• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    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.
I back the club me, I honestly don't give a shiny shite anymore tbh. Why do some folks seem hellbent on causing a massive stink and are relishing sticking the boot in ? Sad state of affairs really, still Sunderland til I die - let it go you whinging fannies :lol:
 

JimmyQuinn said:
Nope, I'm advising that the same people are likely to do similar.

But aye, you go around condemning freedom of speech, all in the name of a club that wouldn't give two fucks about you if the shoe was on the other foot. People have a right to air their views.

Edit: also, you sound like a bit of a moron. Encouraging people to 'do something about it' that isn't just on the internet. Then saying you'll restrict their right to do so. Fool.
Click to expand...

I'm not doing that you clown ...... I'm saying I have the right to voice my opinion in response.

If you think I'm a moron but advocate disrupting people's enjoyment when they've spent a lot of time, effort and money then that says everything about you.

People, as at West Ham, have children there and don't want to have to cope with attention seeking 'activists' inside a football ground.
 
Reiver said:
I'm not doing that you clown ...... I'm saying I have the right to voice my opinion in response.

If you think I'm a moron but advocate disrupting people's enjoyment when they've spent a lot of time, effort and money then that says everything about you.
Click to expand...

"Only half-unfurled because people strongly objected" - makes it sound like you forcibly stopped them. If not, fair enough.

And no, it doesn't. The same people will have spent exactly the same resources. Additionally, blithely standing by in the name of not upsetting anyone is hardly a principled stance, something you seem so keen to hammer on about it.
 
Cappuccino Kid said:
Yet they were supposedly in receipt of messages where he asked how old the girl was.

So it's madness to think that a lot of experienced, qualified legal people reckoned he was going to pitch up at court and enter a Not Guilty plea with such compelling evidence against him.

Its sounds like a right f***ing mess from all involved.
Click to expand...
Yes, but he did initially plead not guilty in the first instance. He stuck to that until the day before the trial. This was anything but easy or straight forward for the club.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Here's what I have said criticising the club. I believe what I have written here is fairly representative of the arguments put forward on this thread.

"The two statements that come out of the trial that needed to be addressed in the statement are that in about May last year:

  • Johnson admitted to a senior official of the club that he had committed an offence by kissing an underage girl in a sexual manner
  • Senior official(s) of the club saw a transcript of WhatsApp messages that indicated Johnson was guilty of a sex offence against an underage girl

Neither of those statements are denied in the statement."

You have said that people saying these things on this thread are hysterical attention seekers, conspiracy theorists, only criticising the club for the sake of it, happy that the club is being pilloried in the media, and want this to be an issue when it isn't.
Click to expand...
That's what he claims.

How exactly did the club get hold of the Whatsapp messages?
 
redandwhiterob said:
Riv is the king of lauding his views on here and continually bumping threads to give us his opinions. Never letting nothing drop but dragging things on for days and days yet it seems people are somehow out of order in his eyes for wanting genuine concerns answered by the club.
Click to expand...

Not at all, you just keep ignoring what I've said to maintain your argument.

If you'd pay attention I wouldn't have to repeat it and 'drag it out for days'.

Demanding action by the club on here - attention seeking.

Demanding action by the club by contacting the club - right and proper.
 
redandwhiterob said:
Johnson's ex girlfriend spoke under oath that he told her last September he was planning on pleading guilty to two counts

Imo the only reason he never pleaded guilty before was he was hoping to pay her off and put a gagging order on her. Only when this never happened he was left with no option but to plead guilty
Click to expand...
If he had told the club that surely they would have sacked him then.
 
I'm very disappointed in the actions of all the other clubs in the Premiership, they should have refused to let their players on the same pitch as him.
We would be top of the table now!
 
Must be bored said:
Is it claimed that he admitted to the club official that he'd committed an offence? To be an offence it also required him to not reasonably believe she was under 16 at the time, I've not read anything that suggests he told the club that he knew she was 15 at the time of doing it. That leads on to the second point about the messages. I don't know exactly what was said in his evidence but the only direct quote I've read of the What's App messages is that the club "were aware of the What'sApp messages". Assuming this isn't another lie, and there were plenty told by him, what does that even mean? Does it mean they were aware of the content in them or just that there were aware that the prosecution case included messages between them.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is claimed that he admitted to the club that he'd committed an offence and that the club saw documents from which they became aware there was evidence that he'd committed an offence. If that is not true, it would have been much better for the club to have said they saw, heard and read nothing that would have made them aware he had acted inappropriately prior to his guilty plea. That statement is conspicuous by its absence from the club's statement yesterday and is why the media are all guns blazing today.
 
Rober33 said:
They only sent him a two line email when he was sacked you know and he had no other contact from any officials at the club. Shocking stuff.
Click to expand...
Not fair on the bloke IMO. Short should resign, so should Byrne, Johnson should be made club ambassador with monty and Bally chairman and chief exec.
 
JimmyQuinn said:
"Only half-unfurled because people strongly objected" - makes it sound like you forcibly stopped them. If not, fair enough.

And no, it doesn't. The same people will have spent exactly the same resources. Additionally, blithely standing by in the name of not upsetting anyone is hardly a principled stance, something you seem so keen to hammer on about it.
Click to expand...

Oh is that what I'm doing ...... what I should be doing is waving a tea towel at a football match and getting on the telly.

Yes that's a principled stance the club simply won't be able to resist :lol:
 
Reiver said:
Oh is that what I'm doing ...... what I should be doing is waving a tea towel at a football match and getting on the telly.

Yes that's a principled stance the club simply won't be able to resist :lol:
Click to expand...

So, protesting in person isn't enough. Vocally stating your view on a public forum isn't enough. Writing a letter might be enough but no one will see it unless the club decides - for reasons unknown - to tell everyone about it.

You're an idiot mate.
 
Reiver said:
Not at all, you just keep ignoring what I've said to maintain your argument.

If you'd pay attention I wouldn't have to repeat it and 'drag it out for days'.

Demanding action by the club on here - attention seeking.

Demanding action by the club by contacting the club - right and proper.
Click to expand...

Then you must be the biggest attention seeker on here ffs:lol: It's message board to air your views. Are you suggesting I shouldn't be able to state I want x player to be dropped from the team for the match on Saturday on here but instead write to our manager instead? :lol:
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Yes, it is claimed that he admitted to the club that he'd committed an offence and that the club saw documents from which they became aware there was evidence that he'd committed an offence. If that is not true, it would have been much better for the club to have said they saw, heard and read nothing that would have made them aware he had acted inappropriately prior to his guilty plea. That statement is conspicuous by its absence from the club's statement yesterday and is why the media are all guns blazing today.
Click to expand...
Why would they need to refute the allegations of a proven liar?
 
Johnson's team allege the club knew all along.

The club deny this in the strongest terms.

If it's indeed true that the club knew nothing of the messages or plea prior to it all happening and coming out, these allegations from Johnson's team are indeed very strong, and incorrect. Perhaps the club should look to counter and take it to court. They've lost a lot of money on Johnson, they've had their reputation damaged massively. Are the club taking him to court? Doesn't look like it. It all makes it look like they're scared the truth (that they knew all along) will come out, so it's the classic Sunderland PR defence of sticking their heads in the sand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top