• 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.

Safc88 said:
If he isn't a wum it is very very worrying
Click to expand...
i can see why the mods have deleted threads now, this thread as been interesting and quite eductional in some respects, but theres always some wierdos who seem intent to fuck it up when everyone else is acting fairly dignified and being respectful to the situation
 
Sweeper said:
Isn't the "allegation" that it was Johnson and his legal team, not the police, who handed the evidence to the Club?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, I'm not really interested. I just wanted to make it clear that it's highly unlikely the Police would show potential evidence to the club. If any evidence was disclosed by the defence, which appears to be the case, we have no way of knowing how full this disclosure may have been.
 
The important thing in all of this isn't the scumbag who'll be locked up or the club.

There is a young lass who is a victim in all of this, who is probably feeling very vulnerable right now. I've just read her statement on twitter and can't imagine what shes been through in last year or so. My thoughts are with her & family, the rest will sort itself out
 
MunkyHeed said:
Why? We took independent legal advice as well as advice from the PFA. It's not as though the club just thought 'fuck it... Let's see what we can get away with' is it?
Click to expand...

The PFA do not advise football clubs as far as I'm aware, they represent players. When the club say "we took legal advice", what was the advice sought?
 
5 years is NOT the minimum... it's the starting point.

It works like this:

Min --------->Starting point---------> Max
4 yrs ------------- 5 yrs ---------------- 10 yrs

The 'starting point' is where the judge begins his calculations, and he can reduce the sentence for things like time already served, or pleading guilty very early etc.
People confuse 'starting point' with minimum sentence - it's not.
 
Macho said:
Just finished work so don't know what's happened, can't be arse do trawl through this thread as it's just people arguing.

To the point is he going to jail?
Click to expand...
yep, guilty on one charge, not guilty of another, theres a summary about 3 pages back of the charges and the verdicts
 
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...
The position on the table and the club playing Johnson are two separate issues.

I can not want to get relegated while thinking the CEO is potentially a scumbag that allowed us to cheer on a paedophile.
 
haway said:
Yes but sometimes that is what happens - the employer loses out - it's a tough fact of life but exactly what would happen in many professions.
Click to expand...
perhaps I should have said shelled out mega bucks for his salary AND risked loosing mega mega bucks if we got relegated
 
Fetch Fletch said:
Yes. That's why he played.

And the PFA are a union, needless to say they'd have acted like a union if we dropped him.
Click to expand...

What are you on about?

What union would 'act like a union' if a player is BEING PAID but not being played?!

Do the PFA act up when players are dropped for months on end? What about when players are made to train with the U21s?

As long as SAFC kept paying him we would have completely and absolutely fulfilled our legal obligation. Where the fuck does the contract say 'and you are guaranteed to play 20 times a year' or whatever?

As long as we paid him, nobody could have said shit to us.

If someone was suspended with pay, while court proceedings were going on (say, a lorry driver), are you seriously suggesting a union would demand the person is allowed to drive their lorry (even though they're being paid!?!)
 
The Master said:
The few that are saying the child should be held accountable, what exactly has she done that can be classed as illegal?
Click to expand...

Unbelievable stuff. The fact that they feel this way about a child is staggering.
Do people also forgot she's a young lass who happens to be a Sunderland fan?
 
Botchie said:
Why are the PFA not getting the same treatment as the club from the people who are still trying to defend a convicted sex offender?
Click to expand...

I agree mate, think both the club and the pfa come out of this with tarnished reputations. I dont think the changed plea makes any difference. As soon as the club became aware that he'd kissed a 15 year old lass they should have suspended him indefinitely, PFA should have backed the clubs decision. Both should have been able to see the likely incoming shit storm regardless of the verdict.

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...

Absolutely this.

Apparently in one of his 800+ texts to her he mentions how she seemed turned on after one of their meetings.

FFS, whoever in the club thought it was a good idea to let him play after having this evidence to hand wants their cards, as does the PFA rep and the QC.
 
Redcar said:
If you have followed the court case, then you would know that the content of said messages was pretty irrefutable.
Click to expand...

I've followed bits - I'm just saying that at this time the club were aware that Johnson was going to plead not guilty correct? I'm sorry if there's something I'm missing here. I'm actually not trying to play dumb I'm trying to play keep up here.

chunkylover53 said:
No it's because the player stated in court that they knew he had kissed her, and the club have not commented on this (as far as I can see)


They haven't commented on what they knew. They commented on their understanding of what he would plead

They are different
Click to expand...

Thank you - just wanted that clearing up. Confirms what I thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top