Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Paully D

fyfe79 wrote: »

His equaliser a few weeks ago against Liverpool may well save them this year..

The most astonishing thing about all of this is that Adam Johnson has somehow managed to morph into Jermaine Defoe.

fyfe79

Paully D wrote: »

The most astonishing thing about all of this is that Adam Johnson has somehow managed to morph into Jermaine Defoe.

Sorry, yeah, Johnson got the first didn't he. Still, if he hadn't have scored that to set them on their way, no way would they have gotten anything from that game.

TheCitizen

armaghlad wrote: »

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.

Backpeddling now I see. A couple of posts ago it was "from a business perspective she was stuck between a rock and a hard place etc. etc..." I'm saying from a business perspective as well as every other perspective she got it hopelessly wrong. The notion that because he scored a goal that helped to get 3 points justifies the decision makes no sense from any perspective. He's not that good, they could've replaced him, they have the money to replace him and his replacement could've got the goal v Liverpool and other ones besides.

She's supposed to be a legal professional, she was on 600k a year, she got it wrong in every way including financially. Clubs have to write off 10 million pound players all the time, players get injured, players go off the rails make an almighty mess of things like Johnson. She saw the text messages, the only decision from any perspective financial or otherwise was to suspend him and dump him. She resigned for good reason, she got it hopelessly wrong.

armaghlad

TheCitizen wrote: »

Backpeddling now I see. A couple of posts ago it was "from a business perspective she was stuck between a rock and a hard place etc. etc..." I'm saying from a business perspective as well as every other perspective she got it hopelessly wrong. The notion that because he scored a goal that helped to get 3 points justifies the decision makes no sense from any perspective. He's not that good, they could've replaced him, they have the money to replace him and his replacement could've got the goal v Liverpool and other ones besides.

She's supposed to be a legal professional, she was on 600k a year, she got it wrong in every way including financially. Clubs have to write off 10 million pound players all the time, players get injured, players go off the rails make an almighty mess of things like Johnson. She saw the text messages, the only decision from any perspective financial or otherwise was to suspend him and dump him. She resigned for good reason, she got it hopelessly wrong.

Eh, I'm not back peddling?

Clearly she made the decision with the company's best interests at heart - even Sunderland said as much in their statement. So yes, from a business perspective she was between a rock and hard place.

Clubs like Sunderland don't just write off £10m players willy nilly, not without taking a massive hit, they don't have the financial clout that the top London and Manchester clubs have. With any business it's about fine margins, if you're trying to say AJ didn't contribute to the club/business after his initial arrest then your mistaken. He contributed to a point v Liverpool, scoring a goal (something Sunderland struggle with). Are you trying to tell me if/when Sunderland avoid relegation by a point that AJ had nothing to do with it? Seriously...

TheCitizen

armaghlad wrote: »

Eh, I'm not back peddling?

Clearly she made the decision with the company's best interests at heart - even Sunderland said as much in their statement. So yes, from a business perspective she was between a rock and hard place.

Clubs like Sunderland don't just write off £10m players willy nilly, not without taking a massive hit, they don't have the financial clout that the top London and Manchester clubs have. With any business it's about fine margins, if you're trying to say AJ didn't contribute to the club/business after his initial arrest then your mistaken. He contributed to a point v Liverpool, scoring a goal (something Sunderland struggle with). Are you trying to tell me if/when Sunderland avoid relegation by a point that AJ had nothing to do with it? Seriously...

I'm saying they could've replaced him with someone just as good. There's no willy nilly about it, i didn't say those clubs write off players willy nilly, but they have to write them off from time to time, it happens. Johnson was one of those.

The club make a statement saying she did her best so what, it's a departing statement.

She resigned before they had time to sack her. She should've sacked Johnson, if she did she'd still be chief executive now and Sunderland's position in the league would most likely be more or less the same, plus their good name intact and not sullied.

She was not between a rock and a hard place. In this instance there was no grey area. There was only one correct decision to make from every perspective financial and otherwise, and she was getting paid 600k a year to make the right one, she got it wrong and that's why she's gone.

armaghlad

TheCitizen wrote: »

I'm saying they could've replaced him with someone just as good. There's no willy nilly about it, i didn't say those clubs write off players willy nilly, but they have to write them off from time to time, it happens. Johnson was one of those.

The club make a statement saying she did her best so what, it's a departing statement.

She resigned before they had time to sack her. She should've sacked Johnson, if she did she'd still be chief executive now and Sunderland's position in the league would most likely be more or less the same, plus their good name intact and not sullied.

She was not between a rock and a hard place. In this instance there was no grey area. There was only one correct decision to make from every perspective financial and otherwise, and she was getting paid 600k a year to make the right one, she got it wrong and that's why she's gone.

Oh god - am I reading correctly? So you think Sunderland can afford to replace him with someone "just as good". Do you think they've £10m spare that they can just splash on an England international? Sounds kinda willy nilly...

If she had sacked Johnson they'd most likely be in the relegation zone as without his goal v Liverpool they'd be in the bottom three - a position they've occupied most of the season.

Yes in hindsight she should have just sacked him but it's disengenuous to ignore that she also had a business to run and that's why she didn't. If Sunderland are in the same league position at the end of the season and consolidate their place in the EPL (ringfencing millions in the process); would you argue that keeping AJ on did not contribute to their survival?

TheCitizen

armaghlad wrote: »

Oh god - am I reading correctly? So you think Sunderland can afford to replace him with someone "just as good". Do you think they've £10m spare that they can just splash on an England international? Sounds kinda willy nilly...

If she had sacked Johnson they'd most likely be in the relegation zone as without his goal v Liverpool they'd be in the bottom three - a position they've occupied most of the season.

Yes in hindsight she should have just sacked him but it's disengenuous to ignore that she also had a business to run and that's why she didn't. If Sunderland are in the same league position at the end of the season and consolidate their place in the EPL (ringfencing millions in the process); would you argue that keeping AJ on did not contribute to their survival?

If Johnson wasn't playing that day, someone else may have got a goal for Sunderland, who knows, you don't make decisions based on hindsight. Sunderland have been in the EPL for years, yes they probably could have spent 10m on a replacement, written him off and then sue him for loss of investment in him. There's nothing willy nilly about it, this sort of thing can happen but thankfully cases like the weirdo Johnson doesn't happen too often where he has left a trail of text messages linking him to illegal activity.


You see yours is the sort of muddled thinking that did for Margaret Byrne. She had a clear choice to make, she read those text messages. Did she get further legal advice on it or did she just say I'm the legal expert here? You have to be able to trust someones judgement when you're paying them around 600k sterling a year. She has had to resign, her decision was wrong from every perspective including a business perspective.

ArmaniJeanss

If they'd sacked him a year ago and the trial fell through before it started (not exactly an uncommon occurrence in these sort of things) then they'd also be a laughing stock - with AJ scoring goals for whichever rival team picked him up for nada, whilst also considering various claims against his former employers whose CEO would doubtless have had to resign.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

armaghlad

TheCitizen wrote: »

If Johnson wasn't playing that day, someone else may have got a goal for Sunderland, who knows, you don't make decisions based on hindsight. Sunderland have been in the EPL for years, yes they probably could have spent 10m on a replacement, written him off and then sue him for loss of investment in him. There's nothing willy nilly about it, this sort of thing can happen but thankfully cases like the weirdo Johnson doesn't happen too often where he has left a trail of text messages linking him to illegal activity.


You see yours is the sort of muddled thinking that did for Margaret Byrne. She had a clear choice to make, she read those text messages. Did she get further legal advice on it or did she just say I'm the legal expert here? You have to be able to trust someones judgement when you're paying them around 600k sterling a year. She has had to resign, her decision was wrong from every perspective including a business perspective.

I don't think hindsight comes into play when you're talking about a £10m asset. The fact he scored that night v Liverpool is just an example of his value to the club/company. It's not like he was some reserve player on the fringes. I'm sure if he was, she wouldn't have even bothered reading the text messages as she'd be too busy tearing up the contract there and then on the spot.

If you look at Sunderland's signings they've maybe bought 3 or 4 players that have exceeded Johnson's £10m tag so you are quite clearly ignoring their financial capabilities or lack thereof - especially if you think they'll recoup the full amount from Johnson (that's if they get any).

Iirc Johnson was suspended immediately and then the suspension lifted so clearly there must have been some consultation. I sincerely doubt Byrne made this decision solely on her own. That's not to say it wasn't the wrong one - it was. I just think you are dismissing the gravity of the situation. Imagine Johnson was sacked and eventually got off on a technicality. She'd have been crucified then also.

TheCitizen

armaghlad wrote: »

I don't think hindsight comes into play when you're talking about a £10m asset. The fact he scored that night v Liverpool is just an example of his value to the club/company. It's not like he was some reserve player on the fringes. I'm sure if he was, she wouldn't have even bothered reading the text messages as she'd be too busy tearing up the contract there and then on the spot.

If you look at Sunderland's signings they've maybe bought 3 or 4 players that have exceeded Johnson's £10m tag so you are quite clearly ignoring their financial capabilities or lack thereof - especially if you think they'll recoup the full amount from Johnson (that's if they get any).

Iirc Johnson was suspended immediately and then the suspension lifted so clearly there must have been some consultation. I sincerely doubt Byrne made this decision solely on her own. That's not to say it wasn't the wrong one - it was. I just think you are dismissing the gravity of the situation. Imagine Johnson was sacked and eventually got off on a technicality. She'd have been crucified then also.

No. There was a trail of text messages, there was hard document evidence that they knew about a year before the trial started. She being a legal professional you'd imagine would know that evidence of that nature is irrefutable. You get paid 600k a year to make calls like that and to get it right.

I'm not sure what the argument is about.

She screwed up. She resigned.

One may argue over whether she screwed up, or really really screwed up. Or whether she resigned, or resigned in disgrace. But people are hardly miles apart in either position.

~Rebel~

Sentencing set for Marsh 24th anyway.

Coat22

Sentencing today

Great article by Katie Hopkins in the Daily Mail today - don't think she'd win many followers on here with her views

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3480476/KATIE-HOPKINS-away-rope-Adam-Johnson-broke-law-girl-knew-EXACTLY-doing-s-not-paedophile-doesn-t-deserve-prison-Twitter-lynching.html

Osmosis Jones

Coat22 wrote: »

Sentencing today

Great article by Katie Hopkins in the Daily Mail today - don't think she'd win many followers on here with her views

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3480476/KATIE-HOPKINS-away-rope-Adam-Johnson-broke-law-girl-knew-EXACTLY-doing-s-not-paedophile-doesn-t-deserve-prison-Twitter-lynching.html

They're not her views, she's paid to spark controversy, to against what everyone else believes, a rent a mouth.

GLaDOS

>Katie Hopkins

>Great Article

Choose one

Coat22

ScienceNerd wrote: »

>Katie Hopkins

>Great Article

Choose one

Well have you actually read the article? I normally think the woman is an attention seeking wannabe but she makes some great points in it.

armaghlad

Coat22 wrote: »

Well have you actually read the article? I normally think the woman is an attention seeking wannabe but she makes some great points in it.

Her points lose all validity in the face of the law. Instead of questioning society she questions the victim in this case which I feel is incredibly unfair.

That_Guy

Stripped of his England caps.

Dirty Dingus McGee

That_Guy wrote: »

Stripped of his England caps.

You can't undo the past.

Coat22

That_Guy wrote: »

Stripped of his England caps.

Yeah - wonder how they do that - do they come round and take them back?

Are we all to just forget the 3 or so times he played for England? Just pretend it was Glen Johnson instead?:)

Coat22

armaghlad wrote: »

Her points lose all validity in the face of the law. Instead of questioning society she questions the victim in this case which I feel is incredibly unfair.

She questions the verdict. She's saying more or less what you've been saying for the past couple of months

HalloweenJack

That_Guy wrote: »

Stripped of his England caps.

Is this official?

If so, reminiscent of the WWF pretending that Hulk Hogan never existed. PEople do bad things but you can't rewrite history.

Coat22

20/30 minutes to the sentence.

armaghlad

Coat22 wrote: »

She questions the verdict. She's saying more or less what you've been saying for the past couple of months

Care to back that up?

Coat22

armaghlad wrote: »

Care to back that up?

Try pages 1-41. Life's too short

armaghlad

Coat22 wrote: »

Try pages 1-41. Life's too short

Thought so

Moneymaker

That_Guy wrote: »

Stripped of his England caps.

I've no sympathy for him whatsoever but that's a little extreme no?

Stripping winners of medals when they're later proven to have taken PEDs is one thing. But what Johnson did and his England career aren't really related.

Insult to injury but again, he's a difficult individual to have any sympathy for.

That_Guy

Stripping of his caps seems odd. I kinda get why they did it but it's still strange.

armaghlad

Has it been done before? Is someone in the FA feeling guilt by association? Or why would they take such a measure?

Moneymaker

armaghlad wrote: »

Has it been done before? Is someone in the FA feeling guilt by association? Or why would they take such a measure?

Graham Rix wasn't stripped of his.

armaghlad

Moneymaker wrote: »

Graham Rix wasn't stripped of his.

His was arguably a lesser crime

jaykay74

Think he has bigger worries at present tbh than that tokenism...

Good summary of ongoings currently from the below BBC journo twitter account

https://twitter.com/EdThomas76

Coat22

Judge is going to throw the book at him going by his comments

Chesty08

Coat22 wrote: »

Judge is going to throw the book at him going by his comments

He is really going to town on him!!!

Coat22

"Judge Rose says this is category 1A offending. The most serious."

Jesus he musn't have heard of Fr Brendan Smyth

Lovely Bloke

6 years

StringerBell

6 years, see how the appeal goes.

Coat22

6 years - the whole thing will be thrown out on appeal

jaykay74

Coat22 wrote: »

6 years - the whole thing will be thrown out on appeal

Why is that ? Surely only the sentencing is up for debate...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Coat22 wrote: »

She questions the verdict. She's saying more or less what you've been saying for the past couple of months

he verdict was right. The sentence of six years about right too.

While the victim is innocent, she comes across as being far from blameless (didn;t she try and contact other players too?). That said, the bottom line is that HE is the adult and HE is the one who should never have gotten to this position and HE is the one who took advantage of the situation.

mansize

Coat22 wrote: »

6 years - the whole thing will be thrown out on appeal

Based on?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jaykay74 wrote: »

Why is that ? Surely only the sentencing is up for debate...

The appeal was lodged before the sentence was issued.

Not sure how people can predict how the appeal goes without knowing what the appeal consist of or is based on.

Got away light enough. He'll be out in 3 years.

I'd imagine he'll be a targeted man in prison.

Might make him think twice about grooming underage girls when he's out

Augme

Amazing how things have changed since 1999 when Graham Rix(when 41 years old) got 1 year in prison for sex with a 15-year-old while Adam Johnson gets 6 years for far less sexual activity.

Coat22

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Got away light enough. He'll be out in 3 years.

I'd imagine he'll be a targeted man in prison.

Might make him think twice about grooming underage girls when he's out

Ah yeah - the ordinary decent criminals will sort him out.:rolleyes:

AGC

Augme wrote: »

Amazing how things have changed since 1999 when Graham Rix(when 41 years old) got 1 year in prison for sex with a 15-year-old while Adam Johnson gets 6 years for far less sexual activity.

The manner of how Johnson groomed is the main issue

mansize

Augme wrote: »

Amazing how things have changed since 1999 when Graham Rix(when 41 years old) got 1 year in prison for sex with a 15-year-old while Adam Johnson gets 6 years for far less sexual activity.

Rix pleaded guilty, there were no charges of grooming either.

armaghlad

AGC wrote: »

The manner of how Johnson groomed is the main issue

And subsequent denial.

I think the appeal will be on the basis that the girl "lied" ie the final count which he was found not guilty of. I'm not sure what else the defence would appeal on tbh. Personally think 6 years is harsh.

Coat22

armaghlad wrote: »

And subsequent denial.

I think the appeal will be on the basis that the girl "lied" ie the final count which he was found not guilty of. I'm not sure what else the defence would appeal on tbh. Personally think 6 years is harsh.

The fact that the guilty verdict was based on the evidence of the girl and her buddies but yet their evidence on the other charge wasn't believed has got to bring their credibility into question. I'm not saying he didn't do it, in fact I'd say he did but from a legal perspective surely the verdict is unsound given the lack of other evidence?

Also reckon the judge saying "this is category 1A offending. The most serious" is bizarre and surely grounds to appeal the severity of the sentence.

.....and as for the FA looking for their caps back......

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AGC wrote: »

The manner of how Johnson groomed is the main issue

mansize wrote: »

Rix pleaded guilty, there were no charges of grooming either.

I seriously doubt a 41-year-old admitting having sex with a 15-year-old would get away with a one-year sentence in this era.