Fred_Zeppelin Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I didn't realise you were part of the panel and heard all of the evidence. Why didn't you vote to acquit ? The notes are on the SFA website, They believed Logan over Tonev. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellyman Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I get called a "tartan sweaty sock" down in England quite a lot, I suppose depending on your tartan that could cover many colours ? But i don't give a !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 This is just a straw-man, no one claimed it was math(s), nor were any comments made on walking about in a "black skin", what point is it you think you're making Scotty? The point I'm making is the one that I made... That different words carry different weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Continuing on their Moped - had said on the Tuesday (of the week the original appeal was due to be heard on that Thursday) they'd be appealing to the CAS ....................... It can only be a matter of days before they turn up at the UN, Vatican, Dalai Lahma's house, etc etc. They also have their favourite mhedia pets working flat out for them....the Daily Record in particular, and Raman Bhardwaj, who who so gleefully spread Lennon's lies back in February. They'll be working hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 . Firstly, it would be an alternative to "it's one person's word against the other", and secondly it would be telling how Tonev would react faced with a 'no-win' scenario. Consulting tarot cards would also be an alternative, would you advocate that? or perhaps kill a goat and check it's liver? the only place i see polygraphs is the Jeremy Kyle show, i understand you set a very low bar when it comes to level of evidence with your beliefs, however aping Jeremy Kyle isn't how i want my FA to do business. By the way i'm not disputing the veracity of the judgement, just the stupidity of introducing a third scenario which agrees with neither of the two parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 The notes are on the SFA website, They believed Logan over Tonev. I know, but there's a subtle...but distinct...difference in saying that they 'believed one person over the other', when actually what happened was that they found one witness credible, and the other not credible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 The point I'm making is the one that I made... That different words carry different weight. I was aware of this when i wrote what i did, how do you believe that should alter my thinking? I still stand by what i said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I know, but there's a subtle...but distinct...difference in saying that they 'believed one person over the other', when actually what happened was that they found one witness credible, and the other not credible. Put your Aberdeen specs away Rossy. Do you think someone should be banned fro 7 games and have his reputation tarnished for life, possibly ruining his career on the word of one man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I know, but there's a subtle...but distinct...difference in saying that they 'believed one person over the other', when actually what happened was that they found one witness credible, and the other not credible. I've always believed the Aberdeen player, the SFA introducing this stupid third scenario is madness. Just take Logan's word. He's the credible witness. Not introduce a third sentence which neither person said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Farrington Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Why have they found him guilty of saying something different to what Logan alleges he said? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Just to be Devils advocate, could Tonevs case have been hindered by his English? I have no idea how good or bad his English is, but could imagine if it was mediocre or worse, stating his case in a concise manner in a foreign language could be problematic for him. Logan wouldn't have this issue. So is the panel racist against Tonev? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 If Logan and Tonev took 10 polygraph tests administered on 10 different machines in 10 different cities by 10 different operators then Logan would pass all 10 and Tonev would fail all 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) Put your Aberdeen specs away Rossy. Do you think someone should be banned fro 7 games and have his reputation tarnished for life, possibly ruining his career on the word of one man? Eh ? It's nothing to do with me, or you. 2 panels have found Tonev guilty having looked at the evidence. Logan's evidence was credible, Tonev's wasn't. Why do you keep on questioning this ? It's over and done with. Edited December 16, 2014 by Rossy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartanJon Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 If an Aberdeen player had been found guilty for racism then I would want their contract ripped up. I'm still not happy that we signed Goodwillie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Why have they found him guilty of saying something different to what Logan alleges he said? Logan said that Tonev said "black c*nt" and the panel agreed that that was indeed true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Just to be Devils advocate, could Tonevs case have been hindered by his English? I have no idea how good or bad his English is, but could imagine if it was mediocre or worse, stating his case in a concise manner in a foreign language could be problematic for him. Logan wouldn't have this issue. So is the panel racist against Tonev? You need to look at the minutes of the hearings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Farrington Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Pointless taking this any further - waste of everyone's time. Terminate his loan deal, let him / Villa pursue it further if they want. For the sake of an easy life, just agree to disagree & accept the outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Pointless taking this any further - waste of everyone's time. Terminate his loan deal, let him / Villa pursue it further if they want. For the sake of an easy life, just agree to disagree & accept the outcome. I think that's the best (only) solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Is this what Scottish football has come to? This is playground stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 There's a wee error in the original hearing claiming Logan came on loan from Aston Villa before signing a contract with Aberdeen. Oh, no I smell a technicality, where's Donald Findlay when you need him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus_Young Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) If an Aberdeen player had been found guilty for racism then I would want their contract ripped up. I'm still not happy that we signed Goodwillie. Goodwillie has been done for racism as well? When was this? Doesn't do himself any favours that lad does he! Edited December 16, 2014 by Angus_Young Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus_Young Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Is this what Scottish football has come to? This is playground stuff. You talking about the hearing of the TAMB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMcoolJ Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 The notes are on the SFA website, They believed Logan over Tonev.. No, they thought he was a more credible and reliable witness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Goodwillie has been done for racism as well? When was this? Doesn't do himself any favours that lad does he!No. TJ is referring to the previous rape accusation. I see delia has already shown that he doesn't know the rules under which the case was judged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMcoolJ Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 No. TJ is referring to the previous rape accusation. I see delia has already shown that he doesn't know the rules under which the case was judged. Is Delia also still claiming he "knows" Tonev is innocent?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.