He didn't say sack him Bri, he said suspend him indefinitely, full pay. The fact is, you're basing your club's decision to reinstate him on logic and presumption, that the PFA forced you to make that decision. Which of course, could be deemed as perfectly logical but it isn't fact. However, I don't agree, (which is probably why I'm arguing the toss here whilst shoveling my lunch down me) because I don't believe any union has the power to dictate suspensions to employers and to add a bit of meat to those bones, I'll point to the case of Dave Jones who was suspended indefinitely under similar circumstances, then even when his trial was thrown out he was paid off by Southampton. There's no way that the LMA and PFA work with different powers in my view. You guys mentioning adidas has nothing to do with it, they were in no position to sack him as he was technically innocent, but had they been his employer he could have been suspended by them, but they're not, they're just his boot supplier. I firmly believe this is just a case of Sunderland believing the guy's lies and making a judgement, not based on whether they needed him to survive or something underhand at all, the integrity of your club shouldn't be brought into question, all that's happened here in my opinion is a bad judgement, which isn't illegal, immoral, unethical, it's just a mistake.
Johnson has fooled just about everyone, apart from the Court. He has spun lie after lie and has finally been caught out.
There seems to be a bit of a SAFC witch hunt to hold somebody accountable for him not being hung out to dry from the moment he was accused. That's not the way it works in this country, as much as people want to make this a Sunderland thing, it never will be, it's an Adam Johnson thing.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...quizzed-in-court-over-googling-age-of-consent Reading that article makes it pretty crystal clear to me that the club knew he had groomed the girl and kissed her, and sent sexual messages. He disclosed it all on 4th May. That's his lawyer saying that, now. Nothing to do with us "believing his lies at the time", we had the info. 100%. Unless you're saying a highly paid professional lawyer is just straight up lying in the court of law, making slanderous allegations about the club, and the club is just sitting back and not correcting them? There's no way. We knew. Morally, we're in the wrong imo.
It's still a bit murky to me but if you believe a lawyer wouldn't lie then ****ing hell mate, you've got your head firmly stuffed up your hoop and turned the lights off. Having said that, it is odd because I can't figure out a reason as to why he'd tell this particular lie, so I'm back to being confused now! To sack him at that point is still not an option, if this is true, as it's 'off the record' so I can only assume no matter what he's told you, by law you've had to act in accordance with his statement. That's my best guess, but a whole new can of worms has been opened there.
Johnson’s defence barrister has rubbished claims that the 28-year-old player had delayed guilty pleas so he could continue to earn money. “It’s plain Sunderland Football Club knew exactly what was going on, they choose for what ever reason, rightly or wrongly, whether for commercial considerations or in the knowledge they were facing relegation, they allowed him to play. It might be in hindsight they regret that decision,” Mr Pownall said.
She's done a good job in telling the jury what a ****house he is, that's about it imo. Jurors have looked again at photos showing Johnson's body. KB claiming that if abdomen was totally hairless could be easy for 15-year-old girl to assume that he was shaven in his groin area. 2h please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image Debra Fox "Mr Johnson is a man who when it suits him to removes all of the hair on his torso and he is a man who trims his pubic hair." This is where it falls flat imo. Does all the evidence show beyond reasonable doubt he's guilty of the other two? I don't think so. It's relying on the jury convicting on character alone. Not confident of a heavy sentence atm
Said elsewhere that on the evidence, I would be shocked if he is convicted. There is reasonable doubt for me. I think he may have done more, but that is just my opinion. Evidentially, he's clear.
Yes I'm basing on it on logic and information available, what else am I supposed to use? What I'm not doing is taking word of a lying nonce on face value like some people seem to be doing.
He's using us mate. I've a feeling Johnson and his solicitor have knew all along this is the way it would eventually end up going. He's detracting from what Johnson has done and is making this about what other people have also done wrong. 'He's just made a mistake and kissed a young girl once. Look over there though, look at Sunderland football club and see what they've been doing wrong'
This is my whole point man. Which you've missed. You focused way too closely on me showing my workings and not what I actually mean. You've virtually summed up my entire sentiments in that paragraph. Something I've been saying consistently. You may disagree with my workings to aid this sentiment but with this post Tel, we actually agree overall.
He's trying to create moral outrage at the clubs actions to make it seem like, 'yes, my client has done this, but look at the club. They knew what he had done and condoned it'.
That's the part I don't understand, how could Sunderland's involvement and the club's staff knowing what he had done possibly alleviate the severity of his activity? It's like he's just saying "If I'm going down, you're coming with me".
He's basically inviting the authorities in the game to look at this. Look at the wording - of his statement.
The dangerous thing about what the defence is doing here, is that it's opening up another court case for the victims family against Sunderland football club. They'll be a claim in there somewhere for the 'distress' caused.
That's exactly what he is doing. He's laying the grounds for a potential negligence claim. Breach of duty of care by the club. He's clever.
More than that I think mate. Look at the stir across this board and the internet over his comments about Sunderland football club and it will also be the same for the jurors. You can see why he really is a top class brief. Unfortunately for us.
