't.

 

i can guarantee you that somebody dives every week which is exactly the same in terms of trying to gain an advantage

 

A dive and racist remark is different situation.
Nobody gained advantage from racist remark.
Will u admit tonev could be guilty and nobody ever know truth