Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[Purrfect South]

Yep... Imagine you're the club and Johnson says 'she was a bit of a fan and was always around waiting for me, I decided to help her out, sign a couple of shirts for her, and I know I shouldn't have but I gave her a kiss - now I'm horrified to discover she was underage - so I'm going to defend the charge/s' - when presented like that, you might have sympathy - and the club probably did have such sympathy. I don't believe he admitted to a passionate kiss, nor to grooming at that time. So that's going to be his first admission to the club and his claim 'they knew everything'. Clearly they didn't know EVERYTHING at that point. There's no way he's told them about the intimate nature of the conversations etc. It's not clear if he admitted to knowing she was under 16 before the kiss, or if he merely admitted to knowing she was under 16 in light of the allegations (big difference).

Then along comes his father and barrister to meet with the club - which one can only assume was in relation to employment matters, obtaining corroborating evidence from the club, and possibly to discuss PR. We're told it was the barrister's first meeting with Johnson, so I doubt they start laying out tonnes of evidence to SAFC! It's going to be more of a show of strength from Johnson's side and trying to keep his employer onside - not arm them with evidence to sack him!



It doesn't mean he has to be kept away from them, just that he should be supervised in their presence. A photo won't reveal who else was around.

Cheers for clarifying the last bit up, and the kissing stuff. That picture meant nothing then, as there were people with him.

 

[billyboy]

I would hope he was told not to interact with fans after the alleged first meeting between club/ police. See no reason why other players should be told to stop signing autographs etc.

To safeguard the kids the rule applies to all surely, or there's no point having the rule. Who would have thought Johnson would have done what he did. Look at the scandal with the BBC everyone is a potential offender!

 

[haway]

Yep... Imagine you're the club and Johnson says 'she was a bit of a fan and was always around waiting for me, I decided to help her out, sign a couple of shirts for her, and I know I shouldn't have but I gave her a kiss - now I'm horrified to discover she was underage - so I'm going to defend the charge/s' - when presented like that, you might have sympathy - and the club probably did have such sympathy. I don't believe he admitted to a passionate kiss, nor to grooming at that time. So that's going to be his first admission to the club and his claim 'they knew everything'. Clearly they didn't know EVERYTHING at that point. There's no way he's told them about the intimate nature of the conversations etc. It's not clear if he admitted to knowing she was under 16 before the kiss, or if he merely admitted to knowing she was under 16 in light of the allegations (big difference).

Then along comes his father and barrister to meet with the club - which one can only assume was in relation to employment matters, obtaining corroborating evidence from the club, and possibly to discuss PR. We're told it was the barrister's first meeting with Johnson, so I doubt they start laying out tonnes of evidence to SAFC! It's going to be more of a show of strength from Johnson's side and trying to keep his employer onside - not arm them with evidence to sack him!



It doesn't mean he has to be kept away from them, just that he should be supervised in their presence. A photo won't reveal who else was around.

The only issue is it has been alleged the club had copies of police station interview in which he said he snogged her, not just a peck, and he knew she was 15. They allegedly also had copies of the whatsapps in which he said made sexual explicit comments about fingering her and her feeling his nob. Now, if they didn't actually have copies of those two things, why don't they just deny it? Nobody is denying that is what *might* have been said to SAFC. The issue is it's been alleged otherwise and the club haven't said anything else. That is why people are asking for answers. Because the club haven't yet denied the allegations put to them, that they had whatsapps and copies of defence papers that clearly seem to say more than 'he pecked her on the cheek'.

 

[FanchesterCity]

To safeguard the kids the rule applies to all surely, or there's no point having the rule. Who would have thought Johnson would have done what he did. Look at the scandal with the BBC everyone is a potential offender!

Yes, but there are levels of safeguarding - which is really about levels of risk. Every club has safeguarding in place (no adult to ever be left alone with a child unless under exceptional circumstances) - but that's all about 'normal' levels of risk. Once Johnson was suspected of an offence, the risk levels for him go up, so additional measures above and beyond 'normal' would be applied to him specifically. It would probably amount to minimising his participation in kids activities, and being under specific supervision in cases when kids were involved.

It would be unfair to expect everybody to be under specific supervision at all times just because of one bad apple, but that doesn't mean safeguarding isn't always in place - it is. But like most things in life, it's proportionate to risk - it's not failsafe.

 

[haway]

To safeguard the kids the rule applies to all surely, or there's no point having the rule. Who would have thought Johnson would have done what he did. Look at the scandal with the BBC everyone is a potential offender!

Surely it only applies to those who have been arrested and charged with a sex offence against children they *allegedly* (at that point) groomed via signing autographs and giving signed shirts...

Yes, but there are levels of safeguarding - which is really about levels of risk. Every club has safeguarding in place (no adult to ever be left alone with a child unless under exceptional circumstances) - but that's all about 'normal' levels of risk. Once Johnson was suspected of an offence, the risk levels for him go up, so additional measures above and beyond 'normal' would be applied to him specifically. It would probably amount to minimising his participation in kids activities, and being under specific supervision in cases when kids were involved.

It would be unfair to expect everybody to be under specific supervision at all times just because of one bad apple, but that doesn't mean safeguarding isn't always in place - it is. But like most things in life, it's proportionate to risk - it's not failsafe.

Part the issue is though when someone meets a fan and gives them a signed shirt, and thus exploited their position as a footballer at SAFC, it's hard to see how you can adequately safeguard, because even if you keep them away from kids on club premises, they can exploit their position as 'the guy who played for SAFC last week' to potentially exploit another child. Hence why it seems reasonable imo SAFC explain what safeguarding they put in place or let someone like the NSPCC look at it independently.

 

[FanchesterCity]

The only issue is it has been alleged the club had copies of police station interview in which he said he snogged her, not just a peck, and he knew she was 15. They allegedly also had copies of the whatsapps in which he said made sexual explicit comments about fingering her and her feeling his nob. Now, if they didn't actually have copies of those two things, why don't they just deny it? Nobody is denying that is what *might* have been said to SAFC. The issue is it's been alleged otherwise and the club haven't said anything else. That is why people are asking for answers. Because the club haven't yet denied the allegations put to them, that they had whatsapps and copies of defence papers that clearly seem to say more than 'he pecked her on the cheek'.

I'm sure he'd admitted to the kissing (not just a peck on the cheek) but that it was in the context of believing her to be older (as in that he was letting the club believe). As for the snapchat logs etc, I would be very surprised if the club had visibility of those. Not saying they didn't, but I would be extremely surprised. It would be suicide for the defence to be revealing them to the club, and (arguably) unethical for the police to be revealing them.
But lets imagine for a moment that this DID have all of those logs and saw both sides of the messages (to and from) - what then? they'd still have to making their own judgment on his guilt outside of a court. I'd argue they could have sacked him (and probably should have) in light of those messages - but others might disagree. But it's a huge 'IF' they saw all those messages, and I can't for the life of me see why they would be privvy to them.

 

[billyboy]

Yes, but there are levels of safeguarding - which is really about levels of risk. Every club has safeguarding in place (no adult to ever be left alone with a child unless under exceptional circumstances) - but that's all about 'normal' levels of risk. Once Johnson was suspected of an offence, the risk levels for him go up, so additional measures above and beyond 'normal' would be applied to him specifically. It would probably amount to minimising his participation in kids activities, and being under specific supervision in cases when kids were involved.

It would be unfair to expect everybody to be under specific supervision at all times just because of one bad apple, but that doesn't mean safeguarding isn't always in place - it is. But like most things in life, it's proportionate to risk - it's not failsafe.

I understand that but you're missing my point which is there's always the chance of this happening. If someone has been accused, then surely they are less likely or in a position to continue offending due to the publicity associated with the accusations. I'm all for safeguarding but in reality these offences have never nor will be preventable.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Surely it only applies to those who have been arrested and charged with a sex offence against children they *allegedly* (at that point) groomed via signing autographs and giving signed shirts...



Part the issue is though when someone meets a fan and gives them a signed shirt, and thus exploited their position as a footballer at SAFC, it's hard to see how you can adequately safeguard, because even if you keep them away from kids on club premises, they can exploit their position as 'the guy who played for SAFC last week' to potentially exploit another child. Hence why it seems reasonable imo SAFC explain what safeguarding they put in place or let someone like the NSPCC look at it independently.

I disagree, I think you've made the case for why that's not possible.

Firstly though, meeting a fan and giving them a shirt isn't exploitation of position. It's a nice gesture and should be welcomed. That's not what Johnson did wrong - it was what else he did that was wrong.
Secondly, the point about what they do outside of work is something out of SAFC's hands - so no scrutiny of their safeguarding policies and procedures is ever going to stop that.
Thirdly, there is no indication that safeguarding at SAFC failed. Everything happened outside of the workplace - so where is the failure with SAFC and their safeguarding? If it had happened at the club, then yes, their policy MIGHT have been under scrutiny.

It should be noted too - that IF an offence takes place in the workplace, it does not necessarily mean there is a fault or inadequacy in the safeguarding / protection measures. For instance... if a member of staff drops his pants in front of children with other adults present - there is no safeguarding measure that could have reasonable foreseen that, nor could it have prevented it. In the same way that if a gunman walks into a school and shoots, you cannot say that the school had a poor gun protection policy.
In contrast, if it's common practice for a member of staff to be alone with a child, and then there's an incident, then the policy would be deemed inadequate, as reasonably foreseeable risks where not guarded against.

I understand that but you're missing my point which is there's always the chance of this happening. If someone has been accused, then surely they are less likely or in a position to continue offending due to the publicity associated with the accusations. I'm all for safeguarding but in reality these offences have never nor will be preventable.

Well, ironically, yes I agree with you - it's a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, and I agree they are less likely to offend knowing they are already under the microscope, but it's arse covering as well. Once you've identified someone as a potential risk, if you do nothing, and they DO offend again, then you're really for the high jump. So by default, you have to be seen to be 'reacting' to the perceived increased risk.
And... although I agree that most would be crazy to re-offend, there will be some who get off on the risk and carry on anyway. So you just can't take the chance.

 

[haway]

I'm sure he'd admitted to the kissing (not just a peck on the cheek) but that it was in the context of believing her to be older (as in that he was letting the club believe). As for the snapchat logs etc, I would be very surprised if the club had visibility of those. Not saying they didn't, but I would be extremely surprised. It would be suicide for the defence to be revealing them to the club, and (arguably) unethical for the police to be revealing them.
But lets imagine for a moment that this DID have all of those logs and saw both sides of the messages (to and from) - what then? they'd still have to making their own judgment on his guilt outside of a court. I'd argue they could have sacked him (and probably should have) in light of those messages - but others might disagree. But it's a huge 'IF' they saw all those messages, and I can't for the life of me see why they would be privvy to them.

The issues with what you say are:
1) He admitted in the police station he knew she was 15. This came out in court, from the police station transcripts.
2) It was alleged in court by both AJ and his QC that SAFC had transcripts of the messages. If they didn't, that's fine, but they need to deny they did.
3) They probably could have sacked him, as you say, but that's not anyone is really suggested. What is suggested is either he was suspended on full pay or just not played.

I disagree, I think you've made the case for why that's not possible.

Firstly though, meeting a fan and giving them a shirt isn't exploitation of position. It's a nice gesture and should be welcomed. That's not what Johnson did wrong - it was what else he did that was wrong.
Secondly, the point about what they do outside of work is something out of SAFC's hands - so no scrutiny of their safeguarding policies and procedures is ever going to stop that.
Thirdly, there is no indication that safeguarding at SAFC failed. Everything happened outside of the workplace - so where is the failure with SAFC and their safeguarding? If it had happened at the club, then yes, their policy MIGHT have been under scrutiny.

It should be noted too - that IF an offence takes place in the workplace, it does not necessarily mean there is a fault or inadequacy in the safeguarding / protection measures. For instance... if a member of staff drops his pants in front of children with other adults present - there is no safeguarding measure that could have reasonable foreseen that, nor could it have prevented it. In the same way that if a gunman walks into a school and shoots, you cannot say that the school had a poor gun protection policy.
In contrast, if it's common practice for a member of staff to be alone with a child, and then there's an incident, then the policy would be deemed inadequate, as reasonably foreseeable risks where not guarded against.


Well, ironically, yes I agree with you - it's a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, and I agree they are less likely to offend knowing they are already under the microscope, but it's arse covering as well. Once you've identified someone as a potential risk, if you do nothing, and they DO offend again, then you're really for the high jump. So by default, you have to be seen to be 'reacting' to the perceived increased risk.
And... although I agree that most would be crazy to re-offend, there will be some who get off on the risk and carry on anyway. So you just can't take the chance.

1) The point I'm making isn't he gave the shirt, it's that he gave the shirt to try and exploit a child.
2) If someone has been alleged to use their position in work to meet children and exploit them outside of work it IS in issue for the employer.
3) I agree. But the Q is why they still employed him after it was alleged he met girls at the training ground then exploited them in his own time.

Nobody is saying it is SAFC's fault this happened. The Q is why they didn't then suspend him.

 

[Rober33]

Surely it only applies to those who have been arrested and charged with a sex offence against children they *allegedly* (at that point) groomed via signing autographs and giving signed shirts...



Part the issue is though when someone meets a fan and gives them a signed shirt, and thus exploited their position as a footballer at SAFC, it's hard to see how you can adequately safeguard, because even if you keep them away from kids on club premises, they can exploit their position as 'the guy who played for SAFC last week' to potentially exploit another child. Hence why it seems reasonable imo SAFC explain what safeguarding they put in place or let someone like the NSPCC look at it independently.

Or the 'Guy who played for England'

 

[Dogbark]

The only issue is it has been alleged the club had copies of police station interview in which he said he snogged her, not just a peck, and he knew she was 15. They allegedly also had copies of the whatsapps in which he said made sexual explicit comments about fingering her and her feeling his nob. Now, if they didn't actually have copies of those two things, why don't they just deny it? Nobody is denying that is what *might* have been said to SAFC. The issue is it's been alleged otherwise and the club haven't said anything else. That is why people are asking for answers. Because the club haven't yet denied the allegations put to them, that they had whatsapps and copies of defence papers that clearly seem to say more than 'he pecked her on the cheek'.

Source?

The contents of the documents they were handed is unknown.

The club mentioned in their statement, that they passed on documents immediately. But that's not good enough for you and a few others, as you you want your pound of flesh.

 

[haway]

Source?

The contents of the documents they were handed is unknown.

The club mentioned in their statement, that they passed on documents immediately. But that's not good enough for you and a few others, as you you want your pound of flesh.

You must be logged on to see external links

"It was claimed in court that chief executive Margaret Byrne had access to transcripts of police interviews in which Johnson admitted kissing and touching the girl in his Range Rover, and that she also saw copies of the text messages between the England international and his 15-year-old victim, which led him to admit an offence of grooming."

As I said in my post: 'allegedly'. If it's not true they need to deny it.

Or the 'Guy who played for England'

But you can't stop that, it's the past. What you can do is prevent it being further compounded by playing him.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Right I thought that's what it might mean. However, was he, and the rest of the squad told not to do this, as in theory any player could abuse their position as footballing heroes to kids. Maybe we should ban all player contact with the general public and keep the players in special secure accommodation excepting training periods and game time. It just all seems so bizarre.

It's an interesting one that...
You could for instance envisage a club saying on it's website and other media 'Our players are strictly forbidden in engaging in any activity outside of officially sanctioned activities organised or approved by the club' - but how would that look? it would reek of 'because we can't trust the buggers' or at least 'because we're a domineering sort of club who wants to control everything'. And even then, it would massively reduce the number of activities the club could send representatives to.

You can add to that by then looking at the repercussions of such a policy... even if the club officially sanctions that a former player / club representative visits a s

The issues with what you say are:
1) He admitted in the police station he knew she was 15. This came out in court, from the police station transcripts.
2) It was alleged in court by both AJ and his QC that SAFC had transcripts of the messages. If they didn't, that's fine, but they need to deny they did.
3) They probably could have sacked him, as you say, but that's not anyone is really suggested. What is suggested is either he was suspended on full pay or just not played.

 

[Rober33]

But you can't stop that, it's the past. What you can do is prevent it being further compounded by playing him.

My point in making that statement is he was a rich, successful and famous footballer long before he ever played for Sunderland, in fact more so.

He could have used his fame at any time to do what he's done now, even if he never played for Sunderland. I can't see how him continuing to play for us after being charged would increase the risk of him re-offending.

He also wasn't handing a shirt out as part of his duties with SAFC, we all know there are official signing events that take place and this wasn't one of them.

 

[Dogbark]

You must be logged on to see external links

"It was claimed in court that chief executive Margaret Byrne had access to transcripts of police interviews in which Johnson admitted kissing and touching the girl in his Range Rover, and that she also saw copies of the text messages between the England international and his 15-year-old victim, which led him to admit an offence of grooming."

As I said in my post: 'allegedly'. If it's not true they need to deny it.

Fuckin' 'ell man!

From the post you replied to "The club mentioned in their statement, that they passed on documents immediately. "

Do you actually believe the club statement?

 

[FanchesterCity]

The issues with what you say are:
1) He admitted in the police station he knew she was 15. This came out in court, from the police station transcripts.
2) It was alleged in court by both AJ and his QC that SAFC had transcripts of the messages. If they didn't, that's fine, but they need to deny they did.
3) They probably could have sacked him, as you say, but that's not anyone is really suggested. What is suggested is either he was suspended on full pay or just not played.

1) He admitted that to the police, yes, but we don't know what he admitted to SAFC - there are no transcripts for that one!
He said he'd told Sunderland about the kissing (but not the intensity of it) - and he's not said he told them he KNEW she was underage at the time of the kissing, only that he knew she was underage now (as in as a result of the arrest).

2) Was it alleged that they had transcripts of the messages? I can't find any supporting evidence that the defence said that (not saying you're wrong, I just can't find it).
As far as I know, he said they 'knew everything' - but that's ambiguous. Does he mean:
- they knew everything that was known at the time? i.e. He'd been arrested and what the charges were (but nothing about the contents of his snapchat messages etc)
- they knew everything he's admitted to SAFC (not the police) - i.e. That he HAD kissed a girl and that she was under 16 (but not that he knew she was under 16 at the time)
- that they had the interview transcripts?
- that they had all the snapchat and photo evidence?
- that they had literally ALL the available evidence?
It's hard to believe they could possibly 'know everything' because some of the evidence wasn't yet available. So what does he mean by saying it?

3) I think the club possibly missed the major opportunity to suspend him (again) when he was charged. I 'suspect' that because they'd suspended him, then let him return, that they might have been worried that they looked indecisive in suspending him for a second time, so erred on the side of keeping things as they were... only it dragged on for the best part of a year, but they were getting very little criticism over that decision so probably thought they'd ridden things out quite well. It was only as the trial loomed, and then his admission of guilt that suddenly landed them right back in trouble, and now he's been found guilty, it all looks very bad indeed. I'm sure they'd have done things differently knowing what they now know, but it all stems back to the moment he was officially charged. It was all happening so quickly I don't think they wanted to be seen as changing their minds every couple of weeks, and decided to 'stick' - wrongly - with keeping him playing.

 

[ANonnyMoose]

From what I see most of the pompous drivel comes from you. Repeating parrot fashion what you want to be true does not make it true.


What does it say? Bbc blocked here.

"Pompous drivel"? Who the fuck are you? That's the single most pompous thing written on this entire thread. Oh boo hoo, do I not agree with your thinking? Arse.

Just on this point, they were not the only choices available to the club. They did not need to suspend him, they could have simply not selected him for the match day squad. They could have done this without in any way influencing the trial by saying that because of the allegations Johnson was being given time to deal with personal issues without the added pressure of playing top level football.
The club can not be forced to play any player, not by the PFA, and not by a QC.

Well, we don't know what the PFA said (as far as I am aware), but yes, I agree that would have been possible.

When the club has said that no further comments are going to be made about it then they're basically putting all the pressure of the manager, the club has handled this in the worst possible way

And all he has to say is the same, and if the press keep asking the questions he stands up and walks out. Those pre-match conferences are for things relating to the upcoming match, he doesn't have to answer anything else.

I agree not at all, but it's clearly gross misconduct by admitting kissing the underage fan with tongues, there's no question about that, which the club's lawyers will have read and acknowledged.

Sorry, where was that admitted? All I have seen is he admitted to kissing the girl - no other context was admitted. Did I miss something?

He allegedly told the club he kissed a fan. It has been alleged that at the same time the club had documents that contained the messages between them, and johnsons 1st police interview transcript in which he admitted that he knew the girl was only 15.
This meeting supposedly took place on the 4th of May, which was 2 months after police had at the very least told the club of the allegations/charges Johnson was facing.
If you believe that this meeting occurred, and what Johnsons QC said in court about Byrne having access to what she did, then Byrnes position is untenable. Not because of anything the club may have done legally, but because she is CEO and is ultimately responsible for the club and businesses image.
If the meeting on May 4th occurred, and Johnson admitted kissing the girl, as you have said the context in which he placed it is important. However, in such a meeting, surely Byrne is responsible for finding out that context? She allegedly had documents that Johnson and his defence were happy for her to have and again if this meeting occurred either read them, or didn't. Either way she would be in a bad position. Either she did know and someone at the club decided Johnson would continue to be available for selection anyway (remember suspension had already been lifted by May) or if she did not read the documents, bearing in mind she definitely knew about all of the charges he was facing, she failed to be vigilant enough about the potential damage that could be caused to the clubs reputation.

Now, again the May meeting might not have occurred, the lead DI on the case might not have made is as plain to Byrne as she alleged to the BBC yesterday, and Johnson could very easy be manipulating exactly what he told the club. However, the club is facing these allegations, and they are not defending themselves against them. The statement they made was very cleverly worded and denied knowing he was going to change his plea, but does not deny knowledge of what it is alleged he admitted to the club in private.

Now regarding deciding on his guilt, Johnson was entitled under the law to plead not guilty and have a trial by jury. He would have been entitled to do this even if he had admitted all charges in a police interview. The club is not there to decide his guilt, but if the club did have knowledge of what he had already admitted to privately (again not his official plea stance) the club could have simply not played him until the conclusion of his trial. No official action, either suspension or sacking needed to happen. Just do not select him, stating that time was being given to Johnson so he could sort out personal issues without the added pressure of football. This would have protected firstly the victim, and secondly the club.

I just want the club I love to come out and categorically deny that they continued to play Johnson despite knowing what it has been alleged they knew. In my opinion, and the opinion of various agencies including the NSPCC the statement they released has not done this.

The police interview has nothing to do with the club - that is between the police and the accused (and his lawyers). When the police spoke to the club, it was before this interview and before he admitted anything to them, it was just to let the club know of the things he had been accused of (Is that standard practice for the police to do this by the way?).

Now to the meeting and the messages. We still do not know exactly what was said in that meeting and who was present and who arrived/left in the middle. The club say the messages were passed straight to their lawyer, that's surely his call from a legal position. As CEO it would surely become rather messy if you then ignored the legal advice? After all, a CEO has certain legal responsibilities to the organisation they are in charge of.

I would love for the club, or Byrne, to come out and say what they knew when and why certain decisions were made. There are points to clarify, certainly. As far as I can tell, the club made the decision that he was going to plead innocent, therefore to treat him as such until proven otherwise. I am a strong defender of that approach. As others have said, maybe the pay him but not play him attitude would have been the safest all around.

 

[DrewC]

"Pompous drivel"? Who the fuck are you? That's the single most pompous thing written on this entire thread. Oh boo hoo, do I not agree with your thinking? Arse.



Well, we don't know what the PFA said (as far as I am aware), but yes, I agree that would have been possible.



And all he has to say is the same, and if the press keep asking the questions he stands up and walks out. Those pre-match conferences are for things relating to the upcoming match, he doesn't have to answer anything else.


Sorry, where was that admitted? All I have seen is he admitted to kissing the girl - no other context was admitted. Did I miss something?


The police interview has nothing to do with the club - that is between the police and the accused (and his lawyers). When the police spoke to the club, it was before this interview and before he admitted anything to them, it was just to let the club know of the things he had been accused of (Is that standard practice for the police to do this by the way?).

Now to the meeting and the messages. We still do not know exactly what was said in that meeting and who was present and who arrived/left in the middle. The club say the messages were passed straight to their lawyer, that's surely his call from a legal position. As CEO it would surely become rather messy if you then ignored the legal advice? After all, a CEO has certain legal responsibilities to the organisation they are in charge of.

I would love for the club, or Byrne, to come out and say what they knew when and why certain decisions were made. There are points to clarify, certainly. As far as I can tell, the club made the decision that he was going to plead innocent, therefore to treat him as such until proven otherwise. I am a strong defender of that approach. As others have said, maybe the pay him but not play him attitude would have been the safest all around.

I would love the club to say nothing more.....& let's pray for the victim.

 

[RTRsBM]

"Pompous drivel"? Who the fuck are you? That's the single most pompous thing written on this entire thread. Oh boo hoo, do I not agree with your thinking? Arse.
.

Comedy genius.

 

[BRMC]

I've avoided the debate on here as it's impossible to know what's actually went on.

I see people saying the club had a obligation to the fans and the victim to suspend Johnson while the trial was pending.

My point is the club had an obligation to its other employees to keep them in a job and the club out of financial disaster.

Johnson was arguably our best midfielder and a major asset for the club. He's scored goals since his arrival that have been pivotal in us staying up. I would love to be in a position to be able to suspend him on full pay for a year, but we aren't. They've been left in ridiculous position by an employee who's turned out to be the lowest of the low.

Thankfully he's got what he deserves and the club may/may not have acted morally, however, legally they've not committed any offence. It's seems the football authorities + independent bodies were contact for guidance and advice.

I know people may not agree with this, but it worth pointing out in my opinion.

PS: I do know money is not everything.