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...
B-more Mag Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 We don't really know what his contract with the club says. Presumably there's some provision permitting the club to terminate for conviction of a felony or tarnishing the club's reputation, but it may not have clearly addressed being charged with a crime but not yet convicted and arguably he doesn't bring the club into disrepute unless and until what he's done is public. It's cynical, but one approach says don't risk a constructive discharge or breach of contract suit (and help try to avoid relegation) by letting him play--the duties of his job don't really involve alone time with minors, what he does off duty is beyond our control, and the cops are already aware, so we're not keeping anything secret. Then if he pleads guilty or is otherwise convicted we terminate him. Not what I'd want to be seen doing, but I don't see much risk for the club unless he does something while on the job, which the club should be in a good position to make sure doesn't happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I wonder if he hadn't changed his plea, would they have testified he'd confessed? Or would they have kept him on and played him again if jury let him off Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
durhamunigeordie Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 True. But I'm guessing his actions were some sort of repudiatory breach of his contract giving them grounds to essentially dismiss him there and then. In an oversimplified way once they know about it they have to deal with it within a reasonable time. As an employer you can't punish (in this case suspend and then reinstate) the actions of an employee and then a year later sack them for it. Had they kept him suspended pending the outcome of criminal investigation it would have been different. If he is found guilty of the offences he is pleading not guilty that would almost certainly have been another repudiatory breach and they could have sacked him there and then for that. Anyway, am no expert so none of this for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stal Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 True. But I'm guessing his actions were some sort of repudiatory breach of his contract giving them grounds to essentially dismiss him there and then. In an oversimplified way once they know about it they have to deal with it within a reasonable time. As an employer you can't punish (in this case suspend and then reinstate) the actions of an employee and then a year later sack them for it. Had they kept him suspended pending the outcome of criminal investigation it would have been different. If he is found guilty of the offences he is pleading not guilty that would almost certainly have been another repudiatory breach and they could have sacked him there and then for that. Anyway, am no expert so none of this for sure. This is generally true, although there has been a case where this has happened. The social workers in the Baby P case. I think the ruling was (and I'm paraphrasing here) that you can do it in extreme circumstances, but as far as I'm aware the reasonable time thing still stands as the law generally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Are the chronicle not allowed to talk about the Johnson story? Just had a quick look and couldn't see any updates from them about the case. Plenty of nothing stories about their keeper and upcoming refs etc though There is a live blog on their website. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Am I allowed to feel a bit smug now, over some of the pelters I took elsewhere yesterday, for suggesting that SAFC knew more than they had let on?! Of course they haven't broken any laws, but morally and ethically, they are fucked. Surely got to be up on some kind of disripute charge in the coming weeks? Margaret Byrne sounds like a genuinely disgusting person and I find it hard to imagine that she won't have told Short and the likes of Advocaat and Allardyce! If i were a decent red and white, I'd be foaming with those running the club. Shameful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stal Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Are the chronicle not allowed to talk about the Johnson story? Just had a quick look and couldn't see any updates from them about the case. Plenty of nothing stories about their keeper and upcoming refs etc though There is a live blog on their website. Ah cheers, I was just checking the facebook pages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Am I allowed to feel a bit smug now, over some of the pelters I took elsewhere yesterday, for suggesting that SAFC knew more than they had let on?! Of course they haven't broken any laws, but morally and ethically, they are fucked. Surely got to be up on some kind of disripute charge in the coming weeks? Margaret Byrne sounds like a genuinely disgusting person and I find it hard to imagine that she won't have told Short and the likes of Advocaat and Allardyce! If i were a decent red and white, I'd be foaming with those running the club. Shameful. Well, at least we're not going over the top with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heake Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Safc have a duty of care towards, amongst others, the minors within their support and as such, knowingly allowing an employee who has admitted child sex offences (regardless if it is unproven in court)against a supporter to continue in their position (which would include further contact with vulnerable minors) without restrictions, could conceivably constitute negligence on their behalf by potentially putting further people at risk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odear Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 The club probably knew as much as the public did back then, i still think they were duped by him. No way he would have owned up to all of that. His quick u-turn was probably when his legal team had a good look at the evidence and knew he was up the jaxi, it would have taken months for the police to get the relevant court orders to see all the electronic correspondence. The sacking of him will have been in response to that.. the PFA need to conduct a proper investigation though, as it's them who are advising clubs to continue playing these scumbags. Ethically i think Sunderland had a responsibility to remove him from public appearances (i.e playing for them) until the trial concluded, even if purely based on the allegations as kiddy fiddling is all the rage these days when it comes to a good ol' fashioned media frenzy. They'll throw this bint under the bus now to save their reputation, hopefully there'll be a lot of fall out in the weeks to come. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 That is the disgraceful thing though, he was sacked based upon what he has already admitted to which, they knew last May. They only decided to sack him when he made (what they already knew) public Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 The club probably knew as much as the public did back then, i still think they were duped by him. No way he would have owned up to all of that. So would he lie in court? Tell the court that SAFC knew, had copies of the interviews and whatsapp exchanges? Surely that could be pretty easily disproved, if so. So why would he risk blatantly lying, like that? I'm sure the detective involved in the case, had already said something the other day about all of this. So it's not like it's Johnson's word vs Byrne's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 The club probably knew as much as the public did back then, i still think they were duped by him. No way he would have owned up to all of that. His quick u-turn was probably when his legal team had a good look at the evidence and knew he was up the jaxi, it would have taken months for the police to get the relevant court orders to see all the electronic correspondence. The sacking of him will have been in response to that.. the PFA need to conduct a proper investigation though, as it's them who are advising clubs to continue playing these scumbags. Ethically i think Sunderland had a responsibility to remove him from public appearances (i.e playing for them) until the trial concluded, even if purely based on the allegations as kiddy fiddling is all the rage these days when it comes to a good ol' fashioned media frenzy. They'll throw this bint under the bus now to save their reputation, hopefully there'll be a lot of fall out in the weeks to come. The club had copes of the whatsapp exchanges and copies of the witness statements from both Johnson and the lass. They knew. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 The argument that Sunderland will have is that Johnson admitted to the lesser offences and has no unsupervised contact with girls under the age of 16 in his normal working day. It is totally different if he was a social worker or teacher, as he would be required to have unsupervised contact in those professions. They haven't actually done anything wrong. Morally, of course they have - but that is a decision the club is entitled to make. The fact that Sunderland and Johnson hid the fact that he had already admitted the offences, is also morally wrong but they did it in order to avoid a backlash. Sadly, with Johnson being a key player for them they would always make the same decision. I have no doubt that Sunderland and Johnson both agreed that he would be sacked as soon as the case came to court, they'd have both known the plan all along. Remember Leicester last season? Those youth players being racist to some Thai prostitutes in a sex video and shortly later being sacked. Well a video emerged of Vardy being racist (saying similar insults) to a person of similar origin and had nothing but a fine. Clubs simply do not want to sack their key players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heake Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I think the salient point is that, regardless of what nonson did or did not divulge to Safc at the time, they would have been under no legal requirement to prevent him from playing football (Ignoring ethics & morals for the time being). The FA do not provide restrictions (or even guidelines, to my knowledge) on who should be banned from playing for offences unrelated to football. In theory, you could field a Nonce eleven vs serial killer eleven & would still be sanctioned by the fa. I have personally played against prison teams which contained, amongst others murderers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Friend 5 has finished her evidence and we now have a teenage boy who knows the girl giving evidence via video link Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgarve Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I think the salient point is that, regardless of what nonson did or did not divulge to Safc at the time, they would have been under no legal requirement to prevent him from playing football (Ignoring ethics & morals for the time being). The FA do not provide restrictions (or even guidelines, to my knowledge) on who should be banned from playing for offences unrelated to football. In theory, you could field a Nonce eleven vs serial killer eleven & would still be sanctioned by the fa. I have personally played against prison teams which contained, amongst others murderers. Killer passing moves? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Im sure Sunderland took a pragmatic view of the situation. It seems clear they were aware of the evidence and the likely pleas. They could have sacked him for gross misconduct there and then. Obviously that would have meant he couldn't have assisted the club on the pitch. I suspect that they kept his employment ongoing for footballing activities but you would imagine, from a legal liability point of view they limited his non-playing roles at the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Nice kid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 He sounds like a charming little boy 100% that its Fletcher like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Society. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts