• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

BBC Johnson free to play for Sunderland

  • Thread starter Thread starter RTG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Father Jack Hackett said:
I think any evidence would see to that. I do agree that the club must be extremely confident in his innocence but, I do think the negativity surrounding it could cost us. Remember, referees are human beings with emotions, as are opposition players and it could be one decision that goes against us
Click to expand...
ajthemackem said:
Have to agree with the boy here. The Club will have access to far more details about the case than we do, in this situation I'd just leave it up to them.
Click to expand...
Simply not true, the people with access to all the evidence are the police and CPS who have pressed charges. You're telling us that the club have access to information that leads them to believe he'll be acquitted. Rubbish.
 

johnson said:
Am I missing something?

Why is this a ridiculous decision

He hasn't been found Guilty of anything
Click to expand...
Not necessarily the right decision but not ridiculous in my opinion. Could've called it either way. The fuck up was the earlier suspension and then revoking it with no new development in the case.

I do believe many on here won't agree with the decision on moral grounds which is fair enough but sadly there's a lot of the usual suspects I believe are using it as a stick to beat the club with and point score in their anti SAFC agendas.
 
No easy answer
If he is innocent then we should have supported him and allowed him to play
If he is found guilty we should never have allowed him to play for us.
Lad I worked with got sent down for similar charges for 8 years, he worked until the court case was heard and he was sentenced, no one was aware of his wrong doings.
Legally I assume the club have approached the PFA for guidance
 
Botchie said:
Short has spent the last 4 years trying to establish SAFC in other countries. He has entered partnerships with other clubs and large companies. I can only assume they are aware of the facts and have complete faith that the system will prove the lad is innocent. If not and this really is a shitstorm then
every board member should be forced to resign for putting the wealth of the premier league before the dignity of the club. I'm saying nothing else on the matter, the truth will come out in the long run.
Click to expand...
i think they will be foaming either way especially bidvest seeing it splattered in pictures all over child sex charge stories.
 
JimmyQuinn said:
No they haven't. Don't manipulate the arguments of those who disagree with you. It makes you look stupid.
Click to expand...

Right but I don't get what's changed now he's standing trial? The precedent has already been set by the club when we allowed Bramble to play up until his trial.
 
Tonton Zola Moukoko said:
Gets arrested. Immediate suspension. Club looks at the situation with legal team and reckon it's bollocks so suspension lifted. In the meantime, after a very high profile arrest, the cps make the wrong decision to charge. Club maintain stance with employee.

Could quite easily be that scenario. Christ knows the cps make plenty of bad decisions.
Click to expand...
Let's hope so.
 
PeruzziWatch said:
What's more serious than football? ;)

Just kidding, obviously, but another question... why does this charge change anything? He's still innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Nothing has changed.
Click to expand...
The charge changes everything, it means there is now enough evidence for a realistic chance of prosecution and will attend court. He shouldn't be anywhere near the club again unless he is acquitted
 
Johnsafc said:
Right but I don't get what's changed now he's standing trial? The precedent has already been set by the club when we allowed Bramble to play up until his trial.
Click to expand...

Are you sure on that? I genuinely can't recall, but didn't think he did.

Either way, just because they've set their own amoral precedent doesn't mean it makes repeating it acceptable. Honestly, if we were safe, or if it was Will Buckley and not Adam Johnson, would you be so defensive of the club's stance?
 
JimmyQuinn said:
The trial is on May 20th.

He's not a primary school teacher so we shouldn't hold him to a decent moral standard? He's a bloke who is applauded on a weekly basis by people on the basis of the club he plays for, and in being charged with this he's tarnished the club's image - the club had a chance to do the right thing, morally, and suspend him until it's over.

Instead they've put Premier League survival over morality. Class.
Click to expand...
but why should he be suspended, why can't he do his work?

He's not been held in custody, he's not considered a danger to the public, he can still live his life, go out for leisure purposes, so why should he be prevented from doing his job?
 
JimmyQuinn said:
The trial is on May 20th.

He's not a primary school teacher so we shouldn't hold him to a decent moral standard? He's a bloke who is applauded on a weekly basis by people on the basis of the club he plays for, and in being charged with this he's tarnished the club's image - the club had a chance to do the right thing, morally, and suspend him until it's over.

Instead they've put Premier League survival over morality. Class.
Click to expand...
That's just the very first stage. If he pleads not guilty I'd doubt it will get to trial before 2016 at the very earliest. Really isn't all that easy to suspend him. Whether they play him is another matter entirely.
 
If he plays and scores/assists the goals to keep us up and then gets convicted, we will forever be tarnished and lambasted by other clubs.

"The only reason you're still in the league is because of a..." etc...
 
Rizla said:
Simply not true, the people with access to all the evidence are the police and CPS who have pressed charges. You're telling us that the club have access to information that leads them to believe he'll be acquitted. Rubbish.
Click to expand...
They'll have been able to speak to their employee and his lawyer I should imagine. That in itself is far more information than we'll ever get.

I have my doubts about her on footballing matters, but the Chief Executive is a lawyer by trade. The club will be dealing with this in the right manner.
 
JimmyQuinn said:
Are you sure on that? I genuinely can't recall, but didn't think he did.

Either way, just because they've set their own amoral precedent doesn't mean it makes repeating it acceptable. Honestly, if we were safe, or if it was Will Buckley and not Adam Johnson, would you be so defensive of the club's stance?
Click to expand...

Yeah he was initially suspended and then played up until the summer when he stood trial iirc. In fact I swear he scored against Stoke H when he came back into the team.

Maybe not because there's 6 games left but we did allow Bramble to play and we weren't in danger, also other clubs have allowed their players to play. Most notably Lee Hughes played right up to conviction, Remy played until he was found innocent.

I can't see why the clubs stance should have changed just because it's went to trial. Unless they think he's guilty obviously and something happens at his plea hearing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top