Yeah it's a mag rag. Home to the 'great' Lee Ryder. Complete 'Fox network' of a rag. It's a joke of a paper.
The trial of Adam Johnson (part 2)
- Thread starter Minxy
- Start date
-
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
-
- Status
Yeah it's a mag rag. Home to the 'great' Lee Ryder. Complete 'Fox network' of a rag. It's a joke of a paper.
He has an axe to grind because they sacked him. He's trying to drag the club through the mud with him.
As soon as the club found out he was suspended.
There was a meeting with him, the club and the PFA after which his suspension was lifted.
As soon as he pleaded guilty he was sacked.
If he`d owned up to the club like he said he`d have been sacked at the beginning.
He`s lied to keep his wages coming in.
That`s what I think anyway.
There was a meeting with him, the club and the PFA after which his suspension was lifted.
As soon as he pleaded guilty he was sacked.
If he`d owned up to the club like he said he`d have been sacked at the beginning.
He`s lied to keep his wages coming in.
That`s what I think anyway.
That's also what the prosecution barrister is getting at. He kept the lie going to keep getting his wages. Conned the club.
I like his excuse for having a dick pic on his phone.
" It was to show the doctor"
The guy is a compulsive liar.
" It was to show the doctor"
The guy is a compulsive liar.
Absolutely and any admission of such hands us a very strong case in suing him. He's well into fighting for his fortune mode imo.
A doctor would demand a physical examination. Such bollocks. Sat there lying his arse off.
The evidence from this trial and eventual verdict can go some way to backing up a claim. Lower standard as well - balance of probabilities of course. For me, on the balance of probabilities, he lied to keep getting his wages. Fraudulent behaviour.
There might be grounds for reclaiming his wages from the date of his reinstatement. If he lied it was false pretentions? Don`t know tbh.
Doubt he`ll have much left when his other half gets done with him anyway.
Well admitting he obtained wages through fraud wouldn't help any such case. There wouldn't be much left, but he's not married to his lass so her claim won't be as big as it could have been. She can only claim for the bairn. The bloke is earning more than he can piss up the wall, it will be a chunky estate.
You continued to pay him and he continued to fulfill his contract by playing for you.
A claim that tries to reverse time and wind it back to the point where they might have made a different decision had the facts in front of them been different would be an absolute nonsense. Would you be handing back the points he helped win during that period to the PL like?
I'm sure the doctor has never needed to see him in a wife beater flexing with a stiffy.
Yes, and maybe we could claim the points back that he helped us lose by playing terribly......so that would put us in a champions league spot! Hurrah!!!
Provided they've been together 7 years init, making her his common law wife? Don't know how long they've been together.
I don't think we should even sue him if it's possible, I think we should distance myself so whats the point of questions like that? You seem to be assuming my sentiments. I was only pondering scenarios. You know full well the league can't be treated like civil case and teams can't just hand points back so your just waffling ****e yourself. Given the money involved and how it effected our decision making in the transfer window I wouldn't be too cock sure there isn't a case in there somewhere.
Common Law marriage doesn't carry with it the same rights as those granted under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 [and other legislation.]
Partners can only claim maintenance for a child, together with a 'top up' maintenance payment. In terms of property, Trust Law comes into play and whether both parties are listed as Joint Tenants/ Tenants in Common. If the property is registered in the sole name [i.e. Johnson] then there generally has to be proof of 'contribution' towards the property [maintenance, mortgage etc] by the other party. In all likelihood, Ms Flounders will get maintenance for their child and that is it unless she is listed as a JT or TiC.
Partners can only claim maintenance for a child, together with a 'top up' maintenance payment. In terms of property, Trust Law comes into play and whether both parties are listed as Joint Tenants/ Tenants in Common. If the property is registered in the sole name [i.e. Johnson] then there generally has to be proof of 'contribution' towards the property [maintenance, mortgage etc] by the other party. In all likelihood, Ms Flounders will get maintenance for their child and that is it unless she is listed as a JT or TiC.
tbh I`m not really interested in his financial affairs. I`m more concerned with how the club dealt with the situation.
Suspended him as soon as he was charged.
Reinstated him because they legally had to.
Sacked him immediately he admitted guilt.
The only contentious point is his reinstatement. I suppose it depends on the lies really. He had, until the trial, maintained he was innocent.
Difficult to see what else the club could have done under the circumstances.
Suspended him as soon as he was charged.
Reinstated him because they legally had to.
Sacked him immediately he admitted guilt.
The only contentious point is his reinstatement. I suppose it depends on the lies really. He had, until the trial, maintained he was innocent.
Difficult to see what else the club could have done under the circumstances.
- Status