• 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.
haway said:
This is it... and the important point is that all of this has been alleged in court and not refuted by the club...
Click to expand...

I agree. If the club didn't know anything then they should say so. But they haven't, so everyone is assuming that they must have known.
 

haway said:
But in which case fine, you're saying we made a calculated risk that he might be found guilty and if so we were playing a nonce (and we had the whatsapps, and knew what he admitted, allegedly)... But then we should at least be honest we did so because of the money we didn't want to lose. But imo that's a shit reason.
Click to expand...
Just trying to play Devils advocate if we sacked or suspended him the PFA would have created merry hell, as would his legal team, as it would obviously have influenced the trial, I don't think Sunderland could have done anything else.
 
Norton said:
WTF! He told the club he was pleading not guilty. He did so right up until the trial.
If they should not let him "fully represent them" how much representing could he do???
Here to be a wum as per.
Click to expand...
You know he was dying to get stuck into this because it's unusual he is here after an abject Boro defeat.
 
Sima said:
Didn't have to play him.
Click to expand...

They probably didn't have to do a lot of things...I don't know what was in the PFA meeting, maybe they would be opened up to lawsuits or other legal matters. This all sounds like faux outrage by people and a chance to point score on a lot of things based on agendas and presumed info...show me facts and I'll call a spade a spade!!
 
CissesUnderpants19 said:
actually janey, i think this is going to go on for quite sometime, this isn't going away, not in the current times we live in, you seen with other well known faces, this is just another new play thing for the media, until the next massive story from OYT comes out.
Click to expand...
I don't think it'll go away easily either, there is the sentencing for a start, but I'm great at ignoring shit, it's come from lots of years of practice reading Sunday newspapers and pretending the sports section doesn't exist when we've been beaten again :lol:
 
bowers2 said:
I have read their detailed statement and fully believe every word.
As an employer they acted with the professionalism I would expect.
I'd rather believe my club than the rubbish invented by the papers, groups of fans unfurling banners or a convicted proven liar.

Well done SAFC.

Sunderland til I die.
Click to expand...

Whether or not it's to be believed isn't the question. I think we all accept that the statement - as it is - is true.

The issue is whether or not, following "that meeting", the club were (as reported) given the police transcripts and/or the 800 Whatsapp messages and/or Johnson's admission that he had kissed the girl. That issue is not addressed, which is the point the media will jump on.
 
Fetch Fletch said:
Aye. We fans will be scum of the earth tomorrow. :evil:
Click to expand...

correct, and no doubt the club will get pelted, like i said to janey before the times we live in now this is going away fast, not after whats gone on over the last couple of years with certain people in the media.
 
Redcar said:
It was for the court to decide whether he was guilty . The club should not have let him fully represent them for that period of time simple as that.
Click to expand...
At the time I thought it was the right decision to reintroduce him if he was in the right mental state to play. Innocent until proven guilty.
If the club were in possession of the evidence it's suggested they were in advance of that decision then I would hope and think they would never had brought him back from that suspension
 
Republican Mackem said:
Just trying to play Devils advocate if we sacked or suspended him the PFA would have created merry hell, as would his legal team, as it would obviously have influenced the trial, I don't think Sunderland could have done anything else.
Click to expand...

If we suspended him with pay? How on earth could anyone do anything about it? Suspending with pay = player still paid = contract fulfilled.
 
Redcar said:
Suspended with full pay. Next.
Click to expand...

By doing that the club would be making a statement that they thought he was guilty, people take notice of things like that, the press would have been all over it. His lawyers would have argued that a fair trial could not happen. He might have walked. Next
 
Some Random Guy said:
If the club knew the following 3 things last May it's a big deal:

- he had been texting the lass
- he had kissed her
- he knew she was 15 when he was doing the above

It comes down to what was in that transcript, if it had him admitting those 3 things the club knew enough in my opinion.

If they had that information in that transcript the club knowingly let us cheer on a man who was going down for grooming.n
Click to expand...

Said this on another thread but I'll stick it here as well. The only thing the club would have been aware of were allegations, and these allegations were being denied by Johnson.

Following that meeting, Mr. Johnson again confirmed to the club, presumably on advice from his own legal team, that his intention was to defend the charges in their entirety and he was confident of success once all evidence had been considered.

So that isn't Johnson admitting a thing to the club, that's Johnson saying all these things have been alleged and I'm denying it. Within 24 hours of Johnson changing his tune and admitting to the allegations, he was sacked. If the club knew he was guilty of these allegations any earlier, they would have sacked him earlier. That's my take on it anyways.
 
East Riding Mackem said:
apparently he trims or shaves them, the girl had reported the lack of foliage downstairs, there was a photo involved, girl said he was shaved, his lass said trimmed not shaved, key point of dispute as to whether or not she was lying about a certain act,

f***ing beyond weird. Not quite sure what light Fletcher was supposed to shine on that like.
Click to expand...
Also the fact they do have a habit of growing back - there must have been another discrepancy
 
soapster said:
I agree Janey.

I also think the versions of what the club knew as indicated by Johnston during the trial are getting mixed up by him saying they knew everything.

Everything according to whose version, Johnston's or the girls. They wouldn't know the girls, so it had to be Johnston's and he has now gone back on his version by pleading guilty and by being found guilty.

I do not think the supporters need to attack the club. It is not going to be easy for anyone connected with the club and its supporters at the moment.
Click to expand...
This is what I don't get. Why is it not going to be easy for the supporters ? What can I expect in the next few days / weeks that affect me directly ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top