The Fun Factory Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Perhaps we haven't seen the best of him. He has played 15 times for Bulgaria, who are a reasonable international side. But I have not seen any quality from him since he came here so I am not hopeful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agbonla-score Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Curcic > Tonev Thought Curcic was actually a very good player. Saw him in Stoodie Bakers once. Such a big nose. Anyone remember that free kick he scored when he flicked it up and volleyed into the net? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 The worst player we have signed since balaban. Balaban wasn't too bad a player. We've had far worse players since who started regularly. He scored plenty of goals both before and after us, like Savo His performance as a sub away to Southampton ranks up there among the worst things I've ever seen in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Does anyone know what he actually said to the player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Curcic > Tonev Thought Curcic was actually a very good player. Saw him in Stoodie Bakers once. Such a big nose. Anyone remember that free kick he scored when he flicked it up and volleyed into the net? Wasn't the flicked up and volleyed free-kick scored by Mark Draper? Perhaps there were two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Does anyone know what he actually said to the player? He called the player 'Scottish'. It was later determined in a vote that the player was in fact from the United Kingdom. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedClaretAndBlue Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Curcic > Tonev Thought Curcic was actually a very good player. Saw him in Stoodie Bakers once. Such a big nose. He was good at Bolton, shocking for us imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agbonla-score Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Curcic > Tonev Thought Curcic was actually a very good player. Saw him in Stoodie Bakers once. Such a big nose. Anyone remember that free kick he scored when he flicked it up and volleyed into the net? Wasn't the flicked up and volleyed free-kick scored by Mark Draper? Perhaps there were two. I stand corrected - it was Draper. He did score a screamer once though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Personally I think he's the worst I can remember, I guess that stretches back to about 95. Worst signing maybe, but nowhere close to worst player. It's worth noting there's a HUGE difference Worst player for me. Who is worse? Boulding maybe, he was pretty bad, but at least he tried to pass to his team mates rather than just hoofing it out of play. Salifou put in a couple of decent performances for us. although he clearly wasn't cut out for this level long term. Tonev is just comically bad. Sorry, i was on about Balaban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Does anyone know what he actually said to the player? Well Shay Logan claims that Tonev called him a "black c***". The problem is that it wasn't heard by anybody else and the TV cameras failed to pick it up, so it basically boils down to the word of one person against another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Does anyone know what he actually said to the player? Well Shay Logan claims that Tonev called him a "black c***". The problem is that it wasn't heard by anybody else and the TV cameras failed to pick it up, so it basically boils down to the word of one person against another. If the only evidence is the word of one person contradicting the testimony of another person, how can this case go any further than an accusation? Unless other evidence exists or Tonev admits the accusation (unlikely), I don't see how a punishment can be given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 According to this:And it’s understood the governing body are prepared to hammer the Bulgarian on the ‘balance of probability’ - even if there are no witnesses or audio evidence of the alleged remark. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2762743/Aleksandar-Tonev-charged-alleged-use-abusive-language-racist-nature.html Pretty ridiculous if so as nobody should ever be charged for something based on a probability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Found guilty of making racist comments by SFA and banned for 7 matches. Celtic have released a statement, saying they've accepted Tonev's version of events and will support his appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Meh, he's shit but after reading about what he's been found guilty of, its on flimsy evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 If there really is no evidence (just the word of one player contradicting the word of another player), Celtic could keep appealing until the judgement is made under civil law instead of by a sports body. With no evidence, would the case stand up in court? Absolutely no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 From what I've read on it, this is completely flimsy and he has been found guilty purely on their principle of 'the balance of probability', i.e. it is unlikely that Logan would make such a thing up. I for one will not be condemning him as a racist unless he is found guilty in a court of law. Which as brommy points out, such a case would never have gone too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agbonla-score Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Yes but a players own testimony is evidence. So the SFA are basically saying that they believe Logan (and anyone else who gave evidence) over Tonev, which they are entitled to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agbonla-score Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 From what I've read on it, this is completely flimsy and he has been found guilty purely on their principle of 'the balance of probability', i.e. it is unlikely that Logan would make such a thing up. I for one will not be condemning him as a racist unless he is found guilty in a court of law. Which as brommy points out, such a case would never have gone too. Not necessarily. I'm an employment lawyer and have handled many race/sex discrimination claims in the Tribunal. A large proportion of them involve 'he said / she said' arguments and the role of the tribunal is to decide which person should be believed. A case will not be rejected just because the only two witnesses to the comment were the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim. The SFA obviously weren't impressed with the way Tonev gave evidence in comparison to Logan. Given that Tonev's English may be limited he was probably at a disadvantage from the outset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Not necessarily. I'm an employment lawyer and have handled many race/sex discrimination claims in the Tribunal. A large proportion of them involve 'he said / she said' arguments and the role of the tribunal is to decide which person should be believed. A case will not be rejected just because the only two witnesses to the comment were the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim. The SFA obviously weren't impressed with the way Tonev gave evidence in comparison to Logan. Given that Tonev's English may be limited he was probably at a disadvantage from the outset. Ah, I see, fair enough. The problem I have with that is that deciding who you do and do not believe is completely subjective and differs from person to person. I just wouldn't be comfortable personally with conclusively labelling someone of something like this based on such a premise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) The word of one person believed above the word of another based on how the different accounts were represented - doesn't sit right with me. I've applied the principle to my two kids when they were 8 and 10, but the worst outcome was an innocent kid spent a boring hour in their room. If the principle applies in UK courts, is this why rape victims are advised to wear frumpy clothing to court as an above the knee skirt indicates 'she was asking for it'? Edited October 30, 2014 by brommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts