sbnufc Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 What laws could they have broke? Unless not playing football was a requirement of his bail I cannot see how anything the club would have done was wrong legally. A woman in a high position knew everything, saw all the evidence. The club can't hide behind her, surely. If she's at fault therefore the club are at fault. No ideas about laws etc but surely this is more than just morally wrong. So what if she/they did? They were under no obligation from anyone not to play him. Was their choice, regardless of it being "wrong" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 What laws could they have broke? Unless not playing football was a requirement of his bail I cannot see how anything the club would have done was wrong legally. He specifically used his role as a Sunderland player in order to groom a child. They allowed him to carry on as a Sunderland player having known that that was the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 What laws could they have broke? Unless not playing football was a requirement of his bail I cannot see how anything the club would have done was wrong legally. A woman in a high position knew everything, saw all the evidence. The club can't hide behind her, surely. If she's at fault therefore the club are at fault. At fault for what though? He was allowed to play football by law. It's wrong morally, but there's nothing the law can do about it as far as I'm aware. Not sure the FA can or will either, it's just one of them things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 What laws could they have broke? Unless not playing football was a requirement of his bail I cannot see how anything the club would have done was wrong legally. He specifically used his role as a Sunderland player in order to groom a child. They allowed him to carry on as a Sunderland player having known that that was the case. Aye maybe, who would level the charges against them, the FA? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Course they've not broken any laws. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Fair enough, then. I just saw it as 'Sunderland knew he was a paedophile and still played him'.... that can't just be a moral thing. But maybe it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Again though, shouldn't it be the court who made that decision. They knew the evidence too, it would be a bit weird for them to not put something like that in his bale conditions and then punish the club for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Course they've not broken any laws. I'll go with this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Lee Ryder @lee_ryder 12h hours ago Hearing rumours that a girl might be in trouble with her parent. A footballer tell me there's nothing in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Course they've not broken any laws. Is it not even anything along the lines of acting recklessly/irresponsibly? It seems more like the type of thing that would be deemed that way in hindsight, had he gone on to do it again. As it is it just looks dodgy that they allowed a player of their's to remain in a position that they knew he had used in order to groom a child. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottman Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Again though, shouldn't it be the court who made that decision. They knew the evidence too, it would be a bit weird for them to not put something like that in his bale conditions and then punish the club for it. But he was pleading not guilty in Court but told Sunderland he was guilty in private? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Course they've not broken any laws. This. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Again though, shouldn't it be the court who made that decision. They knew the evidence too, it would be a bit weird for them to not put something like that in his bale conditions and then punish the club for it. But he was pleading not guilty in Court but told Sunderland he was guilty in private? He didn't need to enter a plea didn't he in earlier court appearances? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Course they've not broken any laws. Is it not even anything along the lines of acting recklessly/irresponsibly? It seems more like the type of thing that would be deemed that way in hindsight, had he gone on to do it again. As it is it just looks dodgy that they allowed a player of their's to remain in a position that they knew he had used in order to groom a child. As Hans says, it's up to the police/court to decide what he can and can't do whilst on bail. They knew what his job was, they could have imposed conditions saying he couldn't play football if they wished, but they didn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottman Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Again though, shouldn't it be the court who made that decision. They knew the evidence too, it would be a bit weird for them to not put something like that in his bale conditions and then punish the club for it. But he was pleading not guilty in Court but told Sunderland he was guilty in private? He didn't need to enter a plea didn't he in earlier court appearances? June last year he pleaded not guilty to all four charges but told Sunderland he was guilty. They played him knowing full well he touched kids. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/adam-johnson-pleads-not-guilty-to-child-sex-charges-10293967.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stal Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 What laws could they have broke? Unless not playing football was a requirement of his bail I cannot see how anything the club would have done was wrong legally. I don't think they have, not in the legal system. When an accusation like this is made then a company can suspend an employee and usually make a decision on whether they can accommodate that person in his current employment or dismiss them if they feel they cannot accommodate them once verdict or admittance occurs. The club might consider dismissal beforehand if they feel it would negatively affect their brand and might use "breakdown of trust" as the reason for doing so, although it's far more likely that they would only make this decision after verdict or admittance of guilt. Innocent until proven guilty is the word of the law here and they would be right to employ him until such a point he is found guilty. If he pleaded innocent until the day of the trial then I would sympathise with the club, but since it is now clear that they knew about the evidence against him since May last year it looks damning on them that he was not kept on suspension. If they knew how he was going to plead then that's even worse from an ethical and less importantly a financial point of view for them. So perhaps a bringing the game into disrepute charge could be levelled at them by the FA, but as for laws broken safc haven't broken any that I am aware of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Course they've not broken any laws. Is it not even anything along the lines of acting recklessly/irresponsibly? It seems more like the type of thing that would be deemed that way in hindsight, had he gone on to do it again. As it is it just looks dodgy that they allowed a player of their's to remain in a position that they knew he had used in order to groom a child. As Hans says, it's up to the police/court to decide what he can and can't do whilst on bail. They knew what his job was, they could have imposed conditions saying he couldn't play football if they wished, but they didn't. Ah okay, so the onus is on the police/court and all they did was recommend safeguards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottman Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Course they've not broken any laws. Is it not even anything along the lines of acting recklessly/irresponsibly? It seems more like the type of thing that would be deemed that way in hindsight, had he gone on to do it again. As it is it just looks dodgy that they allowed a player of their's to remain in a position that they knew he had used in order to groom a child. As Hans says, it's up to the police/court to decide what he can and can't do whilst on bail. They knew what his job was, they could have imposed conditions saying he couldn't play football if they wished, but they didn't. Ah okay, so the onus is on the police/court and all they did was recommend safeguards. I'm not sure if this is right. As the post above says, if SAFC assumed he was pleading not guilty then I'd totally agree. Having a full confession from him about what he'd done is a totally different matter. I'm trying to think what would happen in any other line of work - say this was a teacher. Imagine a School knowing a teacher was a pedophile but keeping it hush hush and keeping the teacher in employment until the trial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 The weird thing is the sacking him when he pleaded guilty. What he pleaded guilty to was what he admitted in the interviews that they knew about (which makes it a bit odd that he pleaded not guilty to start with, but hey). Acting all surprised and sacking him then is a bit devious in terms of public image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Course they've not broken any laws. Is it not even anything along the lines of acting recklessly/irresponsibly? It seems more like the type of thing that would be deemed that way in hindsight, had he gone on to do it again. As it is it just looks dodgy that they allowed a player of their's to remain in a position that they knew he had used in order to groom a child. As Hans says, it's up to the police/court to decide what he can and can't do whilst on bail. They knew what his job was, they could have imposed conditions saying he couldn't play football if they wished, but they didn't. Ah okay, so the onus is on the police/court and all they did was recommend safeguards. I'm not sure if this is right. As the post above says, if SAFC assumed he was pleading not guilty then I'd totally agree. Having a full confession from him about what he'd done is a totally different matter. I'm trying to think what would happen in any other line of work - say this was a teacher. Imagine a School knowing a teacher was a pedophile but keeping it hush hush and keeping the teacher in employment until the trial. In the teaching profession that is absolutely clear, you are working directly with impressionable kids and a suspension till the verdict is a given, it's not the same in this case although morally disgusting behaviour from the club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 She'll take the fall, stupid of her. FA won't want to get Sunderland in deeper trouble. Bad image. Unless the media really pick up on it and demand something bigger happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 The weird thing is the sacking him when he pleaded guilty. What he pleaded guilty to was what he admitted in the interviews that they knew about (which makes it a bit odd that he pleaded not guilty to start with, but hey). Acting all surprised and sacking him then is a bit devious in terms of public image. People picked up on it straight away on here when Sunderland decided not to sue him. Was always a bit fishy from that moment on for me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 It looks to me like the club told him he could play if he pleaded not guilty regardless, from the club's perspective he could help keep them up from his prolonged his pay check Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
durhamunigeordie Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 The weird thing is the sacking him when he pleaded guilty. What he pleaded guilty to was what he admitted in the interviews that they knew about (which makes it a bit odd that he pleaded not guilty to start with, but hey). Acting all surprised and sacking him then is a bit devious in terms of public image. Not an employment lawyer but also perhaps grounds for unfair dismissal? While he has breached his contract in a fundamental way, the fact that they knew but decided against that action until a year later might give him grounds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Wonder if he/they tried to pay off? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts