Guest firetotheworks Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 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 More sharing options...
gdm Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Guest Phillipealbert Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 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 More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Adidas have released a statement saying his contract with them has been terminated with immediate effect. Surely he's the best promoter for Predator boots? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phillipealbert Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Guest Phillipealbert Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Adidas have released a statement saying his contract with them has been terminated with immediate effect. Surely he's the best promoter for Predator boots? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 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. No one is saying that though, they should have stuck to their suspension and not played him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hog Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 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. Sorry, re-read that and you mean if they'd cancelled his contract before he'd admitted guilt right? Yeah, prior to admitting his guilt they should really have suspended him pending the investigation though, could be on full pay but gardening leave would have been more appropriate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpy Gunt Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 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. No one is saying that though, they should have stuck to their suspension and not played him. But what if they were relegated while one of their best players was suspended? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Now that he's sacked and not earning any income in the future his misses will divorce from him and get 50% of everything he has. The other 50% will be spent on legal fee's to keep his sentence as low and possible and boxes of snout to keep big Jimmy in the prison from making him become the little 15 year old bitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 He's not married. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Who'd have thought Stifler would be wrong about something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foluwashola Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Any coincidence that Johnson has all the traits of a psychopath? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 He's not married. If they have been together for 5 years then she's automatically entitled to 50% of his assets if they break up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Any coincidence that Johnson has all the traits of a psychopath? Are you saying that he and stifler are in fact the same person? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 He's not married. If they have been together for 5 years then she's automatically entitled to 50% of his assets if they break up. Thy haven't been together 5 years Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
summerof69 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Any coincidence that Johnson has all the traits of a psychopath? Was wondering this myself, but we don't really know too much about his personality really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penn Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 He's not married. If they have been together for 5 years then she's automatically entitled to 50% of his assets if they break up. That's obviously not even close to being true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 He's not married. If they have been together for 5 years then she's automatically entitled to 50% of his assets if they break up. Thy haven't been together 5 years Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 He's not married. If they have been together for 5 years then she's automatically entitled to 50% of his assets if they break up. Thy haven't been together 5 years Fair enough, if she gets a decent lawyer though she maybe to still get something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 He's not married. If they have been together for 5 years then she's automatically entitled to 50% of his assets if they break up. wat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 He's not married. If they have been together for 5 years then she's automatically entitled to 50% of his assets if they break up. That's obviously not even close to being true. :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Stifler is proper mental, man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts