It would be farcical if this was the plan. It's so stupid however, that it's probably true knowing this club.
Greenwood (Out) - signs for Getafe on loan
- Thread starter Reapersoul20
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
- Status
1) The club didn’t conduct a criminal Investigation. It was simply a HR process to decide whether they had grounds to terminate his employment. Nothing more, however clumsily the statements were worded.
2) The clubs opinion is exactly that, it has no bearing in a legal sense.
The media pressure only matters if the public and others react. If the majority apparently disagree with the media and think he's been unfairly treated then I guess this sentiment would be felt by other clubs too.
I heard somewhere he called Ronaldo a dead baller, that might be why
The club has to pay him his contract and release him. That's the only solution. The club should have done this a long time ago. Dragging this further just damages our reputation. It is also pointless, nobody will buy him.
It doesn't matter what happened 10-20-30 years ago with SAF, Giggs, Ronaldo, whatever. Society evolves, and it is a good thing. Everyone is asking Rubiales to resign for a creepy kiss (and the moron Rubiles should have resigned already).
Arnold is still trying to get some money from selling Greenwood, which is stupid. Arnold should be fired too, because he is not capable enough to be the CEO. It was important to handle this incident correctly, and Arnold didn't. Arnold out!
It doesn't matter what happened 10-20-30 years ago with SAF, Giggs, Ronaldo, whatever. Society evolves, and it is a good thing. Everyone is asking Rubiales to resign for a creepy kiss (and the moron Rubiles should have resigned already).
Arnold is still trying to get some money from selling Greenwood, which is stupid. Arnold should be fired too, because he is not capable enough to be the CEO. It was important to handle this incident correctly, and Arnold didn't. Arnold out!
Agree with every word.
Ian Ladyman at the Mail has done this article about Greenwood and some of things hes allegedly said and done in the past.
Mason Greenwood is aloof and fragile, with the mind of a 14-year-old... Now sources say he may NEVER play again after the demise of the 'next Harry Kane' that's caused sadness inside Man United
Mason Greenwood is aloof and fragile, with the mind of a 14-year-old... Now sources say he may NEVER play again after the demise of the 'next Harry Kane' that's caused sadness inside Man United
He had truly the Giggsy potential with even more in rhe baggage. Skills on the pitch are not the only thing you need to have a succesful career. Terminate the contract. He should focus on his child and try to not feck up this one.
I can’t stop thinking we should have protected the kid. He has obviously done things that are not acceptable, but the club have had the kid since he was 7 years old. When the case was dropped, we should be the one constant in his life that helped him.
Hopefully we do behind the scenes.
Hopefully we do behind the scenes.
Bit harsh on his mum and dad.
Now I believe they have been there for him as they should. So not my point them not helping their son.
This also happened on our watch. Don't forget that. So whatever we are doing hasn't exactly helped him nor all the many players we've had since young but just cut adrift because they weren't good enough.
Back on topic, I really hope we find him somewhere but there comes a point where he just needs to be released. Not that that means released from our care and help behind the scenes, but paid and released from the contract.
That was quite illuminating, thanks for the share.
Aye, he once refused to take off his hat, and like the Prime Minister and his entire cabinet, didn’t take lockdown super seriously.
“Illuminating”.
Kin ell
And if taking the piss out of other players in your team is a sign, then every single player I’ve ever played with is a wrong un.
MG’s known behaviour was clearly that of many normal teenagers, until the “unknown” arrived in the public domain.
I don't think we terminate the contract, but keep him 'employed' and try to find him a club before it ends. That article is an eye opener, but some of it feels obvious in hindsight the way he was protected from interviews etc.
No way, Giggs is the most versatile player the United Academy produced in the last 50 years. He could do much more than Greenwood with and without the ball.
Of course there'll be a lot of hindsight bias. I still think it was interesting to hear sources supposedly close to the situation describe him as someone who was always mentally ill-equipped for this stage. What's your problem?Aye, he once refused to take off his hat, and like the Prime Minister and his entire cabinet, didn’t take lockdown super seriously.
“Illuminating”.
Kin ell
And if taking the piss out of other players in your team is a sign, then every single player I’ve ever played with is a wrong un.
MG’s known behaviour was clearly that of many normal teenagers, until the “unknown” arrived in the public domain.
Boys will be boys and as long as it's behind closed doors, it doesn't matter.
Something along those lines.
What?! I hope you're not talking about the audioAye, he once refused to take off his hat, and like the Prime Minister and his entire cabinet, didn’t take lockdown super seriously.
“Illuminating”.
Kin ell
And if taking the piss out of other players in your team is a sign, then every single player I’ve ever played with is a wrong un.
MG’s known behaviour was clearly that of many normal teenagers, until the “unknown” arrived in the public domain.
I'm not intimately familiar with MGs life beyond some of the media reports and exposes, so not pretending to have much insight into his case specifically. But there does seem to be a level of 'neurodivergency' there, a little like Ravel or Gascoigne, in terms of prodigious talent and footballing IQ combined with developmental 'immaturity' of a certain sort. Anyone who has an spld and is still fairly high-functioning in terms of education/job, will recognize that tendency to be able to see certain complex things very clearly and then miss blindly simple ones, albeit in different forms. That's different to someone like Best, who was highly smart across the board, but had specific issues with depression and associated addictive tendencies.
That doesn't mean in each case that you give any of them free reign to indulge in self-destructive and actions harmful to others - I do think its a net positive that we've begun to question that ' uncritical licence of genius', which has bene particularly, though not solely, extended to men. But I think -crucially, in combination with the facts as they've been established, rather than supposition or suspicion or innuendo or even common sense probability' - this should inform the nature of our judgement. Numerous people, including myself, have repeated what the status of the evidence as its been made public is. That doesn't mean anyone 'knows' he's innocent, which would be an almost impossible thing in the circumstances to demonstrate, but rather that two investigations have judged the evidence in favour of his innocence to be stronger than that indicating his guilt. In that context, what we know he's culpable of, based upon what each statement has indicated as well as clarificatory statements by the claimant on social media is of being a bad , insensitive, verbally unpleasant partner in the past. His first duty is to his partner but as far as any 'public' responsibility, working as a sportsman in a club which represent communities, all we can legitimately ask for at this stage is evidence of reflection and contrition to the extent that any of these people can be expected to serve as examples. Even this 'example' is something which has been disputed but it's legitimate to make that a factor for any public figure to a reasonable degree.
The opportunity for full evidence to be laid out and scrutinized by the court as well as in the public domain doesn't exist in quite the same way. So now we have someone perpetually guilty without the possibility of absolution or potentially proving his innocence, since anything contextualizing the materials in the public domain is probably (and people who have judged him still unequivocally guilty constantly refer back to 'probability' or likelihood) going to put his partner in a vulnerable position, even as, of course, details about his own not-illegal but toxic behaviour as a partner, or 'strange' sexual predilections might also come up. Whether any of that's the case, again, is only speculation, however. The point is that he's essentially barred through the process of pressure from people who, like all of us, don't know the context but have resolved that he's definitely guilty and cannot be swayed from that judgement and will act accordingly. None of this is about whether he gets to play for United specifically or about missing out on a potentially rekindled talent as a fan of the team. It's just disturbing that, knowing what we know, people not only want to bar him de facto form finding a club by threatening to harass clubs and/or organize boycotts as well as continuing campaigns of vitriol across social media, but that they would do this in the context of revelations about his potential vulnerability or neurodivergency.
Do people remember presenters being driven to suicide through social media pressure? Does anyone consider the potential moral implications of asking not for justice ( the investigation of a potential crime) and accountability through proper mechanisms, but through accusations which have become divorced from any evidence or principles of truth and falsifiability. We have previous cultural examples of scapegoating that I'm sure many of us encountered at school/college (Arthur MIller's Crucible, for instance). Yet it never seems to cut through every time we have one of these panics, whether it's about cults or suspected abuse and innocent people are hounded into depression or suicide. It's horrible to think about the memes and self-righteous statements that would be posted if Mason were to take his own life a week from now, even if further evidence emerged in the public domain substantiating his innocence.
One reason I'm so excised about this is I've served as a foreman on a rape case between a young male and female partner, been through the process of instruction by the judge and seen the ambiguities and difficulties in determining conclusive truths in these matters a lot of the time: through my family, I've also spoken to circuit Barristers in criminal law who have confirmed similar things. Beyond that, I've worked with young men similar to Mason (the way he's been described) as a support worker: men without his sporting talent or any 'exceptional' talent in any field but with complex needs relating to splds, and mixture of residual anger (through circumstances and neurochemistry) but also regret and desire to change. In some cases they were able to in fairly visible ways. In the course of that work I also worked with women who had been assaulted by their partners, so it wasn't one-sided. Whatever else it did, passing blanket judgement when it comes to things weightier than how ETH's setting up the team becomes a lot harder.
I've also seen people I know bullied on social media over what were confirmed to be false allegations, who've subsequently self-harmed and put their lives at risk. So, no, it's not about giving a 'rapist a pass'. I wish people would, as the cliche goes, 'take a step back' and think about what they're really affirming when they participate in these kinds of campaigns....
That doesn't mean in each case that you give any of them free reign to indulge in self-destructive and actions harmful to others - I do think its a net positive that we've begun to question that ' uncritical licence of genius', which has bene particularly, though not solely, extended to men. But I think -crucially, in combination with the facts as they've been established, rather than supposition or suspicion or innuendo or even common sense probability' - this should inform the nature of our judgement. Numerous people, including myself, have repeated what the status of the evidence as its been made public is. That doesn't mean anyone 'knows' he's innocent, which would be an almost impossible thing in the circumstances to demonstrate, but rather that two investigations have judged the evidence in favour of his innocence to be stronger than that indicating his guilt. In that context, what we know he's culpable of, based upon what each statement has indicated as well as clarificatory statements by the claimant on social media is of being a bad , insensitive, verbally unpleasant partner in the past. His first duty is to his partner but as far as any 'public' responsibility, working as a sportsman in a club which represent communities, all we can legitimately ask for at this stage is evidence of reflection and contrition to the extent that any of these people can be expected to serve as examples. Even this 'example' is something which has been disputed but it's legitimate to make that a factor for any public figure to a reasonable degree.
The opportunity for full evidence to be laid out and scrutinized by the court as well as in the public domain doesn't exist in quite the same way. So now we have someone perpetually guilty without the possibility of absolution or potentially proving his innocence, since anything contextualizing the materials in the public domain is probably (and people who have judged him still unequivocally guilty constantly refer back to 'probability' or likelihood) going to put his partner in a vulnerable position, even as, of course, details about his own not-illegal but toxic behaviour as a partner, or 'strange' sexual predilections might also come up. Whether any of that's the case, again, is only speculation, however. The point is that he's essentially barred through the process of pressure from people who, like all of us, don't know the context but have resolved that he's definitely guilty and cannot be swayed from that judgement and will act accordingly. None of this is about whether he gets to play for United specifically or about missing out on a potentially rekindled talent as a fan of the team. It's just disturbing that, knowing what we know, people not only want to bar him de facto form finding a club by threatening to harass clubs and/or organize boycotts as well as continuing campaigns of vitriol across social media, but that they would do this in the context of revelations about his potential vulnerability or neurodivergency.
Do people remember presenters being driven to suicide through social media pressure? Does anyone consider the potential moral implications of asking not for justice ( the investigation of a potential crime) and accountability through proper mechanisms, but through accusations which have become divorced from any evidence or principles of truth and falsifiability. We have previous cultural examples of scapegoating that I'm sure many of us encountered at school/college (Arthur MIller's Crucible, for instance). Yet it never seems to cut through every time we have one of these panics, whether it's about cults or suspected abuse and innocent people are hounded into depression or suicide. It's horrible to think about the memes and self-righteous statements that would be posted if Mason were to take his own life a week from now, even if further evidence emerged in the public domain substantiating his innocence.
One reason I'm so excised about this is I've served as a foreman on a rape case between a young male and female partner, been through the process of instruction by the judge and seen the ambiguities and difficulties in determining conclusive truths in these matters a lot of the time: through my family, I've also spoken to circuit Barristers in criminal law who have confirmed similar things. Beyond that, I've worked with young men similar to Mason (the way he's been described) as a support worker: men without his sporting talent or any 'exceptional' talent in any field but with complex needs relating to splds, and mixture of residual anger (through circumstances and neurochemistry) but also regret and desire to change. In some cases they were able to in fairly visible ways. In the course of that work I also worked with women who had been assaulted by their partners, so it wasn't one-sided. Whatever else it did, passing blanket judgement when it comes to things weightier than how ETH's setting up the team becomes a lot harder.
I've also seen people I know bullied on social media over what were confirmed to be false allegations, who've subsequently self-harmed and put their lives at risk. So, no, it's not about giving a 'rapist a pass'. I wish people would, as the cliche goes, 'take a step back' and think about what they're really affirming when they participate in these kinds of campaigns....
Good read. Seems like he was trouble from the start and difficult to control. It’s a shame that the club couldn’t see out his potential. Sad and an absolute waste.
Whole thing has been mishandled terribly & is only getting worse.
As you say he’s been at the club since 7, rather obviously been led to believe he was being backed for some time for the club to bow to external pressures & about turn in less than a week.
As a club we have failed so many players recently, we honesty can not be sold soon enough with an entire overhaul of staff.
While I understand reactions on social media and everyone saying he can feck off etc etc, I feel a bit pissed by the club, journalists and the mob mentality. It is not about defending his actions and it’s not about minimising what happened to his girlfriend. It’s more about looking at the human side of things. Something went horribly wrong early in his life. The club need to learn from this. We got lots of young people in our ranks and they need help. Some more than others.
I hope we help him get a new club and if loaned out, we should be following him up and see that he can move on with his life.
It's just how people feel they have to be in public. Any kind of understanding for something unpleasant is unacceptable. We have to judge, judge and judge some more, and also make sure our position is to one extreme.
I wouldn't so much be worrying about Greenwood being protected by the club as worried his family are protected from Greenwood - but this is the transfer thread so let's just feck up and discuss the transfer.
No reliable links but, according to the Sun, only one club - an unnamed Albanian team - have expressed their interest in signing Greenwood.
No reliable links but, according to the Sun, only one club - an unnamed Albanian team - have expressed their interest in signing Greenwood.
Absolutely
I agree. We need to do better. LvG said that we are not a football club. In his opinion we are a commercial club. I think he is spot on. The family oriented approach we had under Fergie is probably only superficial now days.
If he was crap or didnt develop we'd have binned him off years ago...as it is, the club would have kept him even if they were aware of the video as long as it never reached the wider public. Its the same in any industry with talent worth millions. .
It is improbable we get a transfer fee out of him, it’s best he goes out on loan.
Thanks for sharing the link.
As said before was very insightful for those not aware of MG's issues.
Always believed he had the talent and he was one of my players to watch in the past, but as stated talent isn't everything.
Honestly don't think football and the pressure/limelight it brings is for him.
I've read that Utd have offered loads of pastoral care, including about consent. His school would have also taught him about consent, I believe it's on the national curriculum. His parents, also should have explained about consent.
That audio, he doesn't ask or care for consent. I don't know why people say we've let him down. The taught him, he ignored it.
Actually, for that reason, regardless of whether it was this "role-play" shit, because they are all taught about consent, his voice being out there, saying that, is gross misconduct for bringing the company into disrepute.
And he hasn't said it was role play, so that only leaves the impression that he meant those words.
Really interesting article. If all true, makes it even more clear that the right decision was made. Coming back to this pressure cooker would have totally swallowed him up.
That was part of my annoyance as well with the general view of things where it seemed many would not even be open to a redemption arc for a young player. It seems the club didn’t come down hard enough in the early days and the article suggests Ole covered up for him quite a bit. There are some major lessons to be learned but whether the club will actually change is the issue.
Seems like the only viable option.
That it’s filled with bias. As though any of those normal teenage behaviours were a kind of sign. (Sticking a hood up in moody grump, taking the piss (banter) out of teammates, not taking lockdown super seriously etc).
It things that could be written about a large majority of teenage boys.
What happened later is clearly something out of left field that no-one suspected and trying to make out as though he was somehow on that path for acting like many normal teenagers is not “illuminating”.
Get a grip of yourself man.
When this first came out, there were plenty of suggestions that Ole covered a lot and that's why Southgate knowing the circumstances wanted him away from England unless he could be turned around.
All adds up.
Your post wasn't clear and there have been some very odd takes
Why is this thread still open??
Because he hasnt left the club.
- Status