gajender
Full Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2016
- Messages
- 4,142
What exactly did you want Club to Say .what a nothing statement..
What exactly did you want Club to Say .what a nothing statement..
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.
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.
From the official club statement "Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged. "
From the official club statement "Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged. "
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.
what a nothing statement..
Rachel Riley will be fuming with that statement.
Yeah, we’ve all read the statement. As I said, evidence neither the club nor the player have been able to explain away ever since.
That’s not explaining away
Just take the posters off your wall and accept ye have grown apart.
I don't understand why people think the club are under any sort of obligation to provide an explanation to us.
what a nothing statement..
And not a single comment on Arsenal who have been even more spineless than United. For what it’s worth, United absolutely did the correct thing, and didn’t bungle it, by suspending him with pay while the police were investigating and he was subsequently charged.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
Evidence neither the club nor the player have been able to explain away ever since.
From the official club statement "Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged. "
I don't understand why people think the club are under any sort of obligation to provide an explanation to us.
I'm only a white knight relative to the sociopaths in the thread.
Good statement. The final line was interesting as I don't recall seeing anything similar with Greenwood "...with consideration of the impact of these allegations and subsequent reporting will have on survivors of abuse."
Glazers are shite, we're a shambles, joke of a club, we're committing sodukuWhat exactly did you want Club to Say .
Were people this concerned during Partey's rapey investigation? Or Arsenal is beyond criticism?
Were people this concerned during Partey's rapey investigation? Or Arsenal is beyond criticism?
Were people this concerned during Partey's rapey investigation? Or Arsenal is beyond criticism?
This can go on for months. Unfortunately, it’s a no-win situation for all the parties involved.Hoping Antony is found innocent quickly, if innocent.
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.
I mean media.Why would United fans be as concerned about an Arsenal player?
Ah the aul refuge in selective nihilism. It's becoming quite common.
What did you expect? It's an ongoing investigation so there isn't much to sayAs if by magic they’ve released a statement saying nothing.
https://www.manutd.com/en/news/detail/man-utd-issue-statement-on-antony
Larger percent of male victims don't report abuse, compared to female victims, that was the point.Men and women don't report abuse.
What's your point?
Yes man I think victims should be supported through tangible means. Such as
Reducing rape kit backlogs
Educating men on sexual assault, consent
Pushing for more cases to be prosecuted regardless of conviction rates
Anything that gets abusers (proven as such through court or through clear and convincing evidence in the public domain) in jail, and tangibly changing nasty behavior, I'm all for it, and all for society (including football clubs) investing resources in doing so.
Utilitarian. Definitely anti-Kant