• 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.

theinediblebulk said:
We did suspend him. Just that the club are legally obliged to sort out the situation as swiftly as possible. As I've already said, after discussions with outside agencies regarding safeguarding, independent legal advice and the PFA, the suspension was lifted. Not saying it's right, just that's the law.
Click to expand...

The club could still tell the manager: 'Look just don't play him, we've seen proof he is a nonce'
 
partridge amongst the pig said:
It looks like they knew about the messages and the kiss though. That's enough for a suspension surely?
Click to expand...

The club took legal advice involved the PFA and took the word of the player who was insistent he was going to fight all the charges,it's easy to take the side of the club because it's our club but i'm quite satisfied that the club have done everything by the book and were let down by Johnsons' guilty pleas in court.
 
theinediblebulk said:
As I said, that's the legal framework that an employer has to operate under. A decision was made regarding what was known at the time after discussions. Why and how that decision was arrived at, I have no idea, what with not being party to the discussions. Not sure anyone on here was present at any of them meetings either. Just seems to be loads thinking you can suspend indefinitely when the law says you can't.
Click to expand...
Who has said indefinitely?

Pending the outcome of legal proceedings is the answer for me.
 
PFA Statement

The PFA notes and respects the Crown Court’s decision in the trial of Adam Johnson and, in light of the media enquiries received, makes the following statement.

Players are role models and as such have a responsibility to behave in an appropriate way. It is extremely disappointing to see the damage caused by the actions of one of our members. Adam has clearly made very serious mistakes and in due course the Court will determine his punishment.

As the players’ union we are very conscious of the role and responsibility of our members and we work hard to ensure they receive relevant information and important guidance regarding appropriate standards of conduct.

Personal integrity relates both to the way an individual treats him or herself as much as it relates to how he or she treats other people, with mutual respect and consideration being key to this.

The PFA works with The Football Association, the Premier League and the Football League to develop a framework of rules for the game and these clearly define integrity issues relating to, for instance, betting and doping and to complement this, the PFA has worked with these stakeholders for some time to provide training courses on lifestyle guidance to all young players. This covers appropriate standards of behaviour encompassing the law of the land and includes a range of areas including addiction issues and sexual conduct.

As a natural extension of this, the PFA has developed over a period of time a training programme incorporating the theme of personal integrity for all professional players; ensuring they are fully informed on such issues and includes sexual consent, standards of behaviour and respectful relationships in person and on social media. This has been developed with input from groups including Rape Crisis, White Ribbon and Women’s Aid.

Situations such as this, unfortunately, demonstrate that this is a vital area for our focus and that there is still much work to do.

The PFA intends to make no further comment.
 
monty in command said:
Whether Margaret Byrne and the board knew some of the detail, the fact is they are not criminal lawyers, so are not qualified to adjudicate.

Added to this, until the start of the case, AJ was pleading not guilty to all charges, so at some point in time between his various court appearances, where he consistently pleaded not guilty to all charges, and the trial starting, his legal advice changed two of the pleas to guilty, and that was not known until that point, and at that point Sunderland acted immediately and sacked him - I fail to see what more they could have done.

Lots and lots of folks can now look back with 20:20 hindsight and say we should have done this or that, but I think the club has handled an extremely delicate matter pretty well, all things considered, treading a very careful path between the 'innocent until proved otherwise' position and the seriousness of the accusations. Yes the red tops will try to have a field day and accuse the club of taking the charges lightly, but I can't see how suspending him on full pay for a year - in reality the only other thing they could have done - would have been any better AT THE TIME. Clearly, with 20:20 hindsight, that would have been the correct course of action.
Click to expand...

I feel like the SMB isn't appreciating the beauty of this post anywhere near enough.
 
redgauntlet said:
What do you all want from all of this now boring chewing of the fat. No good can come of snything, our best player has transgressed and is about to be punished for it. The club has lost a good player. Everyone is a loser, it has now gone beyond a joke. What will it take to satisfy you.
Click to expand...
The club telling the truth about how much it knew. :rolleyes:
 
monty in command said:
Whether Margaret Byrne and the board knew some of the detail, the fact is they are not criminal lawyers, so are not qualified to adjudicate.

Added to this, until the start of the case, AJ was pleading not guilty to all charges, so at some point in time between his various court appearances, where he consistently pleaded not guilty to all charges, and the trial starting, his legal advice changed two of the pleas to guilty, and that was not known until that point, and at that point Sunderland acted immediately and sacked him - I fail to see what more they could have done.

Lots and lots of folks can now look back with 20:20 hindsight and say we should have done this or that, but I think the club has handled an extremely delicate matter pretty well, all things considered, treading a very careful path between the 'innocent until proved otherwise' position and the seriousness of the accusations. Yes the red tops will try to have a field day and accuse the club of taking the charges lightly, but I can't see how suspending him on full pay for a year - in reality the only other thing they could have done - would have been any better AT THE TIME. Clearly, with 20:20 hindsight, that would have been the correct course of action.
Click to expand...
This is the correct answer. Best post in the entire thread.
 
Kenna said:
The club could still tell the manager: 'Look just don't play him, we've seen proof he is a nonce'
Click to expand...

If the club had seen proof of his guilt, I think they would have sacked him there and then, never mind suspend him. But I'm highly dubious of what was claimed regarding this evidence due to the fact it came from his defence team, the same lot that 'advised' him to plead not guilty. I still don't see how Johnson's QC would give the club any evidence that pointed to him being guilty. Just doesn't make sense to me. Again, all my opinion, not stating it as a fact.
 
haway said:
HOW CAN A POST THAT SAYS 'MARGARET BYRNE IS NOT A CRIMINAL LAWYER' BE THE BEST POST IN THIS THREAD, WHEN THAT IS THE ONE AND ONLY JOB SHE HELD BEFORE JOINING SAFC, AND WHAT SHE DID HER DEGREE IN, BE THE BEST POST IN THIS THREAD?
Click to expand...
What is she employed as by SAFC?
 
haway said:
Sent them an email:

'During Adam Johnson's recent Crown Court trial it was alleged that the club 1) received court documents including but not limited to his police station interview transcript and whatsapp messages and 2) heard an admission from Johnson that he kissed the victim. It is alleged our CEO was aware of both these matters.

If neither of these are the case, then I would strongly urge yourselves to come out and deny that these are true, as regrettably the current club statement fails to address these matters. If they are true then the CEO should resign as a matter of urgency.

It is a crying shame that the club's name has been tarnished in this affair, and failing to set the record straight at this stage is only making matters worse. I understand, given your statement, that you will not be in a position to reply to this email. '



Well my email for a start, but they should just issue a statement answering the q's. they issued more than one statement during the di canio fiasco and that was nowt compared to this.
Click to expand...
:lol::lol: Good god man.
 
shepherd88 said:
Who has said indefinitely?

Pending the outcome of legal proceedings is the answer for me.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't disagree personally but obviously a decision was reached after discussions had taken place between all the parties mentioned before. And that decision was to lift the suspension before the end of the trail, which I'm assuming was the legally correct decision to make. Fair enough if people think it wasn't morally correct, but that's got fuck all to do with the law.
 
theinediblebulk said:
If the club had seen proof of his guilt, I think they would have sacked him there and then, never mind suspend him. But I'm highly dubious of what was claimed regarding this evidence due to the fact it came from his defence team, the same lot that 'advised' him to plead not guilty. I still don't see how Johnson's QC would give the club any evidence that pointed to him being guilty. Just doesn't make sense to me. Again, all my opinion, not stating it as a fact.
Click to expand...

If it was a lie I'm sure we'd have released even just a mini-statement already to clarify this, the club is getting shit on by the media and the fans because they are refuse to do this. The question is; are they refusing to do this out of stubbornness or is it not possible for them to say it was a lie because they could then face action if they are lying themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top