Jump to content

Recommended Posts

He probably has enough money already to have a fairly sound life after his stint. The victim and victims family will always have this hanging over their heads. To think some mackems were trying to name the lass and give her abuse online.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunderland did exactly the right thing tbf. Innocent until proven guilty. Admits guilt, sacked.

 

So why did they suspend him initially and then bring him back in? Surely doing the right thing would have meant suspending him until the trial?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunderland did exactly the right thing tbf. Innocent until proven guilty. Admits guilt, sacked.

 

So why did they suspend him initially and then bring him back in? Surely doing the right thing would have meant suspending him until the trial?

 

Probably had their hands forced by the PFA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He probably has enough money already to have a fairly sound life after his stint. The victim and victims family will always have this hanging over their heads. To think some mackems were trying to name the lass and give her abuse online.

 

You'd think so, but something like half of Premier League footballers are bankrupt within 5 years of retiring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

As pointed out on Twitter, he's 5 months left on his contract and will probably go to jail. Sunderland shouldn't have played him after he was charged. They are a disgrace

Being charged isn't the same as being guilty though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

Sunderland did exactly the right thing tbf. Innocent until proven guilty. Admits guilt, sacked.

 

So why did they suspend him initially and then bring him back in? Surely doing the right thing would have meant suspending him until the trial?

I can't answer that, who knows?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As pointed out on Twitter, he's 5 months left on his contract and will probably go to jail. Sunderland shouldn't have played him after he was charged. They are a disgrace

Being charged isn't the same as being guilty though.

 

I suspect in any other job you'd be suspended pending the outcome of the trial especially a charge of that nature and how family friendly football is meant to be. Dunno just dosn't sit well with me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only having five months left on his contract makes it a much less 'honourable' development. I wonder if they'd have done this if he had longer left.

 

They probably shouldn't have been playing him once charged anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Phillipealbert

He probably has enough money already to have a fairly sound life after his stint. The victim and victims family will always have this hanging over their heads. To think some mackems were trying to name the lass and give her abuse online.

 

You'd think so, but something like half of Premier League footballers are bankrupt within 5 years of retiring.

 

Call me malicious, but I find it hard to have any sympathy for someone who has pissed away on shite enough money to make many families comfortable and is forced to work for a living, just like the rest of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Phillipealbert

Only having five months left on his contract makes it a much less 'honourable' development. I wonder if they'd have done this if he had longer left.

 

They probably shouldn't have been playing him once charged anyway.

 

Although we now know he is a disgusting child molester and should rightly be smashed, to cancel someone's contract before they have been proven guilty is dodgy ground, legally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...