There's a world of difference between not looking for footballers to be role models and wanting someone who did what Greenwood did back playing for the team you support. This is just a tragic post. I'd rather see Neil Maupay play up front for us next season.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic | Factual updates only
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
27 years and the issues we heard were few and far in between. SAF was well known for his discipline and tight control of the club. He managed every players well. He was like father figure to most of them.
Compare to our current state? Hmm....
He'd have been gone if he had done what Greenwood did. Even back then.
Kinell. So expecting players not being sexually predatary DV abusers is our standard for role model status now is it?
They didn't have social media back then and if they did and even a little further back the mind boggles about what would be shown on Bestie.
There’s no doubting our team will be better with him in it, he’s scored 8 goals in a team that’s not extremely creative and what he’s shown previously in PL is proof.
But every player is replaceable, we might be spending 50/60 mil to get a player with similar potential. Think Ineos will take that route.
They’ve talked a big game on improving culture and values. It would be an absolute 180 if they want to keep him.
But every player is replaceable, we might be spending 50/60 mil to get a player with similar potential. Think Ineos will take that route.
They’ve talked a big game on improving culture and values. It would be an absolute 180 if they want to keep him.
Maybe but not really the point. And even if true, and it was covered up, it would have been the wrong thing to do and should have been a sacking offence.
I don't disagree with you.
Players or anyone in any industry that are better than the average are given more leniency by their employer and that won't change.
It’s why I could see a scenario where SJR decides to keep him. I’ve no faith in the sport or the people with the most power within it.
It’s Not that hard to understand, anything else I can break down for you ?
Yep, think you're probably right here.
No need for the condescending tone
I don’t think I’ve ever read such a load of rubbish and that’s saying something by standards here. You pay homage to domestic abuse but your weak reasoning says that you don’t give a sh1t because he was a promising footballer for United. All your post is doing is trying to normalize disgusting behaviour. If fans don’t say that’s wrong then where does it end?
Might as well sign Adam Johnson as well, cos kiddy fiddling actually stops when your team does well.
Can you post a link that proves this?
Maybe.. Im just very conscious of how some people try to imply certain nasty things with stuff like this. (In this case like Im some sort of MG apologist)
If you weren’t then fair enough I apologise
If you are okay with him returning and are willing to justify it with whataboutery (the sport is corrupt anyway, didn't George Best etc), then you are a MG apologist.
Am not saying you are. Am saying if you are okay with him returning and are willing to justify it with whataboutery (the sport is corrupt anyway, didn't George Best etc), then you are a MG apologist.
He seriously needs to be let go. There is no justification for him continuing at this club. Five, if not 25 million for him, would do. Our club deserves an attitude readjustment. One which is not at all costs.
We are not city.
He didn't live in an age of social media, SAF would have never been able to control that. We'd have probably seen a ridiculous amount of stuff from players like Yorkie and his escapades.
erm, did you not see fact was in capitals?
Also, even ignoring the ludicrous idea that fewer people will batter their other halves if Mason Greenwood is banging them in for us, that logic ignores the fact that Greenwood firing us to success would be at the expense of other teams' fans. Presumably they would then beat their other halves.
I mean it's clearly truly ridiculous logic anyway but it doesn't even really make sense on its own terms.
Neville and Keane often expose themselves and others on The Overlap. Keano was drinking a lot! Haha. Even until the early 00's.
Ferguson and the cub would have had a relationship with certain news outlets. Especially newspapers. Help stop certain stories from getting out.
He also had spies across Manchester. Spot players going to nightclubs. Things like that.
I agree, but there is absolutely no chance he could stop social media and a lot of the things they got up to back then would be out there for the world to see. The media was very different back then.
Maybe he would have been able to deal with it, but I don't think you can compare situations fairly.
Man City are owned by worse people than Mason Greenwood and the whole of football has pretty much accepted them and got on with it. Football and morals were dead a long time ago unfortunately.
Agree with this. Have to say initially I assumed we’d end up giving him away on a free. Now I think we will get something for him - maybe £10m or so, but there’s no way we are getting a large fee.
I agree that he wouldn't. I'm just pointing out that times were different back then. You could kill a story before it got out to the masses.
SAF only really had to deal with the likes of Twitter between 2011-2013. The worst of it was probably Rooney and some of his tweets.
Where did I justify it with whataboutery? Where have I supported a decision to keep him ?
The sport is morally bankrupt. Saying this is not saying it’s ok to keep MG. It’s an observation and realistic acceptance that what’s right (getting rid of MG) is not necessarily what’s gonna happen. The mere fact there is still a bit of doubt over his future confirms this.
The club aren’t bothered with what MG did, otherwise he wouldn’t have ever been potentially allowed back and the manager and women’s team would not of needed to be consulted. The only thing the club cares about , like all other clubs, is what the cost is to keep v sell on multiple levels.
Maybe some fans are using the shady elements of the sport to say it’s ok to keep him. I’m not. I think there’s a lot worse things the sport covers up and has covered up, so I’m not surprised that this MG situation hasn’t been properly addressed. But he should be sold on, get a bit of the soul of the club back.
It really would be excellent business to get him and Sancho out early doors this summer. As someone else said, recoup 60 odd million for both and get the wages out and we look healthier already, especially with no Varane or Martial additionally.
It’s pointless trying to compare eras. Expectations of footballers are far higher now, you only need to look at what Rashford did as a prime example. I guess the question is whether you think the players from the 80’s and 90’s would have made the same decisions back then if they were playing now. York would have got nowhere near being a United player these days if he was in the news everyday for being in nightclubs.
I’m not 100% sure why this is even being discussed, what MG allegedly did is not even comparable to going out to clubs, or even cheating on partners/wives.
I wasn't really comparing Greenwood, it was more the idea that seems to get floated SAF could control this better and explaining how he did it previously.
Yeah, for sure. I just don't like the argument "SAF would have nipped this in the bud", when there's no real evidence he could have.I agree that he wouldn't. I'm just pointing out that times were different back then. You could kill a story before it got out to the masses.
SAF only really had to deal with the likes of Twitter between 2011-2013. The worst of it was probably Rooney and some of his tweets.
Not sure anyone is saying that SAF would have nipped it in the bud, im certainly not. What I’m saying is that Fergie would not have contemplated bringing him back, he’d have told the club to sell him
1m a week off the wages with those gone, not like they've been missed much anyway when they've been out. Definitely makes the most sense.
Paradoxically it would be.
Even though we would be selling 2 talented players for less than a third of their potential value. But we've done worse in the past so this decision would at least make sense from some perspective.
There's a whole wealth of research into the links between football results and domestic violence, as a cursory google search will tell you. Adding in a player accused of domestic violence and the impact if he scores a last minute winner or misses a sitter is a variable I bet none have covered though.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3712874/
https://www.bi.team/blogs/what-is-the-relationship-between-domestic-abuse-and-football/
https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...c-violence-surges-after-a-football-match-ends
This is an incredible take
Greenwood scoring goals for United would combat alcohol and domestic abuse.... christ almighty...
A "cursory Google search" that you yourself could have done better it seems, as one of those three links has this headline: "Domestic violence surges after a football match ends". Now, I'm not an English native speaker but I dare say "surge" is not the same as "lower". Another of those links read in the second paragraph: "Unfortunately, reports of domestic violence in the UK surge during football competitions". The only fact here is that the implication that Mason Greenwood doing well at United would reduce DV is ludicrous at best, to the point it's incredibly hard to believe it's an argument made in good faith. Because, as @Pickle85 has already pointed out, even if it would keep a few United abusers slightly happier on matchdays, it would make fans of other teams more upset, and subsequently more likely to engage in abusive or violent behaviours. But even if we somehow thought there would be a net gain as United fans are more likely to commit DV than fans of other teams (which of course they aren't) that would totally be offset by the message that it's perfectly fine to employ a player that could very well be a domestic abuser. TL;DR: employing a likely domestic abuser in a high profile job categorically doesn't reduce DV, and it's disgusting someone is trying to argue it does.
Are they ? I'd be curious what they've done. Possibly a reference to migrant conditions in the UAE ?
I'd love to see any data you have that backs this up.
What you're describing is literally just a wide forward though, and all of his heat maps are available on whoscored. He plays on the wing with absolutely no defensive responsibility, you can draw out any nominal starting formations you want, but he plays like an inside forward.
The royal family which owns Man City has a member (who they protected) who sodomised a farmer with a cattle prod he had a business dispute with and then drove over him with a truck. And that's just the thing that was caught on video.