Sunderland AFC statement on Adam Johnson Statement from Sunderland AFC. To respect the legal process, Sunderland AFC was unable to comment on this case until after the jury had delivered its verdict. It has now done so and we thank our supporters for their patience and understanding. We now wish to clarify certain matters which arose during the trial. Mr. Johnson was suspended by the club immediately following his arrest on March 2, 2015. At that time, the club was advised by police of the broad nature of the allegations against Mr. Johnson, who was being advised at all times by his own legal team. The club felt that the decision to suspend was appropriate at that time, even though he had not then been charged with any offence. Two weeks later, his suspension was lifted after a meeting between the club and the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), and after the club took independent legal advice. The club reached this decision only after carrying out a safeguarding assessment and liaising with relevant agencies. On 23 April 2015, Mr. Johnson was charged with four offences. The club was informed that it was Mr. Johnson’s intention to defend all the charges, a stance he maintained right up until the first day of trial. The club continued to review the safeguarding procedures it had put in place throughout this time. On 4 May 2015, an introductory meeting took place between Mr. Johnson, his father and Orlando Pownall QC. Mr. Pownall had not previously met Mr. Johnson. The club’s CEO was present during part of that meeting. During the time that she was present there was no suggestion whatsoever that Mr. Johnson would be changing his plea. Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case nor on Mr. Johnson’s decision to defend all the allegations. Following that meeting, Mr. Johnson again confirmed to the club, presumably on advice from his own legal team, that his intention was to defend the charges in their entirety and he was confident of success once all evidence had been considered. He subsequently entered not guilty pleas to all charges on 6 June 2015. 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. This is utterly without foundation and is refuted in the strongest possible terms. The club never placed any pressure or demands on Mr. Johnson to play football during this process. Decisions in relation to the pleas and the conduct of the trial have been left entirely to Mr. Johnson and his highly experienced and skilled legal team. Mr. Johnson has admitted in evidence that he changed his plea “on legal advice”. The club only became aware of the change of plea, in relation to two of the four counts on the indictment, on the first day of the trial, after hearing it reported through the media. The club was not advised in advance that Mr. Johnson would plead guilty to any offence. Had the club known that Mr. Johnson intended to plead guilty to any of these charges, then his employment would have been terminated immediately. Indeed, upon learning of the guilty plea on 11 February 2016, the club acted quickly and decisively in terminating Adam Johnson’s contract without notice. This has been an extremely difficult time for all involved. The victim and her family have endured an unimaginable ordeal in the last 12 months and we trust that they will now be allowed to move on with their lives without further intrusion or public scrutiny. Following the announcement of today’s verdict and the release of this detailed statement, the club intends to make no further comment.
SAFC trying to palm off responsibility it seems. One whiff of this and he should have been suspended. Instead the club let him interact with children. Shameful.
Has this been posted purely for information purposes or as an attempt at 'I told you so'? What else do you expect the club to say? Not trying to shoot the messenger but this was almost word for word what any of us would have predicted the club would say.
We don't really learn a lot from SAFC's statement do we. Its just a he said she said situation. If the club truly felt their name had been smeared in the course of the case you'd think they would take some form of action really. They might say they don't want any further association with the case of course. It alludes to some documents being received but nothing further. Pretty much as expected I suppose, a bland deny all statement.
This is the relevant part for me - "his suspension was lifted after a meeting between the club and the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), and after the club took independent legal advice. The club reached this decision only after carrying out a safeguarding assessment and liaising with relevant agencies." I.e They knew what he had done but needed to make sure they could still legally play him whilst also ensuring the safety of people at and in contact with the club. ****ing despicable!
I'm fairly sure that safeguarding assessments have to be carried out as soon as an accusation is made and put in place until guilt is established or not. It's very much a case of one person's word against another's at the minute. I think it would be good for Sunderland to take legal steps to clear their name from any mud sticking, but they may decide their is more harm than good to be done by continuing to have their name associated with him. We'll never know what really went on.
http://www.not606.com/threads/im-just-wondering.324407/page-3 This is a hilarious read. 83 and Bri taken to the cleaners by Terry. Seems some Mackems are wanting to deflect attention from their situation. Good on Terry telling it how it is.
I have no time for anyone that takes advantage of a young girl, even older than 15, what has infuriated me with this thread has been the moral high ground taken by some people, I have been round the block a few times and am aware of the norms in people , if for instance you have at times had a drink then driven your car on the road , you cannot then pick out a different scenario with another person involved and pretend to be highly offended because your standards have been breached
Eh? What sort of argument is that? So who are you referring to where we have turned a blind eye to paedophilia? PS It's not moral 'high ground'. You are suggesting piety. No. This is about a paedophile. Plain and simple.
Sunderland AFC have acted in the correct way throughout this. They got the PFA involved for advice on the situation and acted upon the advice given when told he was pleading not guilty of all charges. They sacked him as soon as this changed. Johnson is a predator who has taken advantage of a young girl who was besotted with him, and she is an innocent victim in all this. Sunderland AFC are also innocent victims in this, and to claim anything else is just nonsense.. Let's hope that Johnson gets appropriate justice for his actions..
I would suggest you think back a little harder and I am sure you will remember that ONE of the reasons you did not go with her was her age
I'd be very surprised if any grown men on here had. It is not normal behaviour. If they had they would have got, and deserved, the same condemnation. Edit. Judging by some of the posts. I would be very surprised if any of the regular Newcastle posters had.
There are published figures around the world of the age at which girls lose their virginity, all of course taken by 13 and 14 year old boys
Nobody has ever claimed that. What I am arguing is that any grown man (not an adolescent) who sleeps with an underage girl is not acting normally.Is that something you disagree with fredor?