Jonjo Shelvey (now playing for Çaykur Rizespor, on loan from Nottingham Forest)

[Geordie Ahmed]

Interested to read the findings. Surely they would have found him guilty with some solid evidence knowing they will have to report their findings and that Shelvey can take this further if necessary.

 

Regardless, the suggestion by some that we get rid is nonsensical.

[prefabtoon]

Shelvey could appeal yet and maybe even play in the next two games.

 

http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/864080578?-11058:809:0

[Guest neesy111]

This thread is complete aids at the moment.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

FA wont overturn it on appeal, no point bothering trying.

 

Accept the ban and move on. Only Shelvey will know what he said.

[Crumpy Gunt]

Shelvey could appeal yet and maybe even play in the next two games.

 

http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/864080578?-11058:809:0

 

So potentially 2 of the 5 games could be FA Cup 3rd / 4th rnd? Maybe a 3rd round replay?

[54]

Shelvey could appeal yet and maybe even play in the next two games.

 

http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/864080578?-11058:809:0

 

 

So potentially 2 of the 5 games could be FA Cup 3rd / 4th rnd? Maybe a 3rd round replay?

I would rather Shelvey take the 5 game ban now and be back for the Brighton game tbh.

[afar]

Shelvey may want to appeal in order to not admit that he is a racist. Right now that's the picture the FA have painted of him. If you look at the Tom Brady saga in the NFL, he took the league to the highest court in the US but it was more to do with getting his name cleared than playing in 4 games. For Shelvey, if I was in his position and I felt I was innocent of any wrongdoing I would want to pursue it as far as possible because I wouldn't want to be known as a racist, even if that meant an extension to the ban.

 

If it's a "he said, she said" situation then I don't see how any court within the legal system can uphold a guilty verdict, which surely is available to him based on defamation of character, legal eagles please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

If he maintains his innocence and the club's own witnesses collaborate it then NUFC need to back him and live with any additional reparations that may come his way.

 

Of course he may also be guilty and non guilty plea was a delaying tactic only, in that case the point is moot and he should just accept the punishment.

 

 

[Fenham Mag]

FA wont overturn it on appeal, no point bothering trying.

 

Accept the ban and move on. Only Shelvey will know what he said.

 

If he knows he's innocent then he should appeal, not just accept it.

[Guest palnese]

[Dinho lad]

"Although at least one team-mate of Saïss reported their concerns to Walter Zenga, Wolves’ then manager, immediately after the game and the Italian informed Tim Robinson, the match referee, the misconduct charge was not issued until 8 November.

 

Matters were apparently complicated by Saïss’s limited English and a lack of video and audio footage, allied to confusion as to what had been said."

 

Oh no... one less thing for people to moan about. 

[Altamullan]

'... the three Wolves players called as witnesses gave slightly varying accounts of the alleged insult, with one claiming Shelvey had called Saïss “a smelly Arab”. Another ... claimed he heard the word Arab attached to a different insult while the third [said] he used the word “Moroccan” in a derogatory context...

 

[shelvey] continues to maintain his innocence and is adamant he did not use the words in question. It also appears the midfielder was taunted about his baldness before the incident but claims he did not rise to the bait.'

 

Regardless of burden of proof, no wonder the lawyers want to contest the decision.

[Wilson]

that's what I don't get, how can he be charged after they all heard different things?

[Scoot]

If that is true, then it's utter bollocks. How can you charge someone with it with no video or audio evidence and the 3 witnesses all give different accounts of what happened?

 

 

[Wallsendmag]

that's what I don't get, how can he be charged after they all heard different things?

 

Clearly they want to make an example of him despite an apparent lack of proof and very conflicting evidence. Seemingly 3 different players heard him say 3 different things yet not one of them saw fit to challenge him about this at the time. It just doesn't sit right with me.

[St1pe]

So obviously flimsy yet the FA still seem to push ahead. So much for "they must have evidence" that people were claiming yesterday.

 

I'll be massively disappointed if this isn't revoked on appeal but I just can't see the FA embarrassing themselves like that. Pathetic.

[NG32]

Seems a bit weak but hey ho.

 

 

[Ashley17]

I wouldn't worry about him being back for Brighton, that match will almost certainly be re-arranged due to the FA cup. It's whether they want to get it out the way before the AFCON crew depart

[ujpest doza]

that's what I don't get, how can he be charged after they all heard different things?

unless he said all 3!?!?!?!?

 

[ujpest doza]

I wouldn't worry about him being back for Brighton, that match will almost certainly be re-arranged due to the FA cup. It's whether they want to get it out the way before the AFCON crew depart

Who is actually going to AFCON though??

 

There's only really Diame who will be a big miss on current form and even that is just the last couple of games as he's been poor otherwise.

 

Atsu has been a bit part player and Mbemba's confidence is shot and he's a defender anyway.

 

[Tubestationatmidnight]

that's what I don't get, how can he be charged after they all heard different things?

 

Clearly they want to make an example of him despite an apparent lack of proof and very conflicting evidence. Seemingly 3 different players heard him say 3 different things yet not one of them saw fit to challenge him about this at the time. It just doesn't sit right with me.

 

Nor me. You can't tell me the wolves player who went chasing after the ref " ref ref I think he said a nasty name" won't of had in his mind that Shelvey could be banned for a significant period of time. We are appealing it according to the guardian

[Tubestationatmidnight]

So obviously flimsy yet the FA still seem to push ahead. So much for "they must have evidence" that people were claiming yesterday.

 

I'll be massively disappointed if this isn't revoked on appeal but I just can't see the FA embarrassing themselves like that. Pathetic.

 

Even a slight mention of anything racial related these days whether it's true or not is jumped all over.

 

I wonder what would have happened if saiss has called Shelvey a "baldy white bastard". Not a 5 game ban I would bet.

[Raconteur]

'... the three Wolves players called as witnesses gave slightly varying accounts of the alleged insult, with one claiming Shelvey had called Saïss “a smelly Arab”. Another ... claimed he heard the word Arab attached to a different insult while the third [said] he used the word “Moroccan” in a derogatory context...

 

[shelvey] continues to maintain his innocence and is adamant he did not use the words in question. It also appears the midfielder was taunted about his baldness before the incident but claims he did not rise to the bait.'

 

Regardless of burden of proof, no wonder the lawyers want to contest the decision.

 

I don't know that using a mackem's unnamed source is any better than perpetuating the "cous cous nonce" line tbh. How about we wait for the FA report, eh?

[joeyt]

that's what I don't get, how can he be charged after they all heard different things?

 

Clearly they want to make an example of him despite an apparent lack of proof and very conflicting evidence. Seemingly 3 different players heard him say 3 different things yet not one of them saw fit to challenge him about this at the time. It just doesn't sit right with me.

 

Nor me. You can't tell me the wolves player who went chasing after the ref " ref ref I think he said a nasty name" won't of had in his mind that Shelvey could be banned for a significant period of time. We are appealing it according to the guardian

 

The Wolves players didn't chase after the referee, one of the players told their manager at the end of the game

 

[Tubestationatmidnight]

'... the three Wolves players called as witnesses gave slightly varying accounts of the alleged insult, with one claiming Shelvey had called Saïss “a smelly Arab”. Another ... claimed he heard the word Arab attached to a different insult while the third [said] he used the word “Moroccan” in a derogatory context...

 

[shelvey] continues to maintain his innocence and is adamant he did not use the words in question. It also appears the midfielder was taunted about his baldness before the incident but claims he did not rise to the bait.'

 

Regardless of burden of proof, no wonder the lawyers want to contest the decision.

 

So if he did actually say something along these lines he just used the country he is from as an insult. Is that any different to " smelly jock" " fat Kraut" etc, would them terms have someone up for racial abuse. If someone called me a smelly English whatever I wouldn't take offence because I don't see being English as a negative thing.

 

It could well be the case that saiss was griefing Shelvey and one little comment back about his nationality and the wolves players have gone complaining about it sensing an opportunity to get him banned, that's how it looks, Saiss apparently  didn't even know what was said or was offended by it. Nor should he be unless he sees his heritage as a negative thing. All just seems a load of PC gone mad and a small time club like wolves after getting Shelvey banned. Hope we appeal. My last word on the matter

[Andymc1]

I didn't comment yesterday as it was all rumour and there was nothing concrete. I know the Guardian article is still tantamount to rumour somewhat, but if three Wolves players have all given different accounts, I don't see a scenario where the ban is upheld. Surely any half decent legal eagle can dismantle the FA's conclusion.