Regarding the clubs response to one of or former players...


Status
Not open for further replies.
But there was medical evidence to support the situation with the Glasgow Driver, what evidence will the club have. All Johnson needs to say is he was planning on going not guilty until the day the trial started and he saw full CPS disclosure and took advice from his barrister.
He may well have known he was guilty all the way through but for as long as he thought he might get away with it he clearly wasn't going to admit that.

The point is, he knows what he did. He then chose to lie about it to his employer in order to keep making money. Whether he was saying he's innocent or thought he might get away with it or not isn't the issue, it's that he's guilty of the charges he pleaded guilty on, and has only owned up because he got caught. Wilful deception for financial gain.

Being sacked hours after pleading guilty suggests the same course of action would have been taken had he told the truth when he inevitably got pulled into the Chairman's office and asked what the hell was going on.
 
innocent until proven guilty, someone said they were guilty, the club got rid. it is as simple as that. I guess the club will wait until after the trial however you know some journey trying to make a name for themselves will ask the manager their opinion at some point
 
The point is, he knows what he did. He then chose to lie about it to his employer in order to keep making money. Whether he was saying he's innocent or thought he might get away with it or not isn't the issue, it's that he's guilty of the charges he pleaded guilty on, and has only owned up because he got caught. Wilful deception for financial gain.

Being sacked hours after pleading guilty suggests the same course of action would have been taken had he told the truth when he inevitably got pulled into the Chairman's office and asked what the hell was going on.
yes he knew what he did but as long as he thought he could get away with it he was going to do that. He was still innocent until proved guilty and that's the stance he took, it's human nature whether your Adam Johnson or Joe Bloggs. I'd do the same as long as I thought I could get away with it.
 
yes he knew what he did but as long as he thought he could get away with it he was going to do that. He was still innocent until proved guilty and that's the stance he took, it's human nature whether your Adam Johnson or Joe Bloggs. I'd do the same as long as I thought I could get away with it.

The cops will likely have presented him with the transcripts we're now seeing in the first few interviews. He knew there was no getting away with it. It's at that point the decision to lie for financial gain takes place.
 
I don't think anything can be said about the decision to terminate the contract. The decision to suspend and then de suspend we can't really comment on until the end of the trial and the facts are out. I would expect in most jobs though if someone was facing such serious charges, regardless of 'innocent until proven guilty' they would be suspended until the court case. But who knows what was said to the club etc and given how much were limited in saying atm (and the club tbf) there can't really be a meaningful conversation til after the court proceedings.
 
I don't want any further statement, they've said what they needed to say, he's no longer the clubs responsibility or problem.
To make further comment would encourage further media debate, whatever they say has the potential to be misconstrued.
So let's just focus on what the club remain responsible for, our premier league status

Im impressed with that for a Friday afternoon, janey!
 
The cops will likely have presented him with the transcripts we're now seeing in the first few interviews. He knew there was no getting away with it. It's at that point the decision to lie for financial gain takes place.

But the club would surely have had representatives present in earlier court proceedings in which the prosecution and defence laid out their initial cases... as far as I'm aware there were open galleries for the pcmh's up at durham crown court? they surely knew what was said in previous court appearances?
 
My guess is the club has been lied to like everyone else. There is no way they could have known and continued to employ him. On that note, if they had not have sackd him after his guilty plea, that would have been me and SAFC finished.

Club has done everything to a letter as far as I can see. Did anyone at the club know he was guilty of grooming? Guess we'll never know
 
My guess is the club has been lied to like everyone else. There is no way they could have known and continued to employ him. On that note, if they had not have sackd him after his guilty plea, that would have been me and SAFC finished.

Club has done everything to a letter as far as I can see. Did anyone at the club know he was guilty of grooming? Guess we'll never know

Well I think it depends on what was said at earlier court appearances.
 
The cops will likely have presented him with the transcripts we're now seeing in the first few interviews. He knew there was no getting away with it. It's at that point the decision to lie for financial gain takes place.
But they would need proof of that man, he's hardly going to admit to it, all he needs to say is that there wasn't full disclosure until the day of the trial when after seeing it his legal team advised him to plead guilty.
Anyway this has completely strayed from the original point of the post, and I stand by my opinion that no this case it's least said soonest mended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top