• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

BBC Johnson free to play for Sunderland

  • Thread starter Thread starter RTG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

rocky said:
Once they made that decision they had no choice, imo, but to stick with it.

You continue assuming the worst though, it seems to make you happy. Pip pip.
Click to expand...
fuck off man:lol:. they couldnt stick with the original decision but they had to stick by their second decision despite him being charged?
 
rocky said:
I would say so, yes. They shouldn't have suspended him originally.
It has nowt to do with Fletcher being injured.
Click to expand...

so they should suspend him now then?
if you think 1 doesnt go with the other you are miles off.
 
I'm not downplaying the seriousness of the matter here. But when the allegations were made, there was a chance he was guilty. When the charges were made yesterday, there is still the same chance he is guilty. Effectively nothing has happened that should change the club's stance on the situation. They are not obliged to be the ones to make a decision about whether he is a criminal or not. He still has as much chance of being found innocent as he does of being found guilty.

All that has changed is the feelings people have about the story. He will now have to defend himself in a court of law, and the general fear that he is guilty has been increased. I think a lot of people were (naturally) hoping that the allegations would be dropped and the evidence would prove insubstantial. Mainly because we just wish this story would go away and that our club would not be tainted by it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob
could the reason be if the club suspends him it could influence the mindset of potential jurors.

SAFC suspended him, he must be guilty mentality.

I think he is free to play but wont.

There will be a trial if hes guilty throw book at him, if not hes free to ply his trade in the knowledge that the allegation will follow him always
 
chriswallace85 said:
But you can understand why the initial suspension will have been in place, yes?
Click to expand...

Yes, potentially anyway - that is not a definite reason why it was in place, nor does it explain why it was specifically lifted on the date his bail was extended.

Can you understand that the decision, in keeping with other decisions made my the club, suggests poor moral judgement/prowess?
 
JimmyQuinn said:
Yes, potentially anyway - that is not a definite reason why it was in place, nor does it explain why it was specifically lifted on the date his bail was extended.

Can you understand that the decision, in keeping with other decisions made my the club, suggests poor moral judgement/prowess?
Click to expand...
Because that was the time to review.

The police could have hoyed it out on that date, in which case everything would have been straight forward. They didn't, so the club had to review it's position. It would have been wrong of them to review it any sooner, and they were probably advised not to.

As for your question, what other decisions have the club made that were morally wrong? I don't think there's anything to suggest poor moral judgement.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top