There is absolutely no way that NUFC should accept , without argument, any ban meted out by the FA.

The FA set a precedent last week by accepting Matic of Chelsea had been provoked by Ashley Barnes of Burnley prior to his dismissal.

(To feature like Peter, send in your articles for our website to [email protected])

The FA accepted the provocation as valid mitigation and reduced Matic’s ban to two matches from three….a reduction of 33%, although there are those who believe the two game ban was still too harsh.

Whilst accepting that Cisse’s action was reprehensible, Newcastle and Cisse must use the same mitigation, as Papiss was severely provoked.

This was a disgraceful act instigated by Evans and he (Evans) should receive the most lengthy ban.

*** As it stands, if Papiss Cisse were to get the speculated seven match ban, he would miss Everton (A), Arsenal (H), Sunderland (A), Liverpool (A), Spurs (H), Swansea (H), Leicester (A)

Leaving Cisse to face only West Brom and West Ham at home, with also QPR away which falls in between those two matches at St. James’ Park.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    That photo is just so wrong and it’s evidence for mitigation along with tv footage. It makes it look like Cisse gobbed straight in the face of Evans from less than a foot – a complete lack of reaction to it (not even a wipe of the face, never mind a full on strop) proves that wasn’t the case.

  • mickrj19761

    If you see the footage, it’s also clear that Evans aim no less than 3 kicks during his altercation with Cisse. All three are worse than the wee tap Beckham gave Simeone and subsequently saw red for against Argentina. That is constantly being overlooked but should be given a retrospective punishment, in my opinion.

  • ArtyH

    Good post and should be used as a president, Also the fact that Cisse has admitted his wrong doing should lessen the sentence, as it does in law, the flip side of this is Evans sentence should be increased. Also as Evans was the protagonist this should increase his sentence proportionately notwithstanding the kicks he made towards Cisse. IMHO Cisse should be banned for 4 games and Evans 6 as if the latter had not spat first I do not think Cisse would have done so.

  • Sickandtiredstill

    Only mitigation he needs. Yes he spat, but clearly nowhere near Evans.

  • wivawova

    What happens to Cisse should be wholly dependant on the findings in relation to Evans which ought to be heard first. If Evans is found to have deliberately spat on him, not only would Mr. Evans be forund to have provoked Papiss and then lied about it, but also, he demonstrates that in his eyes, spitting is not abhorent.
    Spitting, as per the FA handbook, is singled out for harsh treatment, the only other type of offence being similarly singled out being racial/discriminatory conduct.  That is so because the FA deem spitting to be the most dicgusting possible offence. However, if you are a person that thinks that spitting is ok – which must be the case for Mr. Evans if he is found to have gobbed at Cisse, then the shock against the person is mitigated. Cisse should only receive a ban based on the actalone without the disgust element.
    Why spitting at someone should yield a bigger fine than deliberately breaking a leg (Souness, Keane etc) I’ve no idea.

  • Big Al 1967

    The difference is the FA are terrified of upsetting Mouriniho and the Chelski moneymen, likewise the people at Old Trafford, while they will quite happily hang the rest out to dry.
    Already the most of the media (BT and TAlksport in particular) are painting Evans as angelic who would never do this type of thing despite the damning evidence 
    Papiss despite his contrition will get the full 7 games yet it would not surprise me if Evans is let off. In fact if Ferguson was still in charge I would guarantee it

  • wivawova

    Big Al 1967 
    I don’t think there will be any guarantees about it.  In my dealings with the FA, I’ve come across some “blazers” who appear to be entirely selfless, honest, and have the best interest of the game at heart, and have ended up reaching decisions that might not necessarily be what I wanted, but nonetheless were probably what the case merited. 
    Unfortunately, for every one of those, you’ll find another that is spurred on by personal ambition, and another that makes a decision that any tribunal acting with the benefit of some sort of legal qualification/nouse could not have dreamed up.   
    Personally, I’d always thought over the years that Tottenham and West Ham had been the major beneficiaries of this inequity. However, if the body is run by a person that thinks it’s ok to accept 6 watches as “gifts” and then only decides to return them/give them to charity when a big fuss is made about it, an attitude exactly as appalling as all those MP’s that got caught out in the expenses claim scandal, then the corruption is ripe from the top down, and we can’t expect any change there any more than we can expect change from Mike Ashley.

  • toonloyal

    Cisse out til end of season,getting our excuses for relegation in early,

  • Big Al 1967

    wivawova Big Al 1967 MY point is that Papiss WILL get a minimum seven game ban and yet there appears to be a doubt than Evans will get similar despite the evidence and IMHO this is only because of who he plays for. Put it another away had this been Joey Barton, or Cattermole  instead of Evans we would not be having this discussion