According to Sunderland she has. However, she has gone now and hopefully this whole episode is something your club can wash it's hands of now and move on.
and the rest of the updated article: In a statement Sunderland said Johnson's victim had been "very badly let down first and foremost by Mr Johnson and his despicable actions, but also by the club they support". The club added: "We are so very sorry for this." The Premier League club initially suspended Johnson in March 2015 but lifted that ban after just 16 days. They eventually sacked him on the eve of his trial last month, when he admitted grooming the girl and one charge of sexual activity. In those intervening 10 months, he played 28 times for the Black Cats. Byrne, who joined Sunderland in 2007 and was appointed chief executive in 2011, said in a statement: "Contrary to what has been suggested, I did not understand that Mr Johnson intended to change his plea at trial or at all. "I was astounded when he did plead guilty. "I accept that Mr Johnson should not have been permitted to play again, irrespective of what he was going to plead. "It was a serious error of judgement and I accept full responsibility for this."
Don't agree with the comment "irrespective of what he was going to plead." for the reasons I've mentioned previously. I do, however, believe (but not know as fact) that SAFC could have worked out the likely outcome of the case for the 2 admitted charges from the documentation they held. I get the impression that this is an attempt at face saving on the part of SAFC and Byrne to distract from the fact that they had the information to assess AJ's position and still played him. Specifically that they knew or should have known that even if he didn't plead guilty then there was a very good prospect he would be found guilty. Bear in mind that Byrne was a criminal lawyer before joining SAFC. I think it suits the Club to distract from the idea that they played him and knew the strength of the evidence and admissions would have meant he was going to be found guilty on at least some of the charges in any event. What sounds better 1. We didn't know if he was guilty or not but shouldn't have played him due to the nature and severity of the charges, or 2. We knew he was guilty but played him because he'd pleaded not guilty and we needed him to save our bacon.
I wonder what a fall guy/girl like Byrne gets in this situation? Surely nobody is naive enough to think the knowledge and decision making stopped with her alone? Not in a case of that magnitude. I'm sure she will be handed a nice wedge, and a nice job at another company of Ellis or someone he knows. The lines that particularly raise a laugh "I did not share this with anyone on the board of Sunderland AFC" and "I did not examine the contents of these documents in any detail." Of course you didn't Margaret What an absolute fix up - it just goes to show that football clubs will stoop wherever they have to. I don't single out Sunderland because I reckon the majority might have tried the same thing. They gambled that this stuff wouldn't come out in court, but the gamble went wrong with the different lines of questioning. I think this will finally see even the most blind Sunderland realise the wrongs their club has committed. They are doing everything to move on, and even now mitigating by trying to convince the public this was one loose cannon running amok. At least they have apologised but forgive me if I find the whole thing all a bit after the horse has bolted. Club severely missed a trick by trying to pull the wool over the fans and general public eyes. Just goes to show that thankfully the paying public have some morals amongst them and were not willing to let their own club just nonchalantly sweep it all under the carpet. The only ones who come out of this with much credit are a good section of their fans.
If the FA were to go down that route, they could issue a far more severe punishment. They could in theory rule that AJ should have been ineligible and therefore deduct points for every game that he played. In theory. In practice it won't happen.
I wouldn't like to see that happen - even if it saved us. Sunderland have had their punishment through any damage that has been done to their reputation and name. I don't think they broke any laws of the game playing him, so the rest of the teams, including us, should have been good enough to beat them with the team they had. A points deduction would punish the fans as much as the club, and I can't really see what they have done wrong in terms of the letter of the laws of football.
Why not? SAFC have a history of taking advantage of other clubs misdemeanors or getting off scot-free when they've wronged themselves. Just saying....
The figures are in, he was not the only one, it happened forty five thousand four hundred and fifty six time in Britain last year alone, that we know of Does this excuse him NO It does give it some perspective That is the world that we live in Neville
FFS Fredor. Nobody ever said it doesn't go on. What was said is that it isn't normal behaviour and should always be condemned and society should always take the high ground. Now can we let it go? It's yesterday's news. No doubt the sentencing will revive it, but for now the episode is over and he deserves no more attention.
Perspective? He's a nonce end of. Just Like a rapist is a rapist. Take a terrorist. There must be hundreds of thousands of them around the world. If you catch one with a bomb on his back you can't show anything other than utter condemnation. I certainly wouldn't make out he is one of many so perspective is called for! Just because there may be lots of a type of criminal doesn't make it alright or put it into perspective.
