• 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.
FIVE said:
Daily mail Article saying sick sunderland fans sang he shags who he wants at hull.
Sickening act etc etc.
Sang his name glorifying him etc.
Looks like the press are looking for scapegoats and were getting slaughtered for it.
Click to expand...
Hopefully that will go away but after the way we were treated over PDC I just don't know
 

The Sheepfolds End said:
That's not good enough IMO. That wouldn't wash for most people and unions would accept their member being suspended with full pay pending investigation.
Click to expand...

Of course they would. It's standard f***ing procedure.

Why do people think the PFA can insist that a player is played? It's baffling. The PFA could whinge if he was suspended without pay but as long as he's getting his salary wtf do people think they're going to say?
 
haway said:
He admitted in his police station interview he kissed her - that came out in trial - if they just asked for a copy of the tape before reinstating him they would have known.

I don't know, I think there would be much less of a shit storm than the current situation where it appears (allegedly and currently) like we've played someone we knew kissed a minor.
Click to expand...
The police wouldn't have presented it to them mate, that much I do know. Aye, you're probably right on the second point.
 
Sweeper said:
As long as it's not true that (i) the club were given copies of the transcripts and whatsapp messages at the meeting last year, and (ii) Johnson told the club at the meeting that he had met and kissed a 15 year old girl, then you are right. However IF it is true, then I think the club have acted incorrectly in allowing him to play. If it isn't true, why has the Club not actually dealt with those allegations in the statement? If it's not true, then what is the club statement referring to when it says "Some documents were received relating to the case". If those documents weren't the transcript and whatsapp messages, what were they?

I really am worried by the Club's attempt to skirt over the issues surrounding that meeting, and what the club were given/told at it. It looks really bad.
Click to expand...


I will admit, the decision to allow him to play while being in the middle of a legal battle is controversial and some may say wrong. But I genuinely don;t think the club were aware of the extent to which he had committed a crime.

It looks bad but the club stood by him and gave him a chance due to the "Innocent until proven guilty" principle.

Sadly he's thrown it back in our faces in his attempt to soften the blow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATS
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...
The club have behaved very well in a sad and difficult situation. Anybody who disagrees is a mag, wum or just simply wrong.
 
Sweeper said:
On the contrary, the reports (unrefuted in the club statement) are that the club was informed that he had met and kissed the girl, and that the club had been provided with copies of the police transcripts and the 800 whatsapp messages between him and the girl.
Click to expand...

Club would not have had police statements. The police and the CPS do not give statements made in a police station to employers. I have direct experience of this, so should know. Unlike a lot of wannabe Columbo's on here whose only experience of the whole getting arrested, being charged and going to court is probably down to watching a few episodes of the Bill. What the club would have been informed of is the allegations being made due to the nature of the offence and the nature of Johnson's employment. Hence the safeguarding and seeking independent legal advice by the club.

If there was a sniff that Johnson was guilty of the allegations, he'd have been sacked there and then, which is in fact exactly what happened when he put a guilty plea in. The issue seems to be just how much did the club know. From the statement they released it's obvious to me that they knew what the allegations were but were bound by that innocent until proven guilty malarky and couldn't actually act on them. Especially when Johnson had stated he was going to deny them all. So all the club had was one set of allegations and a denial, not one scrap of evidence.

The only thing I'm doubtful of is the whole suspension thing as I don't know what employment law has to say about this. Obviously you can't sack someone for allegations but not sure about if it would have been possible to suspend him indefinitely.

Johnson is the one who lied through his teeth all the way and it's him thta should be getting the boot put into him. Not sure how anyone else is to blame for him wanting to shag a 15 year old.
 
We'll see what the morning press say tomorrow and commentators. I'm sure to some it will all be an anti-SAFC conspiracy and we've actually done nothing wrong, but IMO we'll get torn apart for some of the decisions made in this case, and quite rightly.

I'm all for defending SAFC when there's bullshit about, but as I said at the time he was arrested and have since, he should have been suspended with pay.
 
Redcar said:
The CEO was present in the interview and saw the documents relating to the case ie the WhatsApp messages (according to what was revealed in court, which the club haven't denied in the statement) .

From what was revealed in those messages it was pretty clear he'd be guilty. If I was a SAFC fan I'd be sickened if she didn't sack him after seeing those.
Click to expand...
:lol: :lol:
 
Going from the live updates which I appreciate are just snippets, I thought this may happen given that there didn't seem to be any definite proof.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Aye, that probably would have been the best treatment - though it would too have been a lie and a similar shit storm would be occurring now. I don't agree with you on the first point, the club couldn't have known they would be presented with such evidence and admission having presumably (based on his being brought back from suspension) previous denials to the club. I think they were right to reintroduce him at that point. Without the benefit of hindsight at least.
Click to expand...

Its a difficult one, because had we kept him suspended, you can bet your last dollar that the prosecution, would have stood up in court and mentioned he had been suspended by his club. A lot of people would then think no smoke without fire and guilty.

Mind you don't suspend him and allegations went direct to player such as 60,000 good reasons.

6 of one half a dozen of the other
 
janey said:
I didn't say it was or wasn't good enough, you said you'd like to know why his suspension was lifted and I told you what the club reason was
Click to expand...

Te explanation isn't good enough; what consultations with the PFA? What did they say? Did they insist he had to be available to play?
 
ollie c said:
A serious allegation indeed. Good luck with it.
Click to expand...

I would never post that on here because I know what the admins are like and I know they've had unfair stick from the club, and wouldn't want to cause them any trouble, but to be honest I would happily say exactly what you highlighted and would have zero fear that I would be sued.
 
LineTrash said:
Seems odd that the club would suspend him, then after this meeting, he's back in the squad. I think the club were as professional as it could be...they were put in an awful position and had to deal with a lot of delicate issues. Some of these posters would've shit their pants in the same position.
Click to expand...
I cant help but wonder if SAFC learned that they could not suspend him without pay and then decided to reinstate him after they realised they had to pay him until he pleaded guilty. Just a thought................
 
haway said:
He admitted in his police station interview he kissed her - that came out in trial - if they just asked for a copy of the tape before reinstating him they would have known.

I don't know, I think there would be much less of a shit storm than the current situation where it appears (allegedly and currently) like we've played someone we knew kissed a minor.
Click to expand...
No way the police would handle taped evidence over mind
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top