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
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- ...
- 18
- »
If I was advising Tonev, given the serious implications of being found “guilty”, I would be taking every step to take this outside of “sporting jurisdiction” and into a proper court of law.
I suppose what it boils down to is that ` the balance of probability` rule is where the fault lies. As it stands, the SFA had a perfect right to come to the decision they did. If it was never intended for such a serious issue, and `Not Proven` was available, I would have thought that was a better, albeit still not satisfactory , option.
JJ
Twitter.
@PLambie :As pointed out by @MiniKitson -we have a problem. 1st Logan evidence.2nd SFA judgement. Spot the difference http://t.co/KnRZoMfcOQ
So basically Alecks Tonev, has no credibility and is unreliable, fine , but did he call him a ….. ….? If he did where’s your proof?
BSR 1428:-
Absolutely correct. Reading the reasons set out in the judgement, the defence provided for Tonev seems awfully weak to me.
Everyday in workplaces all over the country people face disciplinary complaints re bullying, harassment etc. The burden of proof for these cases is also the balance of probabilities despite the fact that the consequences for the people concerned are huge – they face dimissal, loss of reputation, diminished future employment prospects, withdrawal of pension etc.
It may be reasonable to assume Tonev said something racist to Logan but to tarnish him forever without clear evidence cannot be right. This will set a precedent for future allegations to be made, either out of sheer malice or to gain a sporting advantage. Celtic need to take this as far as they can and not just for the players image but to protect against cheating. If clubs can gain an advantage over a rival then what’s to stop them from abusing this loophole?
I don’t want a racist anywhere near our club but this was an Idiotic decision and has to be defended to the hilt.
HH!
BMCUW
The punishment is not a 7 game suspension, the punishment is carrying for a lifetime the charge of being a racist because of a remark made once in a less than normal situation.
I think that is what Celtic are driving at and I think it has to go to CAS if the SFA think their rules are suitable for the circumstances and do not agree to review.
In normal justice there would be a call for background reports to establish if the accused had previous or a record of same behaviour before.
That at the very least should be standard procedure.
That report would influence the balance of probabilities one way or another.
A player could then be found guilty of making a one off remark of a racist nature and dealt with accordingly but cleared of any charge of being racist based on background.
It might also encourage players who recognise they made a heat of the moment mistake to admit it subject to a background report.
From Celtic Research
Some find by @minikitson and @STVGrant
The appellate panel makes no mention of the whole phrase used. Why? http://t.co/0Jw5oVLga6
Discrepancies in the evidence from the preferred witness. Oh dear.
ernie lynch said:
Tom McLaughlin
The consequence of course would be that there would be very little chance of anyone every being found guilty of such a charge.
Yes, where there is no corroboration, as in the Tonev case.
auldheid
13:32 on 16 December, 2014
Tom McLauglin 11.17
############
Well my friend seems like the anti celtic brigade are still on the job within SFA HQ . I look for your posts as I am a fan , but I think you are well off the mark with your last piece . And this tonev decision , along with the Boyd farce proves the point , until every single one of them within that cesspit are removed , and replaced with men of integrity , then we will always be stamped on . And watch Ashley ,he is a player for them , no doubt about that .
@CelticResearch @STVGrant Can Grant clear up the discrepancy between this https://t.co/9QnFbghoUC and this https://t.co/F9oUSD2S1o ?
From STV grant
@MiniKitson @CelticResearch Oh… let me check that back.
@MiniKitson @CelticResearch Wow. That is verbatim. What on earth?
From Celtic Research
“@MiniKitson: Discrepancy between this https://t.co/yJDfTpmC3Q& this https://t.co/nEGfASHvi9 ?” SFA should get their story straight, Eh?
From garmar
@MiniKitson @CelticResearch @STVGrant looks pretty clear this is nonsense. Well spotted!
Perhaps the tribunal hearing such cases should be drawn exclusively from fans of the accused’s club.
Clearly they are the only ones who are disinterested enough to see matters clearly and objectively.
Weeminger
What discrepancies?
JJ
Even a bad lawyer would get this laughed out of a proper court
Fanaticism .
Been watching ( and not bidding ) the online auction for this ——
7 “-Darrell Banks -Open The Door To Your Heart ( London Records )
The only known Stock Copy on London Records . Current highest bid = £ 11 ,227 . Auction closes on 21 12 -if you want .
A great Northern Soul choon .
Ernie,
Aw bless.
JimTim –
Neither Auldheid nor I made any reference to the SFA easing off on Celtic. My post was about a shift in their dealings with Sevco. The Tonev case does not involve Sevco in any way, shape or form.
From celticservant
Interestingly the appeal mentions “black c***” but no reference to either “don’t touch me you…” Or “Get your hands off me you…”
Astounding that the SFA cite Tonev’s responses being “guarded and hesitant” as a reason Logan was considered more credible. He’s being cross examined in his second language for goodness sake.
Tom McLaughlin
14:43 on 16 December, 2014
His immediate reaction corroborates his version of events.
Could any of Celtic`s black players been called as character witnesses? I do not think that would have been fair but would it have been allowed as it might have affected the `balance` of probability?
JJ
I’ve reads the Notes of Reason of the original Tribunal and the Appeal.
All seems pretty reasonable.
Between arschloch players and arschloch supporters, it seems the Celtic jersey is a size or two smaller these days.
ernie –
Which is irrelevant where the defence is that he misunderstood what was said.
!!Bada Bing!!
14:47 on
16 December, 2014
Even a bad lawyer would get this laughed out of a proper court
———
I know of at least two such gents on here!
HH jamesgang
ernie lynch
14:50 on
16 December, 2014
Which doesn’t actually mean Tonev said those words.
Do you think it’s relevant that the phrase allegedly used has changed in Logan’s evidence?
jamesgang
Good to see that your new found fame has not resulted in your trying to curry favour with any of our legal bhoys.
JJ
3500 words
SCOTTISH FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION
JUDICIAL PANEL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Appellant: Aleksandar Tonev
Respondent: SFA Compliance Officer
APPEAL HEARING 4 DECEMBER 2014
HAMPDEN PARK, GLASGOW
Tribunal Members: The Right Honourable Lord Bonomy (Chairman), James Hastie,
Alan Dick
Counsel for appellant: Richard Keen QC
In attendance:
Aleksandar Tonev
Liam O’Donnell Solicitor
Michael Nicholson Company Secretary of Celtic Football Club
John Collins Assistant Manager Celtic FC
Bulgarian Interpreter
Counsel for respondent: Aidan O’Neill QC
In attendance:
Tony McGlennan SFA Compliance Officer
Neeraj Thomas Solicitor, Burness Paull LLP
Andrew McKinlay SFA Director of Football Governance and Regulation
Also in attendance:
Secretary of Appellate Tribunal Background
[1] A notice of complaint was issued by the Compliance Officer to Aleksandar Tonev, the
appellant, arising out of a match which took place at Celtic Park between Celtic FC and
Aberdeen FC on 13 September 2014. The complaint alleged that the appellant had breached
Rule 202 of the Disciplinary Rules of the Scottish Football Association (SFA) set out at
Annex A of the Judicial Panel Protocol, by committing “Excessive Misconduct by the use of
offensive, insulting and abusive language of a racist nature”. The notice set 9 October as the
date for the Principal Hearing. On 26 September 2014 Liam O’Donnell, solicitor, wrote to
the Compliance Officer on behalf of the appellant to state that he “strongly denies” the
alleged breach of Rule 202 and that he would be representing him at the hearing.
Thereafter the hearing was rearranged for 30 October.
[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.
[3] The Judicial Panel issued their determination and the Written Reasons therefor on
6 November 2014. They held it established that the appellant did direct the expression
“black c***” at Logan and decided to impose a sanction of a seven-match suspension.
[4] The appellant now challenges both the finding that he breached Rule 202 and the
length of the suspension. In his Notice of Appeal the appellant relies on two of the
Permitted Grounds of Appeal provided for in paragraph 14.8 of the Judicial Panel Protocol in
challenging the determination that he breached the rule: firstly, that the Tribunal failed to
give him a fair hearing; and secondly, that the Tribunal issued a determination which it could
not properly have issued on the facts of the case. The Ground of Appeal stated in relation to
the period of suspension imposed is that it is excessive.
[5] All three grounds raise points of law. While it is necessary to review the whole facts
of the case to decide upon each of these grounds, that review has been based on the factual
findings made by the Disciplinary Tribunal. They observed the witnesses, heard their
evidence, reviewed certain documents and video clips and deliberated before making their
findings and the ultimate determination. This appeal is not a rehearing of the case where
the evidence is led again or additional evidence is presented. As is standard practice in such
cases, the appeal has been conducted throughout on the basis of the findings made by the
Disciplinary Tribunal.
[6] Rule 202 is in the following terms: “No player shall commit Excessive Misconduct at
a match, including committing offences in the Schedule of Offences in Annex C, in respect of
which there is aggravation by any factor, (including but not limited to prolongation of the
incident; combination of different offences; continued use of offensive, abusing and/or
insulting language and/or behaviour; calling a match official a cheat and/or calling a match
official’s integrity into question; failure to comply with a match official’s requests; adoption
of aggressive behaviour towards a match official; any racist, sexual, sectarian and/or
otherwise discriminatory element; and the degree of any physical violence); and/or by
committing Unacceptable Conduct”. In this case the offence in Annex C was “offensive,
insulting or abusive language” and it was allegedly aggravated by a “racist element”.
Submissions of the parties
[7] Richard Keen QC presented his submissions in support of both grounds challenging
the determination together because, he said, they turn upon the same factual matrix and
both relate to the way in which the Disciplinary Tribunal addressed the standard of proof. It
is well recognised that sporting disciplinary procedures are not criminal proceedings where
guilt has to be established. Determinations do not fall to be made on the basis of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, but rather on the basis of proof on the balance of probabilities.
However, it was Mr Keen’s submission that the more serious the allegation or its
consequences, the greater is the burden of evidence required to prove it on the balance of
probabilities. The issue, therefore, came to be whether the Disciplinary Tribunal had failed
to recognise that and assess the evidence to the proper standard. In his submission, the
Tribunal had failed to recognise and apply the weight of the burden of evidence required to
prove the complaint on the balance of probabilities where the appellant’s contention was
that Logan had been mistaken.
[8] In Mr Keen’s submission reference was made to the opinions of Lords Prosser
and Penrose in Mullan v Anderson 1993 SLT 835 at 846/847 and 851 and the opinion of
Lord Hamilton in First Indian Cavalry Club Limited v HM Commissioners for Customs and
Excise 1998 SC 126 at 138. Mullan involves a claim for damages in which an allegation that
the defender had committed murder had to be proved on the balance of probabilities. In
both that and First Indian Cavalry Club¸ relating to action taken for the purpose of evading
VAT, it was recognised that the nature of the matter to be proved is a material circumstance
to be taken into account in considering whether it has been proved on a balance of
probabilities. Mr Keen contended that in this case, in which the only witnesses who could
hear what had been said were the appellant and Logan, it was not sufficient for the
Disciplinary Tribunal to simply accept Mr Logan’s account and on that basis hold the
complaint proved. They required to go further. In light of the unusual nature and the
gravity of the allegation and the consequences for the appellant, they were bound to then
give specific consideration to whether in all the circumstances the evidence was sufficiently
cogent to establish the complaint to the required standard.
[9] Mr Keen further submitted that the written submissions of the Compliance Officer in
opposition to the appeal demonstrated the same error at paragraph 5.9, where it was
submitted that, the Disciplinary Tribunal having found unequivocally in favour of the
credibility and reliability of Mr Logan as against the appellant, that was an end of the matter.
The fact that the Disciplinary Tribunal had approached the matter in that perfunctory way
was also illustrated by paragraph 35 of their Written Reasons where they said that the
Tribunal preferred the evidence of Mr Logan on what was said to him by Mr Tonev during
the match, and followed that by beginning the next sentence with the word “Accordingly”.
There was nothing to indicate that the Disciplinary Tribunal had done any more than simply
decide that, because they believed the evidence of Logan, the complaint was adequately
proved.
[10] He explained that, even after the Tribunal had found Logan to be a credible and
reliable witness, a number of questions remained to be addressed, such as how the weather
conditions may have affected Logan’s ability to hear what was said, the fact that the
appellant is Bulgarian and that English is not his first language, and the unusual and
improbable nature of the complaint. If they found no further assistance in addressing these
questions, then they should have asked themselves whether the evidence they had accepted
from Logan was sufficient on its own to establish such a serious allegation on the balance of
probabilities. In so far as they did have regard to other evidence, it was evidence relating
to Logan’s subsequent actions and had no bearing on the question whether his account on its
own sufficiently proved the complaint.
[11] Mr Keen’s submission in relation to the period of suspension had two aspects. He
initially contended that the aggravating factor that the offensive language was of a racist
nature appeared to have been taken into account twice by the Tribunal. He further
submitted that, having regard to the whole circumstances, including the words used, the
player who used them, the context in which they were used and the fact that they were
uttered only once and not repeated, the appellant’s conduct fell to be regarded as falling at
the Lower End of gravity of breaches of Rule 202 for which a suspension of up to
four matches was appropriate. In this case that should be reduced by two matches on
account of the mitigating factors to which the Tribunal had regard, in particular the short
duration of the incident, the lack of premeditation, and the appellant’s good disciplinary
record.
[12] In response Mr O’Neill submitted that the case was simple and straightforward and
invited the Appellate Tribunal to apply common sense and their experience of football (in
the case of two members of the Tribunal) in deciding whether the Disciplinary Tribunal had
erred. The only challenge to Logan’s account had been that he was mistaken as to the words
used. The Disciplinary Tribunal had the opportunity to observe how he responded to the
challenge of his account by cross-examination and he had clearly stood up to that test. No
reason why he may have been mistaken had been put to him. Logan’s immediate reaction
to the incident and his conduct thereafter in bringing the matter to the attention of his
captain, the referee, club staff and other players had been consistent and provided support
for the credibility and reliability of his account. The only basis on which he could have been
held to be mistaken was the evidence of the appellant which had been rejected by the
Tribunal. [13] Much had been made in the course of the appellant’s evidence about whether the
appellant understood the meaning of the word “c***”. What really mattered was the
element of racism reflected in the use of the word “black” with which, as could be seen from
paragraph 28 of the Written Reasons, he was plainly familiar. The circumstances of this
complaint did not bear comparison with a case where murder had to be proved.
[14] Mr O’Neill invited the Appellate Tribunal to conclude that the core question for the
Disciplinary Tribunal was whether they believed and were prepared to rely upon the
evidence of Logan. The circumstances of the case were not such as to require some
unspecific additional burden of evidence to establish the complaint. Under reference to the
opinion expressed by Lord Brown in In re D (Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
intervening) [2008] UK HL 33 [2008] 1 WLR 1399 at paragraphs 45 to 47, he submitted that
the seriousness of the consequences of being found in breach of Rule 202 were irrelevant to
the Disciplinary Tribunal’s assessment of the balance of probabilities.
[15] In relation to the sanction imposed, Mr O’Neill simply submitted that it fell within
the range of penalties that the Disciplinary Tribunal were entitled to consider and impose in
the exercise of their discretion.
Decision on Finding of Misconduct
[16] To make a proper assessment of competing cases and reach a determination in
favour of one on the balance of probabilities requires that all factors relevant to that
exercise are taken into account, considered and weighed in the balance, and a
determination made for which intelligible, rational and adequate reasons are given. In a
situation such as the present, where there are two inconsistent accounts, it is not a question
of deciding which on balance is the more likely version. Before a determination can be made
that a complaint of misconduct has been proved, the body making the determination must
be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the subject of the complaint committed the
act of misconduct alleged. That is what proving an allegation on the balance of probabilities
means. It is both a matter of common sense, as suggested by Mr O’Neill, and consistent
with the Scottish case law referred to by Mr Keen, that the burden of evidence required to
determine the issue to that standard depends on the circumstances of the case.
[17] In paragraphs 33 to 35 of their Written Reasons the Disciplinary Tribunal set out in
clear terms their reasons for finding the complaint proved. They stated that they believed
Logan. Of much greater significance, however, are the fact that they also found him to be a
reliable witness, and that they gave cogent reasons for doing so. They explained that he
impressed them by the careful and measured manner in which he gave his evidence and by
the clear and unequivocal terms in which he recounted what had happened. They were also
favourably impressed by the consistency between his account of his immediate reaction and
his subsequent actions in reporting what was said on the one hand and the accounts of
these events given by the other witnesses and seen in the video evidence on the other.
Their view of the evidence of Logan contrasted rather starkly with their view of the evidence
of the appellant. Having made allowance for the impact of anxiety upon him, the Tribunal
were unable to accept him as either credible or reliable. They have explained that he gave
his evidence in a guarded and hesitant manner and that his evidence on the understanding
of the language that had been used was particularly unsatisfactory. Their impression was of
a witness giving a less than full account of his actual understanding of the language used.
Surprisingly, in leading the appellant’s evidence relating to his understanding of language,
his solicitor appears to have concentrated on his lack of understanding of the meaning of the
word “c***” which, it later emerged, he nevertheless knew to be a term of abuse. However,
he did acknowledge, as recorded at paragraph 28 of the Written Reasons, that he was aware
of the significance of using the adjective “black” in abuse directed at a black player. The
Tribunal regarded his version of events as “an inherently improbable account”.
[18] Although a Bulgarian interpreter was present at the Disciplinary Tribunal hearing
and at the appeal hearing, the appellant gave his evidence in English before the Disciplinary
Tribunal. That was consistent with the submission made by Mr O’Donnell to the Disciplinary
Tribunal that the appellant spoke good English and would fully understand the proceedings.
In the end, as can be seen from the preceding paragraph, the Tribunal took account of the
evidence that was presented about the appellant’s comprehension of the language in issue.
[19] Following their analysis of the competing accounts of events given by Logan and the
appellant, the Disciplinary Tribunal stated that they preferred the evidence of Logan and
introduced the remainder of their explanation of their determination with the word
“Accordingly”. The Appellate Tribunal do not consider that that formulation indicates that
the Disciplinary Tribunal simply formed a view on the credibility and reliability of the
evidence of Logan and took nothing else into account. It is plain throughout the record of
the evidence in the Written Reasons that the Disciplinary Tribunal had the nature and gravity
of the allegation in mind. Indeed in challenging the Tribunal’s specific reference to the
“seriousness of the offence” in explaining the sanction, Mr Keen’s submission was that the
misconduct alleged fell at the Lower End of the catalogue of possible contraventions of Rule
202. It is also clear from the Disciplinary Tribunal’s account of the cross-examination of
Logan that they proceeded on the basis that the appellant’s case was that Logan was
mistaken.
[20] The Appellate Tribunal also consider that the Disciplinary Tribunal took account of
the other evidence in the case in an appropriate way as supportive of the credibility and
reliability of Logan. They specifically make reference to doing so following the use of the
word “Accordingly” in paragraph 35. His reaction at the time and the consistency between
his account of events in the immediate aftermath of the incident and other evidence in the
case were features that the Disciplinary Tribunal were entitled to regard as providing
support for the credibility and reliability of his account of the incident.
[21] They had regard to the content of the evidence of both the appellant and Logan, the
impression each made on them, Logan’s reaction to the incident as observed by others, the
degree of consistency between Logan’s account of his reaction to the comment and his
subsequent action in reporting it and that of other witnesses and what the video clips
showed, and the nature of the incident. It is clear that the Disciplinary Tribunal took account
of all relevant evidence, and left out of account irrelevant considerations (such as the
weather conditions), in deciding whether the case had been made out on the balance of
probabilities and were particularly conscious that a determination of excessive misconduct
could only be made if that standard was satisfied. But in the end the crucial finding in the
case was the finding that Logan was not only a credible witness but more particularly that he
was also a reliable witness. Clear and entirely adequate reasons for making that finding and
for concluding on the balance of probabilities that the appellant committed the alleged
misconduct are set out in the Written Reasons. The Appellate Tribunal accordingly affirm
the determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal that the appellant used offensive, insulting
and abusive language of a racist nature in breach of Rule 202.
Decision on Sanction
[22] The Appellate Tribunal read paragraph 37 of the Written Reasons as stating that the
racist nature of an abusive remark is, in the context of the whole catalogue of aggravating
factors listed in Rule 202, a significant aggravating factor. There is nothing in that paragraph
to suggest that the Disciplinary Tribunal were viewing the racist nature of the abuse as a yet
further aggravation of excessive misconduct which itself consisted of abuse already
aggravated by the racist nature of the remark. The sole issue in relation to sanction is,
therefore, whether the punishment imposed was excessive having regard to the misconduct
involved.
[23] The appellant’s own statement in evidence that he would not use language of the
kind in issue and his acceptance that there is no place for racism in football are eloquent
testament to the seriousness of such an offence. In Scotland, as in countries throughout
Europe, domestic football is an international sport, played and coached by personnel from
all over the world. Racism in football is condemned worldwide and should be met with a
penalty that is designed to impose appropriate punishment and to deter the abuser and all
in the game from committing misconduct of this nature. Against that background the
Appellate Tribunal are in no doubt that the Disciplinary Tribunal were entitled to regard the
case as falling somewhere between Mid Range and Top End. In the event, and applying the
reduction of two weeks for mitigating circumstances, the sanction imposed fell into the Mid
Range. The Appellate Tribunal do not consider that to be excessive and affirm the decision
of the Disciplinary Tribunal to impose a seven match suspension.
Postscript
[24] The Appellate Tribunal note that in accordance with normal practice the identities of
the Disciplinary Tribunal members remain confidential. However the Appellate Tribunal also
note that to date the terms of the Written Reasons of the Disciplinary Tribunal have
remained confidential. The Appellate Tribunal are not aware of any particular reason why
that should be so in this case. 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 ensuing debate is well-informed. The Appellate
Tribunal, therefore, suggest to the SFA that they should exercise their discretion in terms of
paragraph 17.5.2 of the Judicial Panel Protocol to disclose both decisions and the reasons
therefor.
Iain Bonomy,
Chairman, Judicial Panel Appellate Tribunal,
16 December 2014
Ive read in a few places that Tonev apparently called Logan a black c*nt but given that Tonevs’ english is broken at best he probably doesnt know what the word c*nt means.
Therefore how could he have possibly said it
Corruption in this masonic country is unbelievable
Weeminger
What discrepancies?
I asked earlier.
JJ
celticforever –
I believe Tonev has been hard done by, but frankly, that defence is quite laughable.
Tonev getting banned is the only laughable part here
The SFA in one sentence.
Life is not always a matter of holding good cards, but sometimes, playing a poor hand well.
weeminger
14:54 on 16 December, 2014
ernie lynch
14:50 on
16 December, 2014
Which doesn’t actually mean Tonev said those words.
Do you think it’s relevant that the phrase allegedly used has changed in Logan’s evidence?
###
If anything it lends credibility to it.
Jungle Jim Hot Smoked
14:58 on
16 December, 2014
Sorry the discrepancy is in the decision. Logan adamant the phrase was “don’t touch me you black c***” the decision is made on him say “get your hands off me you black c***”
one problem I have with the Tonev case – there was a lot of emphasis on wether AT knew the meaning of the C sweary word – he said that he didn’t know what it meant, but also said he had heard it when he played at Villa, thus casting some doubt on his assertion that he didn’t know what it meant. BUT – this was completely irrelevant to the case – he could have used the B sweary word or any other sweary word. What was important was that he allegedly used the word “black” as the descriptor for the sweary word – why was this not examined in more detail?
ernie lynch
15:04 on
16 December, 2014
Apologies the discrepancy is on the decision not Logan’s evidence.
However you suggest that if it had been the case that Logan couldn’t remember the exact phrase it would make his assertion more credible. I note in courts around the world the inability of a witness to tell a consistent story is held up as the benchmark of reliability.
Do you accept that Tonev could have said “Get your hands off my back c***” and been misheard?
Just scrolled through the Tonev decision. I see a few questions about the process. This a very short/over simplified explanation of how these sorts of tribunals and appeals from tribunals work. I hope it is of some assistance. Note, it is very oversimplified, and lacks some nuance, but it paints the big picture.
In the courts, civil (e.g., contract) cases are decided on the balance of probabilities (this means that the plaintiff must prove 51% that he is right). In criminal cases, the crown must prove the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (no numeric number, but it is very high … say, around 95%). These are cases in court.
Administrative tribunals (such as the initial SFA tribunal) are quasi – judicial bodies … that is, they are not courts, but they act in some manner like a court. There are certain principles by which these tribunals are supposed to operate (e.g., the right to be heard is one), but the rules for these bodies are much more flexible, and vary from tribunal to tribunal. Even within on tribunal – and this is the point tonev’s counsel was making – the rules can vary, depending upon the nature of the charge, and the seriousness of the consequences; the more serious the charge and consequences, the greater the degree of protection that is supposed to be given to the person who may suffer the consequences.
As you can probably tell, this makes tribunals somewhat frustrating – administrative law (the body of law that covers tribunals) has often been described as ‘nailing jelly to a wall’.
Normally, an appeal from the finding of a tribunal can only be made based on certain grounds … usually a legal error. In most cases, there is not an appeal from a finding of fact. Typically, an appeal panel will accept as accurate the findings of fact made by the initial tribunal, and then ask if, accepting those facts, the law was applied correctly.
That meant that it was not necessarily open to the appeal tribunal to substitute its finding of facts. They checked basically to see if, having made a decision (as the origianl panel did – that Tonev said something bad), was there some evidence on which it could have made the decision. If no, the decision should be set aside. Here there was some evidence (the Aberdeen player’s evidence).
The next question (and this was Tonev’s key point) was whether, given the serious nature of the charges and the consequences, the standard of proof should have been closer to the criminal standard, rather than the simple ‘more likely than not’). The tribunal held that the reasons of the original panel demonstrate that they were alive to this issue, and having considered it, the appeal didn’t make a legal error (which, failure to consider the issue at all would likely have been).
As far as the length of the suspension, the appeal tribunal noted that it is within the scope of penalties allowed, so they cant say that the original panel erred (whereas had they imposed a penalty not permitted, this would have been grounds for reversal).
frankly, given how much flexibility is given to tribunals, and the limited scope of review avaialbe on appeals, I always thought the chances of success on this appeal were quite slim.
I have sympathy with Tonev, and understand his counsel’s argument that such a finding could have great consequences, and so, should have attracted higher protections. I am not arguing for or against that position. I am simply trying to explain how and why the appeal panel has ruled as it did.
As I said, I have oversimplified administrative law (the law governing tribunals) greatly, but I hope this helps in understanding the process.
I will be on and off the blog today, but will try to check in and see if there are any questions/concerns.