• 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.

Reiver said:
I'm not doing that you clown ...... I'm saying I have the right to voice my opinion in response.

If you think I'm a moron but advocate disrupting people's enjoyment when they've spent a lot of time, effort and money then that says everything about you.

People, as at West Ham, have children there and don't want to have to cope with attention seeking 'activists' inside a football ground.
Click to expand...
So discussing it on his is attention seeking and protesting about it is attention seeking now as well?
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Yes, it is claimed that he admitted to the club that he'd committed an offence and that the club saw documents from which they became aware there was evidence that he'd committed an offence. If that is not true, it would have been much better for the club to have said they saw, heard and read nothing that would have made them aware he had acted inappropriately prior to his guilty plea. That statement is conspicuous by its absence from the club's statement yesterday and is why the media are all guns blazing today.
Click to expand...

"Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case nor on Mr. Johnson’s decision to defend all the allegations. "
 
redandwhiterob said:
Then you must be the biggest attention seeker on here ffs:lol: It's message board to air your views. Are you suggesting I shouldn't be able to state I want x player to be dropped from the team for the match on Saturday on here but instead write to our manager instead? :lol:
Click to expand...

People aren't just airing their views if you're being honest, they're making demands etc.

And just as stating you want a player dropped you know it's not going to happen because you've asked on a chat forum.
 
walesie said:
I asked if he'd have still played Johnson having read the messages, messages that the club had access to. I'd not mentioned his plea or supposed admission.
Click to expand...
To which I replied, and you said 'so?'...So I gave you the scenario that follows the implication.
 
Rober33 said:
"Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case nor on Mr. Johnson’s decision to defend all the allegations. "
Click to expand...
There would be a question of legitimacy of the documents depending on where they were sourced from.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
Who said what a day or so ago?
Click to expand...
Byrne said she didn't know he was pleading guilty, and that the documents handed to her were handed straight over to the brief, who was now representing AJ. I may now be out of synch, but can't be arsed to go back over the whole thread.;)
 
Dogbark said:
Why would they need to refute the allegations of a proven liar?
Click to expand...

Because otherwise all the stuff that happened today with the press happens. It's really not that complicated. If they didn't see it it's very easy for them to portray themselves as yet another wronged party by a deceitful convicted sex offender who is just trying to cover himself. That's a very easy get out clause to point to if you have it. The fact that the club haven't done that-very obvious-thing to clear their name suggests in this instance that it's not about any lack of transparency on AJ's part
 
PineappleHeed said:
Johnson's team allege the club knew all along.

The club deny this in the strongest terms.

If it's indeed true that the club knew nothing of the messages or plea prior to it all happening and coming out, these allegations from Johnson's team are indeed very strong, and incorrect. Perhaps the club should look to counter and take it to court. They've lost a lot of money on Johnson, they've had their reputation damaged massively. Are the club taking him to court? Doesn't look like it. It all makes it look like they're scared the truth (that they knew all along) will come out, so it's the classic Sunderland PR defence of sticking their heads in the sand.
Click to expand...

Very little to gain financially from taking him to court as his contract was almost over anyway.

The best thing is to probably take the reputation hit caused by all of the sensationalism surrounding the case and the clubs part in it and move on as quickly as possible. Dragging this out is of no benefit to anyone connected to the club in any way.
 
Reiver said:
People aren't just airing their views if you're being honest, they're making demands etc.

And just as stating you want a player dropped you know it's not going to happen because you've asked on a chat forum.
Click to expand...

If this was our blessed cousins up the road in exactly the same situation you would be all over this forum demanding answers and in agreement with me and others of the same opinion on here
 
Redcar said:
Really? Are you Margaret in disguise?
Click to expand...

Not at all.

You'd think these people were Gandhi the way they're pontificating ........ they're wasting their time and they know it which is hilarious to watch.
 
Dogbark said:
That's what he claims.

How exactly did the club get hold of the Whatsapp messages?
Click to expand...

It's claimed that a copy of the Whatsapp messages transcript was provided to the club at the meeting with Johnson and his legal team in May last year.

Whether or not you believe Johnson is telling the truth, it's a problem if the response to Johnson's claim doesn't respond to his claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top