• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.

That's utter drivel. For many it's a chance to constantly defend the club.
Usually i can abide your posts but you have gone on this strange Lauder like mission to be the biggest voice in argument against the club....yes i feel the statement was placatory but posting constantly isn't going to help, if anything it's making you look like a bit of an obsessive dick for constantly going on about it, it's an emotive subject i get it but there is only one victim in this case, it's not SAFC and it's certainly not you.
 
You're just completely wrong, there. Why would it be okay to pay a contract off but not suspend with pay? What would happen to a teacher, a doctor, a policeman up for those allegations?

Suspend with pay would be the norm.
with a teacher,doctor,policeman up for them charges there's a major safeguarding issue that can't be overcome. If a factory worker (for instance) got hit with them charges they couldn't suspend him while the case is ongoing as there's no safeguarding issue in that environment. As per the clubs statement they Did a safeguarding review before they lifted his suspension which means he'd have no interaction with fans and it was agreed by his legal team and the PFA.
 
It's got to do with the fact people are believing what Johnson said and backing it up with the fact his barrister supported him. When in fact that happens all of the time but it doesn't make it true.

he was under oath and the club have not denied it.... of course I believe him.
 
I agree. It loos like legal cacbabble to try and negate responsibility.

Simple question to my football club. Did you know that Johnson had groomed and kissed a child when you met with him and his legal brief last year?
Should they answer each and every crackpot allegation made by a proven liar and sex-offender? They've said enough IMO, people will never be satisfied anyway.
 
The club haven't denied it have they? If it was trap fabrication they would have.
Maybe they don't feel the need to, I've already said I don't know why they aren't you seem though to be ignoring that I've said that I know from first hand experience that witnesses lie and barristers are very clever at twisting the truth to suit their argument.
 
That has fuck all to do with this though.

It does though. Do you really believe the club knew about whatsapp pics / kissing & whatever else and didn't act on it? Risked safeguarding issues and legal issues to protect johnson?

Or could it be they've manipulated things or lied about what the club did or didnt know. It goes on all the time, not sure why anyone is surprised

Club cant win no matter what they do
 
with a teacher,doctor,policeman up for them charges there's a major safeguarding issue that can't be overcome. If a factory worker (for instance) got hit with them charges they couldn't suspend him while the case is ongoing as there's no safeguarding issue in that environment. As per the clubs statement they Did a safeguarding review before they lifted his suspension which means he'd have no interaction with fans and it was agreed by his legal team and the PFA.

They couldn't suspend him with pay? What on earth are you on about, you might not be able to suspend WITHOUT PAY but of course you could WITH pay. If you don't know what you're talking about that's fine but an option to suspend with pay is of course on the table man, it's just ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top