Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: frank black on September 14, 2014, 02:42:46 PM
-
http://www.scotzine.com/2014/09/aberdeen-report-celtics-aleksandar-tonev-for-alleged-racist-abuse/
Apparently they could send him back?
-
What a fantastic acquisition he's been.
-
If this is true he is a disgrace and should be let go.
It doesn't matter who does this it is unacceptable for the player of a club that has won plaudits for it's anti-racist stance.
-
If it's true and he gets sent back to us, tear up his contract and kick him out.
-
Bet poor old Petrov's well glad he recommended him
-
I suppose he might get away with it as I am guessing his racist abuse missed his intended target by a mile.
-
If it's true and he gets sent back to us, tear up his contract and kick him out.
This.
-
Not a great deal of detail on any supposed incident has been released, so we'll wait and see I guess. I hope nothing comes of it. It would be incredibly bad for Tonev if he's done this. He'd struggle to carry on up there and he'd certainly have a lot of explaining to do down here. We've got a diverse selection of players from all over the world, and we don't really want a bad apple in the squad.
-
I suppose he might get away with it as I am guessing his racist abuse missed his intended target by a mile.
Brilliant- Clappy Thing
-
Tonev and Celtic have denied any wrongdoing according to Sky Sports News.
-
Tonev and Celtic have denied any wrongdoing according to Sky Sports News.
Does Tonev speak English yet? Just wonder if something got lost in translation perhaps, or someones just misheard something.
-
If proven, I'd have no issue with him being sacked. That said, innocent until proven guilty and all that.
-
Tonev to HR, Tonev to HR.
-
Tonev and Celtic have denied any wrongdoing according to Sky Sports News.
Does Tonev speak English yet? Just wonder if something got lost in translation perhaps, or someones just misheard something.
This is probably closer to the truth.
-
Tonev and Celtic have denied any wrongdoing according to Sky Sports News.
Does Tonev speak English yet? Just wonder if something got lost in translation perhaps, or someones just misheard something.
This is probably closer to the truth.
Benefit of the doubt and all that.
-
Tonev to HR, Tonev to HR.
He'd probably end up in Finance.....boom tish
-
If proven, I'd have no issue with him being sacked. That said, innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Exactly my thoughts.
-
Tonev and Celtic have denied any wrongdoing according to Sky Sports News.
Does Tonev speak English yet? Just wonder if something got lost in translation perhaps, or someones just misheard something.
This is probably closer to the truth.
Wasn't that the excuse Suarez tried?
-
Bloody foreigners, coming over here being racist. Sack him if true.
-
Tonev and Celtic have denied any wrongdoing according to Sky Sports News.
Does Tonev speak English yet? Just wonder if something got lost in translation perhaps, or someones just misheard something.
This is probably closer to the truth.
Wasn't that the excuse Suarez tried?
I think it was, but then again, Saurez has an excuse for everything. I suppose until we know what Tonev was alleged to have said then it'll be hard to judge. I think Saurez actually called Evra "Negro" IIRC but then tried to claim it was simply a term of endearment (or something like that). Obviously if Tonev has used a similar term, or slightly worse then there's not much excuse he can come out with. It'll boil down to how many witnessed it, and who the authorities believe.
-
If Celtic send him back we can re-loan him out to Liverpool.
-
What was the reason we got rid of Alpay all those years back, I remember his contract was terminated after an England Turkey game. He abused Beckham or something.
-
What was the reason we got rid of Alpay all those years back, I remember his contract was terminated after an England Turkey game. He abused Beckham or something.
From the Beeb (or oppressive propoganda machine if you live in Scotland) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/3209137.stm)
-
If true , loan him to a club in Nigeria. That should sort him out . mind he will miss the plane knowing him .
-
Tonev given 7 match ban for racially abusing Aberdeen defender Logan.
-
Auntie (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29374885)
-
Celtic winger Aleksandar Tonev has been banned for seven matches for "using abusive language of a racist nature".
The 24-year-old was charged following an incident involving Aberdeen defender Shay Logan during a Scottish Premiership match in September.
And the "excessive misconduct" allegation was established by a Scottish FA judicial panel.
However, Celtic say they will appeal against the punishment, insisting the Bulgarian is "not a racist".
Tonev moved to the Scottish champions on loan from Aston Villa in August and has featured in 10 matches.
A Celtic spokesperson said: "Racism has no place in football and as a club for all people, Celtic absolutely abhors racism of any kind.
"This was a very unfortunate case, but the club has accepted Aleksandar's explanation that he did not say the words that were alleged to have been said and that he is not a racist.
"We are, therefore, very disappointed by the outcome today and can confirm that Aleksandar will be appealing this decision."
-
Given our proud history on this topic (Sunday Mercury Nazi salute smear story notwithstanding) any player who racially abuses opponents is not fit to wear the claret and blue ever again. Get rid.
-
I'm intrigued as to how he has been charged with this. I have no idea what was supposed to have been said or whether it's true or not but my understanding of it is that no 3rd party witnesses could confirm or deny the allegations and no footage was found. In that case they appear to have banned someone for 7 matches on the say of another player. I'm going to try having a look to see if there are any more details but given the above I can totally understand the reason they're going to appeal.
-
We should wait until the appeal before taking action, that's only fair. If the ban stays and he's proven to have been racist, sack him. The club will look good and we'll have got rid of a rubbish player without paying compo. Win-win.
-
Why all this talk of sacking him? John Terry never faced the sack and he racially abused people he actually knew. His punishment is the 7 game ban.
-
John Terry plays for a scummy club with no morals, and a history of racism. Most employers have policies enabling them to sack people for racism. He's shit anyway so no loss.
-
He should be sacked for falsely claiming to be a footballer. He makes Ali Dia look like Pele.
-
The thing is if he made racist remarks he should rightly be punished. However this talk of the sack is convenient on the basis of him being awful, but if hypothetically Benteke made a racist remark would people want him sacked?
-
If Benteke made a racist remark there would be some debate. I'd probably want him sacked to be honest, but others would argue that he should be kept on, on the basis of his value to the club. In this case there is no debate that I can see, as he has no value to the club anyway.
To twist your argument, if a member of the Villa catering staff racially abuses a fan on Sunday, would you want them sacked? I think it would be expected.
-
The thing is if he made racist remarks he should rightly be punished. However this talk of the sack is convenient on the basis of him being awful, but if hypothetically Benteke made a racist remark would people want him sacked?
Oh definitely not. But I'm glad he has (in a mischievous way). This Tom Fox really is good with money. On the blower every day, grooming him with a fake fascist idealogy. Hook, line and sinker.
-
Well this is it there can't be one rule for someone who's deemed important and then people who are of less importance. I guess it also depends on whether we believe someone can make a mistake and have a chance to redeem themselves if they are suitably aplogetic.
-
Well this is it there can't be one rule for someone who's deemed important and then people who are of less importance. I guess it also depends on whether we believe someone can make a mistake and have a chance to redeem themselves if they are suitably aplogetic.
Unfortunately it will always be the way with valuable assets. Look at Liverpool with Suarez, he made them title contenders, they were never going to sack him. Honestly, if we had someone that talented, that pushed us into the higher summits, you'd like to think you would go 'oh we should get rid' on moral grounds, but would you? Honestly?
Fortunately it's just Tonev 😀
-
I think a 7 match ban is fine, but there should be some sort of enforced education built into the punishment as well.
-
The seven match ban was enforced by the Scottish Football Association. They're not his employer, Aston Villa are. So we have taken no action against him.
I'd like to think we wouldn't be the sort of club that takes no action against a racist employee.
If proven guilty, pending his appeal, obviously.
-
As far as i understood it was one persons word against another, no proof, no witnesses, no audio evidence, in other words no proof of guilt.
We had this before with Mikel and Clattenburg?......if hes guilty, then prove it, otherwise just leave him alone.
-
It does seem odd. Was there a referee's report based on what a linesman heard or anything similar?
-
Will the SFA give details of how they reached their conclusion? If guilty then he should be got rid of but I have yet to see the proof behind it.
-
If guilty? He has been found guilty by a judicial panel so let's not argue on that. The next step now is that he should start his rehab by accepting his punishment and seek help. I don't think we should sack him as he is a young man and hopefully will learn his lesson.
-
If guilty? He has been found guilty by a judicial panel so let's not argue on that. The next step now is that he should start his rehab by accepting his punishment and seek help. I don't think we should sack him as he is a young man and hopefully will learn his lesson.
Do we know anything of the evidence presented?
-
We don't need to do that. We need to trust the process and not not pick because we don't like the outcome.
-
We don't need to do that. We need to trust the process and not not pick because we don't like the outcome.
The issue is though, if there's no real evidence and the ban has come on the back of the other players say it's very difficult to trust the process, that's the point people are making. Back when it came out there were a lot of comments from journalists about how it was unlikely to come to anything because there didn't appear to be any evidence. It's therefore perfectly acceptable to question what evidence has been used. No one outside the process has enough details to know what to think but the immediate annoucement that Tonev and Celtic are going to appeal suggests the case is pretty flimsy.
I'm not defending him and I'm not nit-picking, I'm just a touch unsure how they've come to this point based on everything that has been made public. My worry is he's proven to be an easy target so the SFA can show how seriously they take racism pretty much all of the other big racism cases in top level football in the UK there has been compelling evidence involved for it to lead to a ban, the only allegation I can think of that had absolutely no evidence was the mikel/clattenburg one; which was dismissed for a lack of evidence.
The major concern I have with this is that if they have banned him on the word of the other player that's a dangerous precedent set for the future and could lead to some players having their careers harmed almost entirely through malice.
-
By all accounts Celtic are appealing the decision so maybe the evidence does not totally stack up. I won't make any rash judgements yet.
-
If he's found guilty then he deserves the book thrown at him.
Quite right to appeal if they think the verdict is incorrect. Not the punishment
We are not Chelski or Klanfield Liverpool. And neither I hope are Celtic
-
The trouble is though, whilst it appears to be one word against another, there's no logical reason said victim should have decided to make it up. Tonev has obviously said something to cause offence. It's whether he was misheard, or something was lost in translation I suppose. But Tonev has to prove that if he wants the ban overturned. If it remains it's a big blot on his CV, an even bigger one than his shot accuracy stats.
-
The trouble is though, whilst it appears to be one word against another, there's no logical reason said victim should have decided to make it up. Tonev has obviously said something to cause offence. It's whether he was misheard, or something was lost in translation I suppose. But Tonev has to prove that if he wants the ban overturned. If it remains it's a big blot on his CV, an even bigger one than his shot accuracy stats.
You can't base justice on 'why would he lie?'; it just doesn't work that way. Why in this case does it appear as if all of the requirements are on Tonev proving he didn't say something rather than the other way round, that's what doesn't add up for me.
-
We are not Chelski or Klanfield Liverpool. And neither I hope are Celtic
and tonev isn't suarez or john terry...
-
If guilty of the offence and he is aware enough to realise what he has done wrong then re-education (that sounds a little too Cultural Revolution but you know what I mean) is the way. If not then he should be let go.
We all do things we shouldn't and it is the way we react that is the measure of the person I feel.
His football "talent" has nothing to do with it, if it was Guzan/Benteke/Weiman I would say the same.
-
The trouble is though, whilst it appears to be one word against another, there's no logical reason said victim should have decided to make it up. Tonev has obviously said something to cause offence. It's whether he was misheard, or something was lost in translation I suppose. But Tonev has to prove that if he wants the ban overturned. If it remains it's a big blot on his CV, an even bigger one than his shot accuracy stats.
You can't base justice on 'why would he lie?'; it just doesn't work that way. Why in this case does it appear as if all of the requirements are on Tonev proving he didn't say something rather than the other way round, that's what doesn't add up for me.
As far as racism in football goes they're always going to take the word of the accuser initially when it's one word sgainst the other. It's highly likely Tonev said something. Until they publicly reveal just what he allegedly said, it's hard to judge.
But as we've seen in the media recently one persons word against another, with little or no evidence can get someone sent to jail.
Rightly or wrongly they've charged Tonev and given him his ban. I'm not sure they'll overturn, short of him being able to provide some genuine evidence to the contrary. I don't know whether the victim in question had any witness accounts from team-mates, or the ref, or not.
It's not something they're ever going to take lightly so I understand the response. However a seven game ban on one word against another? It's harsh, but the whole case is unclear. It's not like the Terry/Ferdinand case where video was released on Youtube for all the world to see. In all honestly, Terry got off lightly, purely because he's John Terry.
I just wonder if there's more to it than they're letting on.
If some foreign players seem to be claiming they've been misunderstood (The Suarez excuse, which in his case was absolute bollocks) then clubs should be trying to educate players from other cultures in what language could be deemed offensive.
-
I'm convinced there's more to it.
As for what he said, apparently it was to call him a 'stupid black ******', I found a few reports from around the internet that all use the same phrase so it's the best guess we have.
-
If he's found guilty then he deserves the book thrown at him.
Quite right to appeal if they think the verdict is incorrect. Not the punishment
We are not Chelski or Klanfield Liverpool. And neither I hope are Celtic
It was a while ago, but have you seen the footage of when Mark Walters played his first game for Rangers there?
-
If he's found guilty then he deserves the book thrown at him.
Quite right to appeal if they think the verdict is incorrect. Not the punishment
We are not Chelski or Klanfield Liverpool. And neither I hope are Celtic
It was a while ago, but have you seen the footage of when Mark Walters played his first game for Rangers there?
It was a long time ago. They were certainly not the only ones dishing out such ignorant bile at the time to black players..
I hope they have moved on aside from the few bone heads which infest most clubs.
-
If he's found guilty then he deserves the book thrown at him.
Quite right to appeal if they think the verdict is incorrect. Not the punishment
We are not Chelski or Klanfield Liverpool. And neither I hope are Celtic
It was a while ago, but have you seen the footage of when Mark Walters played his first game for Rangers there?
It was a long time ago. They were certainly not the only ones dishing out such ignorant bile at the time to black players..
I hope they have moved on aside from the few bone heads which infest most clubs.
There were also quite a large number of clubs whose fans who didn't behave like that at the time (if you haven't seen the footage, the game had to be halted so they could remove bananas from the pitch). Like Liverpool and Everton though, that's been airbrushed out of history now and it's widely accepted by SKY types that they are the best fans in the world.
-
He's appealing it apparently so let's not rush to judgement.
-
If he's found guilty then he deserves the book thrown at him.
He would volley it out of the ground.
-
Tonev loses appeal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30496680
-
Be interesting to see Villa's response to this....don't know the content of what was alleged to have been said but from the Celtic response it appears that the judgement is based on "he said - no I didn't" with no witnesses. Normally I would say the governing body convicting you of racist abuse would be an instant sackable offence but this sits a little uncomfortably unless the guilty by probability has more substance than Logan looks more trustworthy than Tonev
-
I don't see how you can ban somebody from football for such a thing unless they are charged and convicted by police/courts.
-
[2] Mr O'Donnell duly appeared with the appellant at the hearing on 30 October which we understand lasted seven hours. The crucial question for the three-man Judicial Panel was whether, following a heavy challenge by the black Aberdeen player, Shaleum Logan, and further contact with him by Logan's arm, the appellant abused Logan by calling him a "black c***". Evidence was given by these two players, the referee, the Aberdeen captain, Mark Reynolds, the Aberdeen manager, Derek McInnes, and the Celtic assistant manager, John Collins. The panel also had before them the referee's report of having the matter drawn to his attention, the statements of Logan, Reynolds and McInnes, and the statement of the Aberdeen Football Operations Manager, Steven Gunn. In addition they viewed four video clips reflecting events in the match.
-
From the above, we now know that several people gave evidence. However, it doesn't say what evidence they gave.
-
When this first blew up Michael Colvin in the Independent on Sunday was making out that any Villa fan who wanted Tonev sacked was only saying it because he's a rubbish player, which I thought was out of order.
-
Without the evidence presented we cannot make a value judgement unless we have faith in the footballing authorities. The FA consider Dowd a top referee and found Shearer did not lump Lennon in the face.
-
When this first blew up Michael Colvin in the Independent on Sunday was making out that any Villa fan who wanted Tonev sacked was only saying it because he's a rubbish player, which I thought was out of order.
What? You think he's not a rubbish player?
-
When this first blew up Michael Colvin in the Independent on Sunday was making out that any Villa fan who wanted Tonev sacked was only saying it because he's a rubbish player, which I thought was out of order.
What? You think he's not a rubbish player?
I didn't like the insinuation that we wouldn't be bothered about him being a racist if he was any good. I don't actually know why he is a sports reporter as he doesn't seem to like anything about sport.
-
Is this the end of the matter?
-
[2] Mr O'Donnell duly appeared with the appellant at the hearing on 30 October which we understand lasted seven hours. The crucial question for the three-man Judicial Panel was whether, following a heavy challenge by the black Aberdeen player, Shaleum Logan, and further contact with him by Logan's arm, the appellant abused Logan by calling him a "black c***". Evidence was given by these two players, the referee, the Aberdeen captain, Mark Reynolds, the Aberdeen manager, Derek McInnes, and the Celtic assistant manager, John Collins. The panel also had before them the referee's report of having the matter drawn to his attention, the statements of Logan, Reynolds and McInnes, and the statement of the Aberdeen Football Operations Manager, Steven Gunn. In addition they viewed four video clips reflecting events in the match.
See what I struggle with in this case is look at the list of people giving evidence, other than the 2 players what can any of them really offer given that none of them actually heard anything? It seems as if the main reasoning here is 'why would Logan lie?' which I find rather uncomfortable, I just don't see how a case like this can be based on anything other than hard evidence. it feels a little bit like the SFA have pinned him as an easy target to show how tough they are on racism without having much to build a case around.
It'll be interesting to see what happens from here, I wouldn't be surprised, unless there is some evidence that the press aren't reporting, if this one carries on up to CAS, it seems to be a case full of holes right now, once again, unless there's something a lot more compelling than has been reported.
-
From the above, we now know that several people gave evidence. However, it doesn't say what evidence they gave.
The article would have been better worded if it had said that several people had provided testimonies. As has been said, there doesn't seem to have been any actual evidence that categorically proves any misdoing.