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

[Tubestationatmidnight]

Shambles. Obviously got no concrete evidence or he wouldn't still be playing 3 months later.

 

Utter clowns and shambles that is the English FA.

[Dr.Spaceman]

It's almost like they're doing it just so that if he's found guilty he'll miss the reverse fixture with Wolves.

[BlueStar]

It's almost like they're doing it just so that if he's found guilty he'll miss the reverse fixture with Wolves.

 

That was my first thought

[shintonsghost]

It's almost like they're doing it just so that if he's found guilty he'll miss the reverse fixture with Wolves.

 

Dont think its that.they clearly havent got a clue and some fucker is telling them to go  careful on this while wanting him hung out

[STM]

Hardly smacks of strong case like.

[xLiaaamx]

They clearly expected and hoped for no defence. Now they're scrambling.

[Tiotes Witch Doctor]

This is good news if he is indeed guilty, if he is going to be banned I'd rather it be closer to January as I think we may invest in a new central player anyway who might be able to fill in.

 

A Colback Hayden partnership would probably get by but it wouldn't fill me with confidence.

[morla84]

Anyone else notice him do a mini 'ketsbaia' after our goal the other night?

[Geordie Ahmed]

Unless I'm mistaken has anyone other than Terry and Suarez been banned by the FA for using racist language?

 

In those instances they admitted using certain words BUT denied the context/meaning of what they said

 

Going to be tough to justify a ban on Shelvey if there isn't any video evidence and he is strongly denying it, can't just base it on what one person says, that's wrong and potentially opens up a huge can of worms

 

[NUFC]

I know absolutely nowt about the legal side of this, but could it be taking this long - and longer - because our lawyers have said something which the FA are forced to take seriously?

 

Th FA obviously make up their own rules outside of the law, but without evidence this is pretty much defamation. It's a lot different to charging someone with regular abuse or misconduct.

 

Its not a legal case which would require evidence to be beyond reasonable doubt, as its only an FA charge it will be balance of probabilities.

 

Id presume Wolves will use the player who allegedly overheard what was said and Shelvey will use his own witness. Id be surprised if some kind of person who specialises in lip reading is used too

[Dinho lad]

I know absolutely nowt about the legal side of this, but could it be taking this long - and longer - because our lawyers have said something which the FA are forced to take seriously?

 

Th FA obviously make up their own rules outside of the law, but without evidence this is pretty much defamation. It's a lot different to charging someone with regular abuse or misconduct.

 

Its not a legal case which would require evidence to be beyond reasonable doubt, as its only an FA charge it will be balance of probabilities.

 

Id presume Wolves will use the player who allegedly overheard what was said and Shelvey will use his own witness. Id be surprised if some kind of person who specialises in lip reading is used too

 

i don't think there's a footage of the incident due to the limited TV coverage of lower league matches.

[Benwell Lad]

I know absolutely nowt about the legal side of this, but could it be taking this long - and longer - because our lawyers have said something which the FA are forced to take seriously?

 

Th FA obviously make up their own rules outside of the law, but without evidence this is pretty much defamation. It's a lot different to charging someone with regular abuse or misconduct.

 

Its not a legal case which would require evidence to be beyond reasonable doubt, as its only an FA charge it will be balance of probabilities.

 

However, should the FA rule against Shelvey, wouldn't he be in a position to take legal action against them if he maintains his innocence, considering it could impact on his career and future employment opportunities ?

Could get messy for the FA unless they are sure it's "beyond reasonable doubt", even though they don't necessarily have to be.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

They're in the clear as long as they make a decision based on their own procedures surely? All they're judging is whether he likely committed this particular offence, whatever happens after that doesn't concern them.

[loki679]

Libel maybe if they put out a statement saying he racially abused someone based on what seems to be fairly flimsy evidence.  Court of arbitration for sport would be another route depending on how strongly he and the club want to protest the charge.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Libel maybe if they put out a statement saying he racially abused someone based on what seems to be fairly flimsy evidence.  Court of arbitration for sport would be another route depending on how strongly he and the club want to protest the charge.

 

If that's the case they would have to basically scrap these disciplinary procedures completely, and so would anyone else who decides things on balance of probability. Not that I understand the implications fully, but I think we might be reading too much into this.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

We don't even know the evidence for either case yet fwiw.

 

FA could have video evidence or anything, we don't know - we're speculating based on what Lee Ryder says and the fact they have been unable to set a date for a hearing so far.

[Hanshithispantz]

Libel maybe if they put out a statement saying he racially abused someone based on what seems to be fairly flimsy evidence.  Court of arbitration for sport would be another route depending on how strongly he and the club want to protest the charge.

 

If that's the case they would have to basically scrap these disciplinary procedures completely, and so would anyone else who decides things on balance of probability. Not that I understand the implications fully, but I think we might be reading too much into this.

Not really, as most cases don't involve defamation of a players' character. I don't know if it makes a difference, but it should.

[Hanshithispantz]

Like this is a lot different to Anita's tackle which may or may not have been bad, the camera angle was rubbish so we'll just ban him anyway.

[Dave]

Tonight is all this dickhead's fault tbh.

[TRon]

Might be interesting seeing how we cope without him. He likes pinging long balls from the back but there's been a bit of a disconnect between him and the attack. not much interplay or getting beyond the defensive lines, he seems content to play mostly from deep.

[Lenny]

Tonight is all this dickhead's fault tbh.

 

He's played a significant part for sure, but it's not the only factor by some stretch.

[Shearergol]

Him and the ref.

[Hanshithispantz]

We were botting them senseless with 10.

[colinmk]

Not good enough, need better.

[NEEJ]

Bloke's an absolute moron. Amazed it's taken him this long to get in bother. Mind you, I wish he'd actually done some damage to Lansbury, what a horrible prick.