Massive question marks hanging over Matthew Johns

By Steve Jancetic, 13 May 2009 Steve Jancetic is a Roar Pro

Tagged:: David Gallop, Matthew Johns, NRL, Rugby League

Related coverage

Disgraced rugby league personality Matthew Johns will remain a part of Melbourne’s coaching staff despite claims from NRL boss David Gallop that there was a “massive question mark” over his future involvement in the game.

Johns was on Monday night named and shamed in a report on the ABC’s Four Corners program which detailed a group sex encounter with a teenage woman in Christchurch in 2002 – during Johns’ time as a player at Cronulla.

The former Test star currently serves as a part-time assistant coach with the Storm on top of his bulging list of media activities, the most notable of which is his role with the Nine Network as both a commentator and as a host on the The Footy Show.

The Storm on Tuesday stood by Johns while his manager John Fordham hit out at Gallop for questioning his client’s future.

“I don’t deal with David Gallop in relation to Matthew Johns’ contractual arrangements at Channel 9,” Fordham said.

“David Gallop has no direct involvement in any way, shape or form with Matthew Johns’ arrangements with Channel 9 or indeed with any other entity.

“I am therefore deeply surprised that he would want to involve himself in an employment issue in which he has no involvement.”

When contacted by AAP, representatives of The Nine Network declined to comment on Johns’ future.

In assessing Johns’ ongoing role with Channel Nine, Gallop said:

“I’m aware that he will be talking to his employer in the next short period.”

“I cannot say any more than he has a massive question mark over his position in rugby league.”

Storm chief executive Brian Waldron said the club had not changed its stance on Johns following the airing of Monday night’s program titled ‘Code of Silence’.

“Matthew will continue his involvement with the Storm,” Waldron said.

“Matthew’s a part-time skills coach. This is an issue for Matthew to deal with which he is and all parties involved externally from any dealings with the club.”

Fordham refused to comment on whether any of Johns’ other employers had contacted him since the incident first came to light last week.

“As a matter of policy, we don’t discuss the business relationships our clients have with other parties,” Fordham said.

Johns and his family fled for the relative sanctuary of a holiday resort on the north-west coast of Western Australia on the weekend.

Asked how Johns was coping with the fallout, Fordham said:

“Matthew and his family are understandably distressed.”

Johns admitted his role in the Christchurch incident during a segment on The Footy Show last Thursday.

Fordham claimed Johns apologised privately to the woman involved but said there would not be a public apology.

The woman involved in the incident said she contemplated suicide as a result of the group sex encounter, which involved up to six Sharks players and officials.

Another six were in the room watching.

So traumatised was the woman she claimed she wanted those involved in the incident dead.

Gallop apologised unreservedly on behalf of the game and said group sex, regardless of consent, should be considered off limits to NRL players.

“It is degrading, appalling … we need to educate our players that that is wrong,” Gallop said.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (23) | Page 1 of Comments

Billo said | May 13th 2009 @ 1:59am | Report comment

Living in London I haven’t seen the Four Corners program, but a few things strike me about this story, and Matthew Johns’ role in it.
First, it’s an event that happened seven years ago.
Second, there has been no evidence that I can see that the young woman involved with the Cronulla players did not give her consent to what took place, regardless of her mental state today.
Third, although many people may find group sex disgusting and degrading, it is not illegal if it is consensual. Who is David Gallop to pronounce on what people do in their private time?
Fourth, the assumption that women are always the ‘victims’ when this situation arises is clearly not always true. Some women seem to enjoy having unconventional sexual relations with sportsmen or rock stars.
Fifth, sportsmen of all hues participate in this sort of activity. When I played rugby for an English university we used to travel to away games with several girls on the coach who would give oral sex to almost any of the players who wanted it. That was why I switched to playing league, because, frankly, I hated that sort of thing happening. But I was one of the very few who objected to that practice. I’ve also stayed in a hotel in Manchester where some of the leading soccer players in England were participating in an orgy with many girls, and others hanging about the hotel complaining that they couldn’t get into the rooms where the orgy was taking place.
The management of the French football team, when it played in England in Euro 96, hired prostitutes to give their players sexual relief between their games.
Immorality is an issue in society, but we can’t expect David Gallop, or any other sports administrator, or even Channel 9, to be the guardian of our morals.
Unfortunately all sports are played by young men or women who may have a very high sex drive. They will find various ways to satisfy it, but the key thing is whether what they do is consensual. If it is, then it isn’t anyone else’s business. If it isn’t, then they deserve to be prosecuted.
Every club, whether in league or any other sport, needs to protect its reputation, and that means educating its players to behave with discretion, and to ensure that women are treated with respect, whether or not consensual sex is taking place. Some clubs, particularly league clubs, clearly fall down when it comes to behaving like adults.
As for Matthew Johns, it’s for Channel 9 to decide whether the allegations made against him are likely to bring the Footy Show into disrepute.

Reply
John said | May 13th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment

Billo,

Everyone has a different take on this. So here is mine. Yes – she went to the room with one player. That player deliberately left the doors open and more and more players came in. The girl was drunk and was only 19 but she felt intimidated by the situation but felt powerless to stop the others touching her as she felt belittled and overpowered by the situation. I mean a small 19 yr old (and by all accounts naive) girl getting set up like that. I am sure you would love your daughter in that situation. So anyone, my impression is she just shut her eyes and continually told herself “just let it and”, as the players involved joked, high-fived and generally degraded her, making her even less empowered. Is that consent? Is it also right for a senior player over 30, to goad and coerce the younger players to follow through? Is it right for a senior player who is married and portraying himself as a family man on TV (as his media career had alrwady started) to debase a much younger, niave girl that way? Even in a work place if someone uses a position of power to make someone perform certain sexual favours, it is still harressment and can lead to sacking, police queries. This was a setup where the person was made to feel powerless to prevent what occurred.

Depends on your definition of co-ercion and consent. But think on this. The NZ police refuse outright to press any charges on her for making a false statement when she said she didn’t give consent. Why? Because they believe her and can not prove it outside the cone of silence that went down from the players – 12 guys all saying consent. Second point – she has recieved victims compensation for post traumatic stress. This means the physciatrists believe she wasa victim who felt powerless to prevent the actions, and also the NZ government who pays this out, feels the same way.

So good on you for having been on a bus where a willing women gave oral to some of your mates. Well done. Also as to who is David Gallop to tell what to do, he is there employer. I am sure you can bring it up your work – go to your boss and say – look boss, I want to be the ring leader of a group who will set up a girl, then have all the guys from the office come in and force her to have sex with us, I am off to find 10 lads in the office – you dont have a problem with that do you? Its my own time right? – I think you will find yourself out of work. But yeah – good one.

Plus what is actually your limit of time to do anything in a situation? If your sister (or daughter) finally confessed to you that a date she went on 7 years prior had forced her to have sex, and she was still traumatised, I guess your advice will be – look forget it, it was 7 years, the guys probably forgotten about it so just let it go.

This was one of the dumber answers I have seen written on a blog, and it is people like yourself who allow this to propogate.

Reply
Redb said | May 13th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment

Matty Johns is gone on Ch 9 for sure.

Billo,

If you haven’t seen the 4 Corners show then it really is impossible to judge the impact of it – it was very difficult to watch, even harrowing to think what this girl went through. She starts to talk about the events, becomes angry about the players involved and wants to get them back, shoot them in fact and then it turns into pure emotional anguish and torment. I beleive this had a major impact on every person male or female who watched the show.

The part that any reasonbale bloke cannot understand is that why one of them, Matty Johns in particular, as a senior player and the one who engaged with her initially, didn’t say hang on fellas this is wrong lets get out of here and put a stop to it. The reason is obvious it was all part of the gang bang plan, lure her into a threesome and then invite his player mates and officials along for the ‘ride’.

Redb

Reply
Hammer said | May 13th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment

Well said John ….

Redb – any normal employer would flick him .. but C9 I’m not so sure … in the Packer days they were pretty big on lifetime jobs – hence why the other Johns loser still got a job even after dragging the game through the mud … I expect he’ll be dropped for the rest of the year and will have a clean slate from the start of next season … I hope I’m wrong

Reply
Redb said | May 13th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment

Hammer,

If he survives and I really doubt it then Ch 9 will take a huge moral hit, possibly lose advertisers and sponsors. How any reasonable person can look at Johns and not think your just a grub is beyond me.

Redb

Reply
sledgeross said | May 13th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment

Redb
Ok, different tangent here.
If Johns is tood down or sacked, is this incident actually grounds for that if he doesnt agree to it?
People are outraged (correctly) on merely moral grounds here. If he was sacked, what would the reason be? The event didnt happen while he was under his current ch9 contract, and there were no charges laid, and even the detective who was on the show was satisfied that no laws were broken and the case would not be reopened. Admittedly, Im no lawyer, but I dont see how he can be sacked for that. Of course, he may do the right thing and stand down for a time (which is what I think the best allround result would be) and come back once he has served penance

Reply
Longy said | May 13th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment

When did players become “stars”?

Isn’t this also part of the problem? Uneducated (mostly) young males with earnings of >$100K and lots and lots of time on their hands and the media call them stars. How did this happen and why? Because they can run with a ball & make a tackle? You must be joking.

When did they become “risk takers”? I thought heroes were those in the Armed forces and Police … literally putting their own lives on the line.

I think the media and the NRL need to take a good look into the mirror as well.

Reply
Redb said | May 13th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment

Sledgeross,

TV stations tread the popularity line very carefully, it actually has nothing to with any legal ramifications it is directly related to John’s public image and TV provides the biggest public image possible.

TV is all about image and John’s is severely damaged, if allowed to continue it threatens to bring Ch 9′s image down, lose ratingts, lose Ad revenue, sponsors, etc.

I’m sure in John’s TV contract there are ‘out’ clauses which centre around damage to his public image and by assocation Ch 9′s image.

Redb

Reply
Brett McKay said | May 13th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment

Rebd, it’s probably a good thing the Logies after parties don’t get the same scrutiny then. The networks would have no-one left…

Reply
Worlds Biggest said | May 13th 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment

Billo, you do need to watch the 4 Corners show before making comment. It was distressing to see the lady in such trauma.

Ch 9 have no other choice but to sack him. How can you have this bloke as a leading figure in the game continue in his role when the NRL are desperate to clean up the game off the field. Big conflict of interest. No doubt John Fordham will do everything in his power to prevent this from happening ( Johns getting sacked ).

Reply