• 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.

mackemquaker said:
Thinks this best sums everything up
The official line from Sunderland Football Club remains: 'We thought Adam Johnson was going to plead not guilty.'

Ask yourself this, however. Armed with the information that your employee HAD committed child sex offences, would you then support them in their bid to cheat justice?


Read more:
You must be logged on to see external links

Follow us: Invalid/outdated Link Removed | Invalid/outdated Link Removed
Click to expand...

It doesn't sum it up at all, its a journo trying to sell papers like the rest of them. The sad thing is most of them have turned it into a witch hunt against the club. Maybe they should consider the young lass who is a victim in all of this instead.

The fact still remains that nobody knows for certain exactly what happened in the meetings with the club, or how much they did or didnt know and at what point.

The club took legal and safeguarding advice, as well as pfa advice - they are still bound by employment / contract law and nobody knows what they were legally allowed to do at the time once he advised he would plead not guilty.

The club & byrne still have to be careful what they say now, and will be getting legal advice. Johnsons team have already said they will appeal, and anything further the club say could be used in any appeal i assume.

I'm not expecting anything else from club until appeal and sentencing done. Once it is i hope byrne comes out and either clears it up or admits mistakes made, but i have my doubts
 
bucksoutcast said:
The Sunderland Echo.
Here is the first of 10 questions the Echo has put to the club.
1. Adam Johnson said in his trial that during a meeting with Margaret Byrne on May 4, 2015, he admitted grooming and kissing a 15-year-old girl. Do the club accept this happened?
Read more:
You must be logged on to see external links


Based on my limited knowledge of the case, I am suggesting that this is a loaded question. During this meeting he might have admitted sending messages, which is different to admitting he had groomed her. Therefore, I do not think he admitted grooming during the May 4th meeting and I do not think the Sunderland Echo believe this either, they are just trying to create headlines.
Click to expand...

if he admitted sending her messages then he kissed her, he IS admitting grooming.

Johnson himself may not have realised that - just as he may not have realised that by admitting he kissed a 15 year old, he was admitting to sexual activity with a minor.

Byrne, however, would have been very clear about what he was admitting - and that's the whole point.
 
BRMC said:
I've avoided the debate on here as it's impossible to know what's actually went on.

I see people saying the club had a obligation to the fans and the victim to suspend Johnson while the trial was pending.

My point is the club had an obligation to its other employees to keep them in a job and the club out of financial disaster.

Johnson was arguably our best midfielder and a major asset for the club. He's scored goals since his arrival that have been pivotal in us staying up. I would love to be in a position to be able to suspend him on full pay for a year, but we aren't. They've been left in ridiculous position by an employee who's turned out to be the lowest of the low.

Thankfully he's got what he deserves and the club may/may not have acted morally, however, legally they've not committed any offence. It's seems the football authorities + independent bodies were contact for guidance and advice.

I know people may not agree with this, but it worth pointing out in my opinion.

PS: I do know money is not everything.
Click to expand...

In a previous court case relating to Sunderland (I think the SAFC Marketing Manager was suing for unfair dismissal?), it was claimed that MB had stated that Ellis Short would employ the devil if it meant Sunderland staying in the Premier League.
 
MrOompapa said:
This.

What Johnson done was unacceptable, idiotic and immoral, he has brought this on himself aye, but when the media brandish the word "Paedophile" to people who have sexual relations with teenagers, its incorrect. A paedophile is someone who has a abnormal sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent children.

Johnson is an idiot, he is a sex offender and he's done something disgraceful. But he's not a paedophile.
Click to expand...
That's true. To compare someone who abuses a 3 year old with someone who engaged in a kiss with a nearly 16 year old is absolutely absurd.
 
raven_5 said:
That's true. To compare someone who abuses a 3 year old with someone who engaged in a kiss with a nearly 16 year old is absolutely absurd.
Click to expand...

Couple of things.

He didn't just engage in a kiss and she had just turned 15 years old. Other then those two errors you're correct.
 
bucksoutcast said:
The Sunderland Echo.
Here is the first of 10 questions the Echo has put to the club.
1. Adam Johnson said in his trial that during a meeting with Margaret Byrne on May 4, 2015, he admitted grooming and kissing a 15-year-old girl. Do the club accept this happened?
Read more:
You must be logged on to see external links


Based on my limited knowledge of the case, I am suggesting that this is a loaded question. During this meeting he might have admitted sending messages, which is different to admitting he had groomed her. Therefore, I do not think he admitted grooming during the May 4th meeting and I do not think the Sunderland Echo believe this either, they are just trying to create headlines.
Click to expand...

It all depends how much detail he gave, IF he did tell them at all.

He could of said "I sent her a message to meet up to give her one of my tops. I also gave her a kiss once I passed it over. " it sounds wrong but completely different to " I was contacting her on a regular basis to meet up. I gave her a top after I picked her up in my car where we were kissing".

The club should be putting this to bed.

The statement has left us in the similar position as to when we appointed PDC. Everyone divided and lack of answers from the club. Seems Byrne is more than happy to do the minimum and hide from the real questions.
 
bucksoutcast said:
In a previous court case relating to Sunderland (I think the SAFC Marketing Manager was suing for unfair dismissal?), it was claimed that MB had stated that Ellis Short would employ the devil if it meant Sunderland staying in the Premier League.
Click to expand...

He was an ex employee and was told he made pointless claims.

I have no doubt Short will be willing to bend the rules to try and push the club forward. His hedge fund were accused of all sorts in S.Korea from what I remember.

Capitalism makes people that way I'm afraid. Look at Ashley's Sports Direct and it's use of exploiting staff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top