• 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.

James said:
No I'm not, I just don't think it's appropriate for anyone charged for a serious crime to be representing the club, whether they're a first choice player, a reserve player or a kit man. It's best for all involved if they're just taken out of the spotlight and we let the courts decide before we bring them back/terminate their contract.
Click to expand...

Lets just agree to disagree. If he gets found guilty, then I'll be one of the first ones wanting him out of the club, until then he's innocent and should be allowed to ply his trade....
 
PeruzziWatch said:
What stance? Are they expected to assume the man is guilty and therefore distance themselves from him? Nobody should be assuming anything, it is up to a court of law to find him guilty or innocent. Drink driving is a very serious offence, do clubs automatically suspend a player if they are charged with that? I honestly don't know, but I don't think I've seen clubs do that.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously comparing drink driving with the charges that are hanging over Johnson? f***ing hell man!
You tell me anyone in public eye who have been charged with an offence like this who have been allowed to carry on as normal?
 
Scorefrom a throw in said:
Forget the circumstances of what's been said on the net,the fact is what AJ has been charged and yes,innocent until proven otherwise. its how the charge reads though. like I said,it doesn't matter the circumstances,he my well get a not guilty and eventually all goes back to normal. Unfortunately Sunderland FC are in a real dilemma. They can't afford to lose him and equally they have to be seen to be doing the moral thing by suspending till the case is sorted.

I actually did think they'd suspended him until everything was sorted and if Sunderland were in a better position,obviously they would. Also if you or me facing these charges and then having to face going to work the next day,let along facing 28,000 people. He hasn't been found guilty,but as things stand,maybe suspending him for the time being may possibly of been for the best all around and I'm not judging him by any means,I would say the same of any player in any team. We are all blinded by our respective teams,but sometimes we have to be more logical about things.
Click to expand...

:eek: WHAT THE FUCKETY FUCK!!!!!!!! :eek: ..MMMMMMN Reserve squad........(Sniff sniff) :idea:
 
dcl0sc said:
Lets just agree to disagree. If he gets found guilty, then I'll be one of the first ones wanting him out of the club, until then he's innocent and should be allowed to ply his trade....
Click to expand...

Aye fair enough, it's a tough one. Really am praying to god that he's found not guilty, it would be a massive blow for the club.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
Last time we had one of those we sold him for £5m the next week, and turned down £5m for Ji Dong Won who was meant to be his replacement. :lol:
Click to expand...
The reason I bring that up is because a charge of drink driving is usually going to be black or white, you either did drink drive or somehow the breathaliser was broken or someone has framed you, but that's pretty unlikely. So people generally will condemn something like that immediately because they know it's got to be true. In this case, we cannot condemn Johnson for something he hasn't been found guilty of. All we know right now is that there are serious charges, only the trial will give us answers. People seem to be suggesting that the club are failing to condemn him or something by not suspending him. It's not the club's duty to justify having a contractual agreement with a player with no previous criminal convictions. It is not their fault either that they've winded up being associated with a player who has had charges made against him. Should they be punishing themselves by suspending a player because he MIGHT be found guilty?
 
PeruzziWatch said:
Should they be punishing themselves by suspending a player because he MIGHT be found guilty?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, yes. The BBC wouldn't allow a TV presenter to continue presenting the news if he'd just been charged on the same things Johnson has been. You're still taking the 'innocent until guilty' stance as you're not sacking them or anything, you're just taking them out of the spotlight until it all blows over. It protects the company and stops people talking about the person in question.
 
PeruzziWatch said:
The reason I bring that up is because a charge of drink driving is usually going to be black or white, you either did drink drive or somehow the breathaliser was broken or someone has framed you, but that's pretty unlikely. So people generally will condemn something like that immediately because they know it's got to be true. In this case, we cannot condemn Johnson for something he hasn't been found guilty of. All we know right now is that there are serious charges, only the trial will give us answers. People seem to be suggesting that the club are failing to condemn him or something by not suspending him. It's not the club's duty to justify having a contractual agreement with a player with no previous criminal convictions. It is not their fault either that they've winded up being associated with a player who has had charges made against him. Should they be punishing themselves by suspending a player because he MIGHT be found guilty?
Click to expand...

The problem is they have already done that. Then undone it.
 
Keawyeds said:
Once again this illustrates the point that people should not be named until they're sent to court.
If he's innocent, and let's be fair, it's creeping steadily towards a big if as he's been charged, this could ruin his career and his life.
Click to expand...

It already has marra. Innocent or not theres nee coming back to "poster boy" status from this stuff.

SAFC fucked up from the off by their usage of the word "suspension". The term shouldve been summit like "Leave of absence to fight any charges if made". The fact that theyve backed themselves into a corner by nowt more than a lack of common sense is mindboggling.....but is anyone surprised?

johnson said:
Am I missing something?

Why is this a ridiculous decision

He hasn't been found Guilty of anything
Click to expand...

FFS man even Sima hit the nail on the head.
 
Last edited:
riffraff said:
SAFC fucked up from the off by their usage of the word "suspension". The term shouldve been summit like "Leave of absence to fight any charges if made".
.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I said earlier. They don't even need to officially suspend him again, just take him out of the squad until this is all cleared up one way or another.
 
James said:
In my opinion, yes. The BBC wouldn't allow a TV presenter to continue presenting the news if he'd just been charged on the same things Johnson has been. You're still taking the 'innocent until guilty' stance as you're not sacking them or anything, you're just taking them out of the spotlight until it all blows over. It protects the company and stops people talking about the person in question.
Click to expand...
But people are also saying that the club are failing to take the moral stance on this, what you are describing there is very much a decision made with the intention of calming the storm. Taking the person out of the spotlight to protect them and protect the TV show from becoming a circus. It's not actually anything to do with morality. That said, it might have a lot to do with common sense. But relating that scenario to football, maybe Johnson does not want to be protected right now, maybe the club don't see suspending him as actually helping anyone. Unlike on a tv show, all the footballer has to do is let his feet do the talking. And the club will be the focus of this attention regardless, they can't exactly calm the storm, it's not going to get brushed under the carpet if they suspend him. It might not be a wise decision to keep playing him, but is it actually immoral or wrong? Maybe the club just see it as the best thing to do from a business/football point of view. And if he's fully fit and can play a part in keeping us up, are they mad to think it could be the best route to go?
 
There are some things in life that you just have to put up with.

One of those is innocent until proven guilty.

Pretty sure that if you were safe he would have acquired a hamstring injury so that the club weren't embarrassed.
 
People seem to be judging the club for being cynical and looking at this from a financial point of view (i.e. how much Johnson could save us if he scored a few goals). What exactly is wrong with that? The club has paid him a shit load of money to do exactly that. They haven't paid him to get embroiled in a situation like this or to sit at home all day until he can go to court.
 
I don't agree with it tbh, I'm a huge believer in innocent until proven otherwise but still, with the nature of this offence no matter how bad our struggles are on the pitch it just doesn't seem right to have him made available for selection IMO.
 
black-cat said:
I don't agree with it tbh, I'm a huge believer in innocent until proven otherwise but still, with the nature of this offence no matter how bad our struggles are on the pitch it just doesn't seem right to have him made available for selection IMO.
Click to expand...
Quite clearly not :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top