Antony under investigation by Brazilian authorities for domestic abuse | Inquiries ended | Back in the squad

7even said:
Best post by a distance regarding this topic !
Click to expand...

Really?

You really think "Now we seem to have swung to the point where the twitter mob are the judge, jury and executioner"


That's part of the best take in your opinion?


If Antony is proven innocent this will have been a painful experience no doubt. Certainly not executed.

If it was me falsely accused. I'd sue whoever did it and hammer them in the press.

It rarely happens.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You know who else was never punished or proven guilty? Lots of people who are actually innocent.

That Jimmy Saville reference is ridiculous.

On balance, the arguments in this thread that not being found guilty in court means someone is definitely innocent are more damaging than the counter arguments trying to imply that due process is irrelevant and simply being accused should be enough to torpedo someone’s reputation and career (you’re basically Jimmy Saville, right?)

It’s a close run thing though. And both camps need to take a long look at themselves.
Click to expand...

The fact there are camps is insane.

We have an allegation. And have had since June. Correctly no action was taken.

There seems to be damning evidence to the point the Brazilian FA have acted.

There is pressure on United to act due to the scale of the media gaze, the precedent set by the Brazilian FA and our calamitous handling of the Greenwood situation.

Is anyone actually calling for his head? Very few people are actually discussing the data in hand.

It's mostly outrage about Rachel Riley, Arsenal and how hard it is to be a young man with all the false accusations flying about.
 
I won't be surprised if the club suspends Antony now, it might be unfair on Antony but the club will have to act in a way that shows that they do not condone DV.

Hopefully the authorities (In Brazil or UK) expedite the process so justice can be served.
 
King7Eric said:
Well it is involving most celebrities. I mean would you consider Mendy innocent even though court didn't find him guilty?
Click to expand...
Is it so involving most celebrities? That now you are guilty even if proven innocent? We have different opinions then, but i guess it comes from what you read.

I have not thought of what i consider Mendy. He is playing football in France now so.
 
moses said:
The fact there are camps is insane.

We have an allegation. And have had since June. Correctly no action was taken.

There seems to be damning evidence to the point the Brazilian FA have acted.

There is pressure on United to act due to the scale of the media gaze, the precedent set by the Brazilian FA and our calamitous handling of the Greenwood situation.

Is anyone actually calling for his head? Very few people are actually discussing the data in hand.

It's mostly outrage about Rachel Riley, Arsenal and how hard it is to be a young man with all the false accusations flying about.
Click to expand...

That’s almost the craziest thing in all of this. It’s supposed to be a criminal case. How on earth do the Brazilian FA suddenly seem to have new evidence now that they didn’t have when the story first broke? How on earth do the Brazilian FA have unique access to any evidence that is relevant to a criminal case at all?!

Hard not to assume that there’s a slightly hysterical overreaction going on due to the weight of public pressure being brought to bear, because of this happening so soon after the Greenwood saga. With United likely to make a similar decision before our next match.
 
OmarUnited4ever said:
I won't be surprised if the club suspends Antony now, it might be unfair on Antony but the club will have to act in a way that shows that they do not condone DV.

Hopefully the authorities (In Brazil or UK) expedite the process so justice can be served.
Click to expand...


Expediting these issues should always be a priority. The damage done in both directions by poisonous and vested discourse is potentially huge.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That’s almost the craziest thing in all of this. It’s supposed to be a criminal case. How on earth do the Brazilian FA suddenly seem to have new evidence now that they didn’t have when the story first broke? How on earth do the Brazilian FA have unique access to any evidence that is relevant to a criminal case at all?!
Click to expand...

I don't know what's going on there. They either have evidence they think is worth taking heed of or are trying to make some statement, because as I have said previously Brazil is ranked as one of the worst countries for thd protection of women. It's unusual anyway.
 
This just all stems from our weak and cowardly CEO.

When you fail to protect your players, mete out punishment on OUR own terms, and not be dictated by outsiders, this is what happens. It opens the door to media and any dickhead taking a shot at us and influencing our club from the outside.

Never imagined we'd fall so far from the days of SAF. Not that the glazers give a toss. They are still happy with a bunch of University of bristol mates continuing to run this club to the ground. Anything but a full change in ownership will see us just continue to spiral into mediocrity and weakness.
 
DevilRed said:
This just all stems from our weak and cowardly CEO.

When you fail to protect your players, mete out punishment on OUR own terms, and not be dictated by outsiders, this is what happens. It opens the door to media and any dickhead taking a shot at us and influencing our club from the outside.

Never imagined we'd fall so far from the days of SAF.
Click to expand...


It's not the fecking CEOs fault.

This is a woman who says she was violently assaulted.

To get from that to "any dickhead taking a shot at us" is quite something.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That’s almost the craziest thing in all of this. It’s supposed to be a criminal case. How on earth do the Brazilian FA suddenly seem to have new evidence now that they didn’t have when the story first broke? How on earth do the Brazilian FA have unique access to any evidence that is relevant to a criminal case at all?!

Hard not to assume that there’s a slightly hysterical overreaction going on due to the weight of public pressure being brought to bear, because of this happening so soon after the Greenwood saga. With United likely to make a similar decision before our next match.
Click to expand...
I don't think they do? They are just covering their asses.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Then that has never been a thing, so once again nothing has changed. People generally believe the things they think are true, for all sorts of different reasons.
Click to expand...
We can agree on that. Like you believe nothing has changed, which is fair enough, that's your belief. But I disagree.
 
moses said:
The fact there are camps is insane.

We have an allegation. And have had since June. Correctly no action was taken.

There seems to be damning evidence to the point the Brazilian FA have acted.
Click to expand...
That’s an assumption you’ve made. The far logical assumption is after 3 months the story blew up again with the release of images and WhatsApp messages in the press and Brazil didn’t think it was worth the press attention for a player who doesn’t start for them. The idea the Brazilian FA have suddenly had access to some smoking gun of evidence on the same day the story blew up in the media again seems ridiculous.
 
DevilRed said:
This just all stems from our weak and cowardly CEO.

When you fail to protect your players, mete out punishment on OUR own terms, and not be dictated by outsiders, this is what happens. It opens the door to media and any dickhead taking a shot at us and influencing our club from the outside.

Never imagined we'd fall so far from the days of SAF. Not that the glazers give a toss. They are still happy with a bunch of University of bristol mates continuing to run this club to the ground. Anything but a full change in ownership will see us just continue to spiral into mediocrity and weakness.
Click to expand...
:lol: what nonsense are you on about
 
moses said:
I was talking about Partey.


But anyway so you really feel not playing MG is meaningless gesture or that suspensing Partey while under investigation for rape is a meaningless gesture?


I disagree on it being a football decision up to the verdict. That's not even in keeping with the club's mission statement.

Most companies will suspend people on bail pending a trial.

I disagree with you obviously, and see you as a moral vacuum, but your honesty is refreshing.
Click to expand...

Meaningless gestures, yes. In the sense that they don't have any tangible positive impact to the club or football or society. It could feel good. It looks good. But it has no impact the way an actual conviction, or an initiative to educate players/people on sexual assault, or an initiative to support victims does. I don't think Partey continuing to play has done any harm in the tangible world. To the contrary, Arsenal benefit from continuing to play him, and they've suffered no atrophy in stadium revenues.

I just looked at Arsenal and United's mission statements and they couldn't be more vacuous.

Most companies will suspend people who have been charged, yes, because the impact on their bottom lines are insignificant. Football players are incredibly more valuable.

My olive branch on this issue is that I would not mind the FA and PL clubs creating a uniform standard by which players accused, indicted and/or convicted of physical/domestic/sexual assault should be charged. Then even if they were just meaningless gestures, there are no arbitrage opportunities for a club without morals to benefit.
 
Mickeza said:
That’s an assumption you’ve made. The far logical assumption is after 3 months the story blew up again with the release of images and WhatsApp messages in the press and Brazil didn’t think it was worth the press attention for a player who doesn’t start for them. The idea the Brazilian FA have suddenly had access to some smoking gun of evidence on the same day the story blew up in the media again seems ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You'd think the Brazilian FA/Footballing world would have learnt from the Neymar incident.

But no. Lets repeat history again.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That’s almost the craziest thing in all of this. It’s supposed to be a criminal case. How on earth do the Brazilian FA suddenly seem to have new evidence now that they didn’t have when the story first broke? How on earth do the Brazilian FA have unique access to any evidence that is relevant to a criminal case at all?!

Hard not to assume that there’s a slightly hysterical overreaction going on due to the weight of public pressure being brought to bear, because of this happening so soon after the Greenwood saga. With United likely to make a similar decision before our next match.
Click to expand...
What I find most remarkable is people actually expect football clubs and authorities to be moral or legal barometers now.

If Greenwood or Antony or whoever is guilty, the law should deal with it. Similarly, if they are found not guilty, it is not a footballing body's prerogative to make a decision on whether it is morally correct to play them or not. Yet the fact that people expect football clubs to do it is crazy.

I see people having a go at Arsenal regarding Partey but I don't get it. It's not their job to judge his guilt. If he's found guilty he'll be removed by the law from his current employment status. If not, why should they stop playing him?
 
Quality control
moses said:
"Woman who says"... Allegations.

Ah the evil media again. So what is the CEO to do? Ban all media outlets unfairly criticising the club? Like who?
Click to expand...

How about not ship out players who have had charges dropped against them?

How about continuing to protect and play players who haven't been found guilty?!

Or does that only apply to other clubs and we have to bend to media/outside pressure!? :wenger::rolleyes:

Pathetic.

You'd also think the brazilian FA would have learnt from the Neymar incident. But you probably haven't a clue about it. Continue your white knight crusading :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :wenger: :wenger: :wenger: :wenger: :wenger:
 
Smores said:
Suspension is a protective measure whether that's to protect other employees, the employees mental health or the reputation/operations of the club.

Allegations of violence or sexual assault usually fall into the first category. Given the club is a global brand with global sponsors it's not hard to understand why it could fit into the third and we simply don't know on the mental health protection

It's also a costly and risky process so you might ponder why 99% of corporations follow these steps. It's okay for you to self assess and realise you don't understand the value but there's obviously valid reasons you've yet to grasp. Move beyond 'footballer good, football play'
Click to expand...

Narrowing this conversation to football clubs, your reasons are reasons that Juventus, Arsenal, West Ham, PSG, Lorient, Manchester City, Getafe are somehow yet to grasp as well. I expect some mes un que club reply on the lines of how United are simply bigger.
 
adexkola said:
Meaningless gestures, yes. In the sense that they don't have any tangible positive impact to the club or football or society. It could feel good. It looks good. But it has no impact the way an actual conviction, or an initiative to educate players/people on sexual assault, or an initiative to support victims does. I don't think Partey continuing to play has done any harm in the tangible world. To the contrary, Arsenal benefit from continuing to play him, and they've suffered no atrophy in stadium revenues.

I just looked at Arsenal and United's mission statements and they couldn't be more vacuous.

Most companies will suspend people who have been charged, yes, because the impact on their bottom lines are insignificant. Football players are incredibly more valuable.

My olive branch on this issue is that I would not mind the FA and PL clubs creating a uniform standard by which players accused, indicted and/or convicted of physical/domestic/sexual assault should be charged. Then even if they were just meaningless gestures, there are no arbitrage opportunities for a club without morals to benefit.
Click to expand...

You're oddly insistent that taking a stand is meaningless.

I think considering the huge amounts of domestic and sexual violence, the fear to report and disproportionately small conviction stats any stand is far from meaningless and I know rape victims who agree. They feel isolated and disguarded every day of their lives because as well as the injury, they see no support in the society in which they live.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That seems likely. Which begs the question, why are they covering their asses after this update hit the wires, but didn’t when the story first broke?
Click to expand...
As soon as it started getting traction in the UK media they bailed on him. National teams have such a luxury in this kind of instance because regardless of how mad a player might be at them (and if it turns out Antony is innocent I'm sure he will be pissed at the Brasilian FA) he can't exactly move teams.
 
Dan_F said:
No they didn’t, Greenwood was named in the press, the Arsenal player hasn’t, therefore Arsenal can hide behind that instead of doing the right thing and suspending with pay.

United have completely bungled their handling of it, but at least they didn’t play someone while they were on bail for rape.
Click to expand...

There is no right thing here.

And as you have said United completely bungled it, they didn't act out of righteous indignation, because they did a u-turn after they faced the possibility of some uproar. If they had immediately terminated MG after the stuff came out then I would be more understanding of the decision, and applauding their lack of dithering, even if I disagreed with us taking such a loss. There's no right way on this, but there's credit in making a stern decision and standing behind it.

But United don't get any credit for this. They were bullied into a decision here (and the statement is so vacuous there are arguments on what it actually means). I'd use the word spineless but I got quality points for using it earlier :lol:
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That’s almost the craziest thing in all of this. It’s supposed to be a criminal case. How on earth do the Brazilian FA suddenly seem to have new evidence now that they didn’t have when the story first broke? How on earth do the Brazilian FA have unique access to any evidence that is relevant to a criminal case at all?!

Hard not to assume that there’s a slightly hysterical overreaction going on due to the weight of public pressure being brought to bear, because of this happening so soon after the Greenwood saga. With United likely to make a similar decision before our next match.
Click to expand...

Is it possible that they spoke to him and they've decided he couldn't/shouldn't go because there's a possibility he may be arrested and detained in Brazil? Or maybe Antony didn't want to go, just in case that did happen.

You'd have to think there was some dialogue on this.
 
DevilRed said:
How about not ship out players who have had charges dropped against them?

How about continuing to protect and play players who haven't been found guilty?!

Or does that only apply to other clubs and we have to bend to media/outside pressure!? :wenger::rolleyes:

Pathetic.

You'd also think the brazilian FA would have learnt from the Neymar incident. But you probably haven't a clue about it. Continue your white knight crusading :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :wenger: :wenger: :wenger: :wenger: :wenger:
Click to expand...


So keeping Mason Greenwood despite the video and audio and no attempt to clarify them would send a message to the media thar we can't he messed with.

I think you'll find if we played Mason Greenwood you couldn't be more wrong. There would be an avalanche of negative media.

I'm only a white knight relative to the sociopaths in the thread.
All I said is the Brazilian FA have put pressure on United to at least make a statement.
 
The club can't just stay quiet about this, they're going to have to make a statement at least in advance of our next game. They don't necessarily have to suspend him at this point, just say something along the lines of "we note the allegations against Antony and that the player has denied all of them, the matter is currently being investigated by the police and the club will make no further comment until there is any update".

That's better than just hoping it goes away without having to do anything. And Ten Hag is the one who'll be bombarded with questions at his next press conference so at least he can just refer to the club's statement.
 
King7Eric said:
We can agree on that. Like you believe nothing has changed, which is fair enough, that's your belief. But I disagree.
Click to expand...

Take, for example, this comment of yours:

King7Eric said:
The guy tried to stop a lunatic from killing a woman in front of him. He tried to do something rather than just slink off or record it on his phone like most idiots do these days. If we are going to punish people for trying to stop murder in front of their eyes then, then we as a society need to reconsider our stance on justice.
Click to expand...

The lunatic you're talking about here is Leon McCaskre. What you're claiming is that he was trying to kill his ex, Yasmin Chkaifi. This is, in my opinion, an extremely reasonable thing to believe. There were tons of witnesses, after all, and Chkaifi unfortunately ended up dying. Attempting to kill someone is a very serious crime, though, and if you want to consistently apply "innocent until proven guilty" outside of the courtroom then you cannot say that he was trying to kill anyone, or that he stabbed anyone, even though he clearly did. McCaskre was never convicted of anything, and because he is dead he never will be. He is, in the eyes of the law, an innocent man. He is also a murderer.

This is a very clear-cut case, of course. Other cases are less so, or the evidence might not be publicly available, so there's less certainty about guilt or innocence than in McCaskre's case, but that's not because of any legal principle. People are perhaps more likely to believe women in rape and domestic violence cases specifically, but that is a specific change in how people weigh up evidence. It is not a change in people going from "innocent until proven guilty" to not.
 
A laughable transfer all around from ETH and co.

Paid over the odds for a player that wasn't worth it when no other big team was in for him, didn't need to lure him with crazy wage increase (yet the club did), and now he's a defective character, which is something you'd think the person familiar with him that pushed for the transfer would have known.

If I didn't know better, I'd say there was something else behind the transfer, it's all so fecking stupid, nothing about how it was handled made sense, and that's even before this latest clusterfeck.
 
Club Statement


  • Manchester United acknowledges the allegations made against Antony and notes that the Police are conducting enquiries.
  • Pending further information, the club will be making no further comments.
  • As a club, we are taking this matter seriously, with consideration of the impact of these allegations and subsequent reporting will have on survivors of abuse.


 
IRN-BRUno said:
The club can't just stay quiet about this, they're going to have to make a statement at least in advance of our next game. They don't necessarily have to suspend him at this point, just say something along the lines of "we note the allegations against Antony and that the player has denied all of them, the matter is currently being investigated by the police and the club will make no further comment until there is any update".

That's better than just hoping it goes away without having to do anything. And Ten Hag is the one who'll be bombarded with questions at his next press conference so at least he can just refer to the club's statement.
Click to expand...
As if by magic they’ve released a statement saying nothing.

https://www.manutd.com/en/news/detail/man-utd-issue-statement-on-antony
 
King7Eric said:
What I find most remarkable is people actually expect football clubs and authorities to be moral or legal barometers now.

If Greenwood or Antony or whoever is guilty, the law should deal with it. Similarly, if they are found not guilty, it is not a footballing body's prerogative to make a decision on whether it is morally correct to play them or not. Yet the fact that people expect football clubs to do it is crazy.

I see people having a go at Arsenal regarding Partey but I don't get it. It's not their job to judge his guilt. If he's found guilty he'll be removed by the law from his current employment status. If not, why should they stop playing him?
Click to expand...

You can’t lump the Greenwood and Antony cases in together. Greenwood’s case was one of a kind because of the evidence that went public. Evidence neither the club nor the player have been able to explain away ever since. So the club is entitled to respond to the reputational damage that they would incur if Greenwood turned out to play for them every weekend.

Obviously, the Antony situation is different. And I’m sure he’d have been given the same protection that any other of the many other footballers who’ve faced similar accusations over the years. If it wasn’t for the Greenwood case creating a precedent. So it’s all a bit of a mess.
 
moses said:
So keeping Mason Greenwood despite the video and audio and no attempt to clarify them would send a message to the media thar we can't he messed with.

I think you'll find if we played Mason Greenwood you couldn't be more wrong. There would be an avalanche of negative media.

I'm only a white knight relative to the sociopaths in the thread.
All I said is the Brazilian FA have put pressure on United to at least make a statement.
Click to expand...

That was the point I was trying to make. Our CEO bends to negative media. The media now dictates who we can select/keep in our team.

This was never the case in the past. We've had plenty of negative media and dealt with it swiftly and decisively under SAF.

And yes, I agree there are sociopaths on here. But I will stay away from all the morality discussions and await the final verdict from the courts/law enforcement.
 
red_de_pologne said:
what a nothing statement..
Click to expand...

What exactly do you want them to say without prejudicing an investigation and potential legal case? He hasn't been charged with anything so they can't say anything other than that they are aware of the allegations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.