• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Adam Johnson Case - Post Sensibly

He had been charged and was going to stand trial, with a decent chance of being found guilty. She should have based the decision on this. Players have been suspended or not played before while pending trial (e.g. Terry with England). The club could have made a statement that the player was innocent until proved guilty but that it was in the best interests of both club and player for him to not play until resolved, even adding that he should be focusing on his defence rather than football.

As a further issue, some companies have contracts about behaviour bring the company into disrepute. Texting a child, meeting her in a car in a secluded place and kissing her, while knowing her age - all things the CEO knew about - could perhaps have triggered such clauses. This bit is speculation, though.

In her defence, it is possible a background in criminal law, especially if she was a defence lawyer, could make her more inclined to consider the presumption of innocence as an overriding factor. However, as CEO she should have been looking at the overall interests of the company. That said, perhaps having him play is the difference between relegation and next years TV deal.

I think she did. Interest of the company is staying up and collecting millions instead of getting relegated. Johnson on the pitch meant a greater chance of staying up...

Can't know for sure, but I honestly think they weighed the pros and cons of letting him play and the millions weighed much heavier than common decency, respect for the victim and the public image of the club.
 
Quite possibly and I think this most likely. Regardless, she deserves criticism for either the cynical adherence to the bottom line or for bad judgement over the PR.
 
Quite possibly and I think this most likely. Regardless, she deserves criticism for either the cynical adherence to the bottom line or for bad judgement over the PR.

They deserve a lot of criticism as a club, I'm definitely with Greg on this one.
 
I hate newspapers..........Johnson case is pure media hypobole - Be glad when the thick sod is locked up.
 
But the Sunderland CEO has access to his messages and police statements, which reports suggest clearly implicate him for the charges he eventually pleaded guilty to. As a former criminal lawyer, she could make an informed decision to protect the club. Their position is that they reinstated him because he was going to plead not guilty, but wouldn't have done if they had known he would plead guilty. They probably couldn't sack him, although I'm not sure his admitted activities couldn't be against some standards of behaviour requirement for employees, but they could have protected their image by not playing him.
How is that possible when it was a criminal investigation and the evidence would be secured? Have I missed something in the news reports? Apologies if I have. Unless it was a mobile given to Johnson by the club Sunderland would have no right to access private messages.
 
if she was formerly a lawyer, I wonder if there were concerns of breaking legal professional privilege?

if he intimated he was going to plead not guilty to all charges, could she do anything publicly to prejudice the legal case without breaking the law?

my feeling is, with such cases, its best just to let the law deal with it first then react based on legal outcomes

Only if she was acting as his legal representative?

Last sentence agree completely. I think it is a little unfair to go on witch hunt after the club. I could almost guarantee any club would behave that way when it concerns a major player.
 
He had been charged and was going to stand trial, with a decent chance of being found guilty. She should have based the decision on this. Players have been suspended or not played before while pending trial (e.g. Terry with England). The club could have made a statement that the player was innocent until proved guilty but that it was in the best interests of both club and player for him to not play until resolved, even adding that he should be focusing on his defence rather than football.

As a further issue, some companies have contracts about behaviour bring the company into disrepute. Texting a child, meeting her in a car in a secluded place and kissing her, while knowing her age - all things the CEO knew about - could perhaps have triggered such clauses. This bit is speculation, though.

In her defence, it is possible a background in criminal law, especially if she was a defence lawyer, could make her more inclined to consider the presumption of innocence as an overriding factor. However, as CEO she should have been looking at the overall interests of the company. That said, perhaps having him play is the difference between relegation and next years TV deal.

That would make a mockery of "innocent until proven guilty" and could be seen as the club deciding he was guilty.
 
How is that possible when it was a criminal investigation and the evidence would be secured? Have I missed something in the news reports? Apologies if I have. Unless it was a mobile given to Johnson by the club Sunderland would have no right to access private messages.

She met with Johnson last summer and his representatives provided her with the texts and police interview transcripts. Presumably Johnson consented to this disclosure. This came out in the court case. I'll add the caveat that this is just what I have read in the newspapers, but there seems no reason to invent it.
 
She met with Johnson last summer and his representatives provided her with the texts and police interview transcripts. Presumably Johnson consented to this disclosure. This came out in the court case. I'll add the caveat that this is just what I have read in the newspapers, but there seems no reason to invent it.
Ok thanks for that.
 
Only if she was acting as his legal representative?

Last sentence agree completely. I think it is a little unfair to go on witch hunt after the club. I could almost guarantee any club would behave that way when it concerns a major player.

do you have to be a tendered/contracted representative, or is it enough that you are a legal professional who has been asked for advice?

I expect the law is pretty complicated for such things, I agree the witch hunt at this time is wrong, if she, or the club, broke the law, that will come out in time i'm sure
 
i'll add, imo, legal process shouldn't be changed or circumvented because the crime is more heinous or the alleged a higher earner
 
You are just being partisan here mate. Generally no football club will sack someone on the basis of allegations alone. Footballers have things said against them all the time. Ultimately there has to be clear evidence before writing off a multi million pound asset. But once there is incontrovertible evidence that is proven in court then it is right to sack him which Sunderland did.

SAFC had copies of his statement to the policy and all 700+ what'app messages at an early stage. This has been confirmed by Johnson and Durham Constabulary. Their CEO, a qualified criminal lawyer, decided to put money and football first and allowed them to field a paedophile.

Most SAFC fans I know (some good mates, some just colleagues) are absolutely disgusted by this and want answers and for her to be sacked.
 
SAFC away end at Wet Spam

CcOMkIWWwAA5_0X.jpg:large
 
http://www.theguardian.com/football...signs-sunderland-chief-executive-adam-johnson

Margaret Byrne quits as Sunderland chief over Adam Johnson case
Josh Halliday
The Sunderland football club chief executive, Margaret Byrne, has resigned over her handling of the Adam Johnson child sex abuse case, admitting she made “a serious error of judgment”.

Byrne quit her £663,000-a-year role after facing days of pressure to explain why the midfielder was allowed to continue playing despite having privately admitted he had kissed and groomed an underage schoolgirl.

In her resignation statement, Byrne said it was a “serious mistake” to allow Johnson to continue to represent the club. “I sincerely regret that this error has impacted on the victim, the club, its supporters and all those affected in such a devastating manner.”

Johnson is facing between five and 10 years in prison after being found guilty of sexual activity with a child and pleading guilty to two other counts. He was acquitted of one further charge.

Sunderland lifted Johnson’s suspension on 18 March last year – 16 days after his arrest – and he played until he was sacked, 24 hours after he pleaded guilty to two child sex offences on 10 February.

Byrne’s resignation came hours after the Guardian approached Sunderland football club with fresh evidence that she knew Johnson had admitted to sexual activity with an underage schoolgirl as long ago as May last year.

Johnson’s barrister, Orlando Pownall QC, wrote in a legal note shortly after the midfielder’s arrest that he admitted kissing the 15-year-old and sending her flirtatious messages.

The six-page memo, disclosed for the first time on Tuesday, was written by Pownall the day after a crucial meeting with Johnson and Byrne on 4 May last year.

In the memo, Pownall details the allegations and the evidence against Johnson. The note states that Johnson admitted kissing the teenage Sunderland fan passionately and that she was too young to give consent.

It also raises the prospect of the footballer pleading guilty to that charge of sexual activity with a child – which he publicly denied until the first day of his trial on 10 February.

Byrne is understood to have played a leading role in recruiting Pownall and introduced him to Johnson at a meeting at Sunderland’s training ground, the Academy of Light, on 4 May last year.

It is at this meeting that Byrne, a former criminal lawyer, provided Pownall with copies of Johnson’s police interview – in which he admitted kissing the girl – and his 834 sexually charged WhatsApp messages. Johnson’s trial was told that the football club had no notes of the meeting, which was also attended by the footballer’s father, Dave.

In her resignation statement, Byrne admitted receiving the note but said she did not disclose it to anyone, including the Sunderland board.

She said she was “astounded” when Johnson pleaded guilty and that allowing him to play again was a “serious error of judgment”.

Byrne added: “Mr Johnson’s victim has endured a terrible ordeal and for that I am truly sorry. At no time was the failure to suspend him again intended to cause any harm or distress to her or her family.”

Byrne is understood to have returned to the UK this week after leaving the country towards the end of Johnson’s trial when the club came under fire.

In a separate statement, the club said it had “become clear through our own internal investigations that in this instance decisions have been taken by Margaret in error”.

“Whilst swift and decisive action was taken to terminate Mr Johnson’s employment upon his guilty plea, decisions taken prior to this, including the decision not to suspend him for a second time pending the outcome of the trial, were wrong.

“In light of what has been acknowledged by Margaret as a serious error of judgment on her part, we have undertaken a full review of the club’s decision-making processes to ensure that there can be no such mistakes in the future.

“Throughout this deeply regretful situation, we recognise that one devoted young fan and her family have been very badly let down, first and foremost by Mr Johnson and his despicable actions, but also by the club they support. We are so very sorry for this.

“Mr Johnson lied to the club; he also lied to our fans and they have every right to feel aggrieved by this. Lessons have been learned and we hope that the club and its fans can move forward from this together.”
 
http://www.theguardian.com/football...signs-sunderland-chief-executive-adam-johnson

Margaret Byrne quits as Sunderland chief over Adam Johnson case
Josh Halliday
The Sunderland football club chief executive, Margaret Byrne, has resigned over her handling of the Adam Johnson child sex abuse case, admitting she made “a serious error of judgment”.

Byrne quit her £663,000-a-year role after facing days of pressure to explain why the midfielder was allowed to continue playing despite having privately admitted he had kissed and groomed an underage schoolgirl.

In her resignation statement, Byrne said it was a “serious mistake” to allow Johnson to continue to represent the club. “I sincerely regret that this error has impacted on the victim, the club, its supporters and all those affected in such a devastating manner.”

Johnson is facing between five and 10 years in prison after being found guilty of sexual activity with a child and pleading guilty to two other counts. He was acquitted of one further charge.

Sunderland lifted Johnson’s suspension on 18 March last year – 16 days after his arrest – and he played until he was sacked, 24 hours after he pleaded guilty to two child sex offences on 10 February.

Byrne’s resignation came hours after the Guardian approached Sunderland football club with fresh evidence that she knew Johnson had admitted to sexual activity with an underage schoolgirl as long ago as May last year.

Johnson’s barrister, Orlando Pownall QC, wrote in a legal note shortly after the midfielder’s arrest that he admitted kissing the 15-year-old and sending her flirtatious messages.

The six-page memo, disclosed for the first time on Tuesday, was written by Pownall the day after a crucial meeting with Johnson and Byrne on 4 May last year.

In the memo, Pownall details the allegations and the evidence against Johnson. The note states that Johnson admitted kissing the teenage Sunderland fan passionately and that she was too young to give consent.

It also raises the prospect of the footballer pleading guilty to that charge of sexual activity with a child – which he publicly denied until the first day of his trial on 10 February.

Byrne is understood to have played a leading role in recruiting Pownall and introduced him to Johnson at a meeting at Sunderland’s training ground, the Academy of Light, on 4 May last year.

It is at this meeting that Byrne, a former criminal lawyer, provided Pownall with copies of Johnson’s police interview – in which he admitted kissing the girl – and his 834 sexually charged WhatsApp messages. Johnson’s trial was told that the football club had no notes of the meeting, which was also attended by the footballer’s father, Dave.

In her resignation statement, Byrne admitted receiving the note but said she did not disclose it to anyone, including the Sunderland board.

She said she was “astounded” when Johnson pleaded guilty and that allowing him to play again was a “serious error of judgment”.

Byrne added: “Mr Johnson’s victim has endured a terrible ordeal and for that I am truly sorry. At no time was the failure to suspend him again intended to cause any harm or distress to her or her family.”

Byrne is understood to have returned to the UK this week after leaving the country towards the end of Johnson’s trial when the club came under fire.

In a separate statement, the club said it had “become clear through our own internal investigations that in this instance decisions have been taken by Margaret in error”.

“Whilst swift and decisive action was taken to terminate Mr Johnson’s employment upon his guilty plea, decisions taken prior to this, including the decision not to suspend him for a second time pending the outcome of the trial, were wrong.

“In light of what has been acknowledged by Margaret as a serious error of judgment on her part, we have undertaken a full review of the club’s decision-making processes to ensure that there can be no such mistakes in the future.

“Throughout this deeply regretful situation, we recognise that one devoted young fan and her family have been very badly let down, first and foremost by Mr Johnson and his despicable actions, but also by the club they support. We are so very sorry for this.

“Mr Johnson lied to the club; he also lied to our fans and they have every right to feel aggrieved by this. Lessons have been learned and we hope that the club and its fans can move forward from this together.”


Eight hundred and thirty four sexually charged messages...his sociopathic, narcissistic abuse of a young teenage girl via texting (or 'sexting' as I believe it is called) earmarks this total piece of brick as a truly horrible human being. 834...that is un-fudging-believable...
 
I wonder if there will be any spotlight on the parents in this case, i.e. how they felt when the charges were brought forward into the public domain, what they knew etc.

The parental angle is always the most emotional in cases like these, we can probably all relate and think how we'd feel if it was any of our daughters he's been messing with...
 
Back