Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[The Beautiful Game]

Good questions...

'1. Adam Johnson said in his trial that during a meeting with Margaret Byrne on May 4, 2015, he admitted grooming and kissing a 15-year-old girl. Do the club accept this happened?


2. If so, knowing the likely outcome of such serious admissions, why did they continue to play Johnson?


3. The statement says that the CEO was only present for part of the May 4 meeting. Given the seriousness of what was being discussed, why was this and who, if anyone, represented the club in her absence?


4. The club says it refuted in the "strongest possible terms" some of the evidence given by Johnson in court. Why did Margaret Byrne not attend the court to refute those claims when she was given the opportunity by the defence team?


5. Your statement talks about safeguarding measures that were put in place after Johnson’s suspension was lifted. What were those measures and which "relevant" agencies were involved?


6. What was the legal advice which prompted the club to lift Johnson’s suspension after a meeting with the PFA and was Ellis Short involved in the decision-making process?


7. If Sunderland were not fighting relegation, would the club have continued to play Johnson once his suspension was lifted?


8. Does the club acknowledge any duty of care and compensation to a life-long fan who was abused by one of their employees? And will the club be issuing a formal apology to the victim?


9. Have any further safeguarding or child-protection measures been implemented at the club as a result of the trial?


10. Do the club have any regrets over how it has acted in relation to these matters?'

Read more:

You must be logged on to see external links

Fair enough that. Better than your email anyway

 

[chrismisterx]

you say the club have done nowt wrong, but then say the CEO will have to go? Why does she suddenly in your view have to go if the club have done nowt wrong in your view?

The club did nothing wrong from a LEGAL standpoint, but from a PR and moral standpoint the CEO has made poor choices and since its not the first, but one of many poor choices there needs to be a change at boardroom level.

So if you read what I have said I didn't say the club did nothing wrong, just nothing wrong from a legal standpoint.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

If this is the case, I'm sure we all agree the club should be called out and punished.

What do you mean by punished? Byrne is not the club, she's an employee albeit a senior one. She's the one who has to answer to these questions imo, because she's the one being called out and named as the one in the meeting and the one allegedly told what Johnson had done. The way I see it is her, and anyone else at boardroom level told, have failed the club, fans, staff and players - if they did know of course.

 

[Scotty 1978]

It's horrible seeing my club being dragged through the mud like this, they need to starting answering these fuckers very soon

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

The club did nothing wrong from a LEGAL standpoint, but from a PR and moral standpoint the CEO has made poor choices and since its not the first, but one of many poor choices there needs to be a change at boardroom level.

So if you read what I have said I didn't say the club did nothing wrong, just nothing wrong from a legal standpoint.

Last night you said "Not saying Byrne needs sacking" - you seem to be contradicting yourself a lot

 

[redandwhiterob]

It's horrible seeing my club being dragged through the mud like this, they need to starting answering these fuckers very soon

If it could have been answered satisfactory it would have been dealt with in the statement

 

[PitYacker]

Not sure whether its come up in the 248 pages but surely its illegal to show anyone, such as an employer, evidence for a case that has not gone to court yet? I would have thought SAFC would be made a aware of allegations and even if Johnson admitted kissing the girl his QC was advising him to plead his innocence. So you would assume that Johnson and his QC believed there was mitigating circumstances as to why he did kiss her?

2 big things there, surely they cant be shown all the evidence by the police or anyone else for that matter and the fact that he maintained his innocence would suggest that he was telling his QC, his missus and the club something else that would prove he was innocent?

 

[Buzzer]

If it could have been answered satisfactory it would have been dealt with in the statement

1000% this.

 

[Sima]

What do you mean by punished? Byrne is not the club, she's an employee albeit a senior one. She's the one who has to answer to these questions imo, because she's the one being called out and named as the one in the meeting and the one allegedly told what Johnson had done. The way I see it is her, and anyone else at boardroom level told, have failed the club, fans, staff and players - if they did know of course.

There's no grounds for punishment but in the role of CEO Byrne is the club tbf.

 

[Rober33]

I tell you what, if I was accused of knowing someone was guilty of a sex crime against a child and playing him anyway, and it wasn't true, I would properly deny it. I would say I did not hear Johnson admit anything, and that I did not read the documents. I would not issue a statement which doesn't actually deny it, and makes me look worse by using the exact kind of words needed for a denial on a side issue but not use them to deny the main thing.

Without a further clarification, the media and everyone else is absolutely entitled to assume someone has fucked up, and it's not twisting things in the slightest to do so.



Apparently we don't all agree that.

The fact that they knew he was guilty or not is hardly a side issue, They said "the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case".

 

[haway]

Not sure whether its come up in the 248 pages but surely its illegal to show anyone, such as an employer, evidence for a case that has not gone to court yet? I would have thought SAFC would be made a aware of allegations and even if Johnson admitted kissing the girl his QC was advising him to plead his innocence. So you would assume that Johnson and his QC believed there was mitigating circumstances as to why he did kiss her?

2 big things there, surely they cant be shown all the evidence by the police or anyone else for that matter and the fact that he maintained his innocence would suggest that he was telling his QC, his missus and the club something else that would prove he was innocent?

Defence team can show their papers to an employer if they want to. Police would have to be very careful what they said/ showed but if there's safeguarding concerns they can share info.

 

[PitYacker]

Defence team can show their papers to an employer if they want to. Police would have to be very careful what they said/ showed but if there's safeguarding concerns they can share info.

But would that not affect the outcome of a court case if the evidence for prosecution is being shown to people outside of a court of law?

 

[TradingPlaces]

This is what happens when you appoint people into the very top position with absolutely no experience of the job whatsoever. Byrne has been an unmitigated disaster, from the Di Canio fiasco to the Ji non-registration and now to this. This clubs image has been tarnished forever due to monumental fuck ups by Byrne. I've been banging the drum for her to be sacked since the Di Canio fiasco and it's been pretty obvious for a long time that she is well out of depth in a CEO role. She will never work in such a high powered role ever again, her career is finished as well.

 

[Rober33]

The club did nothing wrong from a LEGAL standpoint, but from a PR and moral standpoint the CEO has made poor choices and since its not the first, but one of many poor choices there needs to be a change at boardroom level.

So if you read what I have said I didn't say the club did nothing wrong, just nothing wrong from a legal standpoint.

There's no evidence of this either.

 

[Black Cat Gypsy]

You must be logged on to see external links

Partying in Dubai days before his court date, yawning in court and overheard saying "this is boring, hope we're done by Friday", and one of the papers today said he thought he was only going to get a suspended sentence! Johnson lived up to every 'thick footballer' stereotype in the book

The way he acted after the Liverpool game makes me sick. He acted like some innocent man who was going to court to fight these charges and clear his name. A utter wanker!

 

[Rober33]

Defence team can show their papers to an employer if they want to. Police would have to be very careful what they said/ showed but if there's safeguarding concerns they can share info.

They shared the allegations at the time which were unproven, that's all.

 

[Deleted User 18963]

There's no evidence of this either.

You ignoring everything that has been out in the last couple of days like. Come on man, if you are not accepting March 2nd, you must accept the meeting on May 4th. Its farcical to just ignore it. She has choose to follow the innocent till proven guilty line and fuck morals and ethics. Think everyone can not see that

 

[genericus]

It's becoming quite clear that club have allowed him to play despite knowing what he's done. There's nothing "faux" about the resulting outrage, unfortunately. Very serious questions need to be answered.

Why do you personally need answers?
You are not involved in the case, you are not directly affected by the verdict and thankfully the abuse and to put it bluntly you have no reason to know.

As far as the suspension the club have followed what they could have done by employment law to the letter, granted suspension on full pay could have been an option, even then though he would have been earning money which seems to be one of the points of contention.

However I stand by what I'm saying about people with an axe to grind pushing their own agendas at the expense of allowing the case to die and allowing the victim a bit of closure.
From the second he pleaded guilty and was sacked people have been asking questions of some within the clubs hierarchy, the issue I see however is some of these people have been questioning this person within the clubs hierarchy for a while now and for me at least efforts to throw blame at the door seem petty and agenda based in the case of some people.
Then you have the media pushing unsettling and bullshit stories to grab readers attention (The Sun in particular has had 26 different stories on its website in 4 days, ranging from why EA won't remove Johnson in game, to how he watched porn in the dressing room while making insinuations of people who watch porn are paedophiles)

I expect the witch hunts and pitchforks from gutter cu.nt 'journalists' like that, I don't however expect that from the man on the street, just let the f***ing case go, let him go to jail and let the lass get some closure on what happened without constantly dredging in pointless witch hunts that serve no purpose at all, if anything using a case like this to beat the club with when they have likely been let down as much as anyone makes it look agenda based at best, at worst it makes you look a conceited cu.nt.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

The fact that they knew he was guilty or not is hardly a side issue, They said "the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case".

Except they didn't discuss whether they knew he was guilty. They discussed whether they knew he was going to PLEAD guilty. And not being in a position to make a judgement on the outcome of the case is not the same as whether they heard Johnson admit he'd done something wrong or saw incriminating texts on the transcript. And you continue to fail to answer why the club would refute an allegation that they knew he was going to plead guilty, when no one in court accused the club of knowing that, and not refute an allegation that they knew he WAS guilty. "The club could have been clearer in their statement" does not hold water on any level as an assessment of what's happened here.

The club has been accused in open court by a QC of knowing Johnson was guilty and playing him anyway. Their statement did not deny that. It said a load of other things but did not actually deny it. And the WAY it didn't deny it looks as suspicious as fuck.

 

[haway]

But would that not affect the outcome of a court case if the evidence for prosecution is being shown to people outside of a court of law?

Why would it? Unless you're showing people who are on the jury it's not going to.

Obviously it's usually good advice not to show it to lots of people, but I don't think there's any reason, legally, why a defendant would be prevented from sharing whatever they wanted with an employer.