Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[andymcnish]

If the club keep dodging the issue of course they are going to keep asking Sam about it in the press conferences man.

The narrative is that we knowingly allowed a paedo to keep playing for a year for our financial benefit whilst the victim got a year's abuse...

They're not going to ignore that and ask about the relative merits of Rodwell v Seb or Yedlin v Billy Jones...

 

[danielsan]

Nobody is saying he did

the press are saying sunderland knew about what happened....hence all these questions about sunderland, and the release of the statement they knew didnt know he was going to plead guilty

for them to find out, he would of had to tell

 

[Chizno1]

[QUOTE="ANonnyMoose, post: 22459689, . The only choice the club had at the time was suspension on full pay, or to allow him to play until the trial..[/QUOTE]

Just on this point, they were not the only choices available to the club. They did not need to suspend him, they could have simply not selected him for the match day squad. They could have done this without in any way influencing the trial by saying that because of the allegations Johnson was being given time to deal with personal issues without the added pressure of playing top level football.
The club can not be forced to play any player, not by the PFA, and not by a QC.

 

[RTRsBM]

If the club keep dodging the issue of course they are going to keep asking Sam about it in the press conferences man.

The narrative is that we knowingly allowed a paedo to keep playing for a year for our financial benefit whilst the victim got a year's abuse...

They're not going to ignore that and ask about the relative merits of Rodwell v Seb or Yedlin v Billy Jones...

Exactly that's why the hierarchy need to speak.

 

[Some Random Guy]

the press are saying sunderland knew about what happened....hence all these questions about sunderland, and the release of the statement they knew didnt know he was going to plead guilty

for them to find out, he would of had to tell

The press saying Sunderland knew isn't the same as AJ telling the board.

 

[AC Mack]

Maybe I am naive, but I feel if he told the club he groomed, kissed and hoped to shag a 15 year old then they would have binned him.
If he said he text, met a fan, gave a shirt and a peck and it was all a misunderstanding that he was going to defend they wouldn't.

And this is what the club haven't clarified, hence questions being asked.

 

[Aituk7]

The northern echo playing a very dangerous game.....

Link appears as:

You must be logged on to see external links

So on news now the article appears as Sunderland AFC: Adam Johnson told us he would plead guilty.

Title on page appears as:
Sunderland AFC: 'Adam Johnson told us he would plead not guilty'

 

[danielsan]

The press saying Sunderland knew isn't the same as AJ telling the board.

so how would sunderland/board find out??.......reading the papers??

 

[bahtat]

Goodness knows where this is all going to go, the non sporting journalists are going to be all over tomorrow's game looking for a lead, MB not at the game will be reported as admision of guilt and a present MB will be reported as an uncaring sod and there's bound to be a kiss and tell story concerning him in one of the Sunday papers

 

[Some Random Guy]

so how would sunderland/board find out??.......reading the papers??

I suggest you read the papers.

It's alleged that Byrne was given transcripts of Johnson’s police interview and/other copies of the messages.

 

[The Master]

So fuck? Wait outside the directors entrance and ask them? Ask the club to put on a club press conference? What they think it has to do with Sam, who arrived after all these decisions had been made, is beyond me. He could not answer their questions, he was in no position to answer their questions and they knew that - they were fishing for a cheap headline. Because the UK press are scum.

When the club has said that no further comments are going to be made about it then they're basically putting all the pressure of the manager, the club has handled this in the worst possible way

 

[Clownshoes]

If true she has to walk.....

You must be logged on to see external links

Absolutely - the clubs image is going to take a hammering here. What I will say is that we do not know what legalities were involved with the pfa. Would they stand for a member being sacked before he had even went to trial and at the time was claiming he was innocent? It's an absolute cluster fuck and has been horrendously mis-managed by all concerned.

 

[andymcnish]

It's another in a long line of SAFC board cock-ups. Really a total number bunch of amateurs.

I'd say that they couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery, except ironically that's what one of them used to do before we hired him...

 

[Black Cat Gypsy]

If true she has to walk.....

You must be logged on to see external links

Either way you look at it, it's another major cock up under her control. She's out of her depth. She really needs to make her own statement just to put this to bed. And club need to make another one too.

 

[The Sandance Kid]

The truth, in these situations, will always come out eventually.

"You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"

 

[Gaz]

You must be logged on to see external links

Transcript of Big Sam on issue

Think bsa handled himself well, and press officer did her job. Press want a story which is fair enough but they are a bunch of wankers who don't care who they upset to get it.

If there is anything to answer, which i think there is now because it isn't going to go away, then byrne or short need to do it.

Let bsa get on with trying to get 3 points at the weekend, though god knows what state of mind players are in now

 

[John J Rambo]

Are we going to go over the same things again and again? This has been covered already in this thread - he allegedly admitted to the club he had kissed the girl. No context is given for this kiss. A kiss on its own is NOT AGAINST THE LAW - seeing as you are so keen on clarifying the law. Context is absolutely everything there.


237 pages of mostly drivel and you say I'm the one looking stupid? Give over. The club were put in a difficult position, of that there is no doubt. But if they fired him and he turned out to be innocent in court? Or the fact the firing was used as a defence in court that he couldn't get a fair trial as he's such a famous person, etc etc? Read all this thread, its been discussed a million bloody times already. The only choice the club had at the time was suspension on full pay, or to allow him to play until the trial. After talks with the PFA (who not many people are asking questions about) and after assuring the FA (I think it was) that he would have nothing to do with the clubs promotional/external stuff in the meantime, the call was made to continue playing him. Sunderland's lawyers had the evidence, although once again I ask - on what grounds was his defence team doing giving possibly incriminating evidence to his employers? That is beyond belief for me. Its still presumed innocent until proven guilty, as you yourself say.

Well said mate. This is far from a clear subject. The club has seeked legal advice and advice from the PFA, who like you say are having no questions pointed at them. In hindsight and with what's come out, suspended with pay should have been the way to go.

 

[Some Random Guy]

You must be logged on to see external links

Transcript of Big Sam on issue

I think they handled themselves well there.

 

[andymcnish]

I think they handled themselves well there.

I'd agree, having been dumped right in it by others...Sam is a class act..the board can't seriously let the narrative stay at ' Club cynically played paedo on purpose' can they?

 

[Some Random Guy]

I'd agree, having been dumped right in it by others...Sam is a class act..the board can't seriously let the narrative stay at ' Club cynically played paedo on purpose' can they?

I've always liked the way Sam deals with the press. Never seen him try to weasel out of anything, just refuses to get pulled into it.

Sure many will disagree because everyone disagrees with everything.