Howay

Disgusting really, I thought it was desperate/delusional to be protecting the club before but at least they had (albeit shaky) grounds but now that rug has been whipped from under them and they have no excuse to be arguing on the side of their club. Guess they're all just perfectly comfortable that their club is happy to play a nonce. I just popped on there to see what they were saying... fucking hell. A lot of them going with a "well it must be true if HE said it" sarcastic tone about the bloke tweeting the court proceedings, despite everything I've seen him say go on to be proven.

I suppose the imbecile was right mind, we were completely incorrect likening SAFC to ITV. The fair comparison would be to another company that covered up a bunch of nonces, like the BBC.

So they were basically trying to figure out a way they could keep this animal playing while restricting his access to kids? Honestly man it just keeps getting worse, imagine if they were a relevant club?

The worst part of this is that basically every fan knew we needed defenders, even the thickest of charvas was banging on about how we needed defenders in January. We were one of the worst defences in the league as well as being dangerously thin so there really wasn't reason to avoid buying. So what will the starting pairing be? Lascelles and Taylor? fucking horror show that.

Fucking despicable club.

Aye, that discussion also came at a very convenient time for him. If that discussion did happen I'd hazard to guess that he was the one that brought it up, "Well all I'm saying is 13 is good to go in Japan, so why isn't 15 okay here... am I right Catts?" dirty bastard and we can now all say dirty fucking club.

What utter nonsense trail of logic will the mackems use now? There goes the (already on dodgy ground) they wanted to protect his innocent until proven guilty right defence they've been using up until now.

Lost the argument so is resorting to pure fabrication

Btw the Ian Huntley and Harold Shipman examples are used because they are extreme, it's to make it easier for you to wrap your head around what we are all saying. I had a P.E teacher at school who was accused and then charged of grooming and sexual activity with a 15 year old student, he plead not guilty, the girl had left the school at 16 by the time the teacher was charged. The school took the action to suspend him with pay while he awaited trial, he went on to be found guilty of his crimes. So you would have been fine with the bloke just going back and teaching while the charge was hanging over his head? Because that is what you are saying about Johnson, or is a situation where a bloke was being charged with very similar (almost identical) crimes still going to be written off by you? Oh aye here is a news article about the bloke: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/teacher-jailed-kissing-pupil-cupboard-1417784

:lol:

Honestly man it's a good thing these mackems are completely wrong, you know Harold Shipman maintained his innocence and pleaded not guilty as well, would Daddy's cock lover have liked that bloke to have been practicing medicine while awaiting trial (presuming of course he was somehow able to post his bail money)? But he pleaded not guilty so why would he be suspended?

Nah I'm simply not having that, utter nonsense using that sort of logic. I'd say ITV/Granada television is a good example, they're also an industry in the public eye and took the correct action of suspending their employees with pay while they awaited trial. How did Johnson, a man charged with serious offences, deserve any more leniency that that? do you not grasp by this point that suspending someone with pay while they await trial is fairly common for this sort of charge? It is also very different to them saying he's guilty. People have given you two recent examples and you've wrote them off as not credible sources for 'setting employment standards', the Ian Huntley example isn't Ian Huntley setting employment standards is it? I would say it was a government entity, a school, making a decision and yes I would say that is a fairly good representation. What difference does it make what his family did or thought? that's completely irrelevant. No I wouldn't expect my employer to back me up anymore than saying take time off with pay if I was charged with offences as serious as Johnson, especially if I was in a position where I could repeat the offence, which he clearly was as where did he meet her? at a Sunderland signing event... The basis of the reasoning you are using is also very shaky, the club suspended the bloke following his arrest under suspicion but then dropped the suspension and allowed him to play after he was charged, that makes no sense if you are going with your logic. SAFC dropped a bollock on this one, the longer you and other fans keep defending it the dafter you all look. Your club played the cunt to try and save their skin and he definitely helped them do that, it was never about the club protecting his right to a presumption of innocence if that was the case there is nothing wrong with him being paid while suspended, that is the fairest option and the option that covers the club, instead they accepted the risk and have been burnt by it the problem is people like you still trying to defend it. The man whose daughter this is supports your club, she also supports the club, they had to watch this scumbag play every week while they waited for this case to be brought to court. You're clearly fine with that but you must surely see how many are uncomfortable with it. Suspension with pay is the common method no matter what industry, there is nothing wrong with it and it doesn't infringe on the persons presumption of innocence. He will get what is coming to him but your club deserves the shite that is getting thrown at it.

Imagine the face on the lawyer (or any other people in the room) after Ridsdale said something like that.

Have a read of NJS and Ewerks posts that came before your response and The Ginger Quiffs response after your post for the answer.

Where did I say he admitted anything to SAFC? My point is I find it utterly bizzare and pretty abhorrent that your club played a bloke charged with those offences, especially after suspending him when he was being questioned initially. He should have been put on paid suspension. I also find it fucking hilarious that you lot are trying to take some sort of stand in all of this after the way you all went on after we played Barton (after he served his time) and Remy (after he was arrested under suspicion and no charge followed).

Oh dear, I'm not really sure how the Norwegian league works but it looks like last season this lot finished 8th and have been on a break since it ended. Pretty shocking to only scrape a 1-2 win over that sort of opposition, especially when our lot are supposed to be in peak conditioning at the moment.

Where did I say they were the same thing? However the CPS rarely charges people unless they feel they have good evidence, are you unaware that trials are expensive and trying to avoid them is a big part of law? They clearly had the evidence of phone contact etc, the defence will have probably been aware of the evidence. The fact is he was charged with grooming and sexual relations with a minor, often people under those sort of charges are put on paid suspension from work (if the company is following the whole innocent until proven guilty reasoning) but your lot actively played a man charged with a serious crime to save their own skin, it's disgraceful and you should get familiar with the difference between being under suspicion of something and being charged with something, you (and a lot of your peers) are seriously underestimating what being charged with something means. Your lot went fucking berserk when Remy played for us and he was never even charged, not even close to it. Your post is simply uninformed, under-educated logic.

Aye that's the one.

Poocastle? Ffs

I'm always shocked by the missteps the businessmen running clubs make. Reminds me of Jody Morris (not 100% if it was him) when he signed for Leeds his agent apparently told him to ask for £25k but accept £20k but when they walked in the Leeds chairman said something like "£40k a week is the highest we will go" thinking he was playing hardball and Morris signed for £40k a week.

Aye that bloke is a complete testicle, I'm not arsed about trying to discredit their six in a row stuff we were fucking shocking in all but one of those games (the last one I still say the ref ruined the game as a contest) the fact is their club stood up for and even fucking played a bloke that was charged with grooming and having sexual relations with a minor, there is no deflecting from that iyam it's utterly embarrassing and they should pack that classy club shite in.

Bit weird to come on here and find a thread about them and then go an start a thread on their forum about our thread calling it obsession isn't it? I never understand why they try and play up this obsession craic, almost as bad as the classy club shite. They have a thread on every single match we play, as well as separate threads for anything and everything that happens with our club, we mention them often enough on here but it's usually 3 posts from a few posters having a laugh at their loss or saying they won etc not whole threads that reach 40 pages analyzing their games.

Absolutely. Beckham had one of the best deliveries in football in his prime, same could be said about his set pieces. I never really thought Beckham was overrated, the bloke played well every where he went and was one of the few to play well for England with regularity.

It's bad enough being humiliated in Premiership games and behind closed door friendlies, but now we're going to get shown up on Norwegian tv...

Agree with this and Alex's point about Charnley.