• 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.

ProfessionalMackem said:
The PFA would've been all over the club mind if they dismissed him and like you say open themselves up for a unfair dismissal case (as then he was pleading not guilty). I can see why the club did what it did.

Not sure why people are trying to have a go at the club TBH.
Click to expand...

Because the Club played him in games.
I agree, they might not have been able to sack him (not sure?) but they didn't have to play him.
The victim mentioned this in court and in her statement. By playing him it appears to fans that the club believe him to be not guilty. If it turns out they knew that was not the case then I'd expect people to resign over this. The statement fails to address how much or hopefully how little, the club knew.

If they didn't know, then great. No problem.
If they did know, and played him anyway, then I think they should be ashamed.
 
Sweeper said:
So being a Sunderland supporter - someone who makes an emotional and financial investment in the Club - the thought that the Club possibly knew what he'd done and still allowed him to play does not bother you?
Click to expand...
Nope. It should bother the people who willingly allowed it but why should I be bothered about it ?
 
Johnson has put the club, his team mates and his family in a really uncompromising position.

It is he and he alone EVERYONE should be pointing the finger at.
He now (regardless of any appeal) has to accept the consequences of his actions.
Somehow, I don't think this will happen.
 
WhoDrankAllTheBovril said:
Regardless of any evidence the club was shown or not, Johnson said he would be pleading not guilty. If the club had sacked him there and then, they would have been pre-judging the outcome of any court case and could possibly be accused of influencing the outcome of that case. Johnson had put the club in a no-win situation.
Click to expand...
Suspended with pay or put on leave pending the outcome.
 
Lost Partridge said:
It's obviously different if it was one of mine, because I'd be emotionally involved, probably wouldn't be able to look at the facts with a clear head and would want to kill him. But as someone looking on from afar, I don't have sympathy for the bloke as such, I just think the lass should be held accountable for what she has done.
Click to expand...


Wtf :eek::eek::eek:

Is there any room in AJs new cell for a guy with this attitude.its as if your saying she deserved it

The poor lass was 1 month over being a 14 year old girl how the fuck should she be held accountable
 
Littlerobbieh said:
There's literally nothing we can do about it. I care that we might get relegated and I hope Stoke and Arsenal win tonight, that's my worries at the minute. Not what someone I've never met and never will meet has or hasn't done.
Click to expand...

I suspect that if the Club have known and let him play regardless, then a lot of supporters will feel like there is something they can do - be that voice their concerns or even stop going to games. This is something that a lot of people will (understandably) feel strongly about.
 
Some Random Guy said:
The club probably don't need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt when it comes to sacking.

Regardless of whether they sack him they aren't legally obligated to put him on the team sheet and have 40,000 of us cheer him on. This last year we have cheered that bloke on more than any other player as he's stepped on and off that pitch.
Click to expand...

I cheered Borini and Watmore more to be fair :)
 
FanchesterCity said:
They very next question that will be asked is - so what DID you know - because you instigated a safeguarding check. The club is then immediately embroiled in a debate.
Whatever question they address, there's another one right behind it. That's why the legal team will advise them to try and keep things to an overarching statement rather than a detailed one.
Sadly, it will still fail, because the press will be all over them anyway now - and the questions are going to keep coming regardless. I'm just giving the supposed 'rationale' why PR statements try to avoid getting into too much detail at times like this.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that question?
 
Some Random Guy said:
The club probably don't need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt when it comes to sacking.

Regardless of whether they sack him they aren't legally obligated to put him on the team sheet and have 40,000 of us cheer him on. This last year we have cheered that bloke on more than any other player as he's stepped on and off that pitch.
Click to expand...
It just doesn't add up. On what grounds did the club believe he would be pleading not guilty if in the possession of those text messages and a knowledge that Johnson had admitted to the police in interview already that he kissed her and knew her age. What were they told to make them believe that they could be realistically giving a plea of not guilty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top