• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    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.

nandos sonic sauce said:
I disagree mate. Put yourself in the same position. If the club asked me my thoughts on playing and i said i was innocent, i would want to get back on the field straight away to keep some normality, and also because if i did get suspended, it would make me look guilty, and that the club aren't backing/believing me.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Personally I'd be taking him out of the spotlight immediately, it doesn't necessarily need to be an official suspension but just taking him out the squad until we've settled all of this.
Dogbark said:
Please explain that bit to me.
Click to expand...

I just don't think we should be playing a player who's just been charged for a crime. We suspended him initially, we shouldn't have gone back on that. Easy to say in hindsight like I will accept.
 
Rizla said:
This isn't any profession, he is in the public eye, these are sexual offences, we have thousands of kids attending games every week. The club has done itself no favours here.
Click to expand...

I don't get that argument at all I'm afraid. He is innocent until prove guilty. He does not, through his work, have any unsupervised contact with children. So why should he not be allowed to continue? Just because he is 'in the public eye'? Because kids attend games? I just don't see the logic.

Where I think the club have - massively - shot themselves in the foot, is by suspending him when he was first arrested. As a result of that, they have made it look like the only reason he is allowed to play is to help us stay up.

prehab26 said:
Absolutely and the response of innocent till proven guilty doesn't wash and it's naive to think its that clear.
Click to expand...

Why is it not? I think it's when you start trying to muddy the waters by speculating as to what his likely level of guilt is when you get into all sorts of problems.
 
James said:
Maybe. Personally I'd be taking him out of the spotlight immediately, it doesn't necessarily need to be an official suspension but just taking him out the squad until we've settled all of this.


I just don't think we should be playing a player who's just been charged for a crime. We suspended him initially, we shouldn't have gone back on that. Easy to say in hindsight like I will accept.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
If a dismissal for out-of-work conduct is to be fair, there must be a genuine connection between the employee's offence and the employment. The general principle is that such a connection will exist in the following circumstances:
  • The employee's offence makes him or her unsuitable to continue in the job. For example, if an employee whose job involved dealing with cash was convicted of theft, there would be a relevant connection. Similarly, if someone who worked in a job involving responsibility for the care or safety of others was accused of an alcohol or drugs-related offence, dismissal might be a reasonable response.
  • The employee's offence causes the employer genuinely to lose trust and confidence in the employee. An example could be where someone employed in a managerial or high-profile position was prosecuted for a drugs offence.
  • The employee's behaviour risks bringing the employer's name into ill repute. Again this is most likely in the case of a senior employee or one whose job takes him or her into regular contact with the organisation's clients or customers. Dismissal will be even more likely to be fair where the misdemeanour is reported in the press. For example, in
    You must be logged on to see external links
    , the dismissal of a postman who, during a period of holiday leave in France, was convicted of hooliganism at a football match was deemed to be fair. The fact that the press had reported widely on the hooliganism incident (in a "name and shame campaign") meant that the employer's name had been brought into disrepute.
  • The employee's colleagues reasonably refuse to continue to work alongside the employee who has committed an offence. If, for example, a woman worked alone with a male employee who had been involved in an incident of violence, the woman might reasonably feel uncomfortable, or even threatened, at the thought of continuing to work alongside him.
Click to expand...

Not beyond the realm of possibility.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
I don't get that argument at all I'm afraid. He is innocent until prove guilty. He does not, through his work, have any unsupervised contact with children. So why should he not be allowed to continue? Just because he is 'in the public eye'? Because kids attend games? I just don't see the logic.

Where I think the club have - massively - shot themselves in the foot, is by suspending him when he was first arrested. As a result of that, they have made it look like the only reason he is allowed to play is to help us stay up.



Why is it not? I think it's when you start trying to muddy the waters by speculating as to what his likely level of guilt is when you get into all sorts of problems.
Click to expand...

In a privileged position. On show to the public. Idolized by thousands. Role model. Position of power and star status. Any of these are no match for a young child. Given the nature of the alleged offenses, he should be out of the spot light. Not just cracking on as usual. Just think it's unprofessional given the circumstances.
 
dcl0sc said:
Rubbish mate.... soz like! He has only been charged with something mate, it certainly doesn't mean he's done it... and how the fuck will it do the club no favours...? :rolleyes: mind boggles! If he's found guilty then the club will sack him...
Click to expand...

The club have spectacularly mismanaged the situation because of the way they initially suspended him when he was arrested, then let him back while he was on bail, then didn't suspend him when charged. That is their mistake IMO.

I never had any hope that a business with a rookie lawyer as CEO would be able to run a football club or develop a brand or communicate with fans or be a commercial success or build an academy or build a scouting network or make good managerial appointments.

I would have hoped we might have been able to deal with a legal matter a bit better than this. :neutral:
 
Maxie said:
Corrie took Roach and Lavelle out of firing line (ie suspended) while fighting their cases after charges.

Both were found innocent.

But they were 'on leave' or whatever for the duration
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Like it or not if you are in public eye you simply can't be allowed to stay in that domain whilst having charges like this hanging over your head.
It's a shocking decision from club and last thing we need in our predicament.
 
James said:
What? I don't think it's appropriate that he should be playing for us under these circumstances, it's hardly a mental suggestion is it.
Click to expand...

It's a very harsh suggestion.... you're basically condemning the lad before he's had a fair trial!
 
Mrjardine said:
He has been charged with a very serious offence. He's a premier league footballer very much in the public eye and this stance does the club no favours at all.
It is shocking PR and smacks of desperation.
Click to expand...
What stance? Are they expected to assume the man is guilty and therefore distance themselves from him? Nobody should be assuming anything, it is up to a court of law to find him guilty or innocent. Drink driving is a very serious offence, do clubs automatically suspend a player if they are charged with that? I honestly don't know, but I don't think I've seen clubs do that.
 
prehab26 said:
In a privileged position. On show to the public. Idolized by thousands. Role model. Position of power and star status. Any of these are no match for a young child. Given the nature of the alleged offenses, he should be out of the spot light. Not just cracking on as usual. Just think it's unprofessional given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

I agree. 100%. That is why if a footballer in that position has taken advantage of that status, it is a particularly despicable kind of abuse and the player would deserve everything coming to him. But that hasn't been tested in court yet. Unless and until he is proven guilty, you could equally say that footballers are more susceptible to allegations.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
The club have spectacularly mismanaged the situation because of the way they initially suspended him when he was arrested, then let him back while he was on bail, then didn't suspend him when charged. That is their mistake IMO.

I never had any hope that a business with a rookie lawyer as CEO would be able to run a football club or develop a brand or communicate with fans or be a commercial success or build an academy or build a scouting network or make good managerial appointments.

I would have hoped we might have been able to deal with a legal matter a bit better than this. :neutral:
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point.
 
PeruzziWatch said:
What stance? Are they expected to assume the man is guilty and therefore distance themselves from him? Nobody should be assuming anything, it is up to a court of law to find him guilty or innocent. Drink driving is a very serious offence, do clubs automatically suspend a player if they are charged with that? I honestly don't know, but I don't think I've seen clubs do that.
Click to expand...

Last time we had one of those we sold him for £5m the next week, and turned down £5m for Ji Dong Won who was meant to be his replacement. :lol:
 
Forget the circumstances of what's been said on the net,the fact is what AJ has been charged with and yes,innocent until proven otherwise. its how the charge reads though. like I said,it doesn't matter the circumstances,he my well get a not guilty and eventually all goes back to normal. Unfortunately Sunderland FC are in a real dilemma. They can't afford to lose him and equally they have to be seen to be doing the moral thing by suspending him till the case is sorted.

I actually did think they'd suspended him until everything was sorted and if Sunderland were in a better position,obviously they would. Also if you or me was these charges and then having to face going to work the next day,let along facing 28,000 people. He hasn't been found guilty,but as things stand,maybe suspending him for the time being may possibly of been for the best all around and I'm not judging him by any means,I would say the same of any player in any team. We are all blinded by our respective teams,but sometimes we have to be more logical about things.
 
Last edited:
dcl0sc said:
It's a very harsh suggestion.... you're basically condemning the lad before he's had a fair trial!
Click to expand...

No I'm not, I just don't think it's appropriate for anyone charged for a serious crime to be representing the club, whether they're a first choice player, a reserve player or a kit man. It's best for all involved if they're just taken out of the spotlight and we let the courts decide before we bring them back/terminate their contract.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
I agree. 100%. That is why if a footballer in that position has taken advantage of that status, it is a particularly despicable kind of abuse and the player would deserve everything coming to him. But that hasn't been tested in court yet. Unless and until he is proven guilty, you could equally say that footballers are more susceptible to allegations.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been tested I agree and am all for fairness etc. just feel that given the nature of offences and his job and position of privilege, he shouldn't be in public spotlight until it's resolved.

James said:
No I'm not, I just don't think it's appropriate for anyone charged for a serious crime to be representing the club, whether they're a first choice player, a reserve player or a kit man. It's best for all involved if they're just taken out of the spotlight and we let the courts decide before we bring them back/terminate their contract.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top