Football 2015/16

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

There is no "difficulty"...  The law is pretty clear and is designed to strike a balance.  It literally only a "difficulty" if you are a child abuse sympathiser to be frank.

I'm pointing out where the law falls down with it's arbitrary line, but the moron decides I'm trying to give abuse the green light.

It was clearly abusive. It was clearly a crime in law. I'm disputing neither of those parts.

I'm merely pointing out that there is nothing at all to suggest any of what happened happened because he set out to abuse someone who was specifically underage.

 

[ThomThomDrum]

I take it the prosecution did not have any of Johnson's online presence info? eg what sort of porn he looks at and sites he visits etc?

 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

I take it the prosecution did not have any of Johnson's online presence info? eg what sort of porn he looks at and sites he visits etc?

I've no idea, but they had all of his text messages and all of his whatsapp stuff, so I reckon there's a very decent chance they'll have looked at all of his online activity in search for anything connected with this girl and will have seen what porn (if any) he's been looking at.

The prosecution made no attempt to suggest a specific interest in young girls, while they did make clear he was a man keen to get his rocks off with more than just this girl. I think that's far from irrelevant against those who want to throw around the word paedo.

C'mon, let's not mix up two different things. Not all wrongdoing is the same evil.

Edited March 4, 2016 by eFestivals

[mrtourette]

10 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

Watched on the News Big Sam having to explain why the club selected him the play etc.  I don't think this is fair.

Sam's job is to win football matches.  Its down to the Sunderland board / HR department to make the call on if Johnson was available for selection or not.  Its should of been the CEO answering the question on why he wasn't suspended and not Sam.

These players have a value and status to say its up to the manager.  Sam isn't in a position to not play such a massive asset.  Its way beyond the managers now.  Its on the CEO etc.

This is something that has been getting a lot of press in the NFL recently (where they have horrendous issues with player arrests and an alarming increase in those for domestic violence) - when does the team step in and what responsibility does the league have to suspend/punish? Should any player charged with a crime be instantly suspended pending completion of the trial? Is it unreasonable to allow someone to continue working whilst awaiting trial? A club's personal stance obviously matters but what is the bare minimum they should do and should it be defined?

If the league (probably correctly) wants nothing to do with it then you're asking clubs to put morals and ethics ahead of points and money, and until the former starts negatively affecting the latter there's only going to be one winner. 

Also while 'the club' initially suspended Johnson when he was first arrested I believe it was Dick Advocaat who brought him back in and continued to use him after he was charged. I don't buy for a minute that it isn't the manager's job to decide if a player is available or not, if the call was one based on morals and ethics and you're asking the clubs owners to make a decision based on that then any manager could also have made that call, and should be expected to. Of course he is in a position not to play a player, it's just unlikely as it will negatively impact on him personally if the team don't perform. Personally I have no issue with him playing if the manager and the club want him to play, but at least be honest about it. The old "nobody told me I couldn't use him" excuse is bollocks.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

In most organisations he probably would have been suspended pending the outcome of the trial (unless he could of been put into a role which limited his contact with other employees / the public).  There has been a lot of talk about him continuing to play and receiving his salary.  Suspended or not the club would of had to continue to pay him a wage as suspension is a neutral act.

I think the club should of suspended him until the outcome of the trial.  They will now take the pain of a wrong decision.  There "brand" is certainly going to be damaged now.

I agree with most of what you've said there, tho with some of that at least I guess the club will have been conflicted between the damage he might cause to the club if guilty and the damage caused to the club by relegation.

They chose to trust the word of their employee, and in a situation where he was (at that time) officially innocent (on the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle). While that's proven to be the wrong decision, I'm not going to be condemning them for that, because we'd have a much worse world if an allegation automatically damaged every accused - particularly where celebrities would be very easy targets to take down via false allegations.

The crime was committed by Johnson, not the club. The worst the club can be accused of is a poor decision around it - tho that only becomes known with hindsight, and not at the point they took that decision.

[The Nal]

Apart from Arsenal vs Spurs, some big games down the bottom this weekend. Palace vs Liverpool is a big game for Palace. No wins in 12. Last time they won a game was before Christmas.  

If they lose, and Swansea beat Norwich and Bournemouth beat Newcastle, Palace are right in the shit. Actually if any of the teams around them win and they lose they're in trouble.

Edited March 4, 2016 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, mrtourette said:

The old "nobody told me I couldn't use him" excuse is bollocks.

eh? How?

The club had a position on it (a bad one, but that's only known with hindsight), and Sam quite rightly followed the line his employer had specified. I don't think there's any criticisms due in Sam's direction.

As for the club, they need to review everything around why and how they took Johnson's word for things and see if there might have been reason why they might have taken a difference stance, but without knowing the ins and outs of things I've no problem with the general idea of them accepting his claim of innocence.

[mrtourette]

9 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Well it has to be pointed out that suspension is a neutral act...  Allowing him to play is not a neutral act...  sacking him is not a neutral act...

In my mind its very clear what should of happened with or without hindsight.  I have dealt with situations like this before as a manager and its pretty straight forward.

Player is charged (keep in mind, at the point of being charged the CPS is happy there is enough evidence that there is a reasonable chance of conviction - important point / benchmark to base an employment status decision on)

Club suspends player

Found guilt - player sacked

Found not guilty - player continues to play

I think any course of action other than this is going to damage a brand if the employee is in the public eye and is found guilty.

That makes sense to me, but he was charged in April last year. Is it realistic for the club to have him suspended for that long?

You can't really apply the same principles (or expect them to be applied) as a 'normal' workplace. I certainly know that my company wouldn't have somebody on paid suspension for a year. Your point about damaging the brand makes sense in a normal environment but the club will have to choose between help avoiding relegation and potential brand damage. Guess which wins?

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Well it has to be pointed out that suspension is a neutral act...  Allowing him to play is not a neutral act...  sacking him is not a neutral act...

Except it's not neutral on the club, as they're damaged by losing the services of one of their better players - damage that's unnecessary if it turns out the accused isn't guilty after all.

So suspension isn't as neutral here as you're saying.

 

7 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

In my mind its very clear what should of happened with or without hindsight.  I have dealt with situations like this before as a manager and its pretty straight forward.

Player is charged (keep in mind, at the point of being charged the CPS is happy there is enough evidence that there is a reasonable chance of conviction - important point / benchmark to base an employment status decision on)

Club suspends player

Found guilt - player sacked

Found not guilty - player continues to play

I think any course of action other than this is going to damage a brand if the employee is in the public eye and is found guilty.

"innocent until proven guilty" is not an irrelevance in this.

The club suffers, and the accused suffers, if a player is suspended unnecessarily because it turns out he's not guilty.

The situation here is very different to (say) replacing a production line worker who has been accused of a crime.

[mrtourette]

26 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

eh? How?

The club had a position on it (a bad one, but that's only known with hindsight), and Sam quite rightly followed the line his employer had specified. I don't think there's any criticisms due in Sam's direction.

I'm not necessarily criticizing him, but it's certainly not a decision that's out of his hands. If you're asking the club to make a call based on ethics and morals then the manager has the same decision. If he really didn't think that it was right to play him then he doesn't play him, if he thinks it's OK to play him then that's also fine but he has to be recognised as the one making that call. 

Shirking that responsibility just because the board/owners decided not to take action is weak (it's not a case of "I didn't want to play him but the club didn't suspend him so what choice did I have?"), as is pleading ignorance ("well the board said he was OK to play"). He isn't being forced to play him, he's putting the results on the pitch ahead of whether it's right to play him. I don't think it's that surprising but at any point he could have stopped selecting him.

With regards to Sam it sounds like he was in the same boat as the club - lied to about the player and allowing him to play because of his perceived innocence - but if the club are going to get grief for allowing him to continue even under that belief then it also lies with the manager. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that he was part of the discussions around what action to take.

 

Quote

As for the club, they need to review everything around why and how they took Johnson's word for things and see if there might have been reason why they might have taken a difference stance, but without knowing the ins and outs of things I've no problem with the general idea of them accepting his claim of innocence.

Yeah I agree with that, if they've sat down and believed his version of events then that's a reasonable basis for continuing to play him while due in court (and would also explain why they sacked him as soon as he pleaded guilty). 

Edited March 4, 2016 by mrtourette

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

You can accept his claim of innocence and still suspend him.  You are an employer, you should know suspension is a neutral act.

It's neutral towards the player, but it's not neutral in the effect it has on the performance of club. Why should a club *HAVE TO* suffer the bad consequences of what might sometimes be a false allegation?

If we go with you idea here, I'm personally in the position to (say) stop Leicester winning the league. I could claim (say) an assault by Vardy (and contrive some circumstances that make the allegation look reasonable so it's pursued by the old bill/CPS), and ensure he can't play again for them this season.

The only way to ensure that false allegations can't be used in that way is to treat each case on its merits - which anyone would hope to make the right decision over, but by nature will sometimes also get it wrong.

[ThomThomDrum]

30 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Apart from Arsenal vs Spurs, some big games down the bottom this weekend. Palace vs Liverpool is a big game for Palace. No wins in 12. Last time they won a game was before Christmas.  

If they lose, and Swansea beat Norwich and Bournemouth beat Newcastle, Palace are right in the shit. Actually if any of the teams around them win and they lose they're in trouble.

Oi! Do you think this is some sort of thread for discussing football? This is the Peado/Employment Law thread! 

Seesh!

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Its a neutral act under law.  Its not saying someone is guilty or not.  Its not a damaging action.  You can't bring a case against a company for doing it.  

You might want to look at it from different points of view.  "Well he couldn't get his appearance fee", "The club lost points"   But they are all besides the points.  Its the cost / risk of being in business.

 

Company risk is always weighed up against the possible advantages, and then a decision is made for whether the business should carry that risk.

Which is exactly what S'land appear to have done.

Their decision has turned out to be a bad one, but that doesn't necessarily mean they made the wrong decision on what was available to them for making that decision. The very fact of carrying risks means that sometimes the wrong decision will be made despite having made a good evaluation of the risks and benefits.

[TheGayTent]

40 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Apart from Arsenal vs Spurs, some big games down the bottom this weekend. Palace vs Liverpool is a big game for Palace. No wins in 12. Last time they won a game was before Christmas.  

If they lose, and Swansea beat Norwich and Bournemouth beat Newcastle, Palace are right in the shit. Actually if any of the teams around them win and they lose they're in trouble.

No they aren't. Villa are gone. It's 2 from Sunderland, Newcastle, and Norwich. Palace are safe. 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

But we aren't talking about an allegation without substance.  We are talking about him being charged and satisfying the requirements of the CPS.

Which can still be an allegation without substance.

 

[mrtourette]

6 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Simply making up some random shit wouldn't pass the CPS test.  Surely you see this ?  Yeah the CPS gets it wrong sometimes, it mostly gets it right and we need some trust / benchmark on the decision.

I just don't think that's enough to implement such a system. We're talking about a player missing for nearly a whole season which could have significant ramifications. Can you imagine the club and the fans being relegated then having their player found not guilty and taking the "oh well, we could have had him back but we need to have faith in the system" approach? Of course not. 

[ThomThomDrum]

8 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

You are the admin.  Branch it off....  It is football related though, we aren't off topic ?

Its just a joke Basil............

I found it funny Nals lone lonely voice trying to talk football in a sea of other shite..........

TGT is back now so actual football may get more traction 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

 I believe companies have a moral and social duty to the community.  They failed.

they failed to make the right decision, but that's something they can only know with hindsight.

The moral and social duty they have is to try and make the right decision, not to give a guarantee that they always will.

If they'd have wrongly suspended him they'd have made no less of a failing.

[ThomThomDrum]

Just now, Barry Fish said:

I would of suspended him.  I presume you would of let the child abuser continue as your need to make money is greater ?

The club did not know he was guilty. If all it takes is a charge to get players suspended then we may see a lot more false allegations against them. They are easy targets. 

You do know sometimes charges get dropped and not all people charged with crimes are guilty?

[eFestivals]

51 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Apart from Arsenal vs Spurs, some big games down the bottom this weekend. Palace vs Liverpool is a big game for Palace. No wins in 12. Last time they won a game was before Christmas.  

If they lose, and Swansea beat Norwich and Bournemouth beat Newcastle, Palace are right in the shit. Actually if any of the teams around them win and they lose they're in trouble.

I reckon we have the relegation clubs in the bottom 3 right now.

[The Nal]

15 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

No they aren't. Villa are gone. It's 2 from Sunderland, Newcastle, and Norwich. Palace are safe. 

No they're not. If Newcastle, Sunderland or Norwich win, or even 2 of them, Palace will be 6 points off the drop zone. They still have to play Liverpool, Utd, Leicester, Arsenal and West Ham. 

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I reckon we have the relegation clubs in the bottom 3 right now.

Quite possibly. But no wins in 12? If they lose tomorrow no wins in 13. Then its Leicester and West Ham next. Difficult to see them picking points up in those three games on current form.

Edited March 4, 2016 by The Nal

[TheGayTent]

3 minutes ago, The Nal said:

No they're not. If Newcastle, Sunderland or Norwich win, or 3 of them, Palace will be 6 points off the drop zone. They still have to play Liverpool, Utd, Leicester, Arsenal and West Ham. 

1) If my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle

2) So they have a guaranteed 3 points next game out?

[eFestivals]

Just now, Barry Fish said:

So you happy for a teacher suspected of raping a student to continue teaching until he is found guilty or not ? Might be the thick end of this argument but it should help you out in your thinking on this one.

There's a very big difference between a job where the accused and accuser cannot avoid coming into contact with each other, and a job where they don't.

There's also a very big difference between a job where the accused has an in-law position of responsibility, and a job where they don't.

 

Just now, Barry Fish said:

We are talking child abuse.  The police had evidence and told Sunderland, the CPS benchmarks had been hit and he was charged.  And you think you take no action until after the court case.

I wish the world was so simple   But lets all pretend it is

Oh look, Barry has to resort to lies to try and win the argument.

I'm out.

[eFestivals]

Just now, Barry Fish said:

That is not true.  If they had suspended him and he was found not guilty they would of failed no body.  Fact.

so there's no fail in being wrong?

That's the only logic that can make the argument you're now giving stand up.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Of course you are out.  You are fundamentally on the wrong side of right

says the liar.