-
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
Deleted User 18963
New Member
It was always the way to go given the seriousness of the allegations, especially flowing the meetings in March 2nd.
Anything else is a big error in judgement.
Deleted User 18963
New Member
Line is that the club could also be brought into compensation outlay, letting him play on while the police told the club whah was happening.
---Nemo---
Striker
Oh dear.
Deleted User 18963
New Member
This is what I said would of happened before when people were saying the players and manager must have known etc
All meetings in which Bryne was privy and lead on. She is accountable.
You must be logged on to see external links
All meetings in which Bryne was privy and lead on. She is accountable.
W
West Winger
Guest
Aye but the name of the thread doesn't tell you what that thread is about. Oh, wait, yes it does.
Steeeeed86
Winger
Deleted User 18963
New Member
From the link I posted earlier.
State of this man. Get Byrne in to answer for her gross mistake in judgement then!
Journalist: ‘On May 4 the club had everything and Adam Johnson was allowed to play. No one is answering that and we are asking Sam that question.’
Sunderland official: ‘May I also say that is not Sam’s question to answer.’
Journalist: ‘It’s the club’s question to answer.’
Journalist: ‘Margaret Byrne should be here to answer that.’
Sunderland official: ‘Well she isn’t and this is the manager’s press conference.’
Journalist: ‘It has nothing to do with Sam. It happened before he arrived but we have to ask that question.’
Sunderland official: ‘I know, and you’ve asked that question and both Sam and I have said we can’t answer that question.’
State of this man. Get Byrne in to answer for her gross mistake in judgement then!
Journalist: ‘On May 4 the club had everything and Adam Johnson was allowed to play. No one is answering that and we are asking Sam that question.’
Sunderland official: ‘May I also say that is not Sam’s question to answer.’
Journalist: ‘It’s the club’s question to answer.’
Journalist: ‘Margaret Byrne should be here to answer that.’
Sunderland official: ‘Well she isn’t and this is the manager’s press conference.’
Journalist: ‘It has nothing to do with Sam. It happened before he arrived but we have to ask that question.’
Sunderland official: ‘I know, and you’ve asked that question and both Sam and I have said we can’t answer that question.’
Steeeeed86
Winger
NUFC fanzine editor Micheal Martin is having his say.
Every 10 mins for the last 24 hours.
Gone from case facts all the way to pure speculation.
Every 10 mins for the last 24 hours.
Gone from case facts all the way to pure speculation.
The Cabbage
Striker
March 2nd isn't a consideration now fella. The copper and the press have taken license with the situation with that. The copper involved admitted in that statement that Johnson hadn't been interviewed at that stage so all she was doing was talking about accusations. If he had eventually been found not guilty, the exact same copper would have been describing the exact same meeting in very different terms.
L
lordy
Guest
I agree not at all, but it's clearly gross misconduct by admitting kissing the underage fan with tongues, there's no question about that, which the club's lawyers will have read and acknowledged.
Deleted User 18963
New Member
There was 2 seperate meetings from the looks of it though. It is convoluted, I agree. Still it appears that Byrne was shown the transcripts from the messages, and told what AJ had done. Alleged, I guess. Also, AJ said himself, he told the club at this time. Both lying?
Why didn't the club suspend with pay, until outcome of trial. Legally untouchable. Would have made the correct moral and ethical choice. Would have not got half as much shit as it is getting now.
If he was found not guilty? He was still paid in full, and he had to answer the charges.
Just seems a massive error in judgement for me. The fact he was allowed to play when information was given to show what he had alleged to have done. It's shameful.
Mackemansj1
Striker
This, people say but they followed what they had too, they might have but given the seriousness that simply wasn't enough in this case. And if they had the information the police johnson and his team said they did how they let him back seriously boggles the mind, they should've known this would cause a complete shit storm. Although nowt surprises me with the way they've been running the club.
T
The Sandance Kid
Guest
This.
What did you think? That she didn't know what he was accused of?
This is what the question is, had they or had they not seen the evidence and had he admitted anything privately. For me he should have been suspended regardless, if they had seen the evidence and/or had an addmittance it goes into the realms of incompetence.
Mackemansj1
Striker
Is it any shock though, look at how they handled the pdc shitstorm, they just shut up shop and ignored it all it seems what they plan to do with this much more real and way more serious outrage.
RTRsBM
Striker
MagNally what a surprise. But until the club clearly says exactly who knew what and when, then these comments will continue.
Deleted User 18963
New Member
I think she knew exactly what he was accused off with details and she choose to put the legal line of innocent to found guilty within a courtroom ahead of ethics and morals. Unacceptable. Legal matters are not everything, we are a respectable, family club who have allowed a sex offender to play for nearly a year.
- Status
