• 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.
kick in the quinn said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the club came out with a sworn statement direct from God the media and the wums would ignore it.

Sadly so would some of the people, on here, claiming they only want clarification.

They'd claim it was actually from someone pretending to be God and off they'd go again.
 

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...
Talk about being naive, fuck me we're talking about a premier league club here
 
haway said:
If that's true then given the media are firmly asking all the q's on here we should find out soon... unlikely imo.
Click to expand...
The club have made one statement. I can't see them making another one. They can't be expected to continually make a statement every time someone writes a new tweet demanding answers.

The ethical message behind the statement is sound, even if the wording doesn't address exactly what people wanted it to. As soon as he admitted guilt he was sacked.
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
Ok, so on that basis the club should never have suspended him in the first place and were far too hasty to do so? Did they suspend him without consulting the PFA or taking legal advice in the hope that no-one would question it? Did they suspend him without even discussing the issue at club level? Did they not have safeguarding measures already in place? If that is the case, then it's an altogether different reason to question the club and its procedures.

I hope the club have done everything spot on but, and again it's just my opinion, there are more unanswered questions than answered.
Click to expand...

Aye, this thread has still got more questions than answers, and I have not read the whole thread !

Anyone got time to read it all ?
 
The Beautiful Game said:
The club have made one statement. I can't see them making another one. They can't be expected to continually make a statement every time someone writes a new tweet demanding answers.

The ethical message behind the statement is sound, even if the wording doesn't address exactly what people wanted it to. As soon as he admitted guilt he was sacked.
Click to expand...

Have you read the press? It's hardly 'one tweet'.
 
Reiver said:
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.
Click to expand...

If I've missed being directly asked for proof that everyone agrees with me I apologise. In fact I didn't say that the vast majority of anyone agrees with me. I said that my comments are representative of the comments being made on this thread by those criticising the club which is a very different thing. There might only be three of us.

You haven't really answered my point because the thrust of your argument is quite clearly that you believe that the majority of those criticising the club are in the various ways you described, ridiculous, insincere and acting in bad faith against the club. My point is that the majority of posts on this thread are reasonable even if you disagree and almost everyone else on the thread apart from you is treating those they disagree with more respectfully.
 
Rober33 said:
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."
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to know how they came to this decision with regards to following their Safeguarding policy?

You must be logged on to see external links


The assessment must have deemed he was not a threat or future threat for them to have lifted the suspension?
 
haway said:
Have you read the press? It's hardly 'one tweet'.
Click to expand...
That's my point. They've given one statement already and still getting questions left right and centre. They can't continue making a new statement every day. They've said they're drawing a line under it. Good luck with your email though. Hopefully you get the response we all want.
 
The Beautiful Game said:
Yet you're claiming to know exactly what Margaret Byrne was and wasn't aware of and anyone who disagrees is "naive"?
Click to expand...
No, the quote that you posted was incredibly naive.
You really think the club don't realise that it might potentially look bad if we knew what Johnson got up to and we still let him play?

Or did they just forget about that?
 
As a PR matter alone this has been terribly handled.

You would of course expect plenty of press after the guilty verdict anyway but would hope that the club comes out as 'having done the right thing' and that the media is castigating the actions of the individual player.

Instead the front page of the most respected newspaper in the country has a headline that says 'Club allowed paedophile to continue playing'.

That is off the charts in terms of a PR disaster and damaging the club's 'brand'.

Whatever the club's statement was meant to do (trying to be clever by categorically denying something that wasn't what was being alleged) it obviously didn't work did it?

And we even have a CEO (the only one in the entirety of English football probably) whose background is in criminal law. The phrase chocolate fire-guard springs to mind...
 
The Master said:
No, the quote that you posted was incredibly naive.
You really think the club don't realise that it might potentially look bad if we knew what Johnson got up to and we still let him play?

Or did they just forget about that?
Click to expand...
We don't know they knew. We've got Johnson and his lawyers word for it.
 
The Beautiful Game said:
Yet you're claiming to know exactly what Margaret Byrne was and wasn't aware of and anyone who disagrees is "naive"?
Click to expand...

So the same senior management who when Micky Gray said Short had lied banned him from the SoL until he retracted it haven't been able to say that Byrne didn't know AJ was saying he kissed the girl despite that very specific allegation being put to her.

Logon or register to see this image
 
andymcnish said:
There isn't any real doubt that the QC and Johnson handed over the transcripts to Byrne. The barrister is a QC and he isn't going to risk his career by lying to the court. The statement is incredibly weasel worded on this, talking about receiving some papers that they passed on...it tries to make it sound like they came into possession on info that was meant for someone else. But the full evidence was given to them by Johnson's team for them to look at. We come out of this very badly, man...
Click to expand...

Really? What a strange scenario this must have been then.

"Documents were received but immediately passed to the QC"

Sat playing pass the f***ing parcel games on those wages. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top