One Adam Johnson

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Yes, the thick plottens!
It is a case of who to believe at this stage but, should there be an investigation by the Football League and their Legal Eagles, then someone will have to come clean.
I personally couldn't believe that the Club would allow him to play if he had confessed to the charges at that time.
Is the Club Secretary/Lawyer lying to protect the Club?
Is Johnson lying so as to protect his 3 million in earnings?
Will surely come out eventually.
 
Sunderland couldn't prejudge the trial by sacking him. They could only sack him when he either pleaded guilty or was found guilty. They did have the choice of suspending him on full pay until the trial. They suspended him initially and then allowed him to play. No one is lying, it wasn't illegal. They just made a business decision which they now have to defend.
 
Obadiah said:
Sunderland couldn't prejudge the trial by sacking him. They could only sack him when he either pleaded guilty or was found guilty. They did have the choice of suspending him on full pay until the trial. They suspended him initially and then allowed him to play. No one is lying, it wasn't illegal. They just made a business decision which they now have to defend.
Click to expand...

Indeed - it's actually playing him despite having full knowledge of what he'd done that is the indefensible bit.
 
Tuckin said:
Indeed - it's actually playing him despite having full knowledge of what he'd done that is the indefensible bit.
Click to expand...

That is the 'moot point' of the argument Tuck - "FULL KNOWLEDGE". Johnson said he told them EVERYTHING whilst the Clubs Lawyers say he did not and would indeed plead 'Not Guilty'. I personally simply cannot see any Football League Club playing someone who they KNEW was guilty of a serious offence such as this. Surely they would simply sack him and save themselves at least 3 million quid. It does not make sense to keep playing him if they knew he was guilty.
 
We will be able to tell if Sunderland are lying or not depending on what they do next.

If Sunderland are telling the truth then they will surely take legal action against Johnson for dragging the clubs name through the mud, potentially costing them sponsorships, signings...etc.

If Sunderland are covering things up they'll deny everything and wait for it to die down and for people to forget. They've technically done nothing illegal, just immoral and pretty scummy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bengals Tiger
TigerRoo said:
That is the 'moot point' of the argument Tuck - "FULL KNOWLEDGE". Johnson said he told them EVERYTHING whilst the Clubs Lawyers say he did not and would indeed plead 'Not Guilty'. I personally simply cannot see any Football League Club playing someone who they KNEW was guilty of a serious offence such as this. Surely they would simply sack him and save themselves at least 3 million quid. It does not make sense to keep playing him if they knew he was guilty.
Click to expand...

As Obadiah has said, there are legal issues when it comes to actually sacking him before the trial. But how much they knew IS known as it came out in the trial...

However, the club did not comment on evidence heard at Bradford crown court that Johnson admitted privately to the club as long ago as 4 May 2015 that he kissed the teenage fan and sent her sexually explicit messages.

In evidence to his trial, Johnson said he told “everything” to Margaret Byrne, Sunderland’s chief executive, at a meeting and there was no suggestion he would be sacked.

It also emerged at the trial that Byrne had copies of the 834 WhatsApp messages Johnson exchanged with the girl, as well as transcripts of their police interviews. In Johnson’s first police interview, he admitted kissing the girl on the lips and knowing she was underage.

 
Tuckin said:
As Obadiah has said, there are legal issues when it comes to actually sacking him before the trial. But how much they knew IS known as it came out in the trial...

However, the club did not comment on evidence heard at Bradford crown court that Johnson admitted privately to the club as long ago as 4 May 2015 that he kissed the teenage fan and sent her sexually explicit messages.

In evidence to his trial, Johnson said he told “everything” to Margaret Byrne, Sunderland’s chief executive, at a meeting and there was no suggestion he would be sacked.

It also emerged at the trial that Byrne had copies of the 834 WhatsApp messages Johnson exchanged with the girl, as well as transcripts of their police interviews. In Johnson’s first police interview, he admitted kissing the girl on the lips and knowing she was underage.
Click to expand...

Surely a player admitting grooming and sexual contact with a child is more than enough grounds to sack him on the spot ffs.
 
HCAFC (Airlie Tiger) said:
We will be able to tell if Sunderland are lying or not depending on what they do next.

If Sunderland are telling the truth then they will surely take legal action against Johnson for dragging the clubs name through the mud, potentially costing them sponsorships, signings...etc.

If Sunderland are covering things up they'll deny everything and wait for it to die down and for people to forget. They've technically done nothing illegal, just immoral and pretty scummy.
Click to expand...

I think this is the key point, if Sunderland dont take action then we can assume Johnson was telling the truth.
 
Mr. Hat said:
Surely a player admitting grooming and sexual contact with a child is more than enough grounds to sack him on the spot ffs.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it can get messy when there are active legal proceedings. If there's a chance that dismissing him before trial could give his defence lawyers an opportunity to argue that he couldn't get a fair trial before an unprejudiced jury, then the club's lawyers would have to be wary of that.
 
It seems to me that when the chips were down, Sunderland chose fighting relegation in the Premier League over taking a moral stand against a child molestor. They'll come to regret that.
I used to have a soft spot for Sunderland, but now I can't bear them. No manager is ever good enough for their deluded fans, whether it be Bruce, Keane, Poyet, O Neill, Di Canio...do they ever wonder maybe the problems go deeper than the Manager? The behaviour of the club and an element of their supporters throughout this sorry saga has been shameful. They've been stinking out the bottom of the Premier League for years now and I hope they finally get relegated this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HHH and Happy Tiger
Mr. Hat said:
Surely a player admitting grooming and sexual contact with a child is more than enough grounds to sack him on the spot ffs.
Click to expand...

They could have sacked him after a disciplinary enquiry, and his subsequent appeal. The result would be no criminal trial as the evidence had been prejudged by the club.

He admitted passionately kissing her. A bit different from what most people understand by sexual contact.
 
Obadiah said:
They could have sacked him after a disciplinary enquiry, and his subsequent appeal. The result would be no criminal trial as the evidence had been prejudged by the club.

He admitted passionately kissing her. A bit different from what most people understand by sexual contact.
Click to expand...

Isnt the standard course of action regarding any potential criminal case against an employee for the employer to suspend them on full pay pending the outcome? It'd be no different if an Asda employee was accused of a criminal offence.
 
Bum_Chinned_Crab said:
Isnt the standard course of action regarding any potential criminal case against an employee for the employer to suspend them on full pay pending the outcome? It'd be no different if an Asda employee was accused of a criminal offence.
Click to expand...

That's the way I see it and they DID suspend the bloke but reinstated him on being told that he was pleading not guilty and would be defending the charges.
 
TigerRoo said:
That's the way I see it and they DID suspend the bloke but reinstated him on being told that he was pleading not guilty and would be defending the charges.
Click to expand...

You've obviously been spending too much time on the Sunderland board.

As far as I can see, Sunderland haven't denied that they had sight of the texts he sent, that alone should have raised enough concerns to stop playing him, regardless of how he was pleading.

Whether they sacked him or not was a legal matter, whether they played him or not was an entirely moral one and they made the wrong choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tuckin
Did the PFA know the same detail as Sunderland, and how much influence, and therefore responsibility do they have?
 
Bum_Chinned_Crab said:
Isnt the standard course of action regarding any potential criminal case against an employee for the employer to suspend them on full pay pending the outcome? It'd be no different if an Asda employee was accused of a criminal offence.
Click to expand...

That's my experience. We await the admissions and if required the trial and, then if guilty, we have the disciplinary procedure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back