I don't think she should have told him, personally. The issue more for me is whether Ellis and the rest of the board were told, or whether she kept it quiet & to herself. 'The club were informed' suggests that everyone who holds a senior position were informed. Margaret Byrne doesn't represent the whole club.
She's a criminal lawyer. She'd have been aware of what she knew at that point in time, what she was doing and the consequences from that.
Which is why I'm asking the question as to whether she disclosed the info to anyone. If not then she's got some answering to do.
That was my point as well mate, just not made as well as I could have. Maybe, being a criminal lawyer by profession, she thought she could handle it herself. If thats the case, it's backfiring on the club big time. Thats all speculative, but even if its not true, sooner or later the club will need to disassociate itself from her. She'll be the fall guy whether she knew or not.
Presumably she told DA but he chose him anyway. Let the papers take the moral high ground but AJ was a pricey asset who we could not sack, otherwise that could have been done last Spring.Who in the right mind would pay him 60K a week for sitting on his arse and the case collapse or somesuch and we have been relegated. If we are in a position to, then ALL information about discussions with AJ, the PFA, QC and police could possibly revealed to clear her position but if there is an appeal in the offing then what?. Or maybe her trip her to Portugal is business and was planned anyway. Papers spouting again.
I wouldn't trust owt that Slag Louise Wanless says. Any woman that'll shag Micky Horseswill cannit have many ethics.
I'm not sure I get the gist of most of your post mate. From my uninformed view from the sidelines, I think Maggie took a calculated risk, and its blown up in her face, and now she'll have to pay the price. Its now about how the club will manage these continual diggings by the press into the management of this issue.
Most likely scenario -She'll stay away until Johnson's sentenced - then come back into her role surreptitiously - Johnson then will be yesterdays news - everything is all forgotten
I agree her position at the moment seems untenable - but generally that is what most 'newsworthy' peeps do when the **** hits the fan
Just pointing that everybody and his dog is coming up with a criticism or opinion on this matter about the rights, wrongs or reasons for playing AJ. As usual somebody has to be found wanting and as she was involved then they have chosen her. It happened during DA's reign, Sam is in record saying the change of plea was a shock etc. There could be more, but I suspect that the papers have nothing more speculation and opinion to work on and have built there articles around that. We all know that papers and truth are a world apart but it is their prerogative to print it so long as there is oine grain of truth in it.
Why don't the press interview/interrogate the PFA? deflect the ****-storm onto them. I doubt AJ fully disclosed what he did to anyone at the club. He's a lying, devious ****. But if there is evidence he did, to her and others, they should be gone. I just don't see it though, as if that were the case they'd have witheld the original suspension and sacked him. At least I'd like to think so, rather than being dragged into a speculative, press-druven witch-hunt.
Just imagine the scenario if Sunderland had sacked him straight away despite him telling the club he intends to plead not guilty and the lawyers and the PFA recommending that he should be reinstated immediately, and then the lass decided that she is not going to pursue with the allegations and all charges were dropped. We would have been right up **** creek and facing a hefty compensation claim, and no doubt the same media who are having a dig at us now would be having a dig at us for jumping to conclusions..
Whoever is suggesting you had to sack him before knowing is obviously an idiot, but you never had to lift his suspension. Charges couldn't be dropped anyway, the police have a duty to follow up serious allegations like this. AJ's case was CPS vs Adam Johnson, not Johnson's victim vs Adam Johnson.
Q. Can I drop the charges against the person accused of the crime? A. The decision to charge someone with a crime is made independently by the procurator fiscal if enough evidence is available, taking into account the wider public interest.
Without her evidence then there would be no chance of a conviction so therefore the case would have surely been dropped.
Well in that case, she'd have had to accuse him and then invent a time machine, so she could un-accuse him because once they had her phone he was absolutely ****ed. She'll have given them that phone on the first instance of the accusation, without a doubt.
