• 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.

Interesting dynamic here like.

SAFC can't be jumping the gun on the legal process, we are not judge and jury. However on the basis of her apparently receiving documents, possibly the best course of action would have been to suspend Johnson with pay, as suspending him without pay may have had ramifications if he were to be acquitted and if he were to be found guilty, as indeed he was, no one could question the clubs actions.
 
janey said:
Of course I want to know the truth, at the moment we don't though. So until we do as I've said I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the club rather than to a systematic liar and child sex offender.
Click to expand...
So you want the club to address some of the questions labelled at them?
 
Cockney Mackem said:
:lol: what?
Click to expand...
He is though he's choosing to believe the bit in the club statement that says the documents were handed to the club but not to believe the bit in the club statement where it says the club handed the documents over immediately.
You can laugh as much as you like but that's choosing information to suit your argument, a little like a barrister uses information to suit their argument really
 
janey said:
Hold on so you believe the bit that they were handed the documents but you don't believe the bit where it says they handed them over immediately, aye that seems very fair
Click to expand...
Is it about fair?

I don't think the club can plead ignorance without addressing why. Is it so they could have deniability? Is it because they thought there would be a legal issue to them knowing? Is it because of incompetence?

Until they answer this, we have every right to be cynical

Dogbark said:
Have a think about where they came from.
Click to expand...
Where exactly did they come from?
 
chunkylover53 said:
Is it about fair?

I don't think the club can plead ignorance without addressing why. Is it so they could have deniability? Is it because they thought there would be a legal issue to them knowing? Is it because of incompetence?

Until they answer this, we have every right to be cynical


Where exactly did they come from?
Click to expand...
Johnson.
 
janey said:
He is though he's choosing to believe the bit in the club statement that says the documents were handed to the club but not to believe the bit in the club statement where it says the club handed the documents over immediately.
You can laugh as much as you like but that's choosing information to suit your argument, a little like a barrister uses information to suit their argument really
Click to expand...

If Margaret Byrne handed the documents over immediately without taking the time to read their content (and I don't think for one moment she did) why would you think she would do that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top