the stinking enigma Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 they played him up until his trial. he pleaded guilty to one of the charges. surely sunderland must have known this while still selecting him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 they played him up until his trial. he pleaded guilty to one of the charges. surely sunderland must have known this while still selecting him? The club are claiming (no idea whether true or false) that they understood he was going to plead not guilty to all charges, hence why he was unsuspended from the team after discussions with the PFA. If true, I believe it is more grounds for suing the idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 ok, cant disagree, just seemed a little strange to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 He must have kept Sunderland's lawyers away from the evidence against him. Or they chose not to look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 He must have kept Sunderland's lawyers away from the evidence against him. Or they chose not to look. Why would the football club's lawyers be privy to the case for the prosecution or the even the case for the defence. They can only concern themselves with civil law relating to his contract, they have no jurisdiction in respect of directly assessing criminal activities an employee may or may not have been involved in. Think about it, if you were charged with some criminal offence, would your companies' lawyers have access to the case that the CPS were putting together? In this case, the idiot was immediately suspended by the club as soon as he was charged by the police. He was unsuspended following discussions with the club and the PFA, I can only presume that he told the club and the PFA that he would be denying all charges (why else would the PFA have supported him up to that point?). It seems entirely feasible to me that he has strung the club and the PFA along only to change his plea at the last moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 They wouldn't be privy to it - if he didn't want them to be. But you can bet your arse that when their £10m investments get themselves in the shit, with the obvious PR consequences for the club, they'll offer every legal "assistance" to help them out behind the scenes and get to bottom of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 They wouldn't be privy to it - if he didn't want them to be. But you can bet your arse that when their £10m investments get themselves in the shit, with the obvious PR consequences for the club, they'll offer every legal "assistance" to help them out behind the scenes and get to bottom of it. I said they would not be privy to the CPS's case, I still don't see how they would be either? What do you mean by legal "assistance"? Of course there are investment and PR consequences to the club. I suggest that the PR ones are actually more important to the club, I can only see that Johnson told them that he was going to plead not guilty, hence the club and PFA standing by him on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. When he changed his plea that changed everything and lead to his contract termination. The club (like many others) has very strong links to the community and values it fans importantly (here is a recent example - http://www.eurosport.co.uk/football/premier-league/2015-2016/sunderland-s-sensory-room-for-autistic-fans-lauded-as-absolutely-incredible_sto5105807/story.shtml), I just wish they could actually play decent football. Adam Johnson is a silly silly man but please don't judge a club based on the actions of stupid individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Defence lawyers get to see the evidence against their client before trial. His lawyers will have reviewed it and said to him "the evidence is strong on this charge and this charge, so we recommend you plead guilty because there is a 99% chance you will be found guilty, you've got a case on the others". The club will have undoubtedly offered him legal assistance, ie their own lawyers to trawl through that evidence, primarily to assist themselves by seeing that evidence and let them know what shitstorm was heading their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 He doesn't need club lawyers on 50k a week. It's not an issue for the club. It is obvious he denied it and it looks like something came late to the party which forced him to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxb&b Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 This taken from the transcripts of the texts between Johnson and the girl, I know this is not a laughing matter but.... Johnson: Am I only getting a kiss? Girl: It depends on what else you are after Johnson: Dunno depends on what you are up for. A little bit more than kissing. (After their encounter) Johnson: Think we had better go in the back next time Girl: Yeah yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxb&b Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Bit more txt. Messages between 15-year-old schoolgirl and Johnson Johnson to girl the same minute: ‘Yeah was class. Just wanted to get your jeans off.’ Adam and the pants! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Bit more txt. Messages between 15-year-old schoolgirl and Johnson Johnson to girl the same minute: ‘Yeah was class. Just wanted to get your jeans off.’ Adam and the pants! Stand and Deliver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Does anyone know what he pleaded guilty to exactly? My guess it is to a lesser offence that would carry a more severe sentence if he pleased innocent but was later found guilty in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Does anyone know what he pleaded guilty to exactly? My guess it is to a lesser offence that would carry a more severe sentence if he pleased innocent but was later found guilty in court. Tut-tut! Haven't you got a search engine, then? Sexual activity with a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 He pleaded guilty to grooming and to kissing the girl. The charges he is denying are that he encounter went further than kissing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.