Off Topic Adam Johnson
- Thread starter Warmir Pouchov
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I'm pretty sure it could be considered a sacking offence for any number of reasons, their solicitors could have taken it to task. Was Byrne not a solicitor at one stage? I think we need to wait and hear the clubs reasoning behind their decision. What more information do they need to come to light if they had the police transcripts and whatsapp messages? I've said all along I doubt the club knew and they were put in an awkward situation in terms of innocent until proven guilty. I'd have to change that stance if they knew he was guilty. It just looks like "we need this player" at the minute.
Last edited:
In the news today Tony Blackburn has been sacked by the BBC for his original Jimmy Saville evidence not being fully consistent.
That's all.....
I'd agree that the club could have at least suspended him on full pay pending the outcome of the court case if he did indeed share all of the sordid details with them.
Again.. we probably don't know all the facts here.
Its not difficult to be morally better than Johnson though is it?
Let he that is without sin, hoy the first rock
Sunderland have a history of being bereft of morality anyway don't they. I'm sure Fredor can tell us all about the time when the were caught making illegal payments to sponsors and players in 56/57. Only reason they weren't kicked out of the league altogether was because it was going to mess with the fixture list. Sunderland were just lucky that the FA also had no moral compass and basically didn't want an admin problem 
Wronguns - case closed your honour. I think they should be automatically relegated for these current offences and to make up for their bullet dodging past.
We'll probably still go down though
Wronguns - case closed your honour. I think they should be automatically relegated for these current offences and to make up for their bullet dodging past. We'll probably still go down though
Sunderland have a history of being bereft of morality anyway don't they. I'm sure Fredor can tell us all about the time when the were caught making illegal payments to sponsors and players in 56/57. Only reason they weren't kicked out of the league altogether was because it was going to mess with the fixture list. Sunderland were just lucky that the FA also had no moral compass and basically didn't want an admin problem
We'll probably still go down though
**** off ye.
Interesting why his lawyer thought this should be brought up in court - probably to make the jury think he is not a money-grabbing twat who didn't plead guilty and didn't tell the club so he could continue to draw his salary. Funniest thing I saw was that his team mates are more stand-offish with him since he pleaded guilty. Apparently Fletcher was meant to give evidence about the state of his pubes but decided not to after this. My argument would have been that I didn't really notice them when showering after the game!
Even if this was true, he was still only discussing it so he could plan his next holiday.
That had me in stitches.
You can imagine Fletchers agent.
"Listen cock watcher, there is no way you are going to testify for your buddy, its career suicide"
"But but but, I genuinely noted he had plenty of pubes"
"No Steven sorry I'm not letting you do this. That beard of yours..."
What the **** is going on in that courtroom? Arguing about whether he had pubes. Clearly this is the only way to prove he did not get his mickey out for her
FFS. He has sold teammates and the club down the river. I'd say no club will take him, but I would imagine that is a given anyway. Then again Mike's moral compass is somewhat questionable...
They reckon Johnson took 3m in the time before he confessed. In all honesty I don't think the mackems have covered themselves in glory here, but nothing should detract from this lad being a complete wrongun. I don't buy all this "legally they couldn't do anything, they'd leave themselves wide open" - **** that people are suspended on full pay all the time in all walks of life.
I imagine Sunderland will try to put this to bed in one statement as soon as the trial is done. They'll just state why they did what they did. To be fair a number of the clubs fans are pretty miffed with the club. I previously thought the club might just say nothing and not issue any statements. My thinking was they won't want linked any further with him, and will hope the whole episode will just get put behind them. I think now he has taken to try and darken the club and players names, they'll probably feel obligated to the fans, and to defend themselves, to put a bit of meat on the bone.
If I was in charge I would have told him he was in effect suspended on full pay i.e. Would not play in any games, and then made him come in at 9am and go home at 5pm every day and made him him run round training pitch the whole time with maybe 45 mins off for lunch. He could have time off for free kick practice to be part of the wall and use him as a cone for dribbling exercises as well.That had me in stitches.
You can imagine Fletchers agent.
"Listen cock watcher, there is no way you are going to testify for your buddy, its career suicide"
"But but but, I genuinely noted he had plenty of pubes"
"No Steven sorry I'm not letting you do this. That beard of yours..."
What the **** is going on in that courtroom? Arguing about whether he had pubes. Clearly this is the only way to prove he did not get his mickey out for her
He has sold teammates and the club down the river. I'd say no club will take him, but I would imagine that is a given anyway. Then again Mike's moral compass is somewhat questionable...
They reckon Johnson took 3m in the time before he confessed. In all honesty I don't think the mackems have covered themselves in glory here, but nothing should detract from this lad being a complete wrongun. I don't buy all this "legally they couldn't do anything, they'd leave themselves wide open" - **** that people are suspended on full pay all the time in all walks of life.
I'd have made him train with the kids, oh hang on...
http://www.eurosport.co.uk/football...-and-s-jamie-carragher_sto5191744/story.shtml
I see another ex Sunderland player is also in the news. Seriously has there ever been a more hated man than Diouf? I love his pitch for making his way in politics. "Look I was world class in my own mind and I like glassing people. Phone 666 to elect me."
I see another ex Sunderland player is also in the news. Seriously has there ever been a more hated man than Diouf? I love his pitch for making his way in politics. "Look I was world class in my own mind and I like glassing people. Phone 666 to elect me."
A sexual kiss with a minor is a criminal offence and so almost certainly a sackable offence.
To be fair to the club though, they are in an awful position. As long as he is pleading innocent he is presumed innocent. If the is innocent, he should be allowed to carry on.
To be fair to the club though, they are in an awful position. As long as he is pleading innocent he is presumed innocent. If the is innocent, he should be allowed to carry on.
I see Johnson's ex has said that he told her that he was pleading guilty as far back as September last year. Begs the question as to when he did actually tell the club. It sounds like he has been stringing a lot of people along.
The club knew and backed him reports today are saying,
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...quizzed-in-court-over-googling-age-of-consent
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...quizzed-in-court-over-googling-age-of-consent
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
Well not John Terry. He's lost interest now she's dumped him.
How do people think this verdict is going to go? Johnson has been proven to have lied to Police, to his girlfriend, and has admitted he is not 'an honourable man'. I guess there is no concrete evidence that he carried out the two charges he is contesting (I assume they relate to penetrative sex?), but it comes down to whether the jury believe the victim or him, a liar and a *****phile. Considering the jury can only see his character as being seriously questionable I think he could go down for all of these charges. He is surely going to serve time either way?
Last edited: