Nottingham Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis says he did not deliberately spit on the floor as match officials walked past, but was simply coughing as a result of his ciagar habit.
Marinakis has been handed a five-match stadium ban after being found guilty of improper conduct over the incident at the City Ground on 28 September.
Forest were beaten 1-0 by Fulham on the occasion and the match officials accused the club’s owner of spitting on the floor as they walked past him in the tunnel after the game.
Referee Josh Smith told an independent regulatory commission: ‘As I walked down the tunnel at the end of the match, Mr Evangelos Marinakis, the owner of Nottingham Forest, was stood on my left-hand side at the end of the tunnel.
‘As I walked past him, he spat on the floor next to my left foot. This was also seen by James Mainwaring and Tim Robinson.’
Assistant referee Mr Mainwaring said: ‘He did not say anything but as we approached him and was close, he spat on the ground as we approached him.’
Fourth official Mr Robinson added: ‘I then came back out to continue monitoring the tunnel area and witnessed Mr Evangelos Marinakis making a spitting action as the match officials walked past him.’
The club has now appealed the Greek businessman’s five-match ban, claiming that he was simply coughing and had accidently released some fluid onto the floor near the officials.
His defence presented to the independent panel stated that he was ‘suffering from a hacking cough on the day of the fixture’ and ‘felt a cough coming and thus coughed on the floor’.
Marinakis smokes ‘two or three cigars a day’ and ‘often needs to expectorate and/or coughs,’ accepting ‘that phlegm or spittle may have been produced, this was as a result of coughing’ but if there was any ‘it certainly was not aimed at the
referee’s feet and did not hit anybody’.
The independent commission did not accept the reasoning from Marinakis, writing on Tuesday: ‘We are satisfied that he deliberately spat on the floor as the referee walked past him. Regrettably, we regard EM’s (Marinakis’) attempt to explain and justify his conduct as completely implausible.
‘The only reasonable inference we can draw from our rejection of EM’s explanation for the spit is that EM deliberately spat in a disrespectful and disgusting display of contempt towards the match officials.
‘In our view, there is no other credible explanation for his conduct. In the circumstances, it clearly amounts to conduct within the meaning of Rule E3. Consequently, we found the (FA) charge proven.
‘An egregious display of disrespectful behaviour such as this fuels disrespect towards match officials. This was not conduct triggered in the heat of the moment as a result of a decision on the field. There is no excuse for it
‘EM’s position as the owner of the football club aggravates the sanction. His conduct was entirely unacceptable and deserving of a serious punishment.’
.
.