Stu Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) In most other lines of work you probably would get suspended however it's another way in which football is different. I don't think Ched Evans or Craig Thomson got suspended after allegations of sexual offences. Only this season Livi made a guy captain despite the fact he'd been done for assault and I think the only reason he wasn't in the jail was because he was appealing the sentence, not the conviction. And then there's Paul McGowan... As for it taking nine hours or whatever to boot him, they probably had to spend some of that time making sure they were following the right legal processes. If I'm being honest I'm surprised they sacked him at all, let alone so quickly. Edited February 12, 2016 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Saint Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 I can only assume you haven't been following the story or the evidence and that's why you are so wide of the mark on this. Forget your petty rivalry - Sunderland got it 100% right. No employer would suspend a staff member on the basis of an untried allegation. If they did they would leave themselves open to legal action. Sunderland behaved impeccably and when guilt was finally admitted the club booted the player out despite his value as a player in the team. If only all clubs would act so decisively, promptly and with such purity. Quite the contrary. Because i live in the area and see numerous local tv news prog's, and admittedly because of our rivalry i have followed things closely. We disagree but don't be so sure i'm wrong. These are serious allegations and i stick by my opinion that most would be suspended pending the outcome. Being on bail doesn't mean he hasn't done it either. Just that he waits longer for his case to be heard. SAFC have thought, he's possibly been a bad lad but he's a half decent player and we need him. They've also thought that technically he's innocent until it goes to court so we might as well play him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) Quite the contrary. Because i live in the area and see numerous local tv news prog's, and admittedly because of our rivalry i have followed things closely. We disagree but don't be so sure i'm wrong. These are serious allegations and i stick by my opinion that most would be suspended pending the outcome. Being on bail doesn't mean he hasn't done it either. Just that he waits longer for his case to be heard. SAFC have thought, he's possibly been a bad lad but he's a half decent player and we need him. They've also thought that technically he's innocent until it goes to court so we might as well play him. Strange as it seems I agree, (boak), with SD here. Innocent before proven guilty is just that. Everyone deserves this. Even those who turn out to be scunbags. Edited February 12, 2016 by stlucifer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Saint Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) I can see why they've continued to play him. Because he is innocent until proven otherwise and they needed him. It's just that football is very different to other walks of life when it comes to these cases. All I'm saying is that I think most employees in 'real life' wouldn't be able to continue in their employment even if they were under investigation. As for the case itself, having heard some of the details today I hope they've got him bang to rights. A very devious character by the sounds of it. Edited February 12, 2016 by john scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorizaar Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 In most other lines of work you probably would get suspended however it's another way in which football is different. I don't think Ched Evans or Craig Thomson got suspended after allegations of sexual offences. Only this season Livi made a guy captain despite the fact he'd been done for assault and I think the only reason he wasn't in the jail was because he was appealing the sentence, not the conviction. And then there's Paul McGowan... As for it taking nine hours or whatever to boot him, they probably had to spend some of that time making sure they were following the right legal processes. If I'm being honest I'm surprised they sacked him at all, let alone so quickly. I think the Livingston guy was sent back to jail last week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Correct decision by Sunderland. Johnson's football career is now rightly over. Its well documented that David Bowie knowingly had sex with minors. Yet he was almost universally lauded on this site when he died, by many of the same folk now condemning Johnson. How do these people reconcile their hypocrisy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Its well documented that David Bowie knowingly had sex with minors. No it wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Correct decision by Sunderland. Johnson's football career is now rightly over. Its well documented that David Bowie knowingly had sex with minors. Yet he was almost universally lauded on this site when he died, by many of the same folk now condemning Johnson. How do these people reconcile their hypocrisy? Really show us the proof then. As for Sunderland, of course it was the right decision but they had no choice giving the outrage about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Cant get my head round anyone who would groom and then have sex with a child no matter who it is. As for Johnson he is in for the shock of his life when locked up the law of the banana republic will have him an arse hole the size of the Clyde tunnel. Was it just me who thought he looked like jack the lad walking out of court with Barbie in hot pursuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 I can see why they've continued to play him. Because he is innocent until proven otherwise and they needed him. It's just that football is very different to other walks of life when it comes to these cases. All I'm saying is that I think most employees in 'real life' wouldn't be able to continue in their employment even if they were under investigation. As for the case itself, having heard some of the details today I hope they've got him bang to rights. A very devious character by the sounds of it. In the case of employees who have "real" jobs, the employer would probably be unaware until it went to trial as, unless disclosure was a part of the workers terms and conditions, they wouldn't need to inform their employer and it's unlikely to be newsworthy enough to be on the front page. It's BECAUSE of his job it's in the public eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Wonder if the club can sue Johnson? Might be clauses in contracts theses days to protect clubs from criminal convictions? They paid decent money for him and would have been a sellable asset had he not been a child sex predator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Wonder if the club can sue Johnson? Might be clauses in contracts theses days to protect clubs from criminal convictions? They paid decent money for him and would have been a sellable asset had he not been a child sex predator. There might be some sort of minor clauses relating to termination of contract and compensation, but there can't be anything relating to him being a sellable asset as the player himself would have to agree to any move whilst he was still under contract, and as such a club is never guaranteed the ability to sell any player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Wonder if the club can sue Johnson? Might be clauses in contracts theses days to protect clubs from criminal convictions? They paid decent money for him and would have been a sellable asset had he not been a child sex predator. He's also been an influential player for them in the period between being charged until being sacked this week. Would that be a workable defence for him against the club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 He's also been an influential player for them in the period between being charged until being sacked this week. Would that be a workable defence for him against the club? Not really due to form not being guaranteed or predictable. One thing the club would be able to do is sue him for damages due to the breach of contract that he caused meaning that they have wasted the money they spent buying him and haven't had the full return on their investment. The precedent for this was set by the Fiorentina / Mutu saga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Correct decision by Sunderland. Johnson's football career is now rightly over. Its well documented that David Bowie knowingly had sex with minors. Yet he was almost universally lauded on this site when he died, by many of the same folk now condemning Johnson. How do these people reconcile their hypocrisy? I didn't know that about David Bowie although Iggy Pop has written about the issue in one of his songs so maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. One small point for the defence is how reliable the claims of these old or dead ladies are. Sex and drugs and rock and roll - some of it was pretty sleazy, it would be unacceptable now and should have been back then but at the time it was all pretty open, no-one was trying to hide anything, I suspect much of it was exaggerated and hyped, indeed the girls in question (Maddox and Sable) even had their own magazine, but IIRC the only pop star convicted of anything back in the day was Chuck Berry, and even that was really due to his color. Btw if you felt that strongly about the issue why didn't you raise it at the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 What Iggy song was that Colin ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) What Iggy song was that Colin ? Lyrics from Look Away I slept with Sable when she was 13Her parents were too rich to do anything She rocked her way around L.A. 'Til a New York guy carried her away Again with someone like IP who has lived his life courting the media you're never sure how much is true and how much is whatever facet of his persona he's trying to showcase at any particular point in time, here he is being a displaying the more homely side of his persona........ Edited February 14, 2016 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windae cleaner Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 I didn't know that about David Bowie although Iggy Pop has written about the issue in one of his songs so maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. One small point for the defence is how reliable the claims of these old or dead ladies are. Sex and drugs and rock and roll - some of it was pretty sleazy, it would be unacceptable now and should have been back then but at the time it was all pretty open, no-one was trying to hide anything, I suspect much of it was exaggerated and hyped, indeed the girls in question (Maddox and Sable) even had their own magazine, but IIRC the only pop star convicted of anything back in the day was Chuck Berry, and even that was really due to his color. Btw if you felt that strongly about the issue why didn't you raise it at the time? What about Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) What about Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith Yeah, it's extremely strange nothing was done about that, IIRC she was 14 when they started "going out" and he'd have been in his mid-40's...........and it just kept getting weirder! If Rolling Stone Bill Wyman, 56, and ex-wife Mandy Smith, 22, decide to reconcile, genealogists could celebrate. Here’s why: Wyman’s 30-year-old son, Stephen, just announced his engagement to Patsy Smith, 46, who is none other than Mandy’s mother! Apparently in the wake of Operation Yewtree Wyman contacted the police himself but the police decided not to pursue the case. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolling-stones-bill-wyman-contacted-1795749 Yet again it's hard to know what's true, all you can say is that it's all pretty unsavoury and that Old Bill was done a bit of a turn by the Old Bill (sic). Edited February 14, 2016 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 I used to work in a very large organisation and one morning the police and HR arrived to take a work colleague in for questioning for child porn. The guy was suspended on the spot until after the court case which was more than a year later (Guilty - lost his job as soon as it was announced). It is perfectly legal to suspend someone while investigations are ongoing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Yeah, it's extremely strange nothing was done about that, IIRC she was 14 when they started "going out" and he'd have been in his mid-40's...........and it just kept getting weirder! Apparently in the wake of Operation Yewtree Wyman contacted the police himself but the police decided not to pursue the case. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolling-stones-bill-wyman-contacted-1795749 Yet again it's hard to know what's true, all you can say is that it's all pretty unsavoury and that Old Bill was done a bit of a turn by the Old Bill (sic). Polanski also managed to escape long term punishment, tho' he did go to prison , he managed to avoid extradition on two occasions and it seems his victim has certainly forgave him. .maybe, but she did get a payoff. . During a television interview on 10 March 2011, Geimer blamed the media, reporters, the court, and the judge for causing "way more damage to [her] and [her] family than anything Roman Polanski has ever done", and opined that the judge was using her and Polanski for the media exposure.[126] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TediousTom Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) Wonder if the club can sue Johnson? Might be clauses in contracts theses days to protect clubs from criminal convictions? They paid decent money for him and would have been a sellable asset had he not been a child sex predator. You would think they would try and take him back. Mr Chairman of Sunderland: Excuse Mr Chairman of Man City I wish to return Adam Johnson, I demand my 10 million pounds back Mr Chairman of Man City: What on earth, why, WHY? Mr Chairman of Sunderland: I believed I was buying a footballer, turns our he is a nonce. 10 million now or I'll have trading standards onto you! Mr Chairman of Man City: Well consumer rights are consumer rights. Send him back and we will try and repair him first in the meantime I we will send you a replacement. Here have this boy Craig Thomson (formely of Hearts). Edited February 16, 2016 by TediousTom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoganSMFC Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Unfortunately he's deceived his club into believing there's no reason why he shouldn't play. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Should be sacked for lying to his bosses all this time. He should have been sent to play with the u20s Infact... maybe no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted February 19, 2016 Report Share Posted February 19, 2016 I didn't know that about David Bowie although Iggy Pop has written about the issue in one of his songs so maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. One small point for the defence is how reliable the claims of these old or dead ladies are. Sex and drugs and rock and roll - some of it was pretty sleazy, it would be unacceptable now and should have been back then but at the time it was all pretty open, no-one was trying to hide anything, I suspect much of it was exaggerated and hyped, indeed the girls in question (Maddox and Sable) even had their own magazine, but IIRC the only pop star convicted of anything back in the day was Chuck Berry, and even that was really due to his color. Btw if you felt that strongly about the issue why didn't you raise it at the time? Why didn't I raise the issue of folk being hypocritical regarding the issues of Bowie and Johnson at the time? Er, this is the time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted February 19, 2016 Report Share Posted February 19, 2016 (edited) Why didn't I raise the issue of folk being hypocritical regarding the issues of Bowie and Johnson at the time? Er, this is the time! So you were just waiting for an opportunity to go into outraged from Transylvania mode - fairy nuff! Edited February 19, 2016 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.