• 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.
JimmyQuinn said:
Not really - I've seen little in this whole thing, or football as a whole, to suggest its unfeasible that they could choose to take this course of action.

You're arguing under precisely the same circumstances, so less of the patronising tone please.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, I'm not ....... I'm not making claims, demanding this or that, etc, because I'm well aware I don't know all the facts.

Doesn't stop other people though does it?
 

Rober33 said:
Was it a peck on the cheek or something more? Did the club no he was aware the girl was under 16?

It's far from as clear cut as you are making out.
Click to expand...

What I am making is very clear cut. I'm not suggesting that what was alleged in court is true. I am simply stating that what was alleged in court has not been denied by the club. Which is pretty self-evident.
 
Rober33 said:
That's quite clearly not true and I can use an example I cited last night to show this.

Imagine a new manager arrives at a club and refuses to play there best player because he was black or gay or ginger...

I'm certain that the PFA would be able to get involved even though the club were paying his wages and had every right to decide who plays in their team.
Click to expand...
All of which come under the heading of discrimination. AJ would not have been discriminated against by being suspended on full pay. Silly argument.
 
Rober33 said:
They could legally terminate his contract following a thorough investigation. Were they in a position to conduct that investigation given it surrounded an active criminal case? I doubt it. If they were would they want to try and put themselves in the position to do that or just let the police and courts do what they are experts at?
Click to expand...

Er, a thorough investigation wasn't exactly needed though was it?
One question is all it would have taken.
'Did you kiss a 15 year old (with your tongue) knowing she was under 16?'

If he says 'no' your back is mostly covered.
If he says 'yes' you can sack him or at the very least suspend him.

Why on earth wasn't this done?
 
The Master said:
Surely if SAFC didn't know the details then that would be the main message in the club statement, as it is the statement only really says that they didn't know he was going to plead guilty, which isn't what anyone is complaining about.

If they didn't know the details then just happened to forget to include that in the statement then that's a fuck up in itself.
Click to expand...

From the clubs point of view the main point is whether they knew he was guilty or not, that will certainly be what their sponsors will be wanting to know. It's also the key regarding whether they could/should sack him or not so it's easy to see that it's the most important point in their eyes.

From your point of view you want to know how much information the club has so that seems to be the most important thing.
 
haway said:
Nah, but the fact every media outlet, all with different journalists present in court, all managed to come up with the same version of what was said does kind of suggest it's true.

I guess your explanation is that the media fairy all told them to write the same thing?



That isn't what he said though, he never suggested that. What he was saying is he didn't lie to the club, not that they knew he was guilty.
Click to expand...
Ok but surely it would strengthen the case to have the ceo of the club on the stand admitting what they knew and when? If that's what they are arguing, it would have removed any doubt.
 
Rober33 said:
Was it a peck on the cheek or something more? Did the club no he was aware the girl was under 16?

It's far from as clear cut as you are making out.
Click to expand...
This is one of the things that should have been answered.

Did the club know he knew the girl was under 16 at the time he was committing the crimes.
 
Reiver said:
That's the thing, I'm not ....... I'm not making claims, demanding this or that, etc, because I'm well aware I don't know all the facts.

Doesn't stop other people though does it?
Click to expand...

So, you admit we don't know all the facts, and see that as reasoning to not ask for clarity?

Strange logic.
 
Tadger said:
Well that's bollocks for a start.

If I was accused of a sexual offence I'm fairly sure my employers would suspend me. It happens all the time.
Click to expand...
That's what people seemingly can't grasp, while he earns in a week what i earn in 4 years, he is still subject to the same employment rights and regulations as i am.
There seems to be a perceived notion that because they earn a lot more money they get better representation in their contracts, that is categorically bullshit, he is subject to the same suspension and disciplinary proceedings as a mere mortal because the club have to follow UK employment law irrespective of what someone earns.
 
JonMc said:
All of which come under the heading of discrimination. AJ would not have been discriminated against by being suspended on full pay. Silly argument.
Click to expand...

Full pay is not the only issue, think of the damage to his career that not playing for an extended period could have had.
 
hexhamali said:
I don't know, I wasn't involved in the decision. Maybe they were legally advised not to look at them in fear of bringing the case into disrepute and preventing justice from being served. The point is there's many different ways to look at this, almost all of which see the club doing no wrong. You and some others have chosen to view it from the way that makes the club look bad.
Click to expand...
Why didn't they just say that then? Clutching here...
 
Cockney Mackem said:
It has been alleged in a court of law and reported in the national press that Johnson admitted to the club that he was guilty of at least one of the child sex offences he'd been accused of. It was further alleged in court and reported in the national press that representatives of the club saw evidence that he was guilty. The club's statement does not deny either of those allegations, and in fact spends a lot of time refuting an allegation that no one has made. To suggest that this is solely nitpicking and has come only from some dusty corner of the internet is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

People make all kinds of allegations in courts of law that are absolute bollocks.

Usually by defendants who'll say anything to get off with the offence.

It seems Johnson lied to everyone about everything but we have to believe him on this one particular point do we?
 
Rober33 said:
Full pay is not the only issue, think of the damage to his career that not playing for an extended period could have had.
Click to expand...

THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE. If you think that is an issue give me just ONE source for it. When players are dropped for a year and not played do they have damages ??? what the fuck are you on about???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top