• 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:
Well yeah, but I also know those demanding a statement won't get one.

Sadly the same people asking know they won't get one, which is pontificating to make it look as if you're taking a stand.
Click to expand...
I've not seen any posts demanding a new statement, apart from you repeatedly mentioning it.

I've seen plenty of people saying the last one is shit, but that's a different thing.
 

Cockney Mackem said:
The club isn't being accused of that.
Click to expand...
From the club statement..
"The club did not give evidence either for the prosecution or the defence in this case. It was therefore not present in court when it is understood that a suggestion was made that the club knew all along that Mr. Johnson was intending to change his plea just before trial to enable him to continue to play football for the club and that the club may also have been involved in tactical discussions about the plea. This is utterly without foundation and is refuted in the strongest possible terms. The club never placed any pressure or demands on Mr. Johnson to play football during this process. Decisions in relation to the pleas and the conduct of the trial have been left entirely to Mr. Johnson and his highly experienced and skilled legal team. Mr. Johnson has admitted in evidence that he changed his plea “on legal advice”."
 
redandwhiterob said:
So let me get this straight if the club decide one day to up season ticket prices by 50% it shouldn't be up for discussion on this board but everyone should just write to the club and leave it at that. Anyone who discusses it on a message board is attention seeking?
Click to expand...

People campaigning for something that may happen is right & proper.

People demanding a statement they know won't be issued is attention seeking.

I'm not saying they shouldn't continue to bang on but I reserve the right to laugh at them.
 
Lord Alfred said:
Just as well we have a lawyer as CEO.....just think of the mess we could have been in without that experience eh.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine the club took independent legal advice.

As an aside, Joshua Rozenberg was on the radio this morning, when asked his opinion he said the club had been placed in an incredibly difficult situation and had handled it correctly.
 
Reiver said:
Well yeah, but I also know those demanding a statement won't get one.

Sadly the same people asking know they won't get one, which is pontificating to make it look as if you're taking a stand.
Click to expand...

You have accused people criticising the club of hysteria, conspiracy nut-style behaviour, taking pleasure in the club being under scrutiny, insincerity and pontificating. I think it's only fair to point out that when you were asked to point out how a particular statement criticising the club was any of those things you declined to respond.
 
Dogbark said:
From the club statement..
"The club did not give evidence either for the prosecution or the defence in this case. It was therefore not present in court when it is understood that a suggestion was made that the club knew all along that Mr. Johnson was intending to change his plea just before trial to enable him to continue to play football for the club and that the club may also have been involved in tactical discussions about the plea. This is utterly without foundation and is refuted in the strongest possible terms. The club never placed any pressure or demands on Mr. Johnson to play football during this process. Decisions in relation to the pleas and the conduct of the trial have been left entirely to Mr. Johnson and his highly experienced and skilled legal team. Mr. Johnson has admitted in evidence that he changed his plea “on legal advice”."
Click to expand...

The club said it was suggested... but who suggested it... the issue was the whatsapps and admissions.
 
[QUOTE="dred
????[/QUOTE]
Her actions (or lack of) have brought the game into disrepute and her position is untenable.
 
---Nemo--- said:
I'd imagine the club took independent legal advice.

As an aside, Joshua Rozenberg was on the radio this morning, when asked his opinion he said the club had been placed in an incredibly difficult situation and had handled it correctly.
Click to expand...

They certainly did, unless we can't believe a word they say now:

"Two weeks later, his suspension was lifted after a meeting between the club and the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), and after the club took independent legal advice. The club reached this decision only after carrying out a safeguarding assessment and liaising with relevant agencies."
 
kick in the quinn said:
That is absolute bollocks. You have no hard evidence that there is anything murky, other than the proven behaviours of AJ, his allegations (as a proven liar) and the word of his lawyer who was advising a not guilty plea until the start of the trial, when he knew for sure (unlike Byrne) that AJ had admitted kissing and grooming a minor.
Click to expand...

I wonder why the club are in this awkward position if it's so easy for them to clear their name then.
 
leerik_canamole said:
If it was me, i would seriously consider blowing my own brains out, what an absolute knob end!
Click to expand...
I understand where you're coming from, but if it was you with your obvious level of distaste for such behaviour and its consequences, then you wouldn't have done it in the first place. It is possible that he may think he'll be out in 2-3 with good behaviour, then move oversea with his millions and live very comfortably. Who knows?
 
Dogbark said:
I was replying to the question.

I'll ask again where did the whatsapp transcript come from?
Click to expand...
Not clear yet, AJ presumably.

If what you're getting at though is he might not have given them all the messages, then if that is true, all SAFC have to say is that they were given partial information by AJ and thus lied. If he did do that they would have a nailed on lawsuit against him as well.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
You have accused people criticising the club of hysteria, conspiracy nut-style behaviour, taking pleasure in the club being under scrutiny, insincerity and pontificating. I think it's only fair to point out that when you were asked to point out how a particular statement criticising the club was any of those things you declined to respond.
Click to expand...

Just as you failed to respond, twice, when asked to point out what proof you had that 'the vast majority of Sunderland supporters' agreed with you.

Care to answer that or is it one rule for me and one for you?

To answer your point I'm not claiming that particular statement was a hysterical, conspiracy nut, pontificating effort.

Other posts have been which is why I pointed them out.

You see mate, I'm not classing you all the same ......... that would be wrong.
 
sonson said:
I wonder why the club are in this awkward position if it's so easy for them to clear their name then.
Click to expand...
Refer to other posts about why it's best to put up and shut up. The media will ensure that they lose no matter what, it sells copy. That is the advice that any decent PR pro would give to anyone or business in this position. They cannot win.
 
haway said:
The club said it was suggested... but who suggested it... the issue was the whatsapps and admissions.
Click to expand...
Do you not think there's a chance that, after they say they understand from the media, the club have just misunderstood the accusations that have been levelled at them? To me it seems like they've missed the point entirely rather than trying a huge cover up. Since it's my club I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on the wording and not joining the witch hunt.
 
The Beautiful Game said:
Do you not think there's a chance that, after they say they understand from the media, the club have just misunderstood the accusations that have been levelled at them? To me it seems like they've missed the point entirely rather than trying a huge cover up. Since it's my club I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on the wording and not joining the witch hunt.
Click to expand...

If that's true then given the media are firmly asking all the q's on here we should find out soon... unlikely imo.
 
haway said:
Not clear yet, AJ presumably.

If what you're getting at though is he might not have given them all the messages, then if that is true, all SAFC have to say is that they were given partial information by AJ and thus lied. If he did do that they would have a nailed on lawsuit against him as well.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't have even read the documents anyway due to the question of legitimacy.
 
Dogbark said:
From the club statement..
"The club did not give evidence either for the prosecution or the defence in this case. It was therefore not present in court when it is understood that a suggestion was made that the club knew all along that Mr. Johnson was intending to change his plea just before trial to enable him to continue to play football for the club and that the club may also have been involved in tactical discussions about the plea. This is utterly without foundation and is refuted in the strongest possible terms. The club never placed any pressure or demands on Mr. Johnson to play football during this process. Decisions in relation to the pleas and the conduct of the trial have been left entirely to Mr. Johnson and his highly experienced and skilled legal team. Mr. Johnson has admitted in evidence that he changed his plea “on legal advice”."
Click to expand...

I have to admit that I have not seen every word of the evidence reported in the media during the trial but I did not see anywhere the allegation that the club knew Johnson was going to change his plea from not guilty to guilty. Even if that was alleged, it was at the absolute best a side issue to the main allegation (and it's baffling this bit is being ignored in the discussion) that a representative of the club was directly told by Johnson that he was guilty of at least one of the offences he was accused of and that a representative of the club saw transcripts and became aware having read those transcripts that there was evidence that Johnson was guilty of at least one of the offences he was accused of. It is not in the least unreasonable to be concerned and confused as to why the club issues a statement ignoring the main accusations that are giving them all the trouble in the press today, and focusing on an element of the facts that no one has brought up as an issue in the press today and which they may not have been accused of at all. It's like someone being accused of stealing someone's handbag and responding by refuting absolutely the allegation that they stole someone's coat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top