I always think to myself, what would the people defending him say if it was McTominay or Lindelof or Maguire? We know the answer to that and therein lies the problem.
Mason Greenwood, Marseille Footballer | Read the thread rules in the OP before posting
- Thread starter SilentWitness
- Start date
Are you sure? After all, not a single person has questioned that, and yet you yourself bring up "where I stand" "my moral compass" and bizarrely added Trump to the mix.
All seems a bit odd if I'm honest.
Absolutely.
38 pages. Wow, people are reall good to let go
Good way to put it
Don't waste your time.
Some of them are probably sampling your product line
How about literally in the post I originally quoted?
(and to be clear, I didn’t bring up the term “moral compass” originally)
You seem to want to force people to not be show any interest in Greenwood’s current performances even when they state repeatedly they know he is a bad person.
What exactly are you trying to prove?
Yeah, my bad on that front. Apologies, I thought that was a different post you replied to so didn't read the quote. Consider that one retracted!
This, however, is absolutely laughable.
I've never once tried to shut down talk about his performances (the people in the performance thread did that to themselves actually), I've never even once said he isn't a great player.
I'll continue to call it as I see it, you can either read and respond or ignore. But as I said to that last idiot, if you have a problem with anything I have to say about Greenwood or what he did then I'd suggest you aren't quite as honest about the situation and how you really feel as you want to project. "prove" is such a dumb concept anyway, it implies I'm not being genuine. Do you think I'm faking how I feel about all this? I get you haven't read all my posts in the other thread (and I suggest you don't, there's way too many and it's mostly incredibly boring
), but there's a reason I'm so invested in this discussion. So again, I'll do and say what I want, and you can do the same. But it's a FORUM and you will get replies, if that bothers you then maybe you should just ask yourself why.
I think United getting rid of Greenwood was, in fact, a business decision more than a moral one. If it were the latter, we would have acted much sooner instead of dithering and trying to gauge fan, media, and sponsor reactions by leaking plans of reintegration.
The club realized that given the visibility of our players and the stock's over reliance on brand value in a time of poor on-field performances, Greenwood's asset value was far lower than his footballing ability would indicate, because it had to include the cost of sponsorship backlash, the discontent in the staff/players/women's team, the United-specific media amplification of media outrage (as opposed to certain players at Arsenal, for instance), and the potential downstream cost of losing fans and their money.
Keeping Greenwood was bad business. And thank goodness for that.
People here trying to claim that business fiduciary requirements towards stakeholders extends to keeping hold of footballers who are rapists
Seriously give your heads an absolute wobble.
Seriously give your heads an absolute wobble.
Why not? We've had brain scientists, sleep therapists, school teachers and all sorts of professionals make excuses for him.People here trying to claim that business fiduciary requirements towards stakeholders extends to keeping hold of footballers who are rapists
Seriously give your heads an absolute wobble.
Might as well add the accountants to that list
Self harm? Get a grip.
Just text a mate about it instead. Honestly. You’ll get the same response here every time.
People thinking they have a divine right to discuss the kicky football skills of an abhorrent individual, in a space where most people find him despicable… insane.
Just text a mate. Or better yet, discuss it with a female friend and see how it goes.
Yeah, my bad on that front. Apologies, I thought that was a different post you replied to so didn't read the quote. Consider that one retracted!
This, however, is absolutely laughable.
I've never once tried to shut down talk about his performances (the people in the performance thread did that to themselves actually), I've never even once said he isn't a great player.
I'll continue to call it as I see it, you can either read and respond or ignore. But as I said to that last idiot, if you have a problem with anything I have to say about Greenwood or what he did then I'd suggest you aren't quite as honest about the situation and how you really feel as you want to project. "prove" is such a dumb concept anyway, it implies I'm not being genuine. Do you think I'm faking how I feel about all this? I get you haven't read all my posts in the other thread (and I suggest you don't, there's way too many and it's mostly incredibly boring
So again, I'll do and say what I want, and you can do the same. But it's a FORUM and you will get replies, if that bothers you then maybe you should just ask yourself why.
It bores me because it’s repetitive, thats all there is to it.
Hence why I used the Trump example, we all know he’s a cnut but it doesn’t need pointing out every five seconds.
Nothing like it. It’s like knowing a friend of yours had been raped by someone, then casually saying ‘Did you hear he got a promotion last week?’.
Why do you NEED to talk about his football exploits, here?
Now you’re stuck in the middle of a conversation that bores you
So you want to brush evil people and the things they do under the carpet? Why shouldn't it be pointed out?
Clearly some don't get it or don't care. I favour bringing things like DV and rape to the fore so we can try to combat it. I don't favour hiding away from difficult conversations.
Football and performances being low down on the list of things discussed in here is fine by me. If that's not by you, then there are plenty of forums/sites out there where you can find what you want to talk about with the pesky inconvenience of having to see people dislike violence and rape.
Funnily enough, same with Trump. You can go talk about him all you want without having to acknowledge his evilness.
That's in private though, with people you know well enough to know where they stand on things. If you're at a random work function or community event, you probably wouldn't just launch into a Trump rant, or laugh at whatever he's done now. You would probably first probe a bit what people think, and would launch into your diatribe only once you're sure you have a receptive audience - and even then you'd probably be more nuanced, with more explicit comments on what you think about Trump. And that's while Trump is actually a relatively clear case in most social circles, cause views on Trump align pretty well with people's overall societal and political views. Views on Trump are pretty clear on the Caf as well: there's currently no-one in the CE threads that's openly supporting him.
Greenwood's case is less obvious, and if you'd have a conversation outside your direct social circle, you wouldn't know what to expect. Most people would probably choose either to say nothing, or preface any comments with their overall views of the situation, in relatively nuanced words. Here, the Caf's situation is more complex as well, cause there are clearly a lot of people that don't care about the moral side of things, or think Greenwood's case isn't so bad (just one mistaken, he was just young, they're back together so it can't have been that bad, and so on). So the regulars in this thread that care (deeply) about the moral side are much more likely to jump on comments that ignore that, to tease out posters' motives.
You can think that's still not necessary, but if you feel that fandom of people that have behaved immorally in this way is wrong, then it makes sense to keep making that case, over and over again - until it's societally inacceptable to shrug off Greenwood's past.
Just a genuine question, why is this thread open ?
The 'dirt' here is too loose and incorrect an umbrella term for different levels of despicable behavior. Adultery, for instance, is a sin, but not a crime that gets you a decade of jail time if convicted. Maybe you can understand why a lot of people would draw the line between Giggs and Greenwood and be hesitant to support the latter, especially when there is public evidence and Greenwood got off on a legality. Surely there's an equivalent line for you (murder, paedophilia, trafficking, take your pick) - guess how would you feel if someone tried to defend someone on the wrong side of it (based on publicly available evidence, despite a lack of conviction) purely motivated by footballer's ability?
If you have no line as long as there is no conviction, maybe you need to rethink your own value systems.
If it were only the Caf, the club would not have made that call. Clearly the backlash was among the wider community, and the media loved amplifying it because no one gets clicks like United do.
We (the club) tried to be 'smarter' about it, though. We tried to let the outrage wither away in the background to other news cycles by taking inexplicably long to conduct our own 'internal investigation'. We crafted a PR strategy for reintegration, and had ample time to gauge reactions after these plans were 'leaked'. Greenwood was supposed to part of our attack, we didn't seem prepared in our recruitment to 'lose' him on his first loan. Also, at no point before the investigation results did EtH or the club answer questions about the event, even to state the simple position that the club does not tolerate players who engage in heinous activities like domestic sexual violence. None of that worked, and despite the 'smart' plans, the outrage was something the club did not clearly wish to deal with. The 100m valuation ceased to exist after the public reaction and outrage to our 'internal investigation'.
In a world where he wasn't a scumbag, he would have been worth that money. But we do not live in that world.
The world is unfair that way - cretin like Musk/Trump/Netanyahu thrive while others pay the price for their scumbaggery. Greenwood will probably do well, and will probably end up at a big club soon and win a bunch of trophies. You're free to choose if your sense of right and wrong is dependent of which option leads to 'success' - just don't expect posters on here to be tolerant of that view about that cnut Greenwood.
Both very good posts and far less emotionally combative than I can be on the subject.
My opinion indeed, contrary to the club. No need to further discuss his past issue though, and let go.
If you don’t like the baggage that comes with just wanting to post about his performances I suggest you find somewhere else to do it.
And it's that simple.
That baggage happened 2 years ago and has not happened since. So why is it still so relevant to you?
Sorry I didn't realise there was a statue of limitations on voicing what a massive scumbag he is.
It's not people's fault that when they see the thread bumped it reminds them of that. You don't get to decide the time period that it stays relevant to people.
It's pretty much synonmous with his name now. Can you explain why it's not relevant to you? Does time erase things?
Would anyone listen to Michael Jackson if he was not as talented as he was? If he was a less talented musician, he would've been "cancelled" a long time ago.
The more talented you are, the more people put up with. I don't see how this is a new (and football specific) thing.
It's not new, it just reminds people that the arguments are not really in good faith, as you said it's related to the talent more than an honest judgment of the actions.
I think the problem here is that he's never received any form of legal justice, and there's been no process or even indication of any consequence, reflection or rehabilition process. So it's not really a case of him getting a second chance after serving his punishment as having simply gotten away with it.
And yeah I get that charges were dropped and it's complex due to a child being involved but still, that's where it's ended up.
And I can't buy into the idea that just because it's not my club he's playing for it's OK. That makes the same amount of sense as defending him because he does play for your club. I.e. none.
I think the only thing that would have or could change my mind at all is if he did a lot of work with abuse charities etc. To help raise awareness and in doing so gave some indication he has remorse and feels he owes a debt/wants to stop other men going down the same path. I don't thinkbits the sort of thing that just goes away after a few years. I mean I still remember Suarez and Terry primarily as racists and this is on a different level.
And yeah I get that charges were dropped and it's complex due to a child being involved but still, that's where it's ended up.
And I can't buy into the idea that just because it's not my club he's playing for it's OK. That makes the same amount of sense as defending him because he does play for your club. I.e. none.
I think the only thing that would have or could change my mind at all is if he did a lot of work with abuse charities etc. To help raise awareness and in doing so gave some indication he has remorse and feels he owes a debt/wants to stop other men going down the same path. I don't thinkbits the sort of thing that just goes away after a few years. I mean I still remember Suarez and Terry primarily as racists and this is on a different level.
How do you know it's not happened since?
It should still be relevant to everyone, frankly. To dismiss it as irrelevant because a couple of years has passed is a pretty disgraceful example of minimizing the importance and impact of domestic violence and sexual assault.
On performance alone is Greenwood currently the best performing forward eligible for the national team? Wonder if they would ever pick him again.
Going to play for Jamaica
Hadn't heard that. Steve Mc the manager there too and seems it's him bringing him into the fold. Wonder if he backed his re-integration here.
Doing well in a second rate league rarely gets players picked for England.
Carsley picked Gomes though so it would not be totally off the table if it wasn't for the Greenwood's off field actions.
Are you surprised? People can't help simping/admiring the likes of Ronaldo and Mike Tyson.
"My client allegedly killed some people 2 years ago, and allegedly hasn't since, why is this still so relevant to you?"
Lets do more of these silly ridiculous takes, it's classic caf stuff. You should start a thread.
It is what it is. It's not a parking ticket.
His talent is well known, however he will be always associated with what he did.