Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

LiamoSail

Paully D wrote: »

Not comparing it at all (which should go without saying), just pointing out that the vast majority of clubs are "ethically and morally bankrupt".

Yea apologies, I see your point and agree. Clubs have been etically and morally bankrupt ever since they became businesses. Anyone who considers their club to act in any way other than what is best for their business is probably deluding themselves (a rare trait among football fans!!)

Dempsey

Paully D wrote: »

No different to the vast majority of football clubs or any other organisation that deals in millions and billions of pounds then.

Celtic for example are currently employing someone with a drink-driving conviction for driving almost 4 times over the legal limit and someone who has confessed to racially abusing a fellow professional.

If you want to find ethics and morals, within football is the last place I'd be looking.

Really? Yet it stuck in your craw enough to go into a game of oneupmanship. :rolleyes:
Save your anger for your club and their behaviour if you really care for how the club conducts itself.

Any business, big or even a small sole trader no.1 responsibility is to maximise shareholder value. Ethics, Moral and Legal Obligations very often are a direct contradiction to their no.1 duty so no, I wont be looking towards football or any other business, ever.

Cantona's Collars

BBC reporting the Sunderland CEO has resigned.

Johnson's sister has set up a Justice For Johnson facebook page.That will go well:rolleyes:

Kristopherus

zerks wrote: »

BBC reporting the Sunderland CEO has resigned.

Johnson's sister has set up a Justice For Johnson facebook page.That will go well:rolleyes:

Well, both are gone now:D

Johnson has been removed from PES & Football Manager

Flint Fredstone

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Johnson has been removed from PES & Football Manager

That's very lenient, I was sure he would get time for it.

Flint Fredstone

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

That's very lenient, I was sure he would get time for it.

Quality Flint :pac:

armaghlad

Katy Hopkins defending him in the Daily Mail (*my eyes!*)

The comment section is ridiculous! All from people agreeing with her!

Nerdlingr

Margaret Byrne has resigned now, saying she made a "serious mistake".

armaghlad

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Margaret Byrne has resigned now, saying she made a "serious mistake".

I sympathise with her. Can't have been an easy decision. Running a football club is hard enough without having one of your star players embroiled in a criminal sex trial. It really did boil down to her judgement as to whether she thought he'd be found not guilty or not.

Leroy42

armaghlad wrote: »

I sympathise with her. Can't have been an easy decision. Running a football club is hard enough without having one of your star players embroiled in a criminal sex trial. It really did boil down to her judgement as to whether she thought he'd be found not guilty or not.

I don't agree. Whether he was found guilty or not was a legal matter, not a moral one. plenty of cases where people who have done illegal things have got off due to technicalities or whatever.

In this case SAFC knew of the details, so the CEO knew that he had crossed a line. And she owed a duty of care to her customers (the child in this case).

She chose to use the court system delay to her advantage. Now, if he hadn't told them, or if the police hadn't told them, then she would have been fine

In saying all that, fair play to her for accepting she made a mistake on taking the consequences. She have made on an error of judgment, but it shows her in a very good light that she is willing to accept that. Fair play, we need more like her (not the initial error in judgment obviously!)

vicwatson

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't agree. Whether he was found guilty or not was a legal matter, not a moral one. plenty of cases where people who have done illegal things have got off due to technicalities or whatever.

In this case SAFC knew of the details, so the CEO knew that he had crossed a line. And she owed a duty of care to her customers (the child in this case).

She chose to use the court system delay to her advantage. Now, if he hadn't told them, or if the police hadn't told them, then she would have been fine

100% agree, and that's it in a nutshell

armaghlad

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't agree. Whether he was found guilty or not was a legal matter, not a moral one. plenty of cases where people who have done illegal things have got off due to technicalities or whatever.

In this case SAFC knew of the details, so the CEO knew that he had crossed a line. And she owed a duty of care to her customers (the child in this case).

She chose to use the court system delay to her advantage. Now, if he hadn't told them, or if the police hadn't told them, then she would have been fine

I'm not denying her wrong doing. I'm sympathising at being placed in such a position. A football club has a duty of care yes; whether that boils down solely to the CEO I'm not entirely sure. In any case the CEO has a lot of people to answer to and not just fans. She has to take all things into account, she is(was) there primarily to run a business.

tigger123

armaghlad wrote: »

I sympathise with her. Can't have been an easy decision. Running a football club is hard enough without having one of your star players embroiled in a criminal sex trial. It really did boil down to her judgement as to whether she thought he'd be found not guilty or not.

She knew he'd had sexual contact with a minor and allowed him to continue in the squad, and kept if from the rest of the club.

"Error of judgement". Yeah.

keeponhurling

A CEO gets paid big bucks, because they need to make the big decisions.

tigger123

armaghlad wrote: »

I'm not denying her wrong doing. I'm sympathising at being placed in such a position. A football club has a duty of care yes; whether that boils down solely to the CEO I'm not entirely sure. In any case the CEO has a lot of people to answer to and not just fans. She has to take all things into account, she is(was) there primarily to run a business.

Its pretty cut and dry tbh.

Dots1982

armaghlad wrote: »

I sympathise with her. Can't have been an easy decision. Running a football club is hard enough without having one of your star players embroiled in a criminal sex trial. It really did boil down to her judgement as to whether she thought he'd be found not guilty or not.

She made a choice that prioritised Sunderland's survival in the PL last season.

I would be interested to know if SAFC supporters would be against or in favour of the decision she made.

She may have a duty of care to supporters (what actually does this mean in the context...like he wasn't ted bundy) but she is paid to make the best decisions for SAFC. She probably did that even if it led the club down a distasteful path.

armaghlad

tigger123 wrote: »

She knew he'd had sexual contact with a minor and allowed him to continue in the squad, and kept if from the rest of the club.

"Error of judgement". Yeah.

And what if Sunderland survive relegation by a point? A point that AJ earned them? A point that sees another massive cash windfall and further stability for the business. It's not pretty but I'm sure the shareholders privately won't gaf if that turns out to be the case.

tigger123

armaghlad wrote: »

And what if Sunderland survive relegation by a point? A point that AJ earned them? A point that sees another massive cash windfall and further stability for the business. It's not pretty but I'm sure the shareholders privately won't gaf if that turns out to be the case.

So what you're saying is that, from a business perspective, the millions of pounds that is earned by remaining in the PL is worth Sunderland FC carrying the reputation of being a company that will employ paedophiles?

armaghlad

tigger123 wrote: »

So what you're saying is that, from a business perspective, the millions of pounds that is earned by remaining in the PL is worth Sunderland FC carrying the reputation of being a company that will employ paedophiles?

I'm saying from a business perspective she was between a rock and a hard place. She made the wrong decision from a moral perspective, held her hands up, accepted blame and resigned. The shareholders, should Sunderland survive by the bare minimum, will not give two hoots. I honestly don't see why you are finding that difficult to understand.

rob316

Someone had to fall on their sword at the club. Sunderland's reputation is heavily damaged here anyway, the fact they left a sex offender play on and pay him £2m after admitting in private to the club he did, wont go away.

Dots1982

tigger123 wrote: »

So what you're saying is that, from a business perspective, the millions of pounds that is earned by remaining in the PL is worth Sunderland FC carrying the reputation of being a company that will employ paedophiles?

Well it definitely is. There is very little question the CEO made the right choice for the benefit of the club. Do you think this case will cause lasting damage to Sunderland's brand?

Do you think players will tell their agents to not allow them to go there?

Do you think Sky will stop sending cameras there?

Do you think fans will stop supporting them?


They already ring fenced themselves from damage to the brand's reputation by having a stooge CEO who has resigned anyway.

armaghlad

rob316 wrote: »

Someone had to fall on their sword at the club. Sunderland's reputation is heavily damaged here anyway, the fact they left a sex offender play on and pay him £2m after admitting in private to the club he did, wont go away.

^^^
Exactly. They invested a lot of money in him (£10m?) so while I'd be 99.9% confident they don't condone behaviour such as AJ's, decisions still had to be made. Byrne ultimately made those decisions which may well prove to be, financially, invaluable to SAFC.

Former sun editor was convinced of printing a photo of the girl last year. Has to pay her some costs. About a grand or so.

Wouldn't have thought a classy paper like that would do such a thing


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/07/adam-johnson-former-sun-editor-david-dinsmore-convicted-victim-picture

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Former sun editor was convinced of printing a photo of the girl last year. Has to pay her some costs. About a grand or so.

Wouldn't have thought a classy paper like that would do such a thing


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/07/adam-johnson-former-sun-editor-david-dinsmore-convicted-victim-picture

He'll get a bonus of more than a grand from the Sun and think if it as a profitable venture.

TheCitizen

armaghlad wrote: »

I'm saying from a business perspective she was between a rock and a hard place. She made the wrong decision from a moral perspective, held her hands up, accepted blame and resigned. The shareholders, should Sunderland survive by the bare minimum, will not give two hoots. I honestly don't see why you are finding that difficult to understand.

You can say what you like. She made a really stupid decision, for herself, for the club and for her own future career. Still she's probably got enough put away that even if here career is in tatters she'll survive. There is no excuse for the stupidity of her decision. Adam Johnson was not the reason why Sunderland stayed up or not, don't be ridiculous. When she read those text message she should have got rid of him straight away, they could've replaced him.


She made an incredibly stupid mistake for someone who is supposed to be trained in the legal profession. If I was a Sunderland supporter I'd be livid with her. She resigned and rightly so, stop trying to make excuses for her. A lot of nonsense spouted by you here, are you related to her or something?

eagle eye

TheCitizen wrote: »

You can say what you like. She made a really stupid decision, for herself, for the club and for her own future career. Still she's probably got enough put away that even if here career is in tatters she'll survive. There is no excuse for the stupidity of her decision. Adam Johnson was not the reason why Sunderland stayed up or not, don't be ridiculous. When she read those text message she should have got rid of him straight away, they could've replaced him.


She made an incredibly stupid mistake for someone who is supposed to be trained in the legal profession. If I was a Sunderland supporter I'd be livid with her. She resigned and rightly so, stop trying to make excuses for her. A lot of nonsense spouted by you here, are you related to her or something?

In the public eye she made a horrible decision but I don't agree with you.

Adam Johnson was a valuable asset at the time. She made a decision to take the risk that the asset would remain valuable and it didn't work out. She has paid the price for it but I don't think it will affect her career that much.

Sunderland is not a club with a high profile that is going to be deeply affected by this imo. It will be forgotten about inside of two years I think.

TheCitizen

eagle eye wrote: »

In the public eye she made a horrible decision but I don't agree with you.

Adam Johnson was a valuable asset at the time. She made a decision to take the risk that the asset would remain valuable and it didn't work out. She has paid the price for it but I don't think it will affect her career that much.

Sunderland is not a club with a high profile that is going to be deeply affected by this imo. It will be forgotten about inside of two years I think.

No I disagree. In any analysis of what she did she got it hopelessly wrong. She read the texts that he had sent, she must have known he was finished. She should've tried to offload him asap, bar that just take the hit. It's not like Sunderland are broke. If I was looking for legal advice I wouldn't go near her. Wrong decision no matter what way you look at it, very poor judgement.

fyfe79

tigger123 wrote: »

So what you're saying is that, from a business perspective, the millions of pounds that is earned by remaining in the PL is worth Sunderland FC carrying the reputation of being a company that will employ paedophiles?

Technically, it wasn't paedophilia, it was ephebophilia.

TheCitizen wrote: »

Adam Johnson was not the reason why Sunderland stayed up or not, don't be ridiculous.

His equaliser a few weeks ago against Liverpool may well save them this year. Will the shareholders retroactively ask for this point to be removed because it was gained by a sex offender, even if it relegates them? It's big business - they will secretly be relieved that their CEO kept Johnson on the books long enough to potentially save them millions.

armaghlad

TheCitizen wrote: »

You can say what you like. She made a really stupid decision, for herself, for the club and for her own future career. Still she's probably got enough put away that even if here career is in tatters she'll survive. There is no excuse for the stupidity of her decision. Adam Johnson was not the reason why Sunderland stayed up or not, don't be ridiculous. When she read those text message she should have got rid of him straight away, they could've replaced him.


She made an incredibly stupid mistake for someone who is supposed to be trained in the legal profession. If I was a Sunderland supporter I'd be livid with her. She resigned and rightly so, stop trying to make excuses for her. A lot of nonsense spouted by you here, are you related to her or something?

Am I **** making excuses for her, I'm stating a fact. If you are blissfully unaware of the lucrative money involved in surviving relegation from the EPL I suggest you do a bit of homework on the subject.

As other posters have alluded she may have made a bad decision morally in the public eye, behind closed doors in the SAFC boardroom it could be invaluable. If Sunderland avoid relegation it won't be by that much, a point Johnson helped earned v Liverpool could well be the difference between millions of pounds worth of windfall for the following season; or a whole restructuring for at least a year in the bear pit that is the Championship.

As for Byrne I hadn't heard of her before this case emerged and only in the last week or two learned she was from Dromintee. So no, no relation.