Gosling to fly the nest?

So Dan Gosling, out of contract in July, may be off to Bournemouth? That figures - the life of a lazy seaside convalescent whose best years are receding into the distance will suit him well.

Meanwhile, Paul Dummett's red card against Liverpool has been rightly rescinded - for what little it matters.

Damage limitation

Reflections on Saturday's last-gasp win over Palace to come, but first something which should have gone up last week. It's not often we doff our cap to the club for the way they handle things, but in the case of the Silver Fox's recent tete-a-tete with David Meyler I think some credit is due. The independent FA commission that decided on his punishment has released details of the mitigating circumstances, which include the verbal and written apologies and the swiftness with which the club imposed its own punishment. It seems that someone immediately identified what redressive action could be taken and made sure we did so as quickly as possible. Without that, he'd clearly have been facing up to a longer ban.

The Silver Fox isn't alone in having been handed an FA punishment of late, though. Fair play to Dan Gosling for having solidarity with his manager, picking up a £30,000 fine for his gambling misdemeanours...

Lucky seven?

So it's a £60,000 fine and a seven-match ban for the Silver Fox, and for the first three games (Fulham away followed by Crystal Palace and Everton at home) he can't even be in the stadium. The length of the ban is a Premier League record for a manager, but comes as little surprise - indeed he might have expected worse, such has been the media hysteria surrounding the incident.

Our position remains the same: while the so-called headbutt has undoubtedly been blown out of proportion by some in the media, it was nevertheless an act of rash stupidity that has brought shame on the club and undermined his status as someone our players are supposed to look up to and respect. The Silver Fox has sailed close to the wind on a number of occasions - let's hope this is the wake-up call he needs to improve his touchline conduct.

Of course, in the Silver Fox's absence all the focus and scrutiny will be on his deputy John Carver, hardly the least combustible character himself. What odds on him picking up an FA charge of his own?

Gambler Gosling caught out

Another day, another FA charge - and it's typical that the one time Dan Gosling hits the headlines it's for bad behaviour rather than any positive contribution. He's been charged with misconduct following "multiple breaches" of the betting rules - rules which he evidently didn't fully understand. While he's asked for a personal hearing in which he'll be able to defend himself, he's already admitted the charges and has engaged in damage limitation by donating his £5,000 winnings to the Newcastle Utd Foundation.

There's a recent precedent in the form of Spurs' Andros Townsend, who was fined a paltry £18,000 and banned for four months (three of which were suspended). Given that Gosling's contract is up in the summer, a ban could conceivably mean he doesn't make another appearance in a black and white shirt.

A fine old ruckus

Yesterday brought confirmation that both ourselves and Norwich had been fined for failing to control our players during the meeting of the two sides at the end of last month. We admitted the charge and consequent £20,000 fine, whereas Norwich - perhaps encouraged by the success of their appeal against Bradley Johnson's red card - denied it and, found guilty, were hit with a heavier fine of £30,000. The cash penalties aren't something either club is likely to lose much sleep over - but the suspension of Loic Remy while Johnson is free to turn out for the Canaries continues to rankle with us.

Out of control

The club as a whole may have evaded any FA charge following the touchline fracas during the home game against Southampton in December, but no such luck in the wake of the scrap between Loic Remy and Norwich's Bradley Johnson last week. We've been charged with failing to control our players over the incident, which resulted in both Remy and Johnson being sent off - only for the Canaries midfielder's dismissal to be farcically quashed on appeal.

I don't know about failing to control the players, but the Silver Fox should be up on a charge of failing to coach or motivate them, given Saturday's horrorshow...

Sweet FA once again

Well, that was a waste of time: imagining the FA might make a sensible decision for once.

The Silver Fox had ruled out appealing against Loic Remy's dismissal at Carrow Road immediately after the match, but, perhaps aware of our striker shortage in the cold light of day, we performed a U-turn and decided to seek clemency from the authorities. No such luck.

That in itself is arguably unsurprising - Remy did make a forward motion with his head, even if Bradley Johnson made a mountain out of a molehill and even if Swansea's Jonjo Shelvey escaped punishment for a more violent head movement in confrontation with Mathieu Debuchy in December.

What is staggering, though, is that they saw fit to rescind Johnson's red card on appeal. Not only was the Norwich midfielder the initial aggressor in the incident, he was as guilty of raising his hands to an opponent as Remy was.

The upshot of the debacle is that if there do turn out to be any fireworks on the pitch during the derby, Remy won't be involved. Hopefully there shouldn't be any fireworks in the stands either, though Mackem chief executive Margaret Byrne's attempt to get the message across in the programme for last night's match against Stoke was somewhat undermined by an unfortunate typo: "We have also been asked by the FA to remind all supporters about the dangers of flares and polytechnics." Presumably she went on to remind all supporters about the dangers of polyunsaturates, polyester and Polly Toynbee too...

Saints and sinners

The Silver Fox may have dismissed Saturday's touchline altercation as "pretty pathetic" and "a bit of panto season", but the FA have taken a somewhat dimmer view. While the club as a whole won't face any punishment, goalkeeping coach Andy Woodman, sent to the stands by referee Mike Jones, is up on a charge of improper conduct.

As Paul mentioned in his match report, the fact our bench were incensed by Morgan Schneiderlin's foul on Massadio Haidara was understandable, though that's not a sufficient excuse for the powers that be. Of course, had the powers that be taken appropriate action against Wigan's Callum McManaman last season, then the whole situation may not have arisen in the first place.

Sayling close to the wind

So it's a slap of the wrist and no more for Saylor over his recent questionable tweet. The FA have made the right call in not punishing him, as they (and the club) have in reminding him of his responsibilities and the public nature of social media - a fact that seems to escape the attention of an alarming number of footballers. The message is clear: if you're going to indulge in "banter", do so behind closed doors rather than in public where it can be taken out of context.

A knight's day

Saturday saw one of our recent greats, Sir Bobby Robson, remembered with a National Football Day, part of the FA's 150th anniversary celebrations. It remains the source of some pride that a man respected and admired the world over was a Geordie and manager of our club. I wonder what odds you'd get for JFK being posthumously honoured in the same fashion?

Closure - at last

Well done to the FA. In a belated fashion typical of the corpulent, flatulent old duffers, they've decided to close up the loophole in the disciplinary regulations that allowed Wigan's Callum McManaman to get away with last season's assault on Massadio Haidara, a loophole that led an incandescent Llambiarse to brand the rules "not fit for purpose". I suppose we should be grateful that they've chosen to act at all, but there's nothing like shutting the stable door once the horse has not so much bolted as completed the whole sodding race.

Explanation please

While Llambiarse blasted the FA's disciplinary procedures as "not fit for purpose" in the wake of the Callum McManaman incident, the Silver Fox has chosen to be somewhat more diplomatic in his comments on the English game's organising authority. Reacting to news of the length of Luis Suarez's ban, he's politely asked for clarification as to the rationale.

Not that he is disputing that the Uruguayan's ten-game sinbinning was justified (and neither should he - the striker's offence was unforgiveable and yet another blot on an already heavily blotted copybook); on the contrary, it's because there remains widespread bafflement at St James' Park about how McManaman's "tackle" - an incident that was hardly much less savoury and certainly much more dangerous and career-threatening - could have escaped any kind of retrospective punishment.

Setting aside the fact that calling for transparency from the FA has about as much chance of success as the Mackems making it into Europe, the FA would no doubt trot out that line about the officials having missed Suarez's chomp but witnessed McManaman's assault - which, of course, still doesn't justify issuing a ban for one incident rather than the other, but instead just underlines the perverse and arbitrary "logic" of the rules.

In any case, we can take comfort from Suarez's absence for tomorrow's encounter with Liverpool. They may not be a one-man team, but they're not far off it. It's up to us to capitalise and save our Premier League skins.

Sent to Coventry

So, while Massadio Haidara won't be appearing on the pitch in a Premier League fixture this weekend, neither will Mark Halsey. Just a shame the same can't be said with any certainty about Callum McManaman, eh?

Halsey's punishment for missing the assault is an assignment in League One, refereeing Coventry at the Ricoh Arena (in theory, at least - the venue might yet change due to the Sky Blues' ongoing woes). Just what they need, on top of a fixture against league leaders Doncaster...

FA rules not OK

For what it's worth, and if you really want to dwell on it any longer, here's the BBC's Gordon Farquhar to clarify why Callum McManaman escaped retrospective punishment for his assault on Massadio Haidara. It doesn't necessarily add anything, but does at least beg the question of what exactly does constitute "exceptional circumstances" and underline the fact that, as in the words of Llambiarse, the FA disciplinary process is indeed "not fit for purpose".

Don't look back? In anger

Yesterday afternoon simmering discontent became boiling fury as the FA announced that, contrary to expectations, Wigan's Callum McManaman would not be charged or banned for Sunday's potentially career-ending challenge on Massadio Haidara. As ludicrous as the decision sounds, it's been justified on the grounds that to do otherwise would be in contravention of the FA's own rules, which guard against "re-refereeing" matches after the final whistle: "Where one of the officials has seen a coming together of players, no retrospective action should be taken, regardless of whether he or she witnessed the full or particular nature of the challenge."

In this instance, "it has been confirmed that at least one of the match officials saw the coming together" (the linesman, as Mark Halsey had his view obstructed, regardless of whatever nonsense Dave Whelan and Roberto Martinez have been spouting), but it's the rest of the sentence is the most striking: "... though not the full extent of the challenge." If they had seen the "full extent" - as those watching at home did instantly - then they couldn't have failed to send the winger off. Players are punished retrospectively all the time, and just because the linesman happens to have seen the incident and unfathomably failed to flag doesn't diminish or detract from the seriousness of the offence. It's appalling that the Wigan player has essentially escaped a lengthy and thoroughly deserved ban purely on a technicality of the FA's own fabrication.

Understandably the club hierarchy are incandescent about this latest (non-)development. A ban may not have righted the original wrong, but it would at least have gone some way to dissipating the sense of injustice. Llambiarse was immediately on the warpath, declaring the FA's disciplinary process "not fit for purpose" and demanding urgent reforms. A completely appropriate and justified response, and yet one which you just know will turn out to be whistling in the wind - the chances of those fat, blazered buffoons putting in place sensible policy changes any time soon are zilch. I vote we set John Carver on them.

Llambiarse was rightly critical too of the fact that we learned of the decision second-hand, via the media rather than the FA themselves, and also took the opportunity to attack Delusional Dave Whelan for his preposterous claims that it was "a fair challenge".

Mirror journalist and friend of JFK Simon Bird has suggested that, depending on the severity of Haidara's injury (on which there's been no fresh update), we may look into the possibility of legal action. There is a precedent for it - indeed, we know that only too well, having had to settle out of court following a very nasty challenge from Kevin Nolan on Everton's Victor Anichebe. That said, Bird did also confidently predict that McManaman would be hit with a three-game ban, so it might be worth taking the claim with a smidgen of salt.

Anyway, now that the FA have officially sanctioned violent assault and grievous bodily harm, the Mackems would be well advised to watch their kneecaps ahead of next month's meeting at St James' Park. Perhaps we should keep Mr T chained up in a darkened room and fed on nothing but Stella until then...

Let's leave the final word to Little Big Lad, writing on Facebook: "I so hope Wigan go down."

Watching brief

Confirmation from the FA that the Silver Fox will be banned from the touchline for the next two league matches and also fined £20,000 following his inappropriately hands-on confrontation with assistant referee Peter Kirkup during the opening-day victory over Spurs. He may have dismissively described the incident as "ridiculous" and "comical", but there's nothing much comical about our manager being confined to the stands at a time when the players look in real need of his pitchside input.

When push comes to shove

As we'd anticipated, the Silver Fox is up on a misconduct charge for his shove on assistant referee Peter Kirkup during Saturday's win over Spurs. Minimal though the contact was, I don't think he can really have any complaints if a brief touchline ban is forthcoming - as he himself accepted, it wasn't exactly edifying conduct and the FA, with their emphasis on the Respect agenda, are likely to take a dim view of it.

It may well not have made any difference, but personally I'd have preferred to see more contrition in his post-match interview, rather than his beaming declaration that the incident was "ridiculous". A straight-faced expression of regret and an apology (rather than just saying "I'll have to apologise") might have stood him in better stead when he comes before the panel.

"Doing a Newcastle"

Sadly, the phrase "doing a Newcastle" doesn't yet mean "balancing the books and acting in a financially prudent and responsible fashion". No, it apparently means "throwing away a healthy lead at the top of the Premier League to hand the title to Man Utd" - according to the link that led to this article, anyway.

Under the impression that Man City might be choking as we did back in 1996, the BBC's Jimmy Smallwood has been speaking to Robert Lee. Our former midfielder pinpoints the home defeat by our closest foes that season as crucial - all the more demoralising given how severely we'd battered their defence and Peter Schmeichel in particular - and identifies failing to lift the trophy as "the biggest regret of my career", claiming "We would have been in Geordie folklore for many, many years". I wouldn't worry, Rob - you've gone down in Geordie folklore all the same.

Meanwhile, another definition of "doing a Newcastle" might be "to fail to control your players". Yep, we've been found guilty of that offence for the second time this season. Our fine, at £40,000, is double that of the Mackems for that reason - though that doesn't make it any easier to swallow when the whole situation was initially inflamed by our visitors and Lee Cattermole's first-minute assault on Mr T in particular.

Derby dust-up prompts suits into action

It's slapped wrists and smacked bottoms all round, with both ourselves and the Mackems having been landed with an FA charge for failing to control our players during Sunday's derby game. The flashpoint was James McClean's foul on Danny Simpson, which riled our man into a response and sparked a short-lived fracas.

It's an offence of which we've already been found guilty once this campaign, and while I fully expect the same result, the FA shouldn't ignore the fact that our dishonourable visitors were the firestarters - the Silver Fox was spot on in angrily denouncing Lee Cattermole's first-minute assault on Mr T as setting the tone. Unsurprisingly, Martin O'Neill has rejected that assessment, claiming it's "an extraordinary analysis of the game" and pointing to the foul and booking count. Yes, the stats are all fine and well, Martin - but that hardly takes into account the severity and violence of the challenges. Ours were petty, the Mackems' were frequently ugly.

Quotes of the day

"The most important thing is being happy with your football and I am happy here."

Heartening words from our prolific number 19. To be fair, at present we’re the fifth best team in the country and gunning for a top four finish. While he might move for more money, I expect he’s on a heavily incentivised contract which, given his goalscoring form, must have seen him pick up a fairly sizeable (and thoroughly deserved) wage this season. With Papiss Cisse alongside him, it’s no surprise to hear the player say he’s happy where he is. Long may it continue.

Further down the article though, this comment caught my eye:

"Although eyebrows were raised that what seemed a wild lunge as the Villa left-back endeavoured to block Taylor's shot went unpunished, the FA will not review the incident retrospectively as it it says it was an 'on the ball' challenge."

"On the ball challenge"? Does that make it acceptable? A challenge is either dangerous and reckless or it isn't. Does it matter if the ball is there or not? Surely the question is whether the referee saw the challenge. If he didn't, then the FA should be prepared to take action regardless of whether a challenge is "on the ball" or not.

In terms of harm to the player, Warnock's challenge was far worse than that which led to Dreamboat suffering trial by TV, when he caught Adam El-Abd of Brighton with his boot the other week. One brings a three-match ban, the other leaves our player injured and escapes censure. It’s a joke.