A couple of
years back, an earnest, young, would-be entrepreneur of my acquaintance, fresh
out of University and brimming with idealistic innovations, came up with the
idea of launching a football magazine that would cover the whole North East
region, from the Premier League to Sunday morning stuff. As part of his
publicity strategy, he wrote to the 3 main clubs in the region, asking for
their thoughts and comments about his proposed publication. Middlesbrough were
full of support, wishing him all the best but asking, reasonably enough, that
he refrain from trying to sell the thing on club property. Newcastle United,
fairly typically, didn’t bother to respond. Sunderland on the other hand,
replied with alacrity, though tellingly via their solicitors, who sent a
strongly-worded cease and desist letter, which was enough to make our nascent
tycoon ruefully abandon the project altogether, his enthusiasm conspicuously
dimmed.
I’ve
recounted the above story many times to NE football fans, who uniformly regard
the responses of the various clubs as both predictable and par for the course;
Middlesbrough are renowned and respected for being community-focused and
outward-facing, while Newcastle United share their opinions on any subject
about as frequently as a Trappist with laryngitis; as for Sunderland, well I’d
best be careful what I’m saying here. You see the Wearside club have a
reputation for being prone to consulting with M’Learned Friends at every
possible opportunity. Thus it is no surprise that such a litigious lot had as
their recently departed chief executive Margaret Byrne, a trained criminal
lawyer.
Ms Byrne has
not recently practised her trade, having left behind the role of a duty
solicitor in north London when she took the job of company secretary with
Sunderland in 2007, before her rapid promotion to the role she occupied until
recently. That said, she no doubt retains sufficient knowledge of current
statutes to enable her to speak with confidence and authority on matters of
law. Certainly, as was stated from the witness box at Bradford Crown Court, since
Byrne was made aware of the child sex offences Adam Johnson committed and has
been convicted for, not only by the former footballer himself, but also by
investigating officers from the Durham Constabulary, her continued employment
with the club was rendered untenable. From the moment those claims made on the
stand by the club’s former employee were proven true then, regardless of the
content of any weasel-worded apology, Sunderland as an institution and Byrne in
her role as a senior executive of the club, were guilty themselves of having
betrayed the support, the city, the club’s proud history and traditions, but
most of all, they have betrayed a 15 year old victim of the predatory
paedophile they paid £60,000 per week for the 11 months after his initial
arrest until his guilty plea. This is even before one considers the impact of
allowing Adam Johnson to play in the Premier League after Byrne, who herself
earned £663,000 basic during the period February 2015 to March 2016, was given
full transcripts of the 843 Whats’App
messages between Johnson and the 15 year old victim of his child sexual abuse.
Let there be
no doubt about this case; the 15 year old girl, a devoted Sunderland fan who
idolised Johnson, is a victim, who deserves not only our sympathy and her
inalienable right to the privacy required to rebuild her shattered life and
demoralised self-esteem confidence. She also warranted, as an absolute minimum,
a full, frank and sincere apology from Sunderland FC, not only for the abuse
she endured by one of their employees, but the scarcely credible situation of
allowing Johnson to turn out for the
club, despite the knowledge of his sexual offending that Byrne was aware of.
Her subsequent comment that she was ‘astounded’ when Johnson pleaded guilty
simply does not square with a trained criminal lawyer’s understanding of the
implications contained in Johnson’s statement containing.
If Adam Johnson
had worked in a job whereby a criminal record check by the Disclosure and
Barring Service was a condition of employment, standard safeguarding policies
would have unquestionably ensured he was suspended without prejudice as soon as
he was arrested. This suspension, without
prejudice, would have continued until such time as the case was concluded.
Obviously in an instance like Johnson’s, the employee would have been summarily
dismissed for gross professional misconduct the moment a guilty plea was
entered. Additionally, bearing in mind the nature of Johnson’s offences, an
internal investigation would have taken place from the start of his suspension,
rather than after the fact when the truth of the club’s Machiavellian
malfeasance came out. In any major public sector inquiry, those at the top
would be held accountable, despite Sunderland’s risible insistence the blame
lay primarily with Johnson, who "very badly let down" the victim by
"his despicable actions."
Contrast the
essential and rigorous approach of the public sector with Sunderland’s cynical
method of dealing with the case. While Johnson’s contract may have stipulated
he could only be suspended for a period of 2 weeks, there was absolutely
nothing in it to suggest he was guaranteed a place in the side. However, he
continued to play, week in, week out; indeed, on the Saturday before the trial
began, Johnson scored a goal at Anfield as the Black Cats came from 2-0 down to
rescue a precious draw. It may be the point that keeps them up, which is the
whole sickening, tawdry reason why Sunderland needed Adam Johnson in the period
between arrest, being charged and the trial. It is impossible to conclude that
Sunderland’s actions in repeatedly fielding Johnson were based on anything
other than fiscal considerations; £3.2m is a hell of a lot of money to give to
someone you know has sexually abused a child while an employee of your
organisation, but it’s small beer compared to the riches available from Premier
League membership. Just exactly how did the conduct of the club she supported
make Johnson’s victim feel?
The lack of
understanding shown by many people regarding the mechanism of the legal system
in this country is depressingly predictable. Those claiming Johnson was
“innocent until proven guilty” failed to understand the detailed investigation
the police undertook, as well as the Crown Prosecution Service’s deliberation
as to whether there was enough evidence to suggest a realistic possibility of
conviction and whether it was in the public interest. Consequently, the absence
of a guilty verdict is a red herring when assessing the morality of Johnson’s
continued presence in the Sunderland side. There had been many, many meetings,
interviews and statements taken before Johnson appeared in the dock. Margaret
Byrne knew this. Despite Byrne’s insistence to the contrary, I find it
inconceivable that she would not have advised the club’s owner Ellis Short and
the then manager Dick Advocaat about the nature of Johnson’s conduct, though
Sam Allardyce claims he was not informed about the detail of the Johnson case
when taking over the manager’s job. One
wonders if he would have played Johnson if he’d been fully conversant with the
facts; it would be a good thing to know, when judging the conduct of the club
in totality.
As a trained
lawyer Margaret Byrne should have understood every single implication of the
case, from the probable dates of pre-trial hearings to the potential sentence
that could be handed down. However, in the wake of the verdict, Sunderland FC
have opted to admit as little as possible, which is simply not acceptable, not
least for the sake of the victim and her right to justice and closure. The
first mealy-mouthed statement released by the club after the verdict was as
semantically mendacious as it was amoral.
Ignoring the
fact that Durham Police confirmed what was said during Johnson’s testimony from
the witness box, namely that the club were fully aware of what Johnson accepted
had happened between him and the victim, as well as the narrative of their
contacts on social media, Sunderland sought to distance themselves from any
accusations of unethical conduct by claiming they sacked Johnson as soon as he
entered a guilty plea. This may or may not be true, but it does not alter the
fact that the club, in the shape of its chief executive, were aware of what
Johnson admitted had occurred between him and the victim; conduct that would
see him required to sign the Sex Offenders’ Register and be imprisoned. To know this and then say they believed
Johnson would plead not guilty is contemptible. Did Byrne take Johnson to one
side after the meeting and say “this is our secret?” If she did, she has
belatedly done the right thing. If she did not, and did share her knowledge of
Johnson’s offences with others at the club, then she has been cast in the role
of sacrificial lamb. Please don’t have any sympathy for her though. Basically,
Sunderland were only concerned with ensuring their continued place in the
Premier League. Having a £10m winger who scores and creates goals, even if he
is a paedophile, increases the chances of Sunderland staying in the top flight.
What will
happen next is educative when considering the base amorality and utter absence
of ethical business practice in the professional game in this country. The PFA’s
ungracious press release made it clear that their loyalties lie with the
disgraced former footballer. As a trade unionist myself, I see the fundamental
need for unions to represent their members and support them when appropriate,
though I find it inconceivable that the National Union of Teachers , for
instance, would seek to defend one of their members convicted of child sex
abuse. Similarly the Premier League will not wish to get involved with
Sunderland, as any whiff of scandal may tarnish the sales potential of the
brand on a global basis. Rather they will seek to abrogate responsibility to
the club, for whom it was “an internal matter.”
I’m not
suggesting Sunderland be deducted points or fined, as that will not serve as adequate
restitution for the victim in this case by any stretch of the imagination, but it
would be nice to think Sunderland could spend maybe a fraction of the £3.2m
wages Adam Johnson earned between arrest and dismissal, to fund a programme of
counselling, or even just a phone line, to provide support and assistance for
other victims of child sexual abuse, to help this poor, injured individuals
come to terms with their ordeal and hopefully move on with dignity. I sure as
hell hope Adam Johnson’s victim can do that, as Sunderland FC certainly won’t,
despite sacking Margaret Byrne. The club’s name will forever be associated with
the venal greed that has disfigured our game. Twenty five years ago, Sunderland
used to describe themselves as “the caring club;” no more. Never again.
No comments:
Post a Comment