Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

mansize wrote: »

There have been cases of sexual assault involving men as the purpitrator that received non custodial sentences

Be very surprised if that was the case when any of the victims were underage.

Guy:Incognito

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Armaghlad the age of consent is there for a reason, and this girl had yet to reach it, a fact Johnson was FULLY aware of.

But it can and has been changed by politicians. If he was playing in Germany he could have had an orgy with 10 14 year olds if he wanted. Would that be ok because the age of consent says so?

On the twitter stuff, as with many cases, thats not on Johnson. Idiots with internet access are responsible for their own actions.

armaghlad

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But it can and has been changed by politicians. If he was playing in Germany he could have had an orgy with 10 14 year olds if he wanted. Would that be ok because the age of consent says so?

Bit of a tangent here, but in other countries the age of consent is lower than 16. Are men in those countries who sleep with say, a 15 year old girl, paedophiles? I read somewhere that humans don't develop adult reasoning until their early 20s. So surely the age of consent should be 21. Is this not an issue that civilised countries could work towards agreed principles? Or would cultural differences make that a non starter?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

armaghlad wrote: »

Bit of a tangent here, but in other countries the age of consent is lower than 16. Are men in those countries who sleep with say, a 15 year old girl, paedophiles? I read somewhere that humans don't develop adult reasoning until their early 20s. So surely the age of consent should be 21. Is this not an issue that civilised countries could work towards agreed principles? Or would cultural differences make that a non starter?

Ephebaphile, technically - one who is attracted to teenagers.

The post is irrelevant: the law is set, the law was known by the offender, the law was broken by the offender. And whether or not he is normally attracted to underage children/teenagers, the fact is he committed an offense against one and will be punished for it.

I said earlier in the thread and I'll say it again: even if the age of consent was a year or two younger, and he hadn't acted illegally, this is a still a morally represhensible act.

armaghlad

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ephebaphile, technically - one who is attracted to teenagers.

The post is irrelevant: the law is set, the law was known by the offender, the law was broken by the offender. And whether or not he is normally attracted to underage children/teenagers, the fact is he committed an offense against one and will be punished for it.

I said earlier in the thread and I'll say it again: even if the age of consent was a year or two younger, and he hadn't acted illegally, this is a still a morally represhensible act.

I know, I did say it was a tangent.

I'm trying to question attitudes more than anything. Generally speaking, how could it be that it's morally reprehensible one day; but the very next (ie birthday) it be perfectly fine? How can other countries have a lower age of consent? Like in theory you could be 28 in the UK, have a girlfriend of 16, marry her, but the second you set foot in Ireland you could be arrested.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

armaghlad wrote: »

I know, I did say it was a tangent.

I'm trying to question attitudes more than anything. Generally speaking, how could it be that it's morally reprehensible one day; but the very next (ie birthday) it be perfectly fine? How can other countries have a lower age of consent? Like in theory you could be 28 in the UK, have a girlfriend of 16, marry her, but the second you set foot in Ireland you could be arrested.

It's morally reprehensible on both days, in my book. Taking sexual advantage of someone who is still developing sexually for your own pleasures is never really a nice move. And sexual development is not complete on a specific birthday - it's just that age is really one only guideline legal bodies can use.

I don't think anyone here would be arguing that he should be viewed any more honourably if the victim had been six or nine months older.

Leroy42

I see that Sunderland FC are coming under some serious pressure to explain themselves on this.

The statement they put out completely avoided the stated claim by AJ that he told them, they are sticking to their 'innocent until proven guilty' line, which seems fine expect that he claims he told them he did it.

Now, they can of course argue that he should be judged by the courts etc, but it calls into question how they treat their customers (ie the fans) and what obligation they have as an employer to protect their customers from their employees.

Sunderland cut off all questions about it yesterday at the pre match press conf. I doubt this is going to go away for them though.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see that Sunderland FC are coming under some serious pressure to explain themselves on this.

The statement they put out completely avoided the stated claim by AJ that he told them, they are sticking to their 'innocent until proven guilty' line, which seems fine expect that he claims he told them he did it.

Now, they can of course argue that he should be judged by the courts etc, but it calls into question how they treat their customers (ie the fans) and what obligation they have as an employer to protect their customers from their employees.

Sunderland cut off all questions about it yesterday at the pre match press conf. I doubt this is going to go away for them though.

I'd be curious how Sunderland fans would see it if they avoid being relegated to the football league by one point (considering his last goal before being sacked earned them that point).

Leroy42

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd be curious how Sunderland fans would see it if they avoid being relegated to the football league by one point (considering his last goal before being sacked earned them that point).

They won't give 2 fecks. There are numerous examples of fans accepting whatever their team does if it means they win.

one only has to look at some of the abuse this girl got from fans when the story came out, regardless that nobody other than her and AJ knew the real story.

bucketybuck

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see that Sunderland FC are coming under some serious pressure to explain themselves on this.

The statement they put out completely avoided the stated claim by AJ that he told them, they are sticking to their 'innocent until proven guilty' line, which seems fine expect that he claims he told them he did it.

Did we read the same statement? They didn't avoid the claim, they contradicted it and said that they were explicitly told all the way that he was pleading not guilty and would fight the claims. They were completely unaware that he was going to change his plea to guilty and the minute he did they sacked him.

Seriously, did we read different statements?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Leroy42 wrote: »

They won't give 2 fecks. There are numerous examples of fans accepting whatever their team does if it means they win.

one only has to look at some of the abuse this girl got from fans when the story came out, regardless that nobody other than her and AJ knew the real story.

Fair point, but while that kind of abuse should never be condoned, they're entitled to support him while he maintains his innocence (which, at the time, he did).

armaghlad

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's morally reprehensible on both days, in my book. Taking sexual advantage of someone who is still developing sexually for your own pleasures is never really a nice move. And sexual development is not complete on a specific birthday - it's just that age is really one only guideline legal bodies can use.

I don't think anyone here would be arguing that he should be viewed any more honourably if the victim had been six or nine months older.

That's kinda my point - you could be 15 and look much older and likewise you could be 21 and look much younger. You can develop early or you can develop late. There's no set age at which physically, not legally, you are "sexually mature". I allude to a point I previously made where I said humans (apparently) don't start to make adult reasoning until their 20s. I guess what I am saying is that there is no black and white in terms of the physical and mental aspects of these cases.

On an aside, one concern of mine is the tabloid media who seem incapable of reporting on sensitive stories like this without sensationalist bs headlines. I saw AJ being compared with Ian Huntley in one ffs!

armaghlad

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair point, but while that kind of abuse should never be condoned, they're entitled to support him while he maintains his innocence (which, at the time, he did).

Sam Allardyce the team manager has come out and said that there is no sympathy for AJ at SAFC. I think it was a case of a company trying to get the most out of their £10m investment while they could.

Leroy42

bucketybuck wrote: »

Did we read the same statement? They didn't avoid the claim, they contradicted it and said that they were explicitly told all the way that he was pleading not guilty and would fight the claims. They were completely unaware that he was going to change his plea to guilty and the minute he did they sacked him.

Seriously, did we read different statements?

We both read the same statement, I just paid attention to what they didn't say.

AJ stated that he told SAFC in May 15 that he had kissed the girl, that he had contact with her. He also acknowledged this to the police in his first interview. The police have confirmed that they provided SAFC with copies and summaries of the interviews.

So the narrative that SAFC are trying to put out is that they weren't aware he was going to plead guilty, but that is not the issue. It appears from both AJ and the police that SAFC knew he had, at the very least, been in contact with the girl and something had gone on.

They state that the CEO left during the meeting but do not explain why or did anybody else from SAFC take her place. What was the purpose of the meeting if not for SAFC to try to get the details, yet it seems apart from asking him about his plea they never did.

They then go on to mention "The club reached this decision (to withdraw suspension) only after carrying out a safeguarding assessment and liaising with relevant agencies.", but do not state what this actually was, why they thought it necessary given he was innocent and what agencies were contacted.

bucketybuck

Leroy42 wrote: »

We both read the same statement, I just paid attention to what they didn't say.

Or heard what you wanted to hear more like.

With a host of lawyers present Johnson told his bosses that he was innocent and that he would be fighting the case till the end. You seem to think the club should have played detective themselves and sacked him despite his clear claim of innocence. It isn't the club role to decide his guilt or innocence, especially not when he has his own legal counsel.

Leroy42

bucketybuck wrote: »

Or heard what you wanted to hear more like.

With a host of lawyers present Johnson told his bosses that he was innocent and that he would be fighting the case till the end. You seem to think the club should have played detective themselves and sacked him despite his clear claim of innocence. It isn't the club role to decide his guilt or innocence, especially not when he has his own legal counsel.

He never stated he was innocent, he may well have said he would fight it till the end.

No need to play detective. He stated in the trial that he told SAFC that he kissed her. He stated that they saw the transcripts of the messages. It is not even about whether he is found innocent or guilty. The law is based on beyond all reasonable doubt, but if they knew what he had done they should have acted? There is a world of difference between found guilty in court of law and having done something. I can be speeding in my car but unless the garda have the equipment to prove it then there is simply no case. I know I did it, they know I did it but no court can convict me.

They in no way contradict his statement. They say that he didn't tell them he would plead guilty. They don't even mention what else was said in the meeting and completely avoid dealing with his claim of having told them.

Do you take the same approach to the church? Since the priests weren't convicted then the church really couldn't do anything?

SAFC are using a very tight definition in order to avoid their own moral obligations. Remember this is a customer of theirs. Did they even bother to check if she was ok?

He was arrested, they suspended him. They were given his admission and some police evidence. After meeting with the PFA and his agent they decide to reinstate him. They then make a virtue of the fact that when the court heard the facts that they already know they found him guilty and so they fired him. Thye give no details of what changed between their decision to suspend and then reinstate. They make not mention of his claim to have told them.

Sometimes you don't need a judge to tell you what is right and wrong

Dempsey

armaghlad wrote: »

Sam Allardyce the team manager has come out and said that there is no sympathy for AJ at SAFC. I think it was a case of a company trying to get the most out of their £10m investment while they could.

There are just ethically and morally bankrupt is all then

Paully D

Dempsey wrote: »

There are just ethically and morally bankrupt is all then

No different to the vast majority of football clubs or any other organisation that deals in millions and billions of pounds then.

Celtic for example are currently employing someone with a drink-driving conviction for driving almost 4 times over the legal limit and someone who has confessed to racially abusing a fellow professional.

If you want to find ethics and morals, within football is the last place I'd be looking.

LiamoSail

Paully D wrote: »

No different to the vast majority of football clubs or any other organisation that deals in millions and billions of pounds then.

Celtic for example are currently employing someone with a drink-driving conviction for driving almost 4 times over the legal limit and someone who has confessed to racially abusing a fellow professional.

If you want to find ethics and morals, within football is the last place I'd be looking.

Lee Grifiths is a a proper chav alright, but to compare him singing "Rudi Skacel is an effing refugee" with a crowd of his Hibs mates to what Johnson got up to is taking the piss.

Obviously the Griffiths example directly contravenes Celtic's ethos, but Jesus it dosent even register on the Johnstone scale

Paully D

LiamoSail wrote: »

Lee Grifiths is a a proper chav alright, but to compare him singing "Rudi Skacel is an effing refugee" with a crowd of his Hibs mates to what Johnson got up to is taking the piss.

Obviously the Griffiths example directly contravenes Celtic's ethos, but Jesus it dosent even register on the Johnstone scale

Not comparing it at all (which should go without saying), just pointing out that the vast majority of clubs are "ethically and morally bankrupt".

LiamoSail

Paully D wrote: »

Not comparing it at all (which should go without saying), just pointing out that the vast majority of clubs are "ethically and morally bankrupt".

Yea apologies, I see your point and agree. Clubs have been etically and morally bankrupt ever since they became businesses. Anyone who considers their club to act in any way other than what is best for their business is probably deluding themselves (a rare trait among football fans!!)

Dempsey

Paully D wrote: »

No different to the vast majority of football clubs or any other organisation that deals in millions and billions of pounds then.

Celtic for example are currently employing someone with a drink-driving conviction for driving almost 4 times over the legal limit and someone who has confessed to racially abusing a fellow professional.

If you want to find ethics and morals, within football is the last place I'd be looking.

Really? Yet it stuck in your craw enough to go into a game of oneupmanship. :rolleyes:
Save your anger for your club and their behaviour if you really care for how the club conducts itself.

Any business, big or even a small sole trader no.1 responsibility is to maximise shareholder value. Ethics, Moral and Legal Obligations very often are a direct contradiction to their no.1 duty so no, I wont be looking towards football or any other business, ever.

Cantona's Collars

BBC reporting the Sunderland CEO has resigned.

Johnson's sister has set up a Justice For Johnson facebook page.That will go well:rolleyes:

Kristopherus

zerks wrote: »

BBC reporting the Sunderland CEO has resigned.

Johnson's sister has set up a Justice For Johnson facebook page.That will go well:rolleyes:

Well, both are gone now:D

Johnson has been removed from PES & Football Manager

Flint Fredstone

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Johnson has been removed from PES & Football Manager

That's very lenient, I was sure he would get time for it.

Flint Fredstone

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

That's very lenient, I was sure he would get time for it.

Quality Flint :pac:

armaghlad

Katy Hopkins defending him in the Daily Mail (*my eyes!*)

The comment section is ridiculous! All from people agreeing with her!

Nerdlingr

Margaret Byrne has resigned now, saying she made a "serious mistake".

armaghlad

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Margaret Byrne has resigned now, saying she made a "serious mistake".

I sympathise with her. Can't have been an easy decision. Running a football club is hard enough without having one of your star players embroiled in a criminal sex trial. It really did boil down to her judgement as to whether she thought he'd be found not guilty or not.

Leroy42

armaghlad wrote: »

I sympathise with her. Can't have been an easy decision. Running a football club is hard enough without having one of your star players embroiled in a criminal sex trial. It really did boil down to her judgement as to whether she thought he'd be found not guilty or not.

I don't agree. Whether he was found guilty or not was a legal matter, not a moral one. plenty of cases where people who have done illegal things have got off due to technicalities or whatever.

In this case SAFC knew of the details, so the CEO knew that he had crossed a line. And she owed a duty of care to her customers (the child in this case).

She chose to use the court system delay to her advantage. Now, if he hadn't told them, or if the police hadn't told them, then she would have been fine

In saying all that, fair play to her for accepting she made a mistake on taking the consequences. She have made on an error of judgment, but it shows her in a very good light that she is willing to accept that. Fair play, we need more like her (not the initial error in judgment obviously!)

vicwatson

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't agree. Whether he was found guilty or not was a legal matter, not a moral one. plenty of cases where people who have done illegal things have got off due to technicalities or whatever.

In this case SAFC knew of the details, so the CEO knew that he had crossed a line. And she owed a duty of care to her customers (the child in this case).

She chose to use the court system delay to her advantage. Now, if he hadn't told them, or if the police hadn't told them, then she would have been fine

100% agree, and that's it in a nutshell

armaghlad

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't agree. Whether he was found guilty or not was a legal matter, not a moral one. plenty of cases where people who have done illegal things have got off due to technicalities or whatever.

In this case SAFC knew of the details, so the CEO knew that he had crossed a line. And she owed a duty of care to her customers (the child in this case).

She chose to use the court system delay to her advantage. Now, if he hadn't told them, or if the police hadn't told them, then she would have been fine

I'm not denying her wrong doing. I'm sympathising at being placed in such a position. A football club has a duty of care yes; whether that boils down solely to the CEO I'm not entirely sure. In any case the CEO has a lot of people to answer to and not just fans. She has to take all things into account, she is(was) there primarily to run a business.

tigger123

armaghlad wrote: »

I sympathise with her. Can't have been an easy decision. Running a football club is hard enough without having one of your star players embroiled in a criminal sex trial. It really did boil down to her judgement as to whether she thought he'd be found not guilty or not.

She knew he'd had sexual contact with a minor and allowed him to continue in the squad, and kept if from the rest of the club.

"Error of judgement". Yeah.

keeponhurling

A CEO gets paid big bucks, because they need to make the big decisions.

tigger123

armaghlad wrote: »

I'm not denying her wrong doing. I'm sympathising at being placed in such a position. A football club has a duty of care yes; whether that boils down solely to the CEO I'm not entirely sure. In any case the CEO has a lot of people to answer to and not just fans. She has to take all things into account, she is(was) there primarily to run a business.

Its pretty cut and dry tbh.

Dots1982

armaghlad wrote: »

I sympathise with her. Can't have been an easy decision. Running a football club is hard enough without having one of your star players embroiled in a criminal sex trial. It really did boil down to her judgement as to whether she thought he'd be found not guilty or not.

She made a choice that prioritised Sunderland's survival in the PL last season.

I would be interested to know if SAFC supporters would be against or in favour of the decision she made.

She may have a duty of care to supporters (what actually does this mean in the context...like he wasn't ted bundy) but she is paid to make the best decisions for SAFC. She probably did that even if it led the club down a distasteful path.

armaghlad

tigger123 wrote: »

She knew he'd had sexual contact with a minor and allowed him to continue in the squad, and kept if from the rest of the club.

"Error of judgement". Yeah.

And what if Sunderland survive relegation by a point? A point that AJ earned them? A point that sees another massive cash windfall and further stability for the business. It's not pretty but I'm sure the shareholders privately won't gaf if that turns out to be the case.

tigger123

armaghlad wrote: »

And what if Sunderland survive relegation by a point? A point that AJ earned them? A point that sees another massive cash windfall and further stability for the business. It's not pretty but I'm sure the shareholders privately won't gaf if that turns out to be the case.

So what you're saying is that, from a business perspective, the millions of pounds that is earned by remaining in the PL is worth Sunderland FC carrying the reputation of being a company that will employ paedophiles?

armaghlad

tigger123 wrote: »

So what you're saying is that, from a business perspective, the millions of pounds that is earned by remaining in the PL is worth Sunderland FC carrying the reputation of being a company that will employ paedophiles?

I'm saying from a business perspective she was between a rock and a hard place. She made the wrong decision from a moral perspective, held her hands up, accepted blame and resigned. The shareholders, should Sunderland survive by the bare minimum, will not give two hoots. I honestly don't see why you are finding that difficult to understand.

rob316

Someone had to fall on their sword at the club. Sunderland's reputation is heavily damaged here anyway, the fact they left a sex offender play on and pay him £2m after admitting in private to the club he did, wont go away.

Dots1982

tigger123 wrote: »

So what you're saying is that, from a business perspective, the millions of pounds that is earned by remaining in the PL is worth Sunderland FC carrying the reputation of being a company that will employ paedophiles?

Well it definitely is. There is very little question the CEO made the right choice for the benefit of the club. Do you think this case will cause lasting damage to Sunderland's brand?

Do you think players will tell their agents to not allow them to go there?

Do you think Sky will stop sending cameras there?

Do you think fans will stop supporting them?


They already ring fenced themselves from damage to the brand's reputation by having a stooge CEO who has resigned anyway.

armaghlad

rob316 wrote: »

Someone had to fall on their sword at the club. Sunderland's reputation is heavily damaged here anyway, the fact they left a sex offender play on and pay him £2m after admitting in private to the club he did, wont go away.

^^^
Exactly. They invested a lot of money in him (£10m?) so while I'd be 99.9% confident they don't condone behaviour such as AJ's, decisions still had to be made. Byrne ultimately made those decisions which may well prove to be, financially, invaluable to SAFC.

Former sun editor was convinced of printing a photo of the girl last year. Has to pay her some costs. About a grand or so.

Wouldn't have thought a classy paper like that would do such a thing


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/07/adam-johnson-former-sun-editor-david-dinsmore-convicted-victim-picture

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Former sun editor was convinced of printing a photo of the girl last year. Has to pay her some costs. About a grand or so.

Wouldn't have thought a classy paper like that would do such a thing


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/07/adam-johnson-former-sun-editor-david-dinsmore-convicted-victim-picture

He'll get a bonus of more than a grand from the Sun and think if it as a profitable venture.

TheCitizen

armaghlad wrote: »

I'm saying from a business perspective she was between a rock and a hard place. She made the wrong decision from a moral perspective, held her hands up, accepted blame and resigned. The shareholders, should Sunderland survive by the bare minimum, will not give two hoots. I honestly don't see why you are finding that difficult to understand.

You can say what you like. She made a really stupid decision, for herself, for the club and for her own future career. Still she's probably got enough put away that even if here career is in tatters she'll survive. There is no excuse for the stupidity of her decision. Adam Johnson was not the reason why Sunderland stayed up or not, don't be ridiculous. When she read those text message she should have got rid of him straight away, they could've replaced him.


She made an incredibly stupid mistake for someone who is supposed to be trained in the legal profession. If I was a Sunderland supporter I'd be livid with her. She resigned and rightly so, stop trying to make excuses for her. A lot of nonsense spouted by you here, are you related to her or something?

eagle eye

TheCitizen wrote: »

You can say what you like. She made a really stupid decision, for herself, for the club and for her own future career. Still she's probably got enough put away that even if here career is in tatters she'll survive. There is no excuse for the stupidity of her decision. Adam Johnson was not the reason why Sunderland stayed up or not, don't be ridiculous. When she read those text message she should have got rid of him straight away, they could've replaced him.


She made an incredibly stupid mistake for someone who is supposed to be trained in the legal profession. If I was a Sunderland supporter I'd be livid with her. She resigned and rightly so, stop trying to make excuses for her. A lot of nonsense spouted by you here, are you related to her or something?

In the public eye she made a horrible decision but I don't agree with you.

Adam Johnson was a valuable asset at the time. She made a decision to take the risk that the asset would remain valuable and it didn't work out. She has paid the price for it but I don't think it will affect her career that much.

Sunderland is not a club with a high profile that is going to be deeply affected by this imo. It will be forgotten about inside of two years I think.

TheCitizen

eagle eye wrote: »

In the public eye she made a horrible decision but I don't agree with you.

Adam Johnson was a valuable asset at the time. She made a decision to take the risk that the asset would remain valuable and it didn't work out. She has paid the price for it but I don't think it will affect her career that much.

Sunderland is not a club with a high profile that is going to be deeply affected by this imo. It will be forgotten about inside of two years I think.

No I disagree. In any analysis of what she did she got it hopelessly wrong. She read the texts that he had sent, she must have known he was finished. She should've tried to offload him asap, bar that just take the hit. It's not like Sunderland are broke. If I was looking for legal advice I wouldn't go near her. Wrong decision no matter what way you look at it, very poor judgement.

fyfe79

tigger123 wrote: »

So what you're saying is that, from a business perspective, the millions of pounds that is earned by remaining in the PL is worth Sunderland FC carrying the reputation of being a company that will employ paedophiles?

Technically, it wasn't paedophilia, it was ephebophilia.

TheCitizen wrote: »

Adam Johnson was not the reason why Sunderland stayed up or not, don't be ridiculous.

His equaliser a few weeks ago against Liverpool may well save them this year. Will the shareholders retroactively ask for this point to be removed because it was gained by a sex offender, even if it relegates them? It's big business - they will secretly be relieved that their CEO kept Johnson on the books long enough to potentially save them millions.

armaghlad

TheCitizen wrote: »

You can say what you like. She made a really stupid decision, for herself, for the club and for her own future career. Still she's probably got enough put away that even if here career is in tatters she'll survive. There is no excuse for the stupidity of her decision. Adam Johnson was not the reason why Sunderland stayed up or not, don't be ridiculous. When she read those text message she should have got rid of him straight away, they could've replaced him.


She made an incredibly stupid mistake for someone who is supposed to be trained in the legal profession. If I was a Sunderland supporter I'd be livid with her. She resigned and rightly so, stop trying to make excuses for her. A lot of nonsense spouted by you here, are you related to her or something?

Am I **** making excuses for her, I'm stating a fact. If you are blissfully unaware of the lucrative money involved in surviving relegation from the EPL I suggest you do a bit of homework on the subject.

As other posters have alluded she may have made a bad decision morally in the public eye, behind closed doors in the SAFC boardroom it could be invaluable. If Sunderland avoid relegation it won't be by that much, a point Johnson helped earned v Liverpool could well be the difference between millions of pounds worth of windfall for the following season; or a whole restructuring for at least a year in the bear pit that is the Championship.

As for Byrne I hadn't heard of her before this case emerged and only in the last week or two learned she was from Dromintee. So no, no relation.