Just managed to get into the ticketing site after waiting 2 hours to buy Dortmund tickets. the whole of Park lane lower sold out or has it all been given to their fans?
No mate, I was allocated my season ticket seat for the game and I'm block 33. Some of my mates are members and they too managed to get in the same block as me. Think it just sold like crazy.
Cheers SOS. I logged in at 09:30 and had to wait ages and I did see tickets were going quickly. Oh well a new experience for me as I got in Upper.
According to the Sporting Index points spread bet we are going to get 20 points from our last eleven games and finish just ahead of Arsenal and Leicester. On their Premiership Index you can only make money from a buy if we win the league and only make money from a sell if we are third or below.
Last time you posted something similar it was a buy for Spurs to finish in top 4 and a sell for Woolwich not to win the prem. My money was placed then, thanks.
Adam Johnson guilty of one charge of sexual activity with a child and acquitted of another having already pleaded guilty to a further charge and to grooming. He was guilty of putting his hands down the girl's pants but not guilty of her allegedly performing oral sex on him. The judge has said that the offences fall with the sentencing guideline of 4 to 10 years imprisonment and that he might be looking at 5 years.
"According to the Sporting Index points spread bet we are going to get 20 points from our last eleven games and finish just ahead of Arsenal and Leicester. On their Premiership Index you can only make money from a buy if we win the league and only make money from a sell if we are third or below." I'm trying to remember who the Goon on the PL board is, who was writing all the points spread stuff a few months ago about the PL points gap come May between the Goons and Spurs (those articles are due a bumping methinks ) ...
The part that stands out for me is the fact he informed Sunderland that he had done it - yet they didn't terminate his contract there and then. This also makes me wonder if the Premier League would dock Sunderland points for this. That could quite possibly make Sunderland the answer to a trivia question: who was the first club to be relegated due to *****philia?
They've issued a statement today contradicting that claim. http://www.safc.com/news/club-news/2016/march/club-statement
Oh well, I guess we'll be seeing threats of litigation against the BBC and numerous newspapers in the coming days.
More like Johnson and his legal team. They claimed that Sunderland knew and the Mackems are saying otherwise. It'll be interesting to see whether they think it's worth legal action or hope that it all goes away.
The issue with the statement is that, if you sift through the lawyerese, it doesn't take long to pick holes in what the statement is saying. The main issue that lies at the heart of the statement is how the club repeatedly say they believed Johnson would plead not guilty to the charges, yet the club were fully aware that Johnson would be facing a jury trial so it doesn't matter what Johnson's plea was as the jury's verdict is what matters in this case. This is what bothers me, because what the statement says is that Sunderland did not have any contingency plans drawn up in event that Johnson was found guilty - meaning either the club are monumentally short-sighted to not prepare for that possibility, despite having eight months to do so, or they are lying. Something else that sticks out is the statement keeps shifting the focus onto Johnson's legal team, notably in the second paragraph that refers to the initial arrest as well as Johnson changing his plea in the fifth paragraph, and there's also mentions of receiving advice from the police, from relevant agencies, from the PFA - but not one reference to the advice the club were receiving from their own lawyers. Most importantly of all, there's this section: The club did not give evidence either for the prosecution or the defence in this case. It was therefore not present in court when it is understood that a suggestion was made that the club knew all along that Mr. Johnson was intending to change his plea just before trial to enable him to continue to play football for the club and that the club may also have been involved in tactical discussions about the plea. What this section says is: i.) Sunderland AFC were not informed that Johnson was going to change his plea ii.) Sunderland AFC did not advise Johnson to plead not guilty so he could play, then change his plea when they avoided relegation What this section fails to deny: i.) Johnson informed Sunderland that the charges against him were genuine
I do not condone Johnsons actions but as far as I am aware under british law one is assumed innocent until proven guilty or one admits guilt. Sunderland sacked him as soon as he pleaded guilty therefore I can't see what Sunderland have done wrong. If they had sacked him earlier he could have sued them for unfair dismissal and he would have probably won. Furthermore, if Sunderland had sacked him without any evidence (that would stand up in court) johnsons defense council could have argued that there was no way he could have a fair trial. In that situation, if the judge agreed, the charges against him may have had to be dismissed. Johnson could have walked away a free man.
I’m with you on this one, and that’s one issue. A second issue is that certain conversations were allegedly revealed to the club. As far as that goes, if these conversations were revealed to the club by any means and amounted to a breach of a morals or behavior clause of his contract, the club would have been justified in sacking him. A third issue is that if an employer becomes aware by any means of an employees dangerous behavior, it may be liable for damage that employee goes on to cause in that vein while he or she continues to be employed. The criticism of the club is that they exposed others to danger and/or dragged the club through the mud by continuing to associate with him. It’s understandable that people feel that way. But there’s yet one more issue. Who decides what information concerning a person’s legal problems is reported to his or her employer? If Sunderland’s groundskeeper runs a stop sign, does that get reported to Sunderland FC as well? If not, who decides what’s revealed and what’s not, and on what basis? Leaving police or prosecutors leeway to do as they damn well please in this area amounts to a denial of due legal process.
On a completely different note, breaking news from the always surprising world of US public television archaeological specials: "The Danube flows from the Black Sea into Germany." The amount of absolutely ludicrous things people say on these programs is astonishing. Usually you have to know a bit about either archaeology or elementary reasoning to realize it. In this case, a passing acquaintance with gravity suffices.
Now I'm really angry. Roy 'Worse than ****ing Useless' Hodgson. It's enough to anger the most reasonable of Englishmen. Read the following and see if you can get to the end without swearing: “We hope Wilshere, when he gets fit, puts his injury period behind him, Dave Mackay came back from two broken legs. The first one he came back almost immediately after his leg was healed and played a game, and then he broke it again, but played again as soon as it healed again. I don’t know why we should be protective. Players are either fit to play or not. For me, it’s all about the class of the player. Form is transient." "Rooney has got to come back before the end of the season, there is no doubt about that, form is transient, his qualities, his leadership qualities and the fact he is captain of England is not transient – that is a given. There is no way I should be looking to dismiss a Wayne Rooney who is fit and playing football on the basis he is out of form because he is our captain and a captain is important and there are 23 players." Impossible huh?
