Guest firetotheworks Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Martin BruntVerified account @skymartinbrunt #Johnson Player says he told Sunderland club why he had been arrested. "I told them everything." ------------------ I'm arguing over with folk on the Si Games site, who believe that Sunderland have done nothing wrong. Am I the only one to think differently in that, they could have known exactly what happened from the start, but chose to turn a blind eye? is it just me?! Both Johnson and the DI have given evidence in court that they told the club everything that had happened. The DI told them to set up safeguards as a result. Unless both the DI and Johnson are lying then they're absolutely in the wrong and it's not even up for debate as far as I'm concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 FWIW, I wouldn't put it past our own club to do the same thing, but then I wouldn't stand by them and say they'd done nothing wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Martin BruntVerified account @skymartinbrunt #Johnson Player says he told Sunderland club why he had been arrested. "I told them everything." ------------------ I'm arguing over with folk on the Si Games site, who believe that Sunderland have done nothing wrong. Am I the only one to think differently in that, they could have known exactly what happened from the start, but chose to turn a blind eye? is it just me?! There's your mistake. They just troll for bites most of the time and generally know fuck all about anything other than their own club and whatever Sky or Talksport have told them to think this week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 FWIW, I wouldn't put it past our own club to do the same thing, but then I wouldn't stand by them and say they'd done nothing wrong. Legally they haven't (I think). Morally yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Martin BruntVerified account @skymartinbrunt #Johnson Player says he told Sunderland club why he had been arrested. "I told them everything." ------------------ I'm arguing over with folk on the Si Games site, who believe that Sunderland have done nothing wrong. Am I the only one to think differently in that, they could have known exactly what happened from the start, but chose to turn a blind eye? is it just me?! If he's telling the truth then they're wrong. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt if he'd pulled the wool over their eyes, so to speak, but that diesn't seem to be the case. Is there any reason for Johnson and his defence team to be lying about this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Andy Hughes @SkyAndyHughes 3m3 minutes ago #AdamJohnson said he "didn't see it as a problem" to go back and play for #safc after being brought back from suspension. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 @CraigHope_DM Johnson says he told SAFC chief exec Margaret Byrne he had "kissed girl passionately & been aroused". Told club "I have made huge mistake" Not a chat-up line I've used myself I've got to admit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 @CraigHope_DM Johnson says he told SAFC chief exec Margaret Byrne he had "kissed girl passionately & been aroused". Told club "I have made huge mistake" Not a chat-up line I've used myself I've got to admit. That's it Johnson, you're banned. You, your children and your children's children. For one week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 See this is finally getting into headline articles rather than footnotes http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3458530/Adam-Johnson-claims-Sunderland-knew-groomed-15-year-old-girl-engaged-sexual-activity-Range-Rover.html Adam Johnson claims Sunderland knew he groomed 15-year-old girl and engaged in sexual activity with her in his Range Rover Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 @CraigHope_DM Johnson says he told SAFC chief exec Margaret Byrne he had "kissed girl passionately & been aroused". Told club "I have made huge mistake" Not a chat-up line I've used myself I've got to admit. That's it Johnson, you're banned. You, your children and your children's children. For one week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xLiaaamx Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Surely they'll have to sack Byrne over this if it's true? No way she can keep any credibility if she knew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odear Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I still give the club the benefit of the doubt. He lied to the police first time around and also on his first court appearance. The club will have been given a watered down version of events. If that is the case, the club should have every right to sue him for every penny he earned over the last year or so, as he was essentially acting in bad faith. The standard was set by Chelsea over Adrian Mutu, not that they ever received any of the money they were awarded but it probably severely restricted his options in the future. Johnson will most likely be given 6 months at least so any damages the club claim on could be seized much easier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Surely they'll have to sack Byrne over this if it's true? No way she can keep any credibility if she knew Possibly why she done it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I suppose, it's not like he was HUGE flight risk. Like at any moment he could just dive over the hoarding and start fingering the children in the lower tier. But that really isn't the point like, no way should have allowed him to play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I still give the club the benefit of the doubt. He lied to the police first time around and also on his first court appearance. The club will have been given a watered down version of events. If that is the case, the club should have every right to sue him for every penny he earned over the last year or so, as he was essentially acting in bad faith. The standard was set by Chelsea over Adrian Mutu, not that they ever received any of the money they were awarded but it probably severely restricted his options in the future. Johnson will most likely be given 6 months at least so any damages the club claim on could be seized much easier. It comes down to when he told the club that he was guilty of the charges he pleaded guilty to. If they continued to play him after that they deserve all the stick they get. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I still give the club the benefit of the doubt. He lied to the police first time around and also on his first court appearance. The club will have been given a watered down version of events. If that is the case, the club should have every right to sue him for every penny he earned over the last year or so, as he was essentially acting in bad faith. The standard was set by Chelsea over Adrian Mutu, not that they ever received any of the money they were awarded but it probably severely restricted his options in the future. Johnson will most likely be given 6 months at least so any damages the club claim on could be seized much easier. It comes down to when he told the club that he was guilty of the charges he pleaded guilty to. If they continued to play him after that they deserve all the stick they get. Bet they're gutted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Did SAFC give reasons for suspending/unsuspending him? Either he's "innocent until proven/pleading guilty" from day one, or you axe/suspend him permanently from day one unless and until his name is cleared. Looking very, very bad for an already bad-looking club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-421 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Did SAFC give reasons for suspending/unsuspending him? Either he's "innocent until proven/pleading guilty" from day one, or you axe/suspend him permanently from day one unless and until his name is cleared. Looking very, very bad for an already bad-looking club. Suspended... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/sunderland/11445702/Sunderland-suspend-Adam-Johnson-after-arrest-dealing-a-huge-blow-to-their-survival-hopes.html Sunderland acted swiftly to the news their £10m signing from Manchester City had been arrested, confirming on their official website that the 27-year-old would not be involved with the club until police have conducted their investigation. Suspension Lifted.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/31940379 The club held talks with the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) and Johnson's representatives after his police bail was extended. "We recognise that the player is entitled to re-commence his duties with the club while the legal process continues. He will therefore return to training," a club statement said. "The club's own investigation cannot continue until the conclusion of the legal process." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleBingo Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Shameful behaviour, there should be an FA investigation IMHO. The Morally Bankrupt of England Club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I still give the club the benefit of the doubt. He lied to the police first time around and also on his first court appearance. The club will have been given a watered down version of events. If that is the case, the club should have every right to sue him for every penny he earned over the last year or so, as he was essentially acting in bad faith. The standard was set by Chelsea over Adrian Mutu, not that they ever received any of the money they were awarded but it probably severely restricted his options in the future. Johnson will most likely be given 6 months at least so any damages the club claim on could be seized much easier. It comes down to when he told the club that he was guilty of the charges he pleaded guilty to. If they continued to play him after that they deserve all the stick they get. Bet they're gutted Hur hur. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 He really hasn't got the hang of this yet has he? All they need to ask is 'Are you actually guilty of everything?' AJ 'Yes' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it today that the prosecution cross examine him? If he carries on performing the way he is he will be confessing to crashing princess Diana's car Either that or we'll finally find out what happened to little Maddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 He really hasn't got the hang of this yet has he? All they need to ask is 'Are you actually guilty of everything?' AJ 'Yes' I mean I know we're not in the court, but surely there aren't any circumstances 'no' is the correct answer there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts