• 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.
johnson said:
See that is your only defence, if I am an oddball, then so are most of the people on this thread, because the majority disagrees with you

Throw all the personal insults around you want.
Click to expand...
Haha, there you go again. You've stated your speaking for the majority numerous times on this thread and then accuse me of doing the same, despite the fact I haven't.

That's why you're odd.
 

johnson said:
Yes.



:lol::lol: fuck off man.

I couldn't give a shit.

The majority of SAFC fans disagree with you on here, so stop pretending they don't, its why you have been awake all night trying to change people's minds.
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending most SAFC fans on here don't disagree with me. But imo it falls in the same category as scousers getting behind Suarez. People aren't exactly balanced when it comes to their football team, you do realise?
 
Rober33 said:
If they categorically had the evidence which proved that Johnson was guilty and had not even discussed sacking him why wouldn't they?

They could have proved without doubt that his wages were not a factor in him continuing to plead not guilty if that was the case.
Click to expand...

Because 1) There may have been other information which Johnson didn't want in court, which could have been bad for him and bad for SAFC, who knows 2) This was a minor matter in the trial. It's only a big deal in the context of SAFC, not AJ's trial. 3) It's very hard to insist someone gives evidence when it is a fairly small matter, hence why no Fletcher either once he decided he didn't want to testify anymore.
 
Tadger said:
I find it impossible to believe that SAFC's CEO, a qualified lawyer, wouldn't have had a gander at information of one of her employees regarding a criminal investigation.

She wants sacking for incompetence at the very least if she didn't look at them.
Click to expand...

You have no idea if she could even legally look at them, if she was just passing them on.

Even if she had full access that in no way suggests that she could or should have trawled through all 834 messages to try and ascertain Johnson's guilt, that is what the criminal investigation was for.
 
hexhamali said:
Bollocks
Click to expand...

Have a look at the comments section on every major media outlet, have a look at other team's football boards, have a look at what pundits/ commentators are saying in the press. If this board is 70% in favour of the club's decision then out in the real world it's 90% against it.

samaistonsrightfoot said:
Not just the fans either. The statement has caused a complete shit storm with the press for the exact same reason as some fans are unhappy about it. I still don't know where I sit with it tbh. If the club had said in the statement that they denied all accusations of knowing about what went on then I would take their word for it whole heartedly and that would have been the end to it as far as I'm concerned. It could have been put to bed once and for all. As they haven't done that they have opened themselves up to this criticism. The fact they haven't denied these accusations, coupled with the fact they are refusing to sue the player doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Click to expand...

I think that's the same for all of us who are criticising the club, tbf.
 
haway said:
Have a look at the comments section on every major media outlet, have a look at other team's football boards, have a look at what pundits/ commentators are saying in the press. If this board is 70% in favour of the club's decision then out in the real world it's 90% against it.
Click to expand...
Tadger said:
If this was another club we'd be reacting the same. Blindly defending everything the club does is something we take the piss out of Scousers for.

As a genuine Sunderland supporter, I want my club ran by respectable people.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the media often manipulate the way they report the news to push an agenda. More examples of this can be seen in both the migrant crisis and the benefit cuts.
 
janey said:
I think he thinks if he puts up the same quotes enough times it will become true.
Click to expand...

Nah, but the fact every media outlet, all with different journalists present in court, all managed to come up with the same version of what was said does kind of suggest it's true.

I guess your explanation is that the media fairy all told them to write the same thing?

sksk3021 said:
If part of the defence is that the club knew all along that he was guilty it would seem logical to compel someone at the club to testify on that fact I'd have thought.
Click to expand...

That isn't what he said though, he never suggested that. What he was saying is he didn't lie to the club, not that they knew he was guilty.
 
Rober33 said:
You have no idea if she could even legally look at them, if she was just passing them on.

Even if she had full access that in no way suggests that she could or should have trawled through all 834 messages to try and ascertain Johnson's guilt, that is what the criminal investigation was for.
Click to expand...

And yet, it was alleged in court and stated by the judge at the end of the trial as an Agreed Fact that the club saw evidence that he was guilty, and the club's statement supposedly in response to what was said in court was not to respond to that allegation at all.
 
Rober33 said:
You have no idea if she could even legally look at them, if she was just passing them on.

Even if she had full access that in no way suggests that she could or should have trawled through all 834 messages to try and ascertain Johnson's guilt, that is what the criminal investigation was for.
Click to expand...

It's not about ascertaining Johnson's guilt, it's about avoiding a potential PR shitstorm for the club by distancing itself from an employee facing serious charges.

She's a bloody lawyer, you think they don't spend most of their careers scouring through paperwork?
 
HutchSafc said:
Because she was aware of what Johnson did and let him continue to represent the club.
Click to expand...
This is the nub of the matter. If SAFC had the information that indicated some form of conviction was very possible then he should not have kicked another ball for them until it was resolved.
With all the legal experts available to a huge turnover company they must have known there was a chance he would be found guilty and with child abuse such a poison issue I just can't believe the club got it so wrong.
Further clarification us needed by SAFC as well as the resignation of the CEO
 
hexhamali said:
Unfortunately the media often manipulate the way they report the news to push an agenda. More examples of this can be seen in both the migrant crisis and the benefit cuts.
Click to expand...

Do you think they are all manipulating their comments sections to be anti-safc? Is this part of the anti-safc conspiracy?
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
Not just the fans either. The statement has caused a complete shit storm with the press for the exact same reason as some fans are unhappy about it. I still don't know where I sit with it tbh. If the club had said in the statement that they denied all accusations of knowing about what went on then I would take their word for it whole heartedly and that would have been the end to it as far as I'm concerned. It could have been put to bed once and for all. As they haven't done that they have opened themselves up to this criticism. The fact they haven't denied these accusations, coupled with the fact they are refusing to sue the player doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Click to expand...
I can understand them not suing the player, I think that would cause more hassle than its worth & rake everything up again for the victim. Completely agree with the rest of the post though.
 
haway said:
Nah, but the fact every media outlet, all with different journalists present in court, all managed to come up with the same version of what was said does kind of suggest it's true.

I guess your explanation is that the media fairy all told them to write the same thing?
Click to expand...

You just being silly now, the news story that will sell is obvious, of course they've all came to the same conclusion.

As I've said a million stories written about the same quote still adds nothing to the debate especially when none of us have seen the original quotes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top