Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Moneymaker

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I could be wrong, like many before me, but I got the impression that jaykay74 was saying that grooming is not a dramatic online chat, or something made to sound worse than it is in relation to the post he quoted.

Johnson admitted to something seriously wrong, and something he would have known was a serious crime back then.

So did he hide the fact he was going to plead guilty from Sunderland?

The latter is unthinkable, that he told Sunderland he was going to plead guilty and they continued to pick him anyway.

Have Sunderland made any statements since yesterday at all?

Lovely Bloke

Moneymaker wrote: »

So did he hide the fact he was going to plead guilty from Sunderland?

The latter is unthinkable, that he told Sunderland he was going to plead guilty and they continued to pick him anyway.

Have Sunderland made any statements since yesterday at all?

Usual Presser later with Uncle Sam, I assume the question will be asked.

they've already said that he won't be playing this weekend.

But they probably won't comment "on an ongoing legal case" at the presser either way.

ctrl-alt-delete

Moneymaker wrote: »

So did he hide the fact he was going to plead guilty from Sunderland?

The latter is unthinkable, that he told Sunderland he was going to plead guilty and they continued to pick him anyway.

Have Sunderland made any statements since yesterday at all?

I agree that it is unthinkable that they will have played him knowing he was going to admit to those two charges.

I guess we will find out eventually, but i don't expect we will hear much in that regard in the coming days.

murpho999

Moneymaker wrote: »

So did he hide the fact he was going to plead guilty from Sunderland?

The latter is unthinkable, that he told Sunderland he was going to plead guilty and they continued to pick him anyway.

Have Sunderland made any statements since yesterday at all?

Why would have to tell Sunderland what he's going to plead?

He had to go through a process and it takes time. He does not have to tell his employers his plea intentions.

I don't see what Sunderland have done wrong here.

Moneymaker

murpho999 wrote: »

Why would have to tell Sunderland what he's going to plead?

He had to go through a process and it takes time. He does not have to tell his employers his plea intentions.

I don't see what Sunderland have done wrong here.

I'm not saying they've done anything wrong at all.

I'm saying IF Johnson informed them he intended to plead guilty then it doesn't reflect well on them. If it was always his intention to plead guilty and he didn't disclose this fact to them then it's another scummy move from him.

Either way, he should never play for them again.

murpho999

Moneymaker wrote: »

I'm not saying they've done anything wrong at all.

I'm saying IF Johnson informed them he intended to plead guilty then it doesn't reflect well on them. If it was always his intention to plead guilty and he didn't disclose this fact to them then it's another scummy move from him.

Either way, he should never play for them again.

Sorry, I quoted you but was referring more to how other posters here are saying Sunderland could be in trouble.

As for him, I think it's safe to say that his football career is over.

user2011

Is he still out on bail until the final two charges go to court? If so can anyone tell me why he hasn't been put behind bars for the two charges he has admitted guilt to.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

user2011 wrote: »

Is he still out on bail until the final two charges go to court? If so can anyone tell me why he hasn't been put behind bars for the two charges he has admitted guilt to.

No guarantee he'll receive a jail sentence for the the two charges he's admitted and no guarantee he'll be convicted of the other two.

Unless someone is deemed a threat to society, a flight risk, or is facing murder charges, release on bail is a normal procedure, as far as I know.

SteM

murpho999 wrote: »

Sorry, I quoted you but was referring more to how other posters here are saying Sunderland could be in trouble.

As for him, I think it's safe to say that his football career is over.

Wouldn't be so sure of that. Look at Ched Evans at Sheffield United. Convicted of rape, sentenced to 5 years and there were still football clubs interested in signing him when he was released. Only supporter pressure stopped a few clubs from hiring him.

Football clubs are desperate for anyone that can give them an advantage and will look the other way if it benefits them and they can get away with it.

Lovely Bloke

yeah but Evans hasn't got a contract, and if supporter pressure is enough to see him unemployable you'd have to think that an admitted child-groomer and kisser wouldn't have any hope either.

Evans didn't even admit guilt.

SteM

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

yeah but Evans hasn't got a contract, and if supporter pressure is enough to see him unemployable you'd have to think that an admitted child-groomer and kisser wouldn't have any hope either.

Evans didn't even admit guilt.

We'll see. A lot depends on the trial and whatever sentence he gets. I won't assume at this point that his footballing career is over though.

Mitch Connor

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

yeah but Evans hasn't got a contract, and if supporter pressure is enough to see him unemployable you'd have to think that an admitted child-groomer and kisser wouldn't have any hope either.

Evans didn't even admit guilt.

As far as I am aware Evans has an appeal coming up soon and his people are very confident it will be a success.

He has always denied rape, so it will be interesting to see the public reaction if a court agrees with him; and if he can get any sort of career back after being hounded out for what would then have to be considered false allegations/conviction.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mitch Connor wrote: »

As far as I am aware Evans has an appeal coming up soon and his people are very confident it will be a success.

He has always denied rape, so it will be interesting to see the public reaction if a court agrees with him; and if he can get any sort of career back after being hounded out for what would then have to be considered false allegations/conviction.

This is what I found strange (specific to Ched Evans): he's convicted, he's unsuitable to hire. If it's overturned - hey! Welcome back!!
We're talking the same person here...?

With Johnson, admitting guilt puts him on a different basis to start off with.

2smiggy

if you look at the link for the age of consent around Europe, it's hardy as bad as all are making out. Wrong what he has done, and will probably be the end of his career, but there are much worse things done ever day ....

TheCitizen

Johnson's career will be finished now and rightly so, weird and creepy behaviour.

It is interesting that things have changed for the better in relation to sex with under age girls, being a superstar of some kind no longer shields them from it. Back in the 1970's David Bowie, Jimmy Page, Mick Jagger, lots of other stars, probably footballers as well were doing this kind of thing, good to see footballers or rock "stars" etc. getting done for it now.

Moneymaker

Moneymaker wrote: »

So did he hide the fact he was going to plead guilty from Sunderland?

The latter is unthinkable, that he told Sunderland he was going to plead guilty and they continued to pick him anyway.

Have Sunderland made any statements since yesterday at all?

Highly unlikely he'd have divulged his legal strategy to his employer. No more than anyone who is up for an offence would go to the boss and analyse it.

Sunderland employed him to play football. He played football. They paid him. They have no real business interfering with the criminal process or having some internal trial before the trial, like a mini hearing of the matter. I suspect he may have injuncted any attempts to do so, on the basis that an adverse finding by his employer may have prejudiced later proceedings.

Augme

Why have Sunderland not sacked him yet?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Highly unlikely he'd have divulged his legal strategy to his employer. No more than anyone who is up for an offence would go to the boss and analyse it.

Sunderland employed him to play football. He played football. They paid him. They have no real business interfering with the criminal process or having some internal trial before the trial, like a mini hearing of the matter. I suspect he may have injuncted any attempts to do so, on the basis that an adverse finding by his employer may have prejudiced later proceedings.

It's entirely possible that there was a clause in his contract stating that he acts as a model citizen even in his off-field behaviour, or inform them of any intentions that could reflect the club in a bad light.

This article is kinda interesting and, if relevant to Johnson, Sunderland may well have a case.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jan/22/the-secret-footballer

keeponhurling

If he is convicted and serves what punishment the legal system seems suitable - should he never be allowed to work again ?
As a player, or at any job?

He's in his 20s, he has a lot of years to fill until retirement

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's entirely possible that there was a clause in his contract stating that he acts as a model citizen even in his off-field behaviour, or inform them of any intentions that could reflect the club in a bad light.

Precisely. Indeed it's highly likely that there is a clause about actions that might discredit the club. Not that he must be perfect, merely that he must behave well when representing the club.

But a players sexual activities, moral, immoral, criminal or legal is highly unlikely to reflect on the club. Particularly as he actually played for them. The argument would be that he did his job, and retrospectively his wages would be deducted because he was a bad person when he did it? It seems like a very difficult case.

keeponhurling

keeponhurling wrote: »

If he is convicted and serves what punishment the legal system seems suitable - should he never be allowed to work again ?
As a player, or at any job?

He's in his 20s, he has a lot of years to fill until retirement

Of course he'll be allowed to work once he does his time.

Just like any other sex offender. He can apply all he likes. There is no legal bar to doing so. There might be prohibitions eg. working near a school etc.

Whether he gets work? That's a different story.

niallo27

2smiggy wrote: »

if you look at the link for the age of consent around Europe, it's hardy as bad as all are making out. Wrong what he has done, and will probably be the end of his career, but there are much worse things done ever day ....

Italy and germany its only 14. Is that right, seems a bit ****ed up.

~Rebel~

Deleted User wrote: »

Precisely. Indeed it's highly likely that there is a clause about actions that might discredit the club. Not that he must be perfect, merely that he must behave well when representing the club.

But a players sexual activities, moral, immoral, criminal or legal is highly unlikely to reflect on the club. Particularly as he actually played for them. The argument would be that he did his job, and retrospectively his wages would be deducted because he was a bad person when he did it? It seems like a very difficult case.

Leicester seemed to have no difficulty in sacking the lads last summer who made a sex tape with racist comments. If that held up, reckon Sunderland could easily nullify Johnsons contract. Not sure about retrospective wages, but at least they could cut him loose now.

jaykay74

Sacked now...

https://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/697866773815824384

~Rebel~

niallo27 wrote: »

Italy and germany its only 14. Is that right, seems a bit ****ed up.

It's just 14 if both parties are 14 or 15, otherwise it rises to 16.

Lovely Bloke

TheCitizen wrote: »

Johnson's career will be finished now and rightly so, weird and creepy behaviour.

It is interesting that things have changed for the better in relation to sex with under age girls, being a superstar of some kind no longer shields them from it. Back in the 1970's David Bowie, Jimmy Page, Mick Jagger, lots of other stars, probably footballers as well were doing this kind of thing, good to see footballers or rock "stars" etc. getting done for it now.

I think you're going to have to provice proof for these three in particular, because with Operation Yewtree going on in the UK, I'm sure they'd have beenat least questioned by now, and none of the three have been.

Dirty Dingus McGee

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Leicester seemed to have no difficulty in sacking the lads last summer who made a sex tape with racist comments. If that held up, reckon Sunderland could easily nullify Johnsons contract. Not sure about retrospective wages, but at least they could cut him loose now.

Yes they did. Jamie Vardy made a racist comment last year and nothing was done about it.

Paully D

Contract terminated.

A lot easier to do when he only has 5 months left on his deal of course, but about the only really big statement of intent that the club could make to be honest.

http://www.safc.com/news/club-news/2016/february/club-statement?utm_source=home_newsfeed&utm_medium=latest_news_article_0_news_image&utm_campaign=newsclub_news2016februaryclub_statement

Club statement from Sunderland AFC.

In light of Adam Johnson's guilty pleas, the club has today terminated his contract with immediate effect.

The club will make no further comment.

Of course Johnson is under no obligation to disclose whether he was going to plead guilty or not guilty, but a north-east journalist tweeted last night that Sunderland were very surprised with the guilty plea as indications pointed to the opposite.

M5

Correct response. I just hope that they did think he was going to plead not guilty...

MuPpItJoCkEy

Quality!

~Rebel~

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Yes they did. Jamie Vardy made a racist comment last year and nothing was done about it.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. They're not obliged to act on breaches of contract. With the Leicester kids - guys who didn't really add to the first team - they were happy to cut the cord. They obviously had no interest in losing Vardy.

I'm not talking about the moral side of things, only what they're entitled to do based on their contractual agreement with the player should they choose to. Judging by Leicester (and now Sunderland), they were easily able to sack the players in question.

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Leicester seemed to have no difficulty in sacking the lads last summer who made a sex tape with racist comments. If that held up, reckon Sunderland could easily nullify Johnsons contract. Not sure about retrospective wages, but at least they could cut him loose now.

Oh sacking as a reaction to a guilty plea is no problem at all. Now they have an admission of wrongdoing. Even bog standard contracts of employment carry the possibility of summary dismissal in case of convictions for offences carrying certain penalties.

It's suing him that would be extremely difficult.

Dirty Dingus McGee

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. They're not obliged to act on breaches of contract. With the Leicester kids - guys who didn't really add to the first team - they were happy to cut the cord. They obviously had no interest in losing Vardy.

I'm not talking about the moral side of things, only what they're entitled to do based on their contractual agreement with the player should they choose to. Judging by Leicester (and now Sunderland), they were easily able to sack the players in question.

Fair enough I think I miss understood the point you were making.I thought you were holding up Leicesters stance as something admirable when it really just suited their circumstances which is why nothing was done with Vardy.I see now what you are saying.

niallo27

Vardy was different, we all have done and said stupid things when pissed with friends.

~Rebel~

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh sacking as a reaction to a guilty plea is no problem at all. Now they have an admission of wrongdoing. Even bog standard contracts of employment carry the possibility of summary dismissal in case of convictions for offences carrying certain penalties.

It's suing him that would be extremely difficult.

Gotcha, yeah I wonder if that's something they'll try to do. They're losing a 10m (or so) asset because of this...I wonder is there insurance for this kind of thing? Or will they go down the Chelsea/Mutu route.

nullzero

What the hell is wrong with him?
More money than the knows what to do with, playing football for a living, stunner of a missus and a kid, all gone, he could have had as many grown women as he liked but groomed a kid instead, completely nuts. What is it in these people that compels them to do these things? Should be castrated the sick sack of sh1t.

Kristopherus

nullzero wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with him?
More money than the knows what to do with, playing football for a living, stunner of a missus and a kid, all gone, he could have had as many grown women as he liked but groomed a kid instead, completely nuts. What is it in these people that compels them to do these things? Should be castrated the sick sack of sh1t.

Well said !!!! The best post in the whole thread.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with him?
More money than the knows what to do with, playing football for a living, stunner of a missus and a kid, all gone, he could have had as many grown women as he liked but groomed a kid instead, completely nuts. What is it in these people that compels them to do these things? Should be castrated the sick sack of sh1t.

I think it goes deeper than saying "pretty wife, loadsa money, why does he do it".

Take Graham Dwyer - not remotely comparing them, but just as an example of somebody who seemed to have it all engaging in pretty depraved stuff on the side. It's almost like a compulsion.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think it goes deeper than saying "pretty wife, loadsa money, why does he do it".

Take Graham Dwyer - not remotely comparing them, but just as an example of somebody who seemed to have it all engaging in pretty depraved stuff on the side. It's almost like a compulsion.

Of course. I'm just examining it from the perspective of a normal person. Clearly for somebody to have the the pretty wife and loads of money and then choose to engage in what he engaged in, he is quite clearly more than dipping his toe into this world of underage grooming and sexual 'contact', he is seemingly an example of a full blooded paedophile, which is bone chilling, in the same way as finding out somebody of a cannibal or a sociopathic killer a la graham Dwyer.

Guy:Incognito

Has anyone checked klebersons twitter for his thoughts? Mighg be simw supportive words for johnson .

Oranage2

15 is a very borderline age, I wouldn't do it myself but a 15 year old would be able to sexually reproduce as well as some of them at that age can be pretty, again I don't think what Johnson did was right but I don't think what he did was a horrible crime.

Lovely Bloke

Oranage2 wrote: »

15 is a very borderline age, I wouldn't do it myself but a 15 year old would be able to sexually reproduce as well as some of them at that age can be pretty, again I don't think what Johnson did was right but I don't think what he did was a horrible crime.

Sickening.

Leroy42

Oranage2 wrote: »

15 is a very borderline age, I wouldn't do it myself but a 15 year old would be able to sexually reproduce as well as some of them at that age can be pretty, again I don't think what Johnson did was right but I don't think what he did was a horrible crime.

Do you know what grooming actually is? Do you know that this man is 28? Do you know that he intentionally went out to have a sexual contact with this girl?

This isn't some 18 YO man in a niteclub meeting a girl who happens to be underage. This isn't some neighbourhood crush that has been going on for years.

He knew she was underage, went out of his way to maintain contact with her and develop the relationship on-line until such a time as she was willing to meet.

This isn't passion, or love or even liking, this is predatory. This is finding a target, manipulating them to get what you want. It is a well thought out plan with a predefined outcome.

death1234567

Oranage2 wrote: »

15 is a very borderline age, I wouldn't do it myself but a 15 year old would be able to sexually reproduce as well as some of them at that age can be pretty, again I don't think what Johnson did was right but I don't think what he did was a horrible crime.

Jesus H Christ. Seriously? I hope you are just trolling.

Oranage2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do you know what grooming actually is? Do you know that this man is 28? Do you know that he intentionally went out to have a sexual contact with this girl?

This isn't some 18 YO man in a niteclub meeting a girl who happens to be underage. This isn't some neighbourhood crush that has been going on for years.

He knew she was underage, went out of his way to maintain contact with her and develop the relationship on-line until such a time as she was willing to meet.

This isn't passion, or love or even liking, this is predatory. This is finding a target, manipulating them to get what you want. It is a well thought out plan with a predefined outcome.

don't get me wrong, I definitely don't agree with it, I just think there is a bit of difference between a 15 year old girl and say a child of like 5. Very predatory but at 15 I don't think the girl would have any issues over this latest in life. I just wouldn't consider him a big time paedophile or anything like that.

Lovely Bloke

the apologists continue.

It's disconcerting to have so many SF regulars try to downplay this. Absolutely horrifying actually.

jive

The faux outrage is hilarious. He broke the law, he'll receive his punishment. Stop acting like this non-violent crime is the most heinous thing that's happened to human kind.

Regardless of what the court decides, he's lost a £50k a week contract (likely would have increased given a further influx of money into the game and a new contract on the horizon) and ruined his career. That's a punishment beyond what most people would receive, certainly in a financial sense.

In b4 I'm a pedo apologist.

jive

The faux outrage is hilarious. He broke the law, he'll receive his punishment. Stop acting like this non-violent crime is the most heinous thing that's happened to human kind.

Regardless of what the court decides, he's lost a £50k a week contract (likely would have increased given a further influx of money into the game and a new contract on the horizon) and ruined his career. That's a punishment beyond what most people would receive, certainly in a financial sense.

In b4 I'm a pedo apologist.

bucketybuck

jive wrote: »

The faux outrage is hilarious. He broke the law, he'll receive his punishment. Stop acting like this non-violent crime is the most heinous thing that's happened to human kind.

Theres no perspective towards things like this in todays world, you are either thoroughly sickened, outraged and appalled or you are a peado apologist. Theres no nuance at all. Even this post will probably be labelled as somehow excusing Johnsons actions.

Leroy42

Oranage2 wrote: »

don't get me wrong, I definitely don't agree with it, I just think there is a bit of difference between a 15 year old girl and say a child of like 5. Very predatory but at 15 I don't think the girl would have any issues over this latest in life. I just wouldn't consider him a big time paedophile or anything like that.

Because you are comparing this to two kids gettings together and getting frisky, or as I said an 18 YO hooking up with an underage, which as we all know can be a much older looking 15 YO in a niteclub.

This is something completely different. This is akin to stalking someone, selecting a target and manipulating them to get what you want. This is not two people meeting up and finding a common ground, a certain spark. This is a vunerable person being manipulated by someone who is determined to take advantage of them.

He didn't mistake her underage, he wasn't "tricked" ( I use that term in the way that many apologists use it) by this girl. He went out of his way to manipulate her. He knew she was underage, as I said this wasn't him acting out of some overtime built up relationship. He purposefully went out to make this happen.

Of course there is a difference between a 5 yo and a 15 yo, biology tells us that. But there is a socially acceptable line drawn based on evidence of how mature people are and when they can be considered mature enough to handle these situations. Do you think Johnson consider her mental maturity? One can of course argue about the line, that is fine but once the line is drawn and accepted people can't just simply ignore it based on what they want. He knew what he was doing and he did it anyway.

I can only assume you are failing to understand the massive difference between a 28 YO and a 15yo, there is simply no equality in that. He had all the power and he used that power to manipulate her to do what he wanted.