This just sounds utterly bonkers to me.
So he was moody sometimes & a typical teen, and then he got punished by England for being immature and therefore it’s no wonder he turned to domestic violence?
What?
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
This just sounds utterly bonkers to me.
So he was moody sometimes & a typical teen, and then he got punished by England for being immature and therefore it’s no wonder he turned to domestic violence?
What?
Another odd take, Lee Sharpe was really immature too, Eden Hazard was still acting like a child into his late 20’s. I don’t see immaturity or anything in Ladyman’s article that points to some kind of precursor to DV.
Kyle Walker hosted a party with sex workers during lockdown, Tammy Abraham another lockdown party boy.
Hell, Natasha Flint also held a party with a bunch of Leicester and Birmingham women players… red flag?
As I say, his behaviour pre all of this was that of many perfectly normal 18 year olds, then something very very different indeed happened, but looking to immature behaviour from a teen as some red flag is reaching to say the least.
Last edited:
Isn't this the transfer thread rather than eejits continue to defend the indefensible thread?
I don’t see anyone defending his actions with regards to the DV case, so maybe it’s the thread for eejits who struggle to understand simple conversations?
No one knows the real reason behind him turning to domestic violence, but the fact he got punished by England and "didn't see what he did wrong", he actually thought he was going to be reintegrated into the squad no problems after all of this and all the little behaviours that people let slide, add up to an I can do what I want attitude.
His partner's dad's statement after all came out was weird as hell and felt more trying to placate him, than addressing the actual behaviour. Speculation, but this is probably because he's the breadwinner for those families and they want him to be successful.
I hate to hark back, but someone like SAF would have spotted that shite behaviour a mile away and nipped it in the bud early. Every report I've seen just compounds how fecking poorly we've handled a young player who was showing clear signs of immaturity.
Surely this is a massive misunderstanding of what drives people to DV.
I don’t pretend to know the full story of the longer audio but from what we’ve heard, he has some serious issues that SAF wouldn’t be able to do feck all about.
Pretending that nipping immature teenage behaviour in the bud is a way to stop abuse is utterly bonkers.
An abusive person doesn’t stop being abusive because his work manager stops him acting immature. Kin ell man.
Like Ravel? Maybe he would have helped the player, maybe not, but SAF isn't some automatic salve to a potential problem.
People don’t abuse loved ones because they can do what they want man, I’m no expert but it’s clearly a much much deeper and darker rooted problem than that.
Making an abusive person act more mature isn’t some magic pill to stop abuse.
I don't really get what your argument is in all this? There's clearly people at the club that weren't happy with his behaviour. There's other things not mentioned in the article like taking the laughing gas and breaking bail conditions. It's more an accumulation of it all, and I'm sure there are more examples than the journalist is privy to. You seem to downplay everything he's done as if most teenagers act that way, but that's bullshit. The article talks about his attitude to lesser players in the youth team, which has been mentioned before with him and sounded borderline bullying, and call it 'banter'. Your entire argument is based on poor spin.
There's "lets throw a party and not tell the gaffer" immature and there's "I don't see why I can't have a party during lockdown, what's the big deal?" immature. Sharpy was a party boy but he still knew it was a big deal when he got caught, Greenwood seems to be incapable of understanding the impact of magnitude of the things he does as a public figure. It's not so much what he's done, as you've pointed out, many have also done it, it's how he's reacted when he's got caught that's the issue. We all have mates like this, habitual line crosses, incapable of understanding the impact of their actions, shocked by any form of consequence.
I saw another article yesterday that said he was devastated because he was pretty sure he'd get the chance to come back and play for United. If that's true, it backs up what I'm saying, he doesn't understand the big deal in anything he's done and whenever he's done something shitty it's quickly forgotten about because of his talent.
Ravel never made it with us because of his behaviour. I'm not implying SAF would have made greenwood behave. He probably wouldn't have made the team nearly as often.
@Regulus Arcturus Black I think you're drawing too much of a direct line to the behaviour to domestic violence. I'm implying the behaviour leads to an attitude that can allow for abuse to happen. I don't know why it started or happened, but the compounding of getting away with shitty behaviour creates an environment where it can occur.
No, my entire argument is that tonnes of teenagers act like immature morons and can be moody, grumpy and feel the World is unfair if told they have done wrong, but would never hurt a loved one in million years.
Immaturity has feck all to do with abuse, which is far deeper and darker rooted.
That entire argument or idea that immature behaviour has anything to do with why a person abusing loved ones is odd. That’s my argument.
Yep, but people can't stay on topic in the transfer forum which is extremely annoying because I go in here hoping to see some relevant new information about his transfer.
So, a club in Albania is the only interested club? Interesting. It's kind of weird that it's not a bigger interest from Saudi, but maybe Mason isn't that interested in it? From a footballing perspective, he should be kind of high value. Young, good hype etc. I don't really care where he ends up, but it would be nice to get som fee.
Bullshit.
Abuse in so many cases happens with people who’ve faced serious consequences for violent actions.
Abuse of loved ones doesn’t stem from an environment of “I get away with immature stuff so I may as well batter and rape my missus”. Many people convinced of DV have been on the receiving end for example, so they should really the last people on Earth who’d do the same to someone they love, but as I say, it’s much darker and deeper rooted than you’re suggesting.
It’s a bizarre thing to even suggest.
He deserves to be fecked over.
Yeah, you're not really engaging with the argument properly with that weird fake quote. I'm gonna end it here. Have a nice weekend.
OK fair enough. Yes it's obviously not a precursor to domestic abuse.
Cheers for understanding what I was trying (and apparently failing) to get at.
Doesn't bring much from a sportswashing perspective, does he.
Was this not because Utd were very likely telling him that’s what was going to happen though…?
Can hardly blame him for thinking that really.
We can all understand MG feeling devastated, but he brought this on himself. The less speculation here the better, but it would be interesting to know how his parents handled their duties to their son.
Yes, he was lead down the garden path. To be fair (obviously, I do not know for sure), but I think Greenwood did everything the club has asked him to do over the past 6 months, including giving his account of events, staying at home, waiting for a decision, agreeing not be part squad last season and then doing personal training in the parks.
It was then on Manchester United as the employer to make the decision whether it was appropriate for him to return. If so communicate that decision and findings within the parameters of the club. Speak to all the departments, stakeholders etc. That would have gone some way to unifying the club on their decision. Then as a club they could have been more as one when declari g that we fi d he did not commit what he was accused of, to fans media etc..
Then orchestrate how he will gradually be brought back in.
I see you’re missing out the one where he broke the conditions set by the judge, stay away from the victim. Instead he got her pregnant and 4 months later she withdraws the charges.That’s my entire point though, nothing in Ladyman’s article points to anything other than regular teenage behaviour for many many normal teenagers.
He put his hood up in a mood.
He took the piss out of teammates.
He didn’t take lockdown seriously.
Which of those is a “clear red flag” that people “let slide” due to his talent
Should a parent or someone from United stop players bantering each other, should a chaperone have followed him around and pulled back down his hood every time he was in a grump? Should the Prime Minister and his cabinet have taught him how to act properly during lockdown?
Those things mentioned by Ladyman could be said about hundreds of thousands of regular UK teenagers. I’m surprised anyone found it enlightening to read MG, before all the this, acted like an immature teenager at times.
No I’m not, that’s after the unknown wrong un stuff became known.
We’re discussing Ladyman’s article about his prior behaviour.
Can the mods step in on this thread. Think we need a Greenwood alleged domestic violence discussion. As I basically only want to see chat about him moving out of the club in the thread. Not the endless blaming of the various parties etc.
Following earlier comment by poster [edited], there are a lot of people smuggling assumptions both about events and character based upon things that can't be corroborated by anyone on this board unless Arnold, United's lawyers or the two parties in question are lurking here. I understand that we all in some way try and avoid 'doubt' and 'ambiguity' by nature wherever possible, simply because it makes positive action more complicated and helps us against a world which is ever more chaotic and where we don't have political agency or ability to push against cycles of natural destruction etc. But people are being blase about the effects upon reputations, livelihood and lives as well as consciously indifferent to the actual power that social media wields (except when it comes to the most absolutely entrenched interests).
If we all kept the conversation to what can reasonably be demonstrated, even if that limits speculation or our ability to pronounce either about character or culpability, then we could have a conversation about 'oughts' which appears less like different realities clashing against each other. I'd hoped that on a board where most of us have a common interest in the good of the club and in therefore (hypothetically) affording players a fair hearing because we're not partisan against them, that we wouldn't have the same patterns as on broader social media emerging, but unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case. The conversations here I could understand if they were taking place in early 22 after the initial evidence - who wasn't outraged and saddened then? - but we have some responsibility to the truth, even if that starts with admitting how much of it we're not in a position to know.
If we all kept the conversation to what can reasonably be demonstrated, even if that limits speculation or our ability to pronounce either about character or culpability, then we could have a conversation about 'oughts' which appears less like different realities clashing against each other. I'd hoped that on a board where most of us have a common interest in the good of the club and in therefore (hypothetically) affording players a fair hearing because we're not partisan against them, that we wouldn't have the same patterns as on broader social media emerging, but unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case. The conversations here I could understand if they were taking place in early 22 after the initial evidence - who wasn't outraged and saddened then? - but we have some responsibility to the truth, even if that starts with admitting how much of it we're not in a position to know.
Last edited:
That’s my entire point though, nothing in Ladyman’s article points to anything other than regular teenage behaviour for many many normal teenagers.
He put his hood up in a mood.
He took the piss out of teammates.
He didn’t take lockdown seriously.
Which of those is a “clear red flag” that people “let slide” due to his talent
Should a parent or someone from United stop players bantering each other, should a chaperone have followed him around and pulled back down his hood every time he was in a grump? Should the Prime Minister and his cabinet have taught him how to act properly during lockdown?
Those things mentioned by Ladyman could be said about hundreds of thousands of regular UK teenagers. I’m surprised anyone found it enlightening to read MG, before all the this, acted like an immature teenager at times.
Not sure all of that is “normal” behaviour for a teenager. It instead shows that he was classless, disrespectful and ungrateful. It’s alarming the Club didn’t do more to discipline him when it was clear he was heading down the wrong path ultimately leading to this point. The fact Southgate was ahead of the club in terms of identifying issues with Greenwood and disciplining him also alarming.
I think it’s relevant to that conversation. It shows an immaturity to understand what his actions could lead to.
Whether that is simple immaturity, whether it’s so indication of ADHD or something else, or whether he just doesn’t care is another question
I agree and have raised the Southgate point too. He made a big deal of it at the time in terms of publically stating that Greenwood had issues that needed to be resolved. That wasn't long before this came out IIRC, because I remember discussing at the time what he and Ole knew and why he was making a stance and yet the club seemed to just play him and ignore it.
Anyway, there's another thread for all this so people should use it.
Back on topic I wonder if it could be a case of some clubs are interested but don't want to jump in first. I wonder if there's a concrete offer, a couple more might come out of the woodwork. Or at very least, if he plays somewhere obscure for a year, more would definitely look at him.
I’m exhausted talking about it. I’m over it and I hope a club comes in soon to take him off our hands to end this very sad debacle.
Guys we have another thread for this discussion....
Well, mods are in here discussing the case so
I don't think it's time to be picky here, if ANY club wants to loan him - regardless of the deal - we should do it. Money shouldn't matter here.
Of course this is the case! We all know that it’s purely PR. Whatever our personal view on him, we all know that.
From a footballing POV, there probably isn’t a single PL that doesn’t want him for cheap / free!
It’s a ridiculous and odd situation.
It is interesting, isn't it. I'd imagine there are a few club boards having similar conversations to the ones that we've been having, and at the moment, and the general concensus being that the cost outweighs the benefits at the moment, for everyone bar one Albanian club.
The more you are exposed to violence, the more likely you are to resort to violence, that's well known.
Domestic violence is different from random spates of violence though, because they tend to involve sustained campaigns of controlling the victim, with violence just one of their tools to do so.
The cognitive dissonance to want to control/attack/dominate the person that you love is very different from losing your temper and punching a colleague at work. That is what the look back at his shitty behavior shows.
He does things that makes him happy. It doesn't matter if it hurts others, only his emotions count.
Think about it, if the relationship is only violence, nobody would stay, but if its a mix of extremely loving with, initially, a small amount of violence, that's different. That violence is then forgiven, so the when the next violence is slightly more violent, that's also easy to forgive.
Over time that violence becomes progressively worse, but because it's increased incrementally, it's forgiven all the same. The perpetrator is aware of the violence they subject their partner to, and they are aware that as long as they don't go too far past the last time they will be forgiven again.
That's where Greenwood's reaction to the punishment of his immature behaviour becomes a sign. He expects to be forgiven.
Didn't hand in your homework, no worries, just make sure you score a hattrick against X school, we'll forget about it.
Didn't come training, well, when you do show up you're fantastic, so no worries.
Smacked me again, but when you turn on that charm and say sorry and blame it on X, I know you love me and you don't actually want to hurt me, you're forgiven.
Patterns of behaviour are telling, that's why you always have to be wary of the kid who tortures animals: #MostLikelyToBecomeASerialKiller
And that probably why clubs are giving him the swerve, yeah, he's talented, but he's uncontrollable. He'll do what he wants, and when he does something we don't want, he'll expect to be forgiven, because he is him.
This is as far-fetched as the “role-play” stuff folks have tried to push, by the way.
Clubs aren’t moving for him because of the PR, nothing else. FFS Utd clearly want him - ETH wants him!
You’re making him out to be some kind of uncontrollable animalistic wild man - he’s been under the harshest of microscopes for the last year and a half and has done exactly what the club has told him, hasn’t spoken a word.
He’s now a young Dad who’s grown up a spoiled, unpleasant brat and by his own admission - in his own statement - is trying to rectify that.
Fair enough, you don’t want him at Utd, and lest you forget - you got your wish - but to make out he’s Ted fecking Bundy in a pair of football boots is daft, sensationalist nonsense.
I meant to write this a few days ago. About 6 months I had a conversation with someone i became acquainted with, who I am now friends with. He is an Everton supporter. We were discussing the Greenwood case, before the charges were dropped. He asked me specifically "do you think your club has possibly neglected the youth section since Ferguson's gone "
Well the answer to that is yes. Van Gaal, although associated with bridging young players in the past, was never going to make that priority as he had to try and rectify the previous season from Moyes. In any case it was supposed to be his last job before retiring.
Then came Mourinho. Well everyone knows his record of giving youth players a chance. It was not until Ole came in and wanted United to get back to focusing on the youth structure again. He gave Mason his chance, but he was not authoritarian enough to exact discipline on the squad, as his final half season showed.
Except none of the parties involved have mentioned the phrase "role-play", whereas they have mentioned the phrase "original charges"
Of course is because of PR, football clubs are entertainment businesses, if someone turns away the clients that make the business money, of course they would want nothing to do with him.
I'm not sure it's correct here. It's not like we have loads of academy kids getting themselves into trouble....
And as I said in the other thread, Mason has parents. Why did they not try to rectify his behaviour? Surely they should take some blame? Let's not put this all on the club - they're running a football club - they're not parents.
- Status