Mason Greenwood, Marseille Footballer | Read the thread rules in the OP before posting

He should continue banging in goals. He’ll get 20+ this season and get a bigger move in the summer.
 
Red in STL said:
When all is said and done, United are likely to profit from Greenwood at some point, if the club really wants to make a statement then they should use whatever they get to fund something that benefits and helps victims of domesric abuse/rape in the Manchester area, a safe refuge perhaps
Click to expand...
Yeah that's not happening. Club seems very happy to profit off scum like him, otherwise they wouldnt have put that clause in. Club did the right thing selling him, I feel like club can do a lot more though. Start by getting rid of other questionable folks like Antony. If you're gonna take a stand and make a statement, then grow a spine and do it properly. Dont half ass it. I personally dont think we(club) can claim a higher ground until we make these steps as well. While I think those saying profiting off him is distasteful, and I agree completely, but club doesnt seem to mind, and that's disappointing tbh.

As for Greenwood, he's gonna keep scoring goals, nothing we can do about that, apart from move on. And try to find a proper replacement, because our strikers lack that ruthlessness in front of goal.

Will other top clubs like Barca/PSG get him in the future? Probably. But if they want to employ a rapist, that's their deal. Wont surprise me, football is just business to some folks at the end of the day. That's the horrific world we live in, where people like him can roam free and earn millions with no repercussions.
 
Quality control
World Class talent that will become a World Class player if managed and protected properly on and off the pitch. I guess he will develop into a CF in the next few seasons.
 
moses said:
Do we take any of the blame for the person he became? If we're taking credit for the footballer we developed.
Click to expand...

I think it’s hard to pin blame on the club for something that happens in a player’s personal life, without specifics. Unless we start to produce more than our fair share of scumbags, I’d regard it more as a case that everyone is bound to get a wrong-un at some point, regardless of how good the training/schooling is.

I personally can’t see a moral issue with having a sell-on clause. Marseille and any future purchaser are fully aware of Greenwood’s history and it has no benefit to Greenwood whose career will progress the same with or without it. Equally relaxed if his career were to fade to nothingness but if he’s a £100m player next summer, I see no reason why Marseille should get all of that and United nothing.
 
moses said:
Do we take any of the blame for the person he became? If we're taking credit for the footballer we developed.
Click to expand...

Not a discussion for here I don't think but there is an element of that. We being football rather than UTD.
 
Doracle said:
I think it’s hard to pin blame on the club for something that happens in a player’s personal life, without specifics. Unless we start to produce more than our fair share of scumbags, I’d regard it more as a case that everyone is bound to get a wrong-un at some point, regardless of how good the training/schooling is.

I personally can’t see a moral issue with having a sell-on clause. Marseille and any future purchaser are fully aware of Greenwood’s history and it has no benefit to Greenwood whose career will progress the same with or without it. Equally relaxed if his career were to fade to nothingness but if he’s a £100m player next summer, I see no reason why Marseille should get all of that and United nothing.
Click to expand...

I think the moral issue is actively wishing and celebrating the success of a terrible person just because you get a financial benefit from it.
 
Doracle said:
I think it’s hard to pin blame on the club for something that happens in a player’s personal life, without specifics.
Click to expand...

Yeah, agreed.

Like I've said before, you can blame the club for how they handled the Greenwood affair - but I don't think you can blame United for his "upbringing" (as a footballer, an academy lad).

You can question the whole system, of course (how young football talents are educated in non-football matters) - but not United specifically.
 
Davicho said:
World Class talent that will become a World Class player if managed and protected properly on and off the pitch. I guess he will develop into a CF in the next few seasons.
Click to expand...
I don't think he's the one who needs protecting.

fecking hell some of you are proper horrible.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Yeah, agreed.

Like I've said before, you can blame the club for how they handled the Greenwood affair - but I don't think you can blame United for his "upbringing" (as a footballer, an academy lad).

You can question the whole system, of course (how young football talents are educated in non-football matters) - but not United specifically.
Click to expand...

Again. The question was a reaction to the idea we are entitled to profit from his arguably innate football ability because of our input, after all he was here as a kid ... should we then share the blame ...

I think neither to be honest. But I'd raise an eyebrow if it was one and not the other.
 
Will be interesting to see if he has a big year and goes to a more high profile club, how their supporters will react.

Like if Arsenal or Chelsea goes in for him and he starts banging in the goals for them, will he still be booed like he would currently if Marseille came to England ?
 
moses said:
Again. The question was a reaction to the idea we are entitled to profit from his arguably innate football ability because of our input, after all he was here as a kid ... should we then share the blame ...

I think neither to be honest. But I'd raise an eyebrow if it was one and not the other.
Click to expand...

We absolutely should share the blame. The Iceland incident was telling. I think Foden had a pregnant girlfriend at the time (or a kid).

They snuck girls into a hotel room under Covid restrictions. It was all pretty tawdry, but you can hear them both acting like children over the phone.

City’s response was to give their lads head a wobble and he was clearly managed into a professional with every passing year.

With the absolute shower that our club is, I’d bet barely more than zero pounds quid that we had an effective support team in place to handle not only that situation, but have clear ethics lessons in place for teenagers. Certainly nothing that would see an 18 year old lad develop into a well rounded human. And I certainly believe that’s the clubs first duty of care. Not to make a world class footballer, but to raise, train and educate children on their route to manhood. They spend more time in the clubs care than their parents.

Within two years, the player under our charge had (alledgedly) raped a woman. The player under City’s care had clearly grown up, and had a child with his partner.

Zero suggestion from me that Foden is a saint, or that all footballers should be having children at such young ages. But the Iceland incident onwards, illustrates how two clubs and two players moved on from a pretty grim childish incident.

I’d never have watched a minute of a United match again, had he came back. The fact we are still tied to him, repulses me. This is all on Radcliffes watch. He’s firing female backroom staff to cut costs, and keeping that piece of shit as an estimated asset in the clubs accounts. Indefensible.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
We absolutely should share the blame. The Iceland incident was telling. I think Foden had a pregnant girlfriend at the time (or a kid).

They snuck girls into a hotel room under Covid restrictions. It was all pretty tawdry, but you can hear them both acting like children over the phone.

City’s response was to give their lads head a wobble and he was clearly managed into a professional with every passing year.

With the absolute shower that our club is, I’d bet barely more than zero pounds quid that we had an effective support team in place to handle not only that situation, but have clear ethics lessons in place for teenagers. Certainly nothing that would see an 18 year old lad develop into a well rounded human. And I certainly believe that’s the clubs first duty of care. Not to make a world class footballer, but to raise, train and educate children on their route to manhood. They spend more time in the clubs care than their parents.

Within two years, the player under our charge had (alledgedly) raped a woman. The player under City’s care had clearly grown up, and had a child with his partner.

Zero suggestion from me that Foden is a saint, or that all footballers should be having children at such young ages. But the Iceland incident onwards, illustrates how two clubs and two players moved on from a pretty grim childish incident.

I’d never have watched a minute of a United match again, had he came back. The fact we are still tied to him, repulses me. This is all on Radcliffes watch. He’s firing female backroom staff to cut costs, and keeping that piece of shit as an estimated asset in the clubs accounts. Indefensible.
Click to expand...
A lot of speculation and cherry picking going on here. n=1. We don't know why Mason Greenwood is the shite person he is. We don't know what happened after the Iceland incident except that United called his behaviour disappointing and MG apologised to both club and country. There's also plenty of examples of players we've produced who are class acts outside of football. Look at what Rashford's done for the community. Take Scott McTominay for another recent example, he always looks like a class act off the pitch. I've gone to school with guys who were given all the tools to become class acts but they still ended up absolute bellends. That's despite loads of punishment for bad behaviour in the form of detention, suspensions and mandatory ethics classes and the like but also despite a big support system in the form of (mental) coaching being available. Does that mean the school was shite? I think not. And United aren't even a school but a football club. You can criticise United / Arnold for how they handled the situation and you can criticise Radcliffe or whoever took point on the sale of MG for the sell on clause that's all fair enough but I disagree that United are responsible for who he's become. Sometimes, cnuts will simply be cnuts.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
A lot of speculation and cherry picking going on here. n=1. We don't know why Mason Greenwood is the shite person he is. We don't know what happened after the Iceland incident except that United called his behaviour disappointing and MG apologised to both club and country. There's also plenty of examples of players we've produced who are class acts outside of football. Look at what Rashford's done for the community. Take Scott McTominay for another recent example, he always looks like a class act off the pitch. I've gone to school with guys who were given all the tools to become class acts but they still ended up absolute bellends. That's despite loads of punishment for bad behaviour in the form of detention, suspensions and mandatory ethics classes and the like but also despite a big support system in the form of (mental) coaching being available. Does that mean the school was shite? I think not. And United aren't even a school but a football club. You can criticise United / Arnold for how they handled the situation and you can criticise Radcliffe or whoever took point on the sale of MG for the sell on clause that's all fair enough but I disagree that United are responsible for who he's become. Sometimes, cnuts will simply be cnuts.
Click to expand...

*S-H-A-R-E the blame.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
What does that even mean? Are United 5% to blame? 50%? 80%? And based on what exactly? Are you saying if Mason Greenwood had been at City it all wouldn't have happened?
Click to expand...

Again. The only point initially was in response to us being entitled to the money because we made him. Using all your logic, maybe we didn't. Maybe his talent was just all natural.

It seems a bit odd to claim we made him the footballer he is because he was here as a kid, and at the same time say we had nothing to do with how he turned out as a person?

And only yesterday you wanted this thread closed.
 
moses said:
Again. The only point initially was in response to us being entitled to the money because we made him. Using all your logic, maybe we didn't. Maybe his talent was just all natural.

It seems a bit odd to claim we made him the footballer he is because he was here as a kid, and at the same time say we had nothing to do with how he turned out as a person?

And only yesterday you wanted this thread closed.
Click to expand...
You've made it clear the thread isn't going to be closed so might as well try and engage on a point that to my knowledge hasn't been done to death already.

I don't think it is that odd. We are a football academy. That means we teach these kids how to play football. That is our primary objective. If they become good footballers that means the academy did a good job at teaching them that skill. And doing so is what generates money for the club. Of course if a coach sees one of these kids exhibit unacceptable behaviour they should intervene. And I'm sure they do. As far as I know there is no indication that there are dark forces in United's youth system that are a bad influence on these kids. But teaching a kid that (sexual) violence is wrong and morals and ethics in general is in my eyes primarily the parents' responsibility first, maybe a school's second. Not a football club's. Does that mean we have zero influence on how he turned out as a person? No. If you spend a lot of time anywhere it's naturally going to influence you in some way. But is it the club's responsibility that Mason Greenwood used (sexual) violence against his partner? I don't think so.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
You've made it clear the thread isn't going to be closed so might as well try and engage on a point that to my knowledge hasn't been done to death already.

I don't think it is that odd. We are a football academy. That means we teach these kids how to play football. That is our primary objective. If they become good footballers that means the academy did a good job at teaching them that skill. And doing so is what generates money for the club. Of course if a coach sees one of these kids exhibit unacceptable behaviour they should intervene. And I'm sure they do. As far as I know there is no indication that there are dark forces in United's youth system that are a bad influence on these kids. But teaching a kid that (sexual) violence is wrong and morals and ethics in general is in my eyes primarily the parents' responsibility first, maybe a school's second. Not a football club's. Does that mean we have zero influence on how he turned out as a person? No. If you spend a lot of time anywhere it's naturally going to influence you in some way. But is it the club's responsibility that Mason Greenwood used (sexual) violence against his partner? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying there are dark forces at United. So that's a strawman we can do without.

And the bolded bit is all anyone is saying.

So you said the club should engage if there is unacceptable behaviour. Do you know how they handled the Iceland incident? Are you aware that there were always rumours around Greenwood?

You are saying at once that the academy players development as people is nothing to do with United but also maybe is a little bit?
 
What has the response to him been like in Marsielle? Has him scoring goals been enough to stop all the noise around him and the booing?
 
P-Nut said:
What has the response to him been like in Marsielle? Has him scoring goals been enough to stop all the noise around him and the booing?
Click to expand...
They absolutely love him, going off the Marseille forums.
 
https://sports.yahoo.com/marseille-fans-dubious-hero-mason-212106851.html


“It’s tiring,” says Elsa Labouret of French women’s rights group Osez le féminisme (Dare to Feminise). “Once again, we consider that talent is enough to turn a blind eye to these accusations.”

The PR war game around Greenwood is to bury them altogether. The more he delivers, the likelier the bleakness of his past is to be discarded here. In a three-and-a-half-minute segment on Telefoot, France’s Sunday football magazine show on TF1, the notorious video was not alluded to once and the focus was firmly on his breathless tributes to his debut performance at Brest, where he scored twice. “What scares me,” said one supporter arriving for his first home game, “is that if he’s too good we’ll only have him for one season”.

There was not the faintest sense of a fanbase mortally ashamed by the character of the club’s summer signing. On the contrary, their euphoria suggested they had forgotten why there had been any hue and cry in the first place. A record 49,000 season tickets have been sold for this campaign, such is the interest stirred by the arrivals of Greenwood and Roberto De Zerbi, the former Brighton manager that promise to lift the ennui at a club craving a first league title since 2010.

The unpalatable but universal truth is that miscreant players will be forgiven for anything, so long as they are useful to the cause. Greenwood is hardly the first in France to be granted absolution under the darkest of clouds. Take Monaco’s Wissam Ben Yedder, who was allowed to continue as his club’s highest earner last year even after being formally charged with rape, attempted rape and sexual assault by the Nice prosecutor’s office last August. He denies the charges.
 
P-Nut said:
Sad, but expected I suppose
Click to expand...

https://forum.lephoceen.fr/threads/mason-greenwood-frapper-un-grand-coup.79020/

It starts off touching on the private issues, with the majority (everyone?) hoping he can smash it at Marseille and push the private things to the side.

He's then smashed it in his first few games and the arguments are now whether he's a bigger talent than Ribery or Drogba.

So yeah, early days but safe to say they are all (on the forum, at least) buzzing about him.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
You've made it clear the thread isn't going to be closed so might as well try and engage on a point that to my knowledge hasn't been done to death already.

I don't think it is that odd. We are a football academy. That means we teach these kids how to play football. That is our primary objective. If they become good footballers that means the academy did a good job at teaching them that skill. And doing so is what generates money for the club. Of course if a coach sees one of these kids exhibit unacceptable behaviour they should intervene. And I'm sure they do. As far as I know there is no indication that there are dark forces in United's youth system that are a bad influence on these kids. But teaching a kid that (sexual) violence is wrong and morals and ethics in general is in my eyes primarily the parents' responsibility first, maybe a school's second. Not a football club's. Does that mean we have zero influence on how he turned out as a person? No. If you spend a lot of time anywhere it's naturally going to influence you in some way. But is it the club's responsibility that Mason Greenwood used (sexual) violence against his partner? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I’d say club shares responsibility in his upbringing too, the purpose of the United academy is not just to create good footballers who will win trophies at premier league level - but also to give a good education to, and make a respectable man out of hundreds of those who don’t make it at that level (applies to the ones who do make it too). I think Nick Cox himself says how the above is an important goal for them.

It is the place he spends most of his time at from like the age of 5-6 (possibly more than home), so absolutely the club should take some responsibility for how he turned out.

Good start from him though, that sell on clause should come in handy.
 
moses said:
Nobody is saying there are dark forces at United. So that's a strawman we can do without.

And the bolded bit is all anyone is saying.

So you said the club should engage if there is unacceptable behaviour. Do you know how they handled the Iceland incident? Are you aware that there were always rumours around Greenwood?

You are saying at once that the academy players development as people is nothing to do with United but also maybe is a little bit?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying United are responsible for his footballing education, not his general education or for the shaping of his personality. The bolded bit is not anyone is saying. We're talking about blame, about responsiblity. United are not responsible for this. Whether they had any influence on this is another matter. There are many factors that influence how a person turns out.

You talk about the Iceland incident. An incident that happened outside of the club. How did the club handle that according to you? As I've said, to my knowledge the club publically called his behaviour disappointing and Greenwood publically apologised to club and country for said behaviour, as did Foden for that matter. Is there evidence that the club tolerated bad behaviour while he was there?

As I've said, I've gone to school with many kids who had all the tools to become great persons but didn't. I've been bullied by some of them both inside and outside of school. I've reported these incidents and the school acted on them with detentions, suspensions, talks with their parents and the like but they were still cnuts. I don't hold the school accountable for this let alone the clubs these kids were playing football at.
 
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
Will be interesting to see if he has a big year and goes to a more high profile club, how their supporters will react.

Like if Arsenal or Chelsea goes in for him and he starts banging in the goals for them, will he still be booed like he would currently if Marseille came to England ?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm being naive but I can't see him coming to a top club in England.

Honestly, some of the posters on here (not meaning you) are so so weird. What is this weird fawning of a player who, as far as I'm aware, was never even a pivotal player for the club over a prolonged period of time?
 
pacifictheme said:
Don't want to get into whataboutisms but it does amaze me that Marcos alonso went about with his career with less attention and focus on the fact he killed someone (by deliberately drinking driving and breaking the speed limit). Yeah I know he wasn't trying to but he deliberately did something that had a heightened chance of it and just cracked on with his career. Played for Chelsea and Barca after.
Click to expand...

Alonso should 100% have been hounded non stop and I was always amazed that he was not.
 
RedRocket08 said:
I’d say club shares responsibility in his upbringing too, the purpose of the United academy is not just to create good footballers who will win trophies at premier league level - but also to give a good education to, and make a respectable man out of hundreds of those who don’t make it at that level (applies to the ones who do make it too). I think Nick Cox himself says how the above is an important goal for them.

It is the place he spends most of his time at from like the age of 5-6 (possibly more than home), so absolutely the club should take some responsibility for how he turned out.

Good start from him though, that sell on clause should come in handy.
Click to expand...
To a degree, if they let him off transgressions such as the Iceland incident because of how talented he was, which fed his ego. Or held him to different standards because of his talent - this has been accused, but not really proven. There is a level of personal responsibility and family responsibility that seems to be missing here though. We probably don't have a "how to treat a human being with respect and decency" class in the academy, but who's to say he'd have even listened or turn up to said class?

This is a bit like saying school teachers should be responsible for how your child turns out. If your kid is just a shit or you're asleep at the wheel, it's not really the schools fault unless you can point to a specific set of behaviours/incidents that contributed.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
I don't think it is that odd. We are a football academy. That means we teach these kids how to play football. That is our primary objective. If they become good footballers that means the academy did a good job at teaching them that skill. And doing so is what generates money for the club.
Click to expand...
ArjenIsM3 said:
Of course if a coach sees one of these kids exhibit unacceptable behaviour they should intervene. And I'm sure they do. As far as I know there is no indication that there are dark forces in United's youth system that are a bad influence on these kids. But teaching a kid that (sexual) violence is wrong and morals and ethics in general is in my eyes primarily the parents' responsibility first, maybe a school's second. Not a football club's. Does that mean we have zero influence on how he turned out as a person? No. If you spend a lot of time anywhere it's naturally going to influence you in some way. But is it the club's responsibility that Mason Greenwood used (sexual) violence against his partner? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Both these bolded points are 100% wrong. If you think they are correct, then you have to accept that it’s the clubs fault that Greenwoods character is lacking with regards to how he treats women.

The clubs number one job is to raise, train and educate young boys as they become men. That’s not to say we’re a school. But personal and professional development go hand in hand. The more well rounded an and well cared for a child is, the better they learn. Countless studies support this.

It’s also certainly not the job of parents to educate a child with regards to;

-How it feels to be a millionaire at 16
-How it feels to be surrounded by older men 24/7, with close to no women present, and certainly none your age.
-How having money young will open up doors that should (and will) remain closed for everyone you go to school with.
-How his schoolmates will engage with him in a different way to his peers.
-How the media and ‘fame’ will affect him.
-And, most crucially, how girls and latterly, women, will engage with you.

It’s no criticism of you, but there’s really a lot in this. Kids in football academies now are taught about the perils of social media in a way that school kids are not. Mainly as asset protection, because capitalism, but also base level of care.

Put it this way; If I’d dumped one million pounds into your bank account at 15, and given you a near guarantee that another £10-100m would be following it, with women pursuing you daily, through a device you carried at all times, and that women would want you for no reason other than who you are… how much would you listen to schoolteachers? How much do you listen to a parent telling you to ‘Be careful’?

Without those early adolescent years of self doubt, working your way through a co-ed school, finding your path through puberty, becoming a man… do you honestly think you’d pop out a well rounded man with a respect for women? It’s impossible for these kids. Especially those with almost guaranteed stardom ahead.

Beyond that, it’s 100% a clubs role to provide spaces for these kids to grow together. To have open forums where they learn to report on each others behaviour. To first of all understand what bad behaviour is, and then instill confidence in them to report when they see bad behaviour amongst boys and young men around them.

I’m tempted to just post the Daniel Sloss explainer at this point. Greenwood doesn’t just ‘become’ an abuser. There are hundreds, if not thousands of points of incidence along the way that lead to it. Loads of people would have seen behaviour they’d not have tolerated towards their sister, or friend. That can be as generic as how someone talks about women.

It’s a giant problem in sport. Football has a really dark spot inside it and through agents, clubs, and money, lots of it never becomes public.

So when a case so shocking comes to light, it fcuks me off to see people take a stance that puts money above all else (not saying that’s you).

If we made it a site condition that before anyone posted in this thread they had to listen to the audio and look at the photos, before hitting post?… this thread would be empty.

It’s not really about there being ‘dark forces’ at the heart of the club. We do wonderful things for so many kids. Most kids we never even see play. It’s a wonderful thing and I’m immensely proud of it. But analysing the clubs role in one of its failed men, is normal. It should happen. I suspect that it has/does. But still we seek to profit from it.

Had the club whacked £1 on every ticket and announced ‘This is because we have made a financial decision to not profit from the sale of Mason Greenwood. We will continue to support the player in every way that he needs. We have also reviewed our internal processes and have brought external specialists in to talk to the young men at this football club on an ongoing basis’… who complains?

Yet the way we have handled it, profiting, not commenting, moving on and sweeping it under the rug? Truly awful.
 
ArjenIsM3 said:
No, I'm saying United are responsible for his footballing education, not his general education or for the shaping of his personality. The bolded bit is not anyone is saying. We're talking about blame, about responsiblity. United are not responsible for this. Whether they had any influence on this is another matter. There are many factors that influence how a person turns out.

You talk about the Iceland incident. An incident that happened outside of the club. How did the club handle that according to you? As I've said, to my knowledge the club publically called his behaviour disappointing and Greenwood publically apologised to club and country for said behaviour, as did Foden for that matter. Is there evidence that the club tolerated bad behaviour while he was there?

As I've said, I've gone to school with many kids who had all the tools to become great persons but didn't. I've been bullied by some of them both inside and outside of school. I've reported these incidents and the school acted on them with detentions, suspensions, talks with their parents and the like but they were still cnuts. I don't hold the school accountable for this let alone the clubs these kids were playing football at.
Click to expand...
School is a poor comparison. United is a huge money making machine and these kids are 'assets'. Totally different dynamic.

While the club sometimes has to take on the responsibility of school, the opposite is not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.