• 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.
gods_homeboy said:
Dailymail online has an article about the lass going to sue Johnson for £1 million. Wouldn't be surprised if she trys to bring a lawsuit against Sunderland after the police statement said something along the lines of "the victim has asked the police why was Adam Johnson allowed to continue playing for Sunderland after his arrest"
Click to expand...

Yeah there's an article on BBC news about British Airways settling out of court to pay damages to victims of one of BA's pilots. He was accused of abusing kids whilst on stop overs in Africa. It never even got to court either as he killed himself.

The fact AJ met the victim at the club and he used the SAFC shirt as an excuse to meet her is a link that maybe could be used. I'm not sure but it wouldnt surprise me.
I guess it could also be impacted on whether the club provide training to players about meeting fans etc too and online training. It's all very much open to interpretation in terms of liability. But it's certainly possible the Club could find itself getting dragged into this. I'm not sure how the "Playing him in games" bit would be interpreted mind??
 

Reiver said:
I don't have the time to list every poster and categorise them, neither do you.

To clarify, only those that qualify are included in my comments, the others don't .......... there you go.

Apply that simple rule to all my posts and it'll save you having to type out a response every time ;)
Click to expand...

That's what I'm doing. That and pointing up the difference between what you're doing and what you say you're doing
 
Cockney Mackem said:
As far as the police evidence is concerned, at that point the club is not exposed IMHO.

The meeting on 4th May is what needs to be clarified.
Click to expand...

Like I said before from a legal standpoint, the club has followed all the rules, took advice from many sources, even with all the dodgy meetings in a black and white world the club is bulletproof.

Now IMO a football club is very different to any other business, its more than just a team or a brand its part of the wider community where players are hero's and villains, that effects the fans lives when things or good or bad, with that in mind I think the club had a moral duty to act and ere on the side of caution, its such a nasty offence and with the way public opinion is after the Saville mess, I think the board made a mistake, I also think the club made a mistake with the last statement, that just poked the hornets nest and made it into a bigger story about cover ups and what not, would have been better to admit the club made a mistake than that statement.

From what I understand when Short is away Byrne is the person in charge, so the buck stops with her on the staff side ( cant really sack the owner ) So IMO I think she has to carry the can, if this was her first mistake, maybe just maybe she could worm her way out of it, but this is just one of a list of things that have the club in a poor light.

She should resign for the good of the club.
 
Last edited:
gods_homeboy said:
Could the club not take civil action against him for doing this?
Click to expand...

Yes but the financial benefit would probably be small because he's out of contract so they've said they won't be taking action against him.

That was before he tried to throw them under the bus in court though and potential damages to reputation could be a decent amount so I guess we'll have to wait and see.
 
viccarlton said:
I've been wondering this all along, unlike some on this thread I'm not a legal expert but don't understand why it takes a year to get to court, anyone help?
Click to expand...

Lots of reasons could affect it.
Availability of barristers , judge , witnesses etc.
Fitting a 2 or potentially 3 week trial into a court listing.
Either side seeking adjournments to make further enquiries or address any issues that have arisen.
There are probably loads of others as well.
 
Spam Javelin said:
Lots of reasons could affect it.
Availability of barristers , judge , witnesses etc.
Fitting a 2 or potentially 3 week trial into a court listing.
Either side seeking adjournments to make further enquiries or address any issues that have arisen.
There are probably loads of others as well.
Click to expand...

In August 2015 there was a hearing on legal and procedural matters and it was agreed at that time to put back the date of the trial to February 2016. The reasons for this were not made public.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
That's what I'm doing. That and pointing up the difference between what you're doing and what you say you're doing
Click to expand...

Keep up the good work, you're holding this thread together and righting all the wrongs.

I know exactly what I'm saying and doing ...... it's all in the interpretation and dependant on your agenda.
 
chrismisterx said:
Like I said before from a legal standpoint, the club has followed all the rules, took advice from many sources, even with all the dodgy meetings in a black and white world the club is bulletproof.

Now IMO a football club is very different to any other business, its more than just a team or a brand its part of the wider community where players are hero's and villains, that effects the fans lives when things or good or bad, with that in mind I think the club had a moral duty to act and ere on the side of caution, its such a nasty offence and with the way public opinion is after the Saville mess, I think the board made a mistake, I also think the club made a mistake with the last statement, that just poked the hornets nest and made it into a bigger story about cover ups and what not, would have been better to admit the club made a mistake than that statement.

From what I understand when Short is away Byrne is the person in charge, so the buck stops with her on the staff side ( cant really sack the owner ) So IMO I think she has to carry the can, if this was her first mistake, maybe just maybe she could worm her way out of it, but this is just one of a list of things that have the club in a poor light.

She should resign for the good of the club.
Click to expand...

100 % agree like.
 
genericus said:
No she was given transcripts of police interviews in May, after his suspension was lifted and after he had been arrested and allowed to carry on playing.
If you're going to throw accusations at least get them right.
Click to expand...

There seems to be an 'understanding' from people that the club were shown every bit of evidence against Johnson.

If that were true I'd find that more than strange that the police should be doing that prior to a case being brought.
 
The Sandance Kid said:
Yeah there's an article on BBC news about British Airways settling out of court to pay damages to victims of one of BA's pilots. He was accused of abusing kids whilst on stop overs in Africa. It never even got to court either as he killed himself.

The fact AJ met the victim at the club and he used the SAFC shirt as an excuse to meet her is a link that maybe could be used. I'm not sure but it wouldnt surprise me.
I guess it could also be impacted on whether the club provide training to players about meeting fans etc too and online training. It's all very much open to interpretation in terms of liability. But it's certainly possible the Club could find itself getting dragged into this. I'm not sure how the "Playing him in games" bit would be interpreted mind??
Click to expand...
Remember that BA case wasn't it an official BA charity which he was visiting as a representative of the company
 
Reiver said:
There seems to be an 'understanding' from people that the club were shown every bit of evidence against Johnson.

If that were true I'd find that more than strange that the police should be doing that prior to a case being brought.
Click to expand...
saw something on twitter last night from a copper that stated that the police wouldn't disclose specifics bar the charges against him, it was down to the accused party to discuss what actually happened with an employer.

His QC apparently handed transcripts of his police interviews to the club, these same police interviews where Johnson has admitted lying in to save himself.
 
genericus said:
saw something on twitter last night from a copper that stated that the police wouldn't disclose specifics bar the charges against him, it was down to the accused party to discuss what actually happened with an employer.

His QC apparently handed transcripts of his police interviews to the club, these same police interviews where Johnson has admitted lying in to save himself.
Click to expand...
 
A lot being said about the special nature of this (as opposed to a plumber from Darlo etc) - seems to me such a long delay in the court date was the major factor in the fingers now being pointed at the club. Innocent until proven guilty is easy to say and just as easy to dismiss but that year's delay has hurt the club - when the sum total of the evidence is available messages, a small number of second hand witnesses, and the testimony of those involved, why such a delay? No complex forensics, no search for a weapon etc etc. Surely in the public interest and interests of the accused and victim this should have been processed to the point of trial with haste and 'Wearside women' would be better criticising the system for delaying than the club for being in a diificult position as employer.
 
Reiver said:
There seems to be an 'understanding' from people that the club were shown every bit of evidence against Johnson.

If that were true I'd find that more than strange that the police should be doing that prior to a case being brought.
Click to expand...
...even prior to an arrest being made! (maybe that's what you mean?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top