Guest av1 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 14 minutes ago, ThisCouldBeRotterdam said: I dont believe for a second that sunderland werent informed he was going to plead guilty today. They should be reprimanded in some way for continuing to play him. Morally wrong yes, but I'm not sure they have broken any rules so I don't see how or what they can be reprimanded for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrinityRoadSteps Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 If this scenario happened in most "normal" jobs I would imagine the person would be suspended until the trial. But Sunderland needed one of their best players out on the pitch. Now he has pleaded guilty Sunderland surely must act. I can't see him playing again for a long time, if ever. Would have been interesting to see what Sunderland would have done if the accused had been a youth team player rather than an integral part of their first team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, TrinityRoadSteps said: Would have been interesting to see what Sunderland would have done if the accused had been a youth team player rather than an integral part of their first team Said player would have been sacked the day the story broke, and Sunderland would have been praised for their stance. There are no morals where such vast sums of money are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 25 minutes ago, av1 said: Said player would have been sacked the day the story broke, and Sunderland would have been praised for their stance. There are no morals where such vast sums of money are concerned. 100% agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 4 hours ago, islingtonclaret said: That Stacey Flouders girl must REALLY want his cash to stay with him now. Exactly what I thinking! Standing by her man, or standing by her man's salary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 34 minutes ago, av1 said: Said player would have been sacked the day the story broke, and Sunderland would have been praised for their stance. There are no morals where such vast sums of money are concerned. You can't sack someone on an unfounded accusation, but they would have been suspended pending the result of the trial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 2 hours ago, ml1dch said: Depends on how the other two charges go. If he's found not guilty of those then he's looking at a year, suspended. If they come back with a guilty verdict then he won't be going home afterwards. He's potentially looking at an 18-month custodial sentence just for what he's admitted already. Although of course he may be found guilty of being a celebrity and sentenced to a little light litter-picking instead. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 16 minutes ago, Xela said: Exactly what I thinking! Standing by her man, or standing by her man's salary! I know it's easy to pick on her, but she isn't the guilty party here. It's not a simple situation - he's the father of her child. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 21 minutes ago, Xela said: You can't sack someone on an unfounded accusation, but they would have been suspended pending the result of the trial Absolutely, but what he has admitted today is deserving of the sack before the trial even starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisVillan Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 What I found problematic about Sunderland’s handling of this wasn't so much that he continued to play, but that he was at one time suspended over this and then his suspension was ended. Did I imagine that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: I know it's easy to pick on her, but she isn't the guilty party here. It's not a simple situation - he's the father of her child. I absolutely agree that she has been placed in a horrible situation and I genuinely feel for her. His arrest came a couple of weeks after the birth of their daughter, so whilst she was carrying a child, he was grooming a child on the Internet. If I was her I'd have spent the last 12 months plotting ways to take the horrible little word removed for every penny he has. Edited February 10, 2016 by av1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, av1 said: Absolutely, but what he has admitted today is deserving of the sack before the trial even starts. Agreed, I would have expected Sunderland to have announced it already. Unless they are just doing their legal due diligence first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, av1 said: whilst she was carrying a child, he was grooming a child on the Internet. Yes, it's some deep-down low behaviour for sure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, ChrisVillan said: What I found problematic about Sunderland’s handling of this wasn't so much that he continued to play, but that he was at one time suspended over this and then his suspension was ended. Did I imagine that? Exactly. I think any route they had taken could have been justified, but to suspended him only to reverse that decision has cast them in poor light IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, av1 said: so whilst she was carrying a child, he was grooming a child on the Internet. Clearly this is worse, but I remember Rooney getting busted for shagging hookers whilst his wife was pregnant with their second child. Some footballers really are a special kind of stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Genie said: 100% agree. I'm not sure about that. People have been wrongly accused of such things before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, PaulC said: I'm not sure about that. People have been wrongly accused of such things before. True for certain situations but this one where there was no argument he actually had sex with her just his knowledge of his age in question it was ethically an abolsute disgrace they carried on playing him IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 In other news.... Sunderland got Eboue on trial! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted February 11, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 11, 2016 19 hours ago, Xela said: Exactly what I thinking! Standing by her man, or standing by her man's salary! He's got more money now than he's ever likely to have again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I heard he's off to the Chinese super league , where Wai-Too Yeung is just a name 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts