ftm1974
Midfield
No - the club had every one of the 800+ messages between Johnson and the girl.
By the first few messages, she had told him she had just turned 15.
-
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
- Thread starter Geronimo
- Start date
- Status
No - the club had every one of the 800+ messages between Johnson and the girl.
By the first few messages, she had told him she had just turned 15.
J
johnson
Guest
@Captain_Fishpaste
I never really agree with anything he says ever, but seen his said this in The Sun (unfortunately for him considering their front page)
It's a highly emotive issue and I can understand why it's important for fans to put the club's actions under some scrutiny.
However, I can also appreciate the very difficult position the club, through no fault of their own, found themselves in.
I don't know what exactly Adam Johnson told them and, in all honesty, I'm not even sure of what they were legally allowed to do anyway. But I know that, right up until the start of the trial, Johnson was telling a court that he was not guilty and therefore had all the rights attached to the presumption of innocence.
As it transpired, that was just one of what turned out to be many lies told by Johnson over the course of a year and the club have become just another addition to a lengthy list of recipients of those lies.
I don't believe for one second the daft suggestion they were putting Premier League points and survival before morality.
I can, of course, appreciate that there is a morality perspective in all of this, but I'd personally have had just as big an issue from a morality point of view had my club pre-judged, condemned and punished someone who was protesting his innocence to a court of law. Once the courts were involved, I think they and their judgement had to be deferred to. The course had to be run.
It's easy, after he had changed his plea to 'guilty' to go back with the benefit of that hindsight and assess decisions made without it. Had the club had that information earlier, they have been very clear in their statement, and immediate actions that followed the guilty plea, that they'd have handled things very differently.
Every part of the Adam Johnson situation has been unsettling from the start, but ultimately I'm comfortable with how the club handled it.
Think that is one of the best articulated responses have seen, perfect answer to some of those revelling in it on here IMO.
I never really agree with anything he says ever, but seen his said this in The Sun (unfortunately for him considering their front page)
It's a highly emotive issue and I can understand why it's important for fans to put the club's actions under some scrutiny.
However, I can also appreciate the very difficult position the club, through no fault of their own, found themselves in.
I don't know what exactly Adam Johnson told them and, in all honesty, I'm not even sure of what they were legally allowed to do anyway. But I know that, right up until the start of the trial, Johnson was telling a court that he was not guilty and therefore had all the rights attached to the presumption of innocence.
As it transpired, that was just one of what turned out to be many lies told by Johnson over the course of a year and the club have become just another addition to a lengthy list of recipients of those lies.
I don't believe for one second the daft suggestion they were putting Premier League points and survival before morality.
I can, of course, appreciate that there is a morality perspective in all of this, but I'd personally have had just as big an issue from a morality point of view had my club pre-judged, condemned and punished someone who was protesting his innocence to a court of law. Once the courts were involved, I think they and their judgement had to be deferred to. The course had to be run.
It's easy, after he had changed his plea to 'guilty' to go back with the benefit of that hindsight and assess decisions made without it. Had the club had that information earlier, they have been very clear in their statement, and immediate actions that followed the guilty plea, that they'd have handled things very differently.
Every part of the Adam Johnson situation has been unsettling from the start, but ultimately I'm comfortable with how the club handled it.
Think that is one of the best articulated responses have seen, perfect answer to some of those revelling in it on here IMO.
T
TAFKAHM
Guest
But at the time pleaded innocent to sexual activity, which makes a big difference ?
Not at all. It would be normal to suspend with pay in this situation.
The judge wouldn't allow jury to consider it.
Do you think the fact he was initially suspended for two weeks affected the jury? The judge would simply say, 'this is normal, blah blah blah, no inferences'.
All SAFC would have had to say is 'given the nature of the allegations AJ faces in his private life we have decided it is best he doesn't play for the club until he has been able to resolve those issues'
deleted user 785
Striker
They shouldn't have suspended him then let him play again.
Deleted User 18963
New Member
That is just it though, I dint have the chance to come into contact with information and evidence about the case. The club did but choose not to act on it. Massive error in judgement.
Yes, but you can plead 'not guilty' when you've basically admitted to the police you have done the offence. That is what AJ did, and it appears SAFC knew that.
T
TAFKAHM
Guest
I bet every fucker wants us relegated now !!!
deleted user 785
Striker
Suspended him, allowed him to play then put on gardening leave? The club also said it took legal advice, I wonder what they were told?
walesie
Striker
Not sure how they could have prevented us from putting him on gardening leave
O
ollie c
Guest
It probably includes some on here.
They sought legal advice and the PFA stuck their nebs in. It was only ever going to be done this way imo. It's sickening that the club are the villains now.
I keep remembering girls at school who thought they were mint going out with 20 year olds...
So every paper that had their respective journalists in the court room have all managed to 'blow this story up' in exactly the same way? How sneaky of them!
On a side note I was half asleep by the point I finished posting so may have missed some of what you said/ forgotten, if so, sorry for saying the same things...
Deleted User 18963
New Member
With full pay until outcome of trail? They couldnt.
deleted user 785
Striker
No idea mate. I think it's not the deed that most people are really bothered about as much as the lack of detail.
ftm1974
Midfield
He wasn't protesting his innocence to the club, though - he was admitting his guilt whilst telling them he would plead not guilty.
He had admitted to Margaret Byrne sexual activity with a minor and grooming - and she had police transcripts and 800+ messages which backed that up 100%.
mackem in milan
Winger
Don't the club ban supporters charged with football related crimes before a verdict is made? I think the lad found not guilty at the Central Station incident was an employee of the club who got sacked. Surely, Johnson could have been sacked for bringing the club into disrepute without them having to make a decision on his criminal guilt. We only have Johnson's word as to what the club knew and we don't know exactly what the PFA knew and did.
- Status
