I know we met them in a European Cup semi-final in 1972, but the forthcoming tie against Inter Milan is all about the wonderful heritage we were gifted in 1967. La Grande Inter, as Internazionale, then the greatest team Italy had known, had won two of the previous three European Cups and were controversially denied in the semi-final of the other. They won three of the previous four Italian titles, denied the fourth on a play-off, and topped the table with two weeks of the Italian season to go.
They were an awesome team with gifted strikers but it was the defence which marked them out; this was a team who didn’t concede goals, when they took the lead, they kept it.
Simpson, Craig, Gemmell; Murdoch, McNeill and Clark; Johnstone, Wallace, Chalmers, Auld and Lennox, and Jock Stein, not only killed La Grande Inter, but did so, so comprehensively, they forced Inter, and the rest of the Italian game, to change their ways. Catenaccio, the suffocating, ultra-defensive system, was finished.
For Europe, the consequences were profound. Celtic, with their wave after wave of attack; 45 attempts on goal in a European final; were celebrated everywhere. The drift towards caution stopped, teams realised the very best defensive sides could be beaten into submission by sheer talent. In the two subsequent decades the dominant Latin countries of Italy, Spain and Portugal, who had won all previous European Cups, would win the trophy only once.
Football fans across the globe, not just Celtic fans, will want to be there when the teams meet in a game which represents History, not just our history, Europe’s History.
We’ll talk later today on moves being put on the SFA at the moment. ‘Here we go again…….’
Still time to order your 2015 CQN Annual for Christmas.
You can also order the CQN Annual and DVD bundle here. It’s a great offer, check it out – oh, and there’s tons of photos, fresh stories and comment on the first time Inter faced the green and white hoops.
The latest edition of the Magazine is out today, click on the download link on the graphic below to read for free.
[calameo code=0003901718eccc6101c78 lang=en page=1 hidelinks=1 width=100% height=500]
674 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- »
hen1rik-don’t understand that either, we have lost the appeal, we need to go to CAS or whoever…..
Interesting…,,,
The Tonev incident happened during a game. The referee was the soul arbitrator of events on the field.
What the referee didn’t see or hear can be arbitrated after the fact by a panel or tribunal.
However, during a game, the referee cannot decide am issue based on the balance of probability.
He can only rule that the ball went out if play if he or one of his assistants is absolutely sure that it went out if play.
He can’t give a goal unless he is sure that the ball fully crossed the line. The reaction of the players at the time has no relevance.
It is interesting that the basis for a decision is fundamentally different than the basis that would have been available to the referee.
Did Wishart represent Diouf and Bougherra after they got sent off at CP? Classic quote from the Cardigan at the time was” I hope the Disciplinary Panel realise, we have got a small squad……”
Did anyone really expect a different verdict. We have been judged by a different standard by the SFA for as far back as I can remember. The only route for justice would be outwith that cabal, and that will only be pursued if Celtic and Tonev feel there is more to be won than lost from that. One good thing is the additional support of the Bulgarian FA.
Without reading back why are Celtic going back to the SFA with this, Tonev has been found guilty by an SFA tribunal so what is the point and indeed the logic in going back to them?
https://twitter.com/shay2920/status/544902338725838849
Makes you think that this boy is enjoying the ruining of another professional’s career. This really goes against his statements to the board.
Twitter Shay Logan below.
Shay2920
Do the CRIME serve the TIME… Off ya pop geezer… #KickRacismOutOfFootball … Now for one of those legendary cups of tea #Any1want1
I once called a kid a Black B******D.
Totally true story, walking home as a 16/17yr old (about 50 years ago), when I heard a most horrible scream. Stopped and listened where it came from and after a minute or so heard another one. Not to drag the story out but went into field and found a strong black kid of about 14 torturing a smaller white kid. He had him pinned down and every once in a while would pull the guys hair till a tuft came out. When I got there could see tufts of hair and the young fellas scalp red raw. I roared get off him ye ***** ******* or I’ll kick the **** out of ye.
The guy looked me in the eye, smiled took his time and slowly got up and stood facing me. The other guy ran like a scalded cat and when he was well away& safe, I just walked away, so there you have it corkcelt is a self confessed racist.
I dont know the legal technicalities but our club should take this as far as legally possible
enough is enough
I am very srprised Villa have not had an input
am off out for a while there is only so much shopping can be done at the Celtic superstore
til later
HH
The SFA is wholly unfit for purpose.
I long for the day we play in an other association.
Naturally a lot of anger on here but is it not the case that the SFA could not give a satisfactory decision?
Not proven = suspicion that Tonev was MAYBE being racist or Logan was MAYBE a liar .
Tonev Guilty = Tonev branded a racist thereby the decision having at least an adverse affect on his career.
Tonev Not Guilty = Logan misheard the comment so was wrong to make such an issue without being certain.
Seems to me that the `balance of probability` is the main culprit. It, too, is not suitable for a case such as this.
JJ
Questions.
1. Do I think Tonev is a racist. Answer. No
2. Do I think he made a racist remark. Answer I don’t know, but I can see on the balance of probabilities he did.
3. Where can Celtic go to appeal. Answer Nowhere, CAS has no jurisdiction, and Celtic cannot take legal action against the SFA.
Outcome we are stuck with this and need to lump it.
JJ
the point being if monster munch was not proven, can someone show me in sfa rulebook how it is possible to use different verdicts ? ..
The use of civil law definitions for which is technically a criminal offence is failure here. Why weren’t police Scotland all over this?
Cause they know a PF would have chased it. The sfa have moved the goal posts once again. Just wait to see how many we have suspended for the 1st febuary
blantyretim is praying for the knox family
17:50 on 16 December, 2014
JJ
the point being if monster munch was not proven, can someone show me in sfa rulebook how it is possible to use different verdicts ? ..
My point exactly
Celtic will accept the verdict
Why would they change their csp in hand status after all these years. There have been more deserving cases where we backed off.
We always back off.
It will be Resolutuon 12 next.
HH
Csp=cap
Just to be clear, UEFA & FIFA recognise CAS, so if Celtic take the Tonev appeal to CAS, they DO NOT risk UEFA sanctions.
That only happens where clubs take their association to the civil courts.
BT ( and Raspberry)
The difference being that, even if the Boyd verdict was just (!), to have people suspect that you slightly head-butted another player is not going to leave a stain on your character anything like the one Tonev would have had ( and Logan, too, in some ways).
JJ
jungle jim hot smoked
17:57 on 16 December, 2014
BT ( and Raspberry)
The difference being that, even if the Boyd verdict was just (!), to have people suspect that you slightly head-butted another player is not going to leave a stain on your character anything like the one Tonev would have had ( and Logan, too, in some ways).
JJ
Good point
I see Paton of DU has been given a 2 match ban for spitting. What about his arrest for assault on Zaluska? Perhaps Police Scotland have handed that over to the SFA to deal with and that’s why it’s all gone quiet.
Can I Have Raspberry
If that’s a genuine account Shay Logan’s credibility is further diminished.
https://twitter.com/stvsport/status/544912392568586240
The face painter might get paid after all.
To be honest, I thought the Boyd case was a joke and should never even have gone to a hearing. Never a head butt. All the more reason why “not proven” should have been allowed in Tonev’s case, as it was in Boyd’s case.
Meanwhile in other news …
STV Mobile Tuesday December 16
Rangers oldco liquidators seek chunk of Charlie Telfer tribunal cash
The liquidators of the Rangers oldco will investigate whether they are due a portion of the £204,000 awarded in training compensation for the transfer of Charlie Telfer.
When contacted by STV, Rangers declined to comment and BDO were unavailable for comment.
JJ
agree but where in their rules can they use not proven then not use it to suit themselves. .
a not proven verdict would still be better for Tonev than a guilty verdict x2..
Was Logan himself not in trouble shortly after for an alleged verbal altercation with a match official. If I’m not mistaken there was some difference of opinion as to what was exactly said by Logan.
Right , to save me time in answering any poster’s pet points about the Tonev decision. Let me get my caveats out of the way.
I understand and accept the distinction between an evidence threshold that is “on the balance of probabilities’ and ‘beyond reasonable doubt”.
I understand and accept that the SFA hearing conducted itself fairly in hearing and accepting evidence and in using the “balance of probabilities” threshold.
I understand that they found Shay Logan to be a credible and reliable witness.
I understand that they found Aleksander Tonev’s testimony unreliable and not credible.
However… however…. however…
I have read through the 3,500 words and I am still struggling to see how those last two deductions lead to “the balance of probabilities” threshold having been reached.
The Panel are entitled to be impressed by Logan’s careful testimony, despite the fact that he used hyperbole and an unrealistic testimony- “one million per cent no” in response to whether he could have been mistaken in what he heard. Psychology personality tests which include items such as “I have never and will never tell a lie” because no human being has ever lived up to that standard. Anyone who thinks he could never be mistaken or mildly dishonest is most likely suffering from a personality disorder.
But, dismissing, the hyperbole and the lack of realism in dismissing the “possibly mistaken” option, all that the panel can conclude from being impressed by Logan’s reliability and credibility is that he genuinely believed that he was racially abused. They cannot conclude that he was racially abused; merely that he believed fervently that he was. He has not refuted the possibility of having been mistaken even though he is one million per cent sure that he was not.
It is harder to detect reasoning in the judgement as to why they found Tonev unreliable and incredible. They state that they took account of his language abilities though they do not cite any evidence of them having done so. In fact, they attribute ay nervousness, hesitation and evasiveness in his response to his not telling the truth and do not attribute any of that to his English as a 2nd language status. However good your English is, and he has only been on these shores for less than 18 months, you will be slow and unsure of your responses in English. Logan’s careful deliberation in testimony is attributed as his being cautious and precise in attempting to get it right; Tonev;s is attributed as evasiveness.
On the few occasions where they seem to cite evidence of Tonev’s evasion and unreliability, the Panel reasoning is spectacularly specious. They assert, and it is no more than an unsubstantiated assertion, that Tonev’s focus on his unfamiliarity and non-use of the c word, indicates a focus away from the contentious use of the word “black” which is the word that the Panel is more concerned with. By attempting to advance evidence that the c word is a term he does not use and has little knowledge of, they have drawn adverse conclusions that this is unlikely because he has been in football dressing rooms where they would expect him to be familiar with such crude terminology. How’s that for specious?
By failing to focus sufficient energy to denying that he used the term “black”, they have drawn implications that he did not focus on areas that he should have addressed. But he had already denied using this term and denying it repeatedly does not make it any more or less credible as evidence.
The Panel reasoning does not impress me that they have either clearly established nor established “on the balance of probability” that Tonev was lying. Where is the evidence that he lied? Where is the evidence of his shiftiness? Are these guys body language experts? Did they use lie detector methods, unreliable as they are? No, they interpreted and, in my reading, over-interpreted the evidence they heard.
On my reading of the evidence, I can safely conclude two things only:-
1) Logan strongly believes he heard Tonev utter a term of racist abuse at him
2) Tonev denies using such a term.
I would not like to reach a judgement that harmed the reputation of either man on the basis of that testimony.
As for BGX’s point as to why Tonev does not state what he believes he actually did say, as not saying this lends credibility to a view that he has something to hide. That seems a reasonable point at first but does not stand up to much scrutiny once you think about it.
The timeline is that Tonev had a clash with Logan early in the 2nd half. It was an occurrence that was carried forward by Logan to Reynolds and eventually to Madden. At no time was Tonev approached with the allegation until after the match. Why would he remember exactly what he had said if he had not said anything untoward either racist or profane? I would be more suspicious if Tonev clearly remembered what he actually said, even if he was only 100 per cent sure of his line. Tonev has said that he did not use the term “black” or the c word. Apart from that he cannot and should not remember the exact words because they would, otherwise, have been unremarkable. If you ever played football could you remember your exact words uttered in the 55th minute when asked to recall them after a match? If they had been particularly funny, scathing or racist, perhaps you would, but otherwise no.
I know lawyers, and there are a few on here, like to think of themselves as particularly precise and rational fellows whose standards of reasoning exceed those of the lay person. It is hard to accept that when we see the flimsy and specious reasonings given by Nimmo Smith, Ian Bonomy annd Lord Denning.
I hope the rest of you are more temperate and less cocksure :-
Re: Tonev
I don’t Celtic will pursue this through to the CAS…..I think they’ll let him go back to Aston Villa and then state the he is not their player. In other words, they won’t spend the money
After reading some posts on here it makes me wonder.
Only two people know what was said and in what context, if said in the first place?
Why is our player being hung out to dry on the word of one man, shocking.
I hope our board persue this all the way. Tonev must wonder if he is playing in some backwater….then again!
Corkcelt
He ‘only’ got red carded in the tunnel for using foul and abusive language towards the referee, after Celtic had beaten them.
westies,
the club have fully backed the player throughout,
why would they change their view now?
bournesouprecipe
18:09 on 16 December, 2014
Corkcelt
He ‘only’ got red carded in the tunnel for using foul and abusive language towards the referee, after Celtic had beaten them.
That will be the incident McInnes said he never heard, but said Logan never said it…..so on the balance of probability….
Lincolnshire,
Regarding your second point,
Could you please say why you can see that ‘on the balance of probabilities’ he made a racist remark?
There is no evidence. Is it because he is from Bulgaria that some people go along with this ridiculous witch hunt?
Whilst the SFA membership rules might debarr Celtic from taking this to a court of law. Surely Tonev has a personal case of being slandered? Might not help his seven match ban but would clearly be an embarrasment when he wins his legal case in the face of the SFA kangaroo court decision.
Guidi – Billy Davies is an “outstanding” candidate
Motherwell
“Davies was sacked after poor form saw Motherwell gain just 3 points from seven matches”
Preston
“Davies then accepted an offer to manage Preston’s Championship rivals Derby County in June 2006.”
Derby
“Davies left Pride Park by mutual consent in November 2007 with the club bottom of the league. ”
Notts Forrest (1)
” Following failure in the play-offs for the second season running, on 12 June 2011 Davies was sacked as manager ”
Notts Forest (2)
he was sacked on 24 March 2014.
“Outstanding” right enough
Tonev should take this on himself with the funding coming from villa or bulgaria. He has to clear his name and get a FAIR hearing.
For something so important and so damaging to his character – he needs to fight and in doing so stands by his principles (doing nothing shows guilt) and in the process show the SFA for the corrupt utter joke of an organization that it is , has been and always will be until something is done!
Shortbread having a free kicking of our club.