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

[Solius]

We all know he's a piece of shit do we really need reminding every five seconds?

I'm still interested in how he's doing as a footballer even so, and I don't see the two ideas as incompatible.

It'd be like on the Donald Trump thread if someone was responding to every post saying 'yeah but he's a stupid piece of shit' - what's the point? We all know that, that's not why most of us are on the thread.

Someone asked a question. People answered.

 

[Redlambs]

We all know he's a piece of shit do we really need reminding every five seconds?

I'm still interested in how he's doing as a footballer even so, and I don't see the two ideas as incompatible.

It'd be like on the Donald Trump thread if someone was responding to every post saying 'yeah but he's a stupid piece of shit' - what's the point? We all know that, that's not why most of us are on the thread.

So...you have an interest in how well pieces of shit are doing?

Interesting. So what do you think makes you drawn to people like Greenwood and Trump?

 

[Drainy]

The posters saying that a club is a community are completely correct, and the players are representatives for the fans on the pitch.

Obviously they don't have to be virtuous angels who live perfect lives, none of us are that, but how can you represent the fans if everyone believes you did that vile act?

 

[Solius]

We all know he's a piece of shit do we really need reminding every five seconds?

I'm still interested in how he's doing as a footballer even so, and I don't see the two ideas as incompatible.

It'd be like on the Donald Trump thread if someone was responding to every post saying 'yeah but he's a stupid piece of shit' - what's the point? We all know that, that's not why most of us are on the thread.

Also most people check-in to see what Trump's doing in a kind of hate-watch way. He's usually embarrassing himself in some form or another.

Do you check-in on Greenwood performances or highlights to laugh at all his bad touches or do you check out his goals?

 

[Red in STL]

And the conclusion is that, while you apparently don't expect any kind of morality from the club, many do - and enough do to make sure the club will never employ Greenwood again. That's the reality of it, and hence football considerations come second to this issue.

That's the answer really.

And it's not the first time the club have sacked someone on moral grounds

 

[duffer]

And it's not the first time the club have sacked someone on moral grounds

Sacked?

 

[golden_blunder]

We did lose out. We lost out on a potentially world class striker who could gave got us 100 million if we had been smarter about the situation.

We missed out on a rapist (alleged) and a woman beater. If you think it’s ok to keep him just because he’s good at football think we know all we need to about you

 

[Devil_forever]

We do not give a feck. He is a piece of shit.

We're listed on the stock market as a business, our legal duty is to our share holders and I'm pretty sure they would view it as a huge asset that was lost financially. To further compound it, we ended up having to spend £85m on Antony in an attempt to replace the twat.

Manchester United like any entity on the stock market is a business first and foremost, no matter how us fans feels about it.

 

[Redlambs]

We're listed on the stock market as a business, our legal duty is to our share holders and I'm pretty sure they would view it as a huge asset that was lost financially. To further compound it, we ended up having to spend £85m on Antony in an attempt to replace the twat.

Manchester United like any entity on the stock market is a business first and foremost, no matter how us fans feels about it.

And?

 

[Devil_forever]

As soon as you accept that him playing for us ever again is a complete non-starter I'm sure it will start getting easier to swallow. He could score a hat-trick every game and I'll still be at peace with the decision to sell him.

Plus abusers don't often change. There's nothing to say he won't do something similar again, and then it's some other club's issue.

Isn't he married to the alleged victim and conceived a baby with her after they were both told strictly not to be in contact with each other by the police?

 

[duffer]

Isn't he married to the alleged victim and conceived a baby with her after they were both told strictly not to be in contact with each other by the police?

No.

 

[Devil_forever]

And?

My point is we can say we don't give a feck and we want him out at all costs etc but the business that is manchester united have to do whats right for the shareholders first, they're legally obligated to, that was probably what drove the club to consider reintegration first.

 

[Devil_forever]

No.

Then who did he have the baby with?

 

[Solius]

We're listed on the stock market as a business, our legal duty is to our share holders and I'm pretty sure they would view it as a huge asset that was lost financially. To further compound it, we ended up having to spend £85m on Antony in an attempt to replace the twat.

Manchester United like any entity on the stock market is a business first and foremost, no matter how us fans feels about it.

Ok?

 

[duffer]

Then who did he have the baby with?

I don't think I'm allowed to post her name on here. He aint married to anyone though.

 

[Solius]

Isn't he married to the alleged victim and conceived a baby with her after they were both told strictly not to be in contact with each other by the police?

Not married no. What’s your point with the rest?

 

[Cheimoon]

We're listed on the stock market as a business, our legal duty is to our share holders and I'm pretty sure they would view it as a huge asset that was lost financially. To further compound it, we ended up having to spend £85m on Antony in an attempt to replace the twat.

Manchester United like any entity on the stock market is a business first and foremost, no matter how us fans feels about it.

And there are a lot of challenges to that attitude. Companies aren't divocred from society, they can be argued to have a responsibility towards society - which is why a lot of companies are also being pushed into greening, even if that hurts the bottom line. And there's pushback against that, and so on - but the point is: it's not as simple as you are saying.

And it's even more complicated in the case of United, since keeping Greenwood on would have affected the image of the club. You can debate how that impact would have played out, but it could have caused reputational damage beyond the supposed advantages of keeping Greenwood on as a footballer.

But ultimately, society is what we (collectively) want it be. To quote Die Ärzte: 'Es ist nicht Deine Schuld, dass die Welt is, wie sie ist. Es wäre nur Deine Schuld, wenn sie so bleibt.' I.e., 'It's not your fault that the world is as it is; it's just your fault if it stays that way'. And so many people felt a football club should look beyond its results and bottom line, and have moral values that preclude retaining a player like Greenwood. They won this debate and helped shaped the world in this regard. And I think the world is the better for it.

 

[Devil_forever]

Anyway I couldn't careless how he does at Marseille, he's not a united player anymore.

 

[NotChatGPT]

We're listed on the stock market as a business, our legal duty is to our share holders and I'm pretty sure they would view it as a huge asset that was lost financially. To further compound it, we ended up having to spend £85m on Antony in an attempt to replace the twat.

Manchester United like any entity on the stock market is a business first and foremost, no matter how us fans feels about it.

Don't be silly.

Greenwood staying would potentially have a huge detrimental effect on the brand that would dwarf his theoretical "asset value".

 

[Redlambs]

My point is we can say we don't give a feck and we want him out at all costs etc but the business that is manchester united have to do whats right for the shareholders first, they're legally obligated to, that was probably what drove the club to consider reintegration first.

Sorry, I thought you had something else to add by the way you worded that. Greenwood staying would have hurt the brand anyway, don't be fooled by twitter and the types who post on there.

On another note, please don't act like having a baby with someone absolves them of all wrongdoing.

 

[SilentWitness]

Then who did he have the baby with?

The partner he allegedly abused and threatened to rape. They aren't married though.

 

[Red in STL]

Sacked?

Ok so Greenwood wasn't technicalaly sacked, but the club has sacked someone in the past on moral grounds

 

[golden_blunder]

I’m done with this thread people are too emotional and ready with their pitchforks to have an actual discussion.

No you’re done because you’re not finding like minded people

 

[golden_blunder]

You’re mistaking that this is about Greenwood when it’s not. Making a moral stand is all fine and good, I’m just pissed that we’re shit and he seems to be thriving.

He’s not the first player sold by a club to thrive elsewhere. Welcome to football

 

[golden_blunder]

We're listed on the stock market as a business, our legal duty is to our share holders and I'm pretty sure they would view it as a huge asset that was lost financially. To further compound it, we ended up having to spend £85m on Antony in an attempt to replace the twat.

Manchester United like any entity on the stock market is a business first and foremost, no matter how us fans feels about it.

And as a business what do you think that sponsors were whispering in the ear of the board? Keeping him damages the club and the business

 

[golden_blunder]

Isn't he married to the alleged victim and conceived a baby with her after they were both told strictly not to be in contact with each other by the police?

Not married. yes the baby was conceived during a period when there was a court order telling him to stay away from her. Yet another example of a young lad who thinks he can do what he wants when he wants

 

[sugar_kane]

So...you have an interest in how well pieces of shit are doing?

Interesting. So what do you think makes you drawn to people like Greenwood and Trump?

Did I specify that I care how well Trump is doing? If he dropped dead in the debate tomorrow night I would laugh my head off for days, I just don't need to see people saying what a shithead he is every other post it's tedious.

 

[golden_blunder]

Did I specify that I care how well Trump is doing? If he dropped dead in the debate tomorrow night I would laugh my head off for days, I just don't need to see people saying what a shithead he is every other post it's tedious.

Then put this thread on ignore.

 

[sugar_kane]

Also most people check-in to see what Trump's doing in a kind of hate-watch way. He's usually embarrassing himself in some form or another.

Do you check-in on Greenwood performances or highlights to laugh at all his bad touches or do you check out his goals?

I don't follow Greenwood's progress with interest for the exact same reasons as I do Trump, nor do I have the same reasons for being interested in anything I happen to hold an interest in.

Greenwood despite being a cnut is a supremely talented footballer, and I'm curious to see what path his career takes. I won't really take any joy in whether it goes well or if it goes badly, I just hold an interest as a United fan to see how it pans out.

 

[sugar_kane]

Then put this thread on ignore.

So what's the purpose of the thread, just to throw abuse at him constantly? Seems kind of pointless, everyone hates him already.

 

[sizzling sausages]

Did I specify that I care how well Trump is doing? If he dropped dead in the debate tomorrow night I would laugh my head off for days, I just don't need to see people saying what a shithead he is every other post it's tedious.

Surely having this thread become an echo chamber for his fan boys would be worse?

 

[Cheimoon]

So what's the purpose of the thread, just to throw abuse at him constantly? Seems kind of pointless, everyone hates him already.

It's the Greenwood thread. Some people want to talk about his performances, and they do. That reminds other people of his past, and then they talk about that. It's this or no discussion at all; we're not going to have separate threads for these discussions, or only a thread where people can only talk about his football (which would implicitly suggest that the Caf as an organization doesn't want to talk about Greenwood's past).

 

[eire-red]

I wish we could share some of the posts on here from certain individuals with their families, friends, work colleagues etc etc.

Do you think they'd still hold fast in their "Look I'm not saying I support Greenwood, but I'm curious to see how his career goes" mantra?

It's like domestic abuse only becomes a side-note if the person is supremely talented.

 

[Raoul]

I don't follow Greenwood's progress with interest for the exact same reasons as I do Trump, nor do I have the same reasons for being interested in anything I happen to hold an interest in.

Greenwood despite being a cnut is a supremely talented footballer, and I'm curious to see what path his career takes. I won't really take any joy in whether it goes well or if it goes badly, I just hold an interest as a United fan to see how it pans out.

I'm sure you've already noticed that despite the thread title, this thread isn't actually about updates on Greenwood's football career in France. If you're interested in that, you'd be better off simply googling Greenwood and Olympic Marseille.

 

[sugar_kane]

I wish we could share some of the posts on here from certain individuals with their families, friends, work colleagues etc etc.

Do you think they'd still hold fast in their "Look I'm not saying I support Greenwood, but I'm curious to see how his career goes" mantra?

It's like domestic abuse only becomes a side-note if the person is supremely talented.

I'd happily bring up how Greenwood is getting on at Marseilles (and on occasion do) with any of those people because I'm secure in the knowledge that they know I know (and I know that they know) what he did was horrendous, I don't have to go out of my way to constantly prove where I stand on the matter.

edit: and this is why I think the Trump analogy functions - I wouldn't expect any of those people to think it was necessary for me or them to constantly mention what a bastard he is in every conversation we have about him. It's just an interesting topic to discuss without having to state the obvious constantly.

 

[cafecillos]

I'd happily bring up how Greenwood is getting on at Marseilles (and on occasion do) with any of those people because I'm secure in the knowledge that they know I know (and I know that they know) what he did was horrendous, I don't have to go out of my way to constantly prove where I stand on the matter.

edit: and this is why I think the Trump analogy functions - I wouldn't expect any of those people to think it was necessary for me or them to constantly mention what a bastard he is in every conversation we have about him. It's just an interesting topic to discuss without having to state the obvious constantly.

It's not that obvious though. There are/have been dozens of users in all Greenwood threads since the audio and pics were published that have been defending or at the very least grotesquely playing down what is very likely to have happened. Of course, nobody is going to actually post "she's a slut and a gold-digger and was asking for it", the abuse apologism is usually more subtle, and one of the forms it takes is ignoring everything else except his good footballing performances. I for one I'm not going to stand aside and see this thread become a gushfest every time he scores a fecking goal.

Performance talk is allowed, but not protected. To drool over his goals without the annoyance you'll have to go somewhere else.

 

[eire-red]

I'd happily bring up how Greenwood is getting on at Marseilles (and on occasion do) with any of those people because I'm secure in the knowledge that they know I know (and I know that they know) what he did was horrendous, I don't have to go out of my way to constantly prove where I stand on the matter.

edit: and this is why I think the Trump analogy functions - I wouldn't expect any of those people to think it was necessary for me or them to constantly mention what a bastard he is in every conversation we have about him. It's just an interesting topic to discuss without having to state the obvious constantly.

Greenwood and Trump are not in any way comparable. Trump can have severe consequences for society if people become lax in reminding people what a terrible person he is. We can't do it often enough, and that conversation actually needs to happen.

As for Greenwood, whether he scores a hat trick, or gets injured, or gets a big transfer, or whatever has literally no bearing on a single person's life in this forum. He doesn't represent this club anymore, so why have any special interest in what he does, especially given what he has done? It's absolutely beyond me.

To me, and many other people I'm here, the only conversation that needs to happen surrounding Greenwood, is why he's allowed to play football?

You're telling us you have such a solid moral compass in one sentence, yet implying something different in the next. If what he did was so deplorable, why would his exploits interest you at all? Are these not the people such a morally centred person would publicly lambast and actively avoid discussing?

 

[doubleohseven]

If what he did was so deplorable, why would his exploits interest you at all?

What he did was deplorable.

Not 'if'.

 

[sugar_kane]

Greenwood and Trump are not in any way comparable. Trump can have severe consequences for society if people become lax in reminding people what a terrible person he is. We can't do it often enough, and that conversation actually needs to happen.

As for Greenwood, whether he scores a hat trick, or gets injured, or gets a big transfer, or whatever has literally no bearing on a single person's life in this forum. He doesn't represent this club anymore, so why have any special interest in what he does, especially given what he has done? It's absolutely beyond me.

To me, and many other people I'm here, the only conversation that needs to happen surrounding Greenwood, is why he's allowed to play football?

You're telling us you have such a solid moral compass in one sentence, yet implying something different in the next. If what he did was so deplorable, why would his exploits interest you at all? Are these not the people such a morally centred person would publicly lambast and actively avoid discussing?

We're obviously never going to agree on the main points, but on that bit about ex-players (and managers) I'm regularly keeping tabs on how many of them are doing I wouldn't consider that out of the ordinary.

With Greenwood maybe there's an element of morbid curiosity of seeing how a player who could have been so good for us is getting on, and I will admit if he was shit I wouldn't be interested.

My interest in his football doesn't enable or benefit him in any way (as beyond getting dragged into this argument my interest is largely passive) and I know what he did was terrible, so I'm perfectly happy with the status of my moral compass cheers.

 

[Redlambs]

Surely having this thread become an echo chamber for his fan boys would be worse?

That's exactly what the performance only thread became.

I don't have to go out of my way to constantly prove where I stand on the matter.

And there it is. How you really think.

I'm sure you must feel so much better brushing things under the carpet, but unfortunately for you this is a forum and you need to google what that word means.