• 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.
He's been found guilty of nothing yet.

Its hardly ground breaking stuff.

One thing it does show however is that mentally he's quite a tough individual.
 

rocky said:
What? You said it was because Fletcher is injured.

Are you blonde?
Click to expand...
we both agree he shouldnt be anywhere near the team we only differ on how/why the decision was/wasnt made.
and im auburn sunset for the record.
 
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...
On it's own it says nothing of the sort. The question of whether he actually plays for SAFC during this period would indicate more. However, even then it is not as simple as all that with conviction rates roughly around 50%
 
Mainze said:
He's been found guilty of nothing yet.

Its hardly ground breaking stuff.

One thing it does show however is that mentally he's quite a tough individual.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the charge changes nothing from the clubs point of view. The suspension was lifted and he continues to be available to play - he remains either guilty or not guilty.

The only difference may be that his mindset could be completely different.
 
hughbert said:
we both agree he shouldnt be anywhere near the team we only differ on how/why the decision was/wasnt made.
and im auburn sunset for the record.
Click to expand...
What would suspending him actually achieve? To distance the club from the story/person? To protect the club from having its reputation damaged? To appear moral?
 
HarrogateMackem said:
I have made my views clear In the past on this one. We should not be singing song about him at all. He has Lawyers to support and defend him, he doesn't need us

I saw several female fans cringe in horror at the Hull game when our fans were singing his name for example
Click to expand...
Cring in horror, give you head a shake, i saw plenty of female fans supporting and singing his name
 
I dont think there is any answer to this one tbh.
It could be absolute months until the case gets to Crown Court, in the meantime there is still the possibility the charges could be dropped and the case thrown out.
It's highly unlikely anyone will be interested in buying him while it's going on so if he's not playing for months and there isn't a conviction then arguably one of our best players has spent months on the sidelines.
Of course if he is convicted then the club will be criticised for playing him.
I actually have some sympathy for those making the decision, it's a situation not of their making, and I suspect they are in the damned if they do and damned if they don't situation.
 
hughbert said:
all of the above.
Click to expand...
Ok. But let me add this... can the club distance itself from the story? Can they actually distance themselves from Johnson? Is suspending him after the charges not also a way of strongly implying that they suspect he will not be found innocent?

Is it not also true to say that the club has already been a little bit damaged by the story itself? The distraction that it has caused and the cloud that hangs over the club as the story continues to be unresolved.

And is it the club's obligation to take a moral stance right now? Would it not be the same as one of us presuming his guilt and shunning him or obstructing him by ensuring he cannot work until he is found innocent by a court of law?

I think it's pretty complicated.
 
chriswallace85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Di Canio?
 
PeruzziWatch said:
Ok. But let me add this... can the club distance itself from the story? Can they actually distance themselves from Johnson? Is suspending him after the charges not also a way of strongly implying that they suspect he will not be found innocent?

Is it not also true to say that the club's reputation is already a little bit damaged by the story itself? The distraction that it has caused and the cloud that hangs over the club as the story continues to be unresolved.

And is it the club's obligation to take a moral stance right now? Would it not be the same as one of us presuming his guilt and shunning him or obstructing him by ensuring he cannot work until he is found innocent by a court of law?

I think it's pretty complicated.
Click to expand...
its not the clubs problem to protect him he has clearly left himself wide open the club must look after itself first, i think(only my opinion mods) regardless of the verdict there will be enough comes out of the case that will see us part ways with him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top