• 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.
jsdftm04 said:
I agree. The number who would do it is minimal though. I'll still go but I think the club are on dodgey ground.
Click to expand...
We the supporters will be here long after owners, players and managers. Don't dessert the badge to spite those you have a grievance with marra its you that'll be losing out. Whichever side you're on at the minute it's a pervert that caused the stink and arguments amongst us, he can get fucked.
 

Reiver said:
I understand anything that makes sense .......... probably why I struggle so much with you :lol:
Click to expand...

Stones... glass-houses...

We already had a good 10 minutes earlier in the thread where you didn't understand CM's point. It took a f***ing Venn diagram for you to understand it.
 
Must be bored said:
He wasn't really involved much at the back end of last season was he? Some substitute appearances but certainly not a large part of the reason we stayed up, can't have been many games/points won after the meeting they had in May
Click to expand...

In the trial it was said Byrne read them. If she didn't they need to say that.
 
jsdftm04 said:
I don't know. It's why I would like the club to tell us...
Click to expand...

Get where your coming from but my stance is the club don't have to respond to what a liar claims. Like I said, makes no sense his own QC would hand over incriminating evidence. FWIW, I do think he knew he was guilty and was 'advised' to claim not guilty to carry on getting paid. That's why I find the whole idea that that very same QC, who was advising his client, would then undermine his client by handing over incriminating evidence. Doesn't make sense to me but again, just my opinion on it.
 
haway said:
Stones... glass-houses...

We already had a good 10 minutes earlier in the thread where you didn't understand CM's point. It took a f***ing Venn diagram for you to understand it.
Click to expand...

I understood and CM explained what he actually meant.

You jumped into a discussion you weren't involved in, took things out of context and started demonstrating your fabulous office skills :lol:
 
theinediblebulk said:
This whole idea that the club had full evidence of what had gone in in the form of transcripts and messages is f***ing strange to me.
The club didn't get this from the police or the CPS.
The club got the information from Johnson's legal team, the same legal team that were having no bother with Johnson saying he was pleading not guilty.

So I'm supposed to believe that incriminating evidence was handed over by the same crew that were pleading innocence of the charges?

That is the bit I find hard to understand as it makes no f***ing sense whatsoever to me like.

That's my last word on this as the thread has been circular for a while now. But if someone could post the Gudjohsen Bad Johnson photo, it would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Agree with that, apart from the defence wasn't pleading innocence, they were pleading not guilty.
 
ollie c said:
Nobody's telling anybody what to do at all. That's what I will be doing, that's all. I made it pretty clear, tbf.
Click to expand...
Maggie Byrne and the current management team are the people who got it wrong. Your remedy is against SAFC not the misguided people in power.
 
Wayne The Punk said:
You are a genius. Do you think that those messages were shared with "anyone" at the club? And I still dont believe the police can show evidence prior to a trial, someone with a legal background may be able to enlighten us
Click to expand...
That's the thing that surprised me. I have no knowledge of legal matters of this sort, but it seemed odd to me that the Police would share any evidence with anyone prior a trial. I have no idea whatsoever whether it is normal for them to do that, or not.
 
I'm sick of all this talk about guilty pleas and wotnot. There is only one burning question which needs to be answered clearly by the club and that is, did they know he had done it?
 
sdurhamlad said:
No it,s not. SAFC belongs to the people who have spent their life supporting it
Why should anyone walk away just because the current management got this issue so wrong.
All of us should be permitted to express our anger at what's been done without being told to walk away.
Click to expand...

Of course you have the right to express your anger but no-one actually knows the true facts about it all. And if you feel so angry, then stay away until you get the answers you want. As for who the club belongs to, that's Ellis Short. You may support the club but doesn't give you any rights over ownership.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Get where your coming from but my stance is the club don't have to respond to what a liar claims. Like I said, makes no sense his own QC would hand over incriminating evidence. FWIW, I do think he knew he was guilty and was 'advised' to claim not guilty to carry on getting paid. That's why I find the whole idea that that very same QC, who was advising his client, would then undermine his client by handing over incriminating evidence. Doesn't make sense to me but again, just my opinion on it.
Click to expand...
While i see that point. Every major media outlet in the country is asking the same questions and the NSPCC is piping up. They can nip all this on bud right now...
 
haway said:
In the trial it was said Byrne read them. If she didn't they need to say that.
Click to expand...

Lots of things are said in trials that aren't always true ...... or do you believe everything that's said is true?

Why would Byrne be obliged to answer to a proven liar when she wasn't in the witness box?
 
sdurhamlad said:
Maggie Byrne and the current management team are the people who got it wrong. Your remedy is against SAFC not the misguided people in power.
Click to expand...
For me, it's the club. (IF it is true, of course)

I expect you'll make your decision and I'll make mine. I never said I had all the answers, mate.
 
Stevos said:
I'm sick of all this talk about guilty pleas and wotnot. There is only one burning question which needs to be answered clearly by the club and that is, did they know he had done it?
Click to expand...
They knew he was pleading not guilty and that he and his legal team expected a not guilty result - that is until the day of the trial. It is truly bizarre for his QC to say the club knew the situation, get his client to plead not guilty at the magistrates court and then on the day of the Crown Court trial to change the plea and then somehow blame the club having pocketed £3M worth of wages.
 
Reiver said:
Lots of things are said in trials that aren't always true ...... or do you believe everything that's said is true?

Why would Byrne be obliged to answer to a proven liar when she wasn't in the witness box?
Click to expand...
She is the chief executive of a company that's name is being dragged through the mud with these allegations.

She needs to deny it if it isn't true...
 
ollie c said:
For me, it's the club. (IF it is true, of course)

I expect you'll make your decision and I'll make mine. I never said I had all the answers, mate.
Click to expand...

Don't let that stop you ....... it's not necessary to know the facts on here mate ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top