• 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.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.
janey said:
I don't know I wasn't there, similarly I don't know why, if the club knew they didn't sack him in May, when the trial was scheduled for August, so he wouldn't have played again, saved the £60,000 a week, and bought another player, rather than wait to sack him as soon as he pleaded guilty in the middle of the season when they can't replace him.
But that's sort of my point, there are so many variables and none of us, not one single one of us know the full truth.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree, non of us actually know for sure what was saw and what wasn't.
Now it's up to SAFC to come out and answer if they knew that there was evidence suggesting Johnson could be guilty of the accusations against him and still allowed him to play.
The longer they stay silent logic suggests it's because they did know and they are trying to think of a way to deal with it. If not, why not save the club and Byrne herself a lot of trouble and deny it immediately.
 

janey said:
I don't know I wasn't there, similarly I don't know why, if the club knew they didn't sack him in May, when the trial was scheduled for August, so he wouldn't have played again, saved the £60,000 a week, and bought another player, rather than wait to sack him as soon as he pleaded guilty in the middle of the season when they can't replace him.
But that's sort of my point, there are so many variables and none of us, not one single one of us know the full truth.
Click to expand...

I tell you what we CAN do. We can read statements from the court and say "they've accused the club of knowing Johnson was guilty and playing him anyway" and we can read the club statement and say "erm, they've not actually denied what they've been accused of." Not interpretation, just reading the words that have been published and assessing them based on agreed rules and definitions of the English language. The ongoing attempts on this thread to argue otherwise are quite surreal.
 
AC Mack said:
Exactly, so why the hell not? That's my question. And if they didn't read them and therefore know the details, why haven't they come out and explained why?

The more it goes on, the worse the club looks.
Click to expand...
If I was handed a file of court documents I wouldn't read them either, I was almost sacked once because a colleague I was with read court documents that hadn't been filed with the Court, I hadn't realised shed read them but because I managed her we were both nearly sacked. The barristers caused hell on, accused us of contempt of court which theoretically it was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top