Adam johnson sacked

[studio150]

The Chief Executive of Sunderland FC (who earned £663K in 2014) was briefed by the police in May 2015 and spoke with Johnson's lawyers shortly afterwards. She should be asked who came up with the cunning plan to protest all along that Johnson was innocent, on the off chance that the young girl would crack and give into the enormous pressure that women are put under in these cases to withdraw her "obviously absurd" allegations. A plan like that also, of course, enables the football club to hang on to the services of a talented player that they are paying £60,000 a week to.

Not sure what the earnings of the CEO are relevent. However this is a difficult position. It would seem that Johnson at the time indicated he was going to enter a not gulity plea. What should the CEO have done after being briefed by the police. It us surely up to a jury to reach a verdict and not for the CEO to reach a decision based on this briefing.

I can see why there would not have been any internal action taken as rhis could be seen as possibly influencing the trial.

The issue for the club then comes down to whether like the police schools and others that the employee should have been suspended from work on full pay until the outcome of the trial.

While individual clubs could take the lead on this ir seems that when asked for action on this all clubs take one step back with neither wanting to be the first.

Maybe there should the regulations in place that where offence carries a potential prison sentence of over x years then suspension pending verdict is compulsory.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not sure what the earnings of the CEO are relevent. However this is a difficult position. It would seem that Johnson at the time indicated he was going to enter a not gulity plea. What should the CEO have done after being briefed by the police. It us surely up to a jury to reach a verdict and not for the CEO to reach a decision based on this briefing.

I can see why there would not have been any internal action taken as rhis could be seen as possibly influencing the trial.

The issue for the club then comes down to whether like the police schools and others that the employee should have been suspended from work on full pay until the outcome of the trial.

While individual clubs could take the lead on this ir seems that when asked for action on this all clubs take one step back with neither wanting to be the first.

Maybe there should the regulations in place that where offence carries a potential prison sentence of over x years then suspension pending verdict is compulsory.

I totally disagree. If I was CEO of a business and an employee was charged with grooming my teenage customers I'd suspend them on the spot. They wouldn't work until the case was concluded at the very least. There doesn't need to be regulations in place. Regardless of the legal case, the text messages, which I believe the club had seen, showed he acted wholly inappropriately and that alone made his position untenable to me.

I agree it might be a big call; but CEOs are paid to make the big decisions and paid to get them right.

 

[Swillis]

Not sure what the earnings of the CEO are relevent. However this is a difficult position. It would seem that Johnson at the time indicated he was going to enter a not gulity plea. What should the CEO have done after being briefed by the police. It us surely up to a jury to reach a verdict and not for the CEO to reach a decision based on this briefing.

I can see why there would not have been any internal action taken as rhis could be seen as possibly influencing the trial.

The issue for the club then comes down to whether like the police schools and others that the employee should have been suspended from work on full pay until the outcome of the trial.

While individual clubs could take the lead on this ir seems that when asked for action on this all clubs take one step back with neither wanting to be the first.

Maybe there should the regulations in place that where offence carries a potential prison sentence of over x years then suspension pending verdict is compulsory.

The police told the club that he admitted to kissing and messaging the girl. So they knew he admitted it and had access to the messages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35721975

He should never been have allowed to play, but then again Sunderland needed his goals/ability. He was even signing kids autographs after games. I hope Sunderland go down and fade into oblivion.
Not to mention some wonderful Sunderland fans singing "he f###s who he wants" and let us not forget the abuse aimed at the girl on social media.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Not sure what the earnings of the CEO are relevent. However this is a difficult position. It would seem that Johnson at the time indicated he was going to enter a not gulity plea. What should the CEO have done after being briefed by the police. It us surely up to a jury to reach a verdict and not for the CEO to reach a decision based on this briefing.

I can see why there would not have been any internal action taken as rhis could be seen as possibly influencing the trial.

The issue for the club then comes down to whether like the police schools and others that the employee should have been suspended from work on full pay until the outcome of the trial.

While individual clubs could take the lead on this ir seems that when asked for action on this all clubs take one step back with neither wanting to be the first.

Maybe there should the regulations in place that where offence carries a potential prison sentence of over x years then suspension pending verdict is compulsory.

The earnings of the Chief Executive are relevant to the extent that a key feature of this whole saga is the money that Sunderland FC are committing to retaining their place in the Premier League.

Keeping Johnson playing has been a vital part of that strategy. Playing the "not guilty" card for as long as possible has been essential, otherwise a valuable asset would have been sidelined. Johnson himself knows that "not guilty" was a lie (since he changed his plea once the trial started).

It's not credible to imagine that the Chief Executive of the Football Club hadn't thought this issue through. But now she's hiding from the press and sending Sam Allardyce out to answer the difficult questions.

 

[drew]

I totally disagree. If I was CEO of a business and an employee was charged with grooming my teenage customers I'd suspend them on the spot. They wouldn't work until the case was concluded at the very least. There doesn't need to be regulations in place. Regardless of the legal case, the text messages, which I believe the club had seen, showed he acted wholly inappropriately and that alone made his position untenable to me.

I agree it might be a big call; but CEOs are paid to make the big decisions and paid to get them right.

I agree with this. As soon as he was charged, the club should have told Allardyce he was not to pick him for the 1st team squad. If Allardyce refused that would tarnish him but then the club could have gone down the suspension route. As soon as he entered a guilty plea then they did the right thing to sack him.

Would be interesting to see what off field engagements Sunderland used Johnson for, if any. For example, if he had attended schools, youth clubs etc then that would be negligent management of the highest order!!!

 

[NooBHA]

The whole situation is very difficult to gage.

My first thought is that every employer should support their employees; however the nature of the offence is so severe and it was being played out in the public eye, I do honestly feel that the club should have tried to keep it low key and suspended him until the trial was over and then make their final decision.

Now that he is guilty, the sentence should be severe so as to deter other footballers and others from committing the same offence. The young girl now has a really difficult task to rebuild her life that is made all the harder by the fact that it went to trial.

Now I see a headline of his girlfriend selling a story to the press today. The case is over and the Press should leave well alone now because the young girl deserves that at least.

 

[GT49er]

I totally disagree. If I was CEO of a business and an employee was charged with grooming my teenage customers I'd suspend them on the spot. They wouldn't work until the case was concluded at the very least. There doesn't need to be regulations in place. Regardless of the legal case, the text messages, which I believe the club had seen, showed he acted wholly inappropriately and that alone made his position untenable to me.

I agree it might be a big call; but CEOs are paid to make the big decisions and paid to get them right.

In this country though, we still have a time honoured principle: innocent until proved guilty. Long may we continue to have sufficient control of our own legal system for this to continue!

Once AJ had pleaded guilty, this principle no longer applied; at that point he ceased to be deemed innocent, so Sunderland rightly sacked him.

 

[Acker79]

In this country though, we still have a time honoured principle: innocent until proved guilty. Long may we continue to have sufficient control of our own legal system for this to continue!

Once AJ had pleaded guilty, this principle no longer applied; at that point he ceased to be deemed innocent, so Sunderland rightly sacked him.

We also have contract law and morality clauses, which allows employers to act in the interests of the respectability of their business allowing for action to be taken. If suspending people until after an investigation/trial went against the whole innocent until proven guilty thing, it would never happen. But it does.

 

[wakeytom]

The police told the club that he admitted to kissing and messaging the girl. So they knew he admitted it and had access to the messages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35721975

He should never been have allowed to play, but then again Sunderland needed his goals/ability. He was even signing kids autographs after games. I hope Sunderland go down and fade into oblivion.
Not to mention some wonderful Sunderland fans singing "he f###s who he wants" and let us not forget the abuse aimed at the girl on social media.

Shame that cannot happen to your posting, why should the fans of a club be punished for the choice of a player and its CEO. The singing was a step over the line but we are not the first and will not be the last club who over step the mark.

Finally I am not a lawyer and do not really know the law, is what the club found out he did an illegal offence, or is it now what he has pleaded guilty to that is the illegal thing - if so could the club have continued to suspend him if he said he was not guilty of certain acts? I do not know

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

In this country though, we still have a time honoured principle: innocent until proved guilty. Long may we continue to have sufficient control of our own legal system for this to continue!

Once AJ had pleaded guilty, this principle no longer applied; at that point he ceased to be deemed innocent, so Sunderland rightly sacked him.

Totally disagree. It wasn't shop lifting or speeding he was accused of it was grooming an under age customer. Do you not see the common sense in suspending someone when they are suspected of such serious things? Also, as I pointed out, regardless of the case, and innocent until proven guilty, the texts made his position totally untenable IMHO.

Irrespective of everything.....the bottom line is that a 27 year old man should not be texting teenage girls and arranging hook ups....it really really was this simple and you didn't need to prove guilt to see he was doing this. There is no defence.

 

[Geestar]

Innocent until proven guilty...while the whole situation is bad I am not sure Sunderland FC are massively in the wrong

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

The Chief Executive of Sunderland FC (who earned £663K in 2014) was briefed by the police in May 2015 and spoke with Johnson's lawyers shortly afterwards. She should be asked who came up with the cunning plan to protest all along that Johnson was innocent, on the off chance that the young girl would crack and give into the enormous pressure that women are put under in these cases to withdraw her "obviously absurd" allegations. A plan like that also, of course, enables the football club to hang on to the services of a talented player that they are paying £60,000 a week to.

Would such a plan and strategy be construed as perverting the course of justice, and a crime in itself ?

 

[drew]

Innocent until proven guilty...while the whole situation is bad I am not sure Sunderland FC are massively in the wrong

You're totally missing the point. Nobody is saying they had to sack him as soon as he was charged but they certainly shouldn't have been playing him.

 

[Soulman]

 

[Brian Fantana]

The club was in a very difficult position, regardless. If they'd have sacked him immediately upon being charged, it could be argued that it might have prejudiced the trial - as it would have potentially swayed the jury towards a guilty verdict.

That said, if they knew the fuller details that just the broad scope of the charges against AJ they shouldn't have been playing him in matches. However, as one of their best players and with the club in a relegation battle then you can understand why they could see the argument in doing so. After all, at that stage, he'd not been found guilty of anything.

 

[yorkshire seagull]

The police told the club that he admitted to kissing and messaging the girl. So they knew he admitted it and had access to the messages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35721975

Not to mention some wonderful Sunderland fans singing "he f###s who he wants"

Just like the Brighton fans did about Lewis Dunk a couple of years ago?

 

[Swillis]

Shame that cannot happen to your posting, why should the fans of a club be punished for the choice of a player and its CEO. The singing was a step over the line but we are not the first and will not be the last club who over step the mark.

Finally I am not a lawyer and do not really know the law, is what the club found out he did an illegal offence, or is it now what he has pleaded guilty to that is the illegal thing - if so could the club have continued to suspend him if he said he was not guilty of certain acts? I do not know

He himself admitted the club knew of the kissing and content if messages, the police have confirmed this.
Why should Sunderland benefit from a sex case, they shouldn't.
Now I would have more sympathy but there are some of your supporters whom still try to make out as if it's nothing, deny the club knew anything and even demean the young girl. Now don't get me wrong, I know the girl wanted the attention. She has said so herself. But as a civilised society we protect youngsters where they are not mature enough to protect themselves.
I never saw many Sunderland fans complaining when his goals went in either. I just find it unfair that Sunderland knew he was a wrongun and will most probably stay up because of his time playing, where as any decent club would have suspended him. Just my opinion.

 

[GT49er]

The police told the club that he admitted to kissing and messaging the girl.

So? The police (allegedly - we don't know a lot of the facts about who said what to who) told the club about the prosecution evidence - which at that time had yet to be put before a jury to be validated. If he was at that stage denying it, innocent until proved guilty applies; had he been working with children, or vulnerable people, it would have been proper to suspend him - but he wasn't, was he? He was on a football pitch playing PL football in front of thousands - not a situation where he was responsible for children or vulnerable people.
Did he still do the visiting of schools, hospitals and stuff which is presumably part of Sunderland in the community? I suspect not, and I would hope not. But no reason not to play football - but only up too the point where he admits guilt, or is found guilty.

 

[sydney]

see this thread has descended into the usual clucking and tutting and fanny farting.........adam johnson has been a very stupid boy and is guilty of relations with an underage female ...to the letter of the law.....sunderland fc don't come out of this looking very well at all , but believe me when i say that there are 15 year old girls all over the planet getting banged every night.....fact....

 

[1066gull]

Totally disagree. It wasn't shop lifting or speeding he was accused of it was grooming an under age customer. Do you not see the common sense in suspending someone when they are suspected of such serious things? Also, as I pointed out, regardless of the case, and innocent until proven guilty, the texts made his position totally untenable IMHO.

Irrespective of everything.....the bottom line is that a 27 year old man should not be texting teenage girls and arranging hook ups....it really really was this simple and you didn't need to prove guilt to see he was doing this. There is no defence.

I find it so weird. I'm 26 myself, turn 27 this week and I wouldn't even ask to message someone or get their number if they were under 18. It's just so weird. Go meet beautiful ladies through your work, don't start haranguing around them on social messaging sites that's just asking for trouble.