Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

[Jam]

My partner does ice skating, and if she ever decided to take photos of the bruises she has after a few falls, I'd be in prison too. I've not been in defence or support of Greenwood through this, but why are people acting like a 15 second clip and 3 photos of some bruises are the pinnacle of truth? To me it seems like an incredibly easy thing to feign with makeup and the audio clip, while horrid, could also easily be a snippet out of a longer discussion, edited to look exceptionally bad?

Everyone quick to jump to conclusions, and then when reality doesn't align, no one seems to give up on those conclusions?

If your partner is leaving ice skating with black eyes and an audio clip of a bloke demanding sex when she doesn’t want it I would be incredibly concerned.

Why would CPS drop the case if the pictures and audio were evidence of a serious crime?

Even without witness, if those elements are proof, why did they let such an extremely high profile case go completely?

Added to that, they have more material, far more, than any layman has heard or seen.

You can’t keep repeating ‘the audio and pics are proof’, when clearly, they’re not proof.

Obviously the couple don’t want to release the further material to the public which to me, as a layman, suggests that though it clears him of a serious crime, it probably isn’t very flattering to either him or her or both of them.

But please, this ‘I’ve seen the proof’, when people who are professionals at gathering evidence have decided - THIS ISN’T PROOF, should stop.

It’s fair enough if your guess is ‘I think he’s committed a serious crime and the authorities have made a mistake in completely dropping the case’, but that’s all it is - a guess.

No one other than the couple themselves, the Police / CPS and to a lesser extent Utd actually know much about the case.

The couple are now parents of a baby girl, the CPS has dropped the case and Utd have publicly declared that they think he’s innocent.

Everything else - on both sides - is just guess work from people who know nothing about it.

She was the sole key witness, she withdrew from the case and could have refuted the evidence and claimed it was all fake - why would the CPS pursue a case when the result would be the actual victim then going to court to claim it was all fake and make the entire case fail and have her lie to defend the abuser?

He broke bail conditions be repeatedly contacting her and seeing her.

Many many many abusers trap their victims, or have such control over them they remove the idea of free will.

Life isn’t as simple as you people think.

Very sad. I had a feeling it would be a lot more to this than what the media have fed us.

The absolute madness on social media from our fans and other fans and especially The Athletic made this unbearable.

I really think we should have kept him and helped him. Maybe we do that now without reinstating him.

Yeah let’s reward these kinds of people. That’s a great idea.

He isn’t entitled to £100K a week and a career in the public eye.

He can be rehabilitated and live a relatively normal life. feck giving him a footballer’s life.

So tired of people defending him because he plays for Manchester United and was a talented player. God forbid any of you people have daughters who go through anything similar; if their partner did the same thing and was a brickie yeah sure you’d have absolutely the same reaction.

 

[Howl]

Nope

every time he stepped on the pitch it would be brought up
Thankfully both clubs know better

That's just not really true. Had the club shown pictures of him at Carrington months ago while also putting out puff pieces like the one the other day, people wouldn't be batting an eye at this point. Showing him at Carrington would have gotten the outrage out and over with and lets face it, propaganda absolutely works and they could have used that. I'm not really sure why they clearly weren't advised to put pieces out.

 

[rimaldo]

i think it’s better for all of us if we pretend he no longer exists, like we do with poverty and suffering.

 

[Denis79]

Many many many abusers trap their victims, or have such control over them they remove the idea of free will.

Life isn’t as simple as you people think.

Many seem to have a hard time wrapping their head around this. They find it more plausible that she made it all up, fabricated the video, audio and images, destroyed the 'poor' boys career and wanted him imprisoned out of spite. Now he, a millionare footballer chose to forgive her for this and is now heroically protecting her even at the cost of his career. What a fecking hero he is.

 

[TsuWave]

Businesses do it all the time. Threshold for reasonably dismissing someone is way different to the threshold for prosecution.

Personally, I'm a bit torn on the issue. If he wasn't a youth player it would be a no brainer, but as he's been with the club from a young age, the club are partly responsible for how he's turned out as an adult and I wouldn't have minded some attempts to keep him whilst ensuring he goes through proper support, therapy and gives back to those affected (directly and vicariously). But it's a no-win situation.

This isn't specific to you, but people in this thread keep saying "should have been proactive"/"should have cut ties the moment the audio dropped" but like:

The Athletic said the following:

“They debated whether to loan out or sell Greenwood, or attempt to cut ties with the 21-year-old altogether — though this would present legal challenges given the club do not consider, following the findings of an internal investigation, that they have grounds to terminate his contract.”

https://theathletic.com/4790552/2023/08/21/greenwood-man-united-u-turn/?source=user_shared_article

 

[Howl]

If your partner is leaving ice skating with black eyes and an audio clip of a bloke demanding sex when she doesn’t want it I would be incredibly concerned.

This sounded like a petulant teenager to be honest. I would expect most guys have acted like that when they were a teenager (maybe not to the same extent), and we weren't people like him who would have been handed everything on a silver spoon because he was a footballer. It was 50 seconds of a ~10 minute recording. We don't know what was on either side of that. It could have been extremely bad, but equally he could have just been whining and then shut up. We don't know why the recording started. It irks me when people act like they know everything, especially as in terms of this matter, we know absolutely nothing. I am so glad that some of the people on here (on both sides of the argument) are not in law enforcement because to make such a strong opinion on what little information is there is baffling and would be disastrous if police officers were to do that. And before people look at my previous posts, I have never said he did or didn't do it. Had it gone to trial, everything would have been in discovery and scrutinized. Then you could have had a full picture. Unfortunately it never did, so again unless you were intimately involved in the case, you know absolutely nothing and really shouldn't form such strong opinions on that nothing.

 

[Yorke to Cole]

From Oliver Holt's column...his discussion with a United official about Greenwood.

"An hour or so before the home game with Nottingham Forest on Saturday, a Manchester United official sat down next to me in the press room at Old Trafford and began to explain everything that was wrong with a critical piece I had written about the club’s handling of the Mason Greenwood affair.

What had happened to Greenwood was a tragedy, the United official said. It was a tragedy for the player, a tragedy for his family and a tragedy for football. He said money – specifically the potential loss of a lot of it - had never, ever, ever been a consideration in United’s internal discussions about whether to restore the player to their squad.

All things considered, he said, it would have been far better if I had written, as others had done, that United should have been allowed to manage Greenwood’s rehabilitation themselves rather than abandoning him to his fate and waiting for someone else to carry his baggage."

Makes clear that, even after the announcement, ideally for the club he'd still be here.

I read it. It was an awful article. Holt discusses Greenwood and then goes off at a tangent talking about the Spanish FA President. You should discuss both incidents in separation. They are different.

It is a bit like being asked to do an essay on A Midsummer's Nights Dream, discussing the character of Bottom and then start writing about Othello as well.

Oliver Holt has been a journalist forever and a day. Why was he not calling out misogyny years ago?

 

[dumbo]

Oliver Holt has been a journalist forever and a day. Why was he not calling out misogyny years ago?

2 seconds to google:

2020:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/b...ng-millions-way-idiot-Billy-Joe-Saunders.html
2019:
https://ronaldo.com/football-news/oliver-holt-says-theres-still-misogyny-in-womens-football/
2014:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/oliver-holt-column-richard-scudamore-3577037

I don't even care about Oliver Holt or his journalism so much but this thread is full of people plucking stuff out of the ether about journalists, celebrities, The Athletic, bdsm role play etc. to derail and distract from justified criticism and to construct bad non sequitur arguments. So boring and corrosive.

 

[Wumminator]

We should have released a statement and reinstated him the minute charges were dropped and completely moved on. Been decisive one way or the other. By now it would have been old news and closed topic. But here we are having made a complete mess of the whole situation as only united can.

If we reinstated him when charges were dropped we would have made a massive mistake and had the club’s name dragged through the mud. We would also be playing a disgusting individual in our team.

This sounded like a petulant teenager to be honest. I would expect most guys have acted like that when they were a teenager

fecking hell.

 

[Fridge chutney]

This sounded like a petulant teenager to be honest. I would expect most guys have acted like that when they were a teenager (maybe not to the same extent)

This is a disturbed and dangerous point of view.

 

[MackRobinson]

If your partner is leaving ice skating with black eyes and an audio clip of a bloke demanding sex when she doesn’t want it I would be incredibly concerned.



She was the sole key witness, she withdrew from the case and could have refuted the evidence and claimed it was all fake - why would the CPS pursue a case when the result would be the actual victim then going to court to claim it was all fake and make the entire case fail and have her lie to defend the abuser?

He broke bail conditions be repeatedly contacting her and seeing her.

Many many many abusers trap their victims, or have such control over them they remove the idea of free will.

Life isn’t as simple as you people think.



Yeah let’s reward these kinds of people. That’s a great idea.

He isn’t entitled to £100K a week and a career in the public eye.

He can be rehabilitated and live a relatively normal life. feck giving him a footballer’s life.

So tired of people defending him because he plays for Manchester United and was a talented player. God forbid any of you people have daughters who go through anything similar; if their partner did the same thing and was a brickie yeah sure you’d have absolutely the same reaction.

Sure is a lot of vitriol for a player who wasn't charged and his club said he didn't do what was alleged.

 

[DiMaria]

My partner does ice skating, and if she ever decided to take photos of the bruises she has after a few falls, I'd be in prison too. I've not been in defence or support of Greenwood through this, but why are people acting like a 15 second clip and 3 photos of some bruises are the pinnacle of truth? To me it seems like an incredibly easy thing to feign with makeup and the audio clip, while horrid, could also easily be a snippet out of a longer discussion, edited to look exceptionally bad?

Everyone quick to jump to conclusions, and then when reality doesn't align, no one seems to give up on those conclusions?

Good point. Reminds me a bit of the Amber heard case. You first had the public and social media all pretty much with one conclusion based on the limited information they had from media outlets. Then after the US trial when everyone heard much more audio and both sides they came to a very different conclusion. The difference here however is that Greenwood is still with his lady, so I don’t think they want to air each other’s dirty laundry in order to protect themselves/their relationship and their newborn baby. It’s a very delicate situation, but I feel that the club at least could have handled it better.

 

[Sky1981]

My partner does ice skating, and if she ever decided to take photos of the bruises she has after a few falls, I'd be in prison too. I've not been in defence or support of Greenwood through this, but why are people acting like a 15 second clip and 3 photos of some bruises are the pinnacle of truth? To me it seems like an incredibly easy thing to feign with makeup and the audio clip, while horrid, could also easily be a snippet out of a longer discussion, edited to look exceptionally bad?

Everyone quick to jump to conclusions, and then when reality doesn't align, no one seems to give up on those conclusions?

For the love of god....

 

[Howl]

fecking hell.

This is a disturbed and dangerous point of view.

If your telling me that when you were a teenager, let's say 16, you wouldn't get annoyed if you asked for sex and are turned down, your lying, unless your not males then fair enough. Take into consideration that he was most likely given everything he wanted, and lived life like he was hot shite it is so easy to see how someone would take it to the umpteenth level. It's a 52 second clip of a 15 minute video and it starts at 12:37. How you can form an opinion on whether he's guilty or not based on that little amount of information is beyond me. I will reiterate as congratulations for not reading the rest of my post. We know nothing about the case, and anybody who makes such an extreme opinion (on either side) on whether he did it or not, needs very serious help and should never be in a position where they have to decide something like that. To form such a strong belief based on essentially nothing is not only irresponsible, I will put your words back you to, but dangerous as well. If you dispute the fact that you know nothing about the case or that what evidence there was is enough, you have major issues. You are not a reasonable person.

 

[Wibble]

We should have released a statement and reinstated him the minute charges were dropped and completely moved on.

People really wouldn't. If polls are accurate then the majority of United fans want him nowhere near the club and don't seem at all in the mood for blindly forgetting about his behaviour.

 

[Carolina Red]

I would expect most guys have acted like that when they were a teenager

This thread just keeps delivering.

let's say 16, you wouldn't get annoyed if you asked for sex and are turned down, your lying

feck that. I’ve never once in my life acted like what I heard from him on that tape. If you have, then that’s a you problem… an awful big you problem at that.

 

[Howl]

This thread just keeps delivering.

feck that. I’ve never once in my life acted like what I heard from him on that tape. If you have, then that’s a you problem… an awful big you problem at that.

You can expand my question to anything really. If you are going to tell me you have never acted out because you have been told no your lying. Everyone has until they learn not to. Now imagine you are someone who has most likely never been told no. If you are unable to do that, you have "an awful big you problem". It's called being petulant and is a sign of immaturity. I will reiterate my original point for you again, as you seem to fixate on one line. It's 52 seconds of a 15 minute video, started at 12:37. That is not enough information for anyone to make an accurate assessment of what happened, and for all the people who are adamant they have the correct assessment- they should never be in a position to judge or police anything. It's a very dangerous thing to have such a lack of self-awareness, and is probably an indicator of an underlying issue in and of itself.

 

[Wibble]

My partner does ice skating, and if she ever decided to take photos of the bruises she has after a few falls, I'd be in prison too. I've not been in defence or support of Greenwood through this, but why are people acting like a 15 second clip and 3 photos of some bruises are the pinnacle of truth? To me it seems like an incredibly easy thing to feign with makeup and the audio clip, while horrid, could also easily be a snippet out of a longer discussion, edited to look exceptionally bad?

Do you think it is likely that this is something your partner is likely to invent? Why would she do that.

Everyone quick to jump to conclusions, and then when reality doesn't align, no one seems to give up on those conclusions?

Why do you feel the need to postulate an explanation that has never been suggested by anyone connected with the case? Nobody (other than male United fans seeming to find any conceivable excuse for Greenwood's behavior) have suggested that false accusations or role playing were involved. Not even when charges were dropped.

The only change seems to be the complainant stopped cooperating with the prosecution, which means the evident that the complainant gave had in effect changed, and without a witness giving evidence in court there is zero chance of a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The charges were inevitable then withdrawn.

I'm sure Greenwood would have released a statement with a reasonable and supportable explanation other than this (the one released in the club's statement). But that hasn't happened. Presumably for a good reason.

 

[SirScholes]

Such a tough call to make...but as its been dropped, and the fact they're together, have a child, both families fine, and have seemingly moved forward - we should have too.

Maybe not straight back into the first time, but maybe the reserves for a season for get back into it, give him mental health support, get him volunteering with charities around this topic so he really understands it, and really do our part to help him get back on the straight and narrow. It's a shame, and ask somebody mentioned before, this isn't about us as a club being moral, we were ultimately scared of being cancelled.

If Rachel Riley fecked off as a result, added bonus.

Or

if he didn’t do what we all think/know he did

why doesn’t he and his family explain what the feck went down. And he can continue where he left off
Wild idea but if I was innocent I’d fight to prove it rather than have to leave United and join some backwards league

Literally was captain.

Aye and still gets stuck from opposition

now imagine it’s his wife

 

[Pickle85]

Why would CPS drop the case if the pictures and audio were evidence of a serious crime?

Even without witness, if those elements are proof, why did they let such an extremely high profile case go completely?

Added to that, they have more material, far more, than any layman has heard or seen.

You can’t keep repeating ‘the audio and pics are proof’, when clearly, they’re not proof.

Obviously the couple don’t want to release the further material to the public which to me, as a layman, suggests that though it clears him of a serious crime, it probably isn’t very flattering to either him or her or both of them.

But please, this ‘I’ve seen the proof’, when people who are professionals at gathering evidence have decided - THIS ISN’T PROOF, should stop.

It’s fair enough if your guess is ‘I think he’s committed a serious crime and the authorities have made a mistake in completely dropping the case’, but that’s all it is - a guess.

No one other than the couple themselves, the Police / CPS and to a lesser extent Utd actually know much about the case.

The couple are now parents of a baby girl, the CPS has dropped the case and Utd have publicly declared that they think he’s innocent.

Everything else - on both sides - is just guess work from people who know nothing about it.

Because the key witness - the person upon whom the prosecution would rest - withdrew from the case. You can argue that this wouldn't stop the CPS until you're blue in the face but, as you seem to acknowledge, all it shows is that the video and audio ON THEIR OWN aren't sufficient evidence for a slam dunk conviction. Fine, but the evidence that's available to us skews towards him seeming guilty. I'm not sure why you seem to get such perverse satisfaction from arguing devil's advocate on this but I'm not getting into it any more with you

 

[Gordon S]

If you are going to tell me you have never acted out because you have been told no your lying. Everyone has until they learn not to

If acted out means threatening to hurt the person that says no to having sex with you, i sure as hell hope that you very wrong here. And you don´t have to be a grown up to understand how wrong that is.

 

[Pickle85]

You can expand my question to anything really. If you are going to tell me you have never acted out because you have been told no your lying. Everyone has until they learn not to. Now imagine you are someone who has most likely never been told no. If you are unable to do that, you have "an awful big you problem". It's called being petulant and is a sign of immaturity. I will reiterate my original point for you again, as you seem to fixate on one line. It's 52 seconds of a 15 minute video, started at 12:37. That is not enough information for anyone to make an accurate assessment of what happened, and for all the people who are adamant they have the correct assessment- they should never be in a position to judge or police anything. It's a very dangerous thing to have such a lack of self-awareness, and is probably an indicator of an underlying issue in and of itself.

This is a shocking post. Sorry to break it to you but no, not everybody has "acted out" when told no at some point. Least of all in the way that greenwood was captured doing it.

 

[Wumminator]

. I will reiterate as congratulations for not reading the rest of my post. We know nothing about the case, and anybody who makes such an extreme opinion (on either side) on whether he did it or not, needs very serious help and should never be in a position where they have to decide something like that.

Like the MPs and people at the club who said they were going to quit if he come back?

 

[Glorio]

You can expand my question to anything really. If you are going to tell me you have never acted out because you have been told no your lying. Everyone has until they learn not to. Now imagine you are someone who has most likely never been told no. If you are unable to do that, you have "an awful big you problem". It's called being petulant and is a sign of immaturity. I will reiterate my original point for you again, as you seem to fixate on one line. It's 52 seconds of a 15 minute video, started at 12:37. That is not enough information for anyone to make an accurate assessment of what happened, and for all the people who are adamant they have the correct assessment- they should never be in a position to judge or police anything. It's a very dangerous thing to have such a lack of self-awareness, and is probably an indicator of an underlying issue in and of itself.

While I agree with the wider point of not technically having enough evidence either way if no one is corroborating anything (even if what is out there is quite convincing), this POV is shocking.
Threatening rape is not petulance, and no, not everyone hasn't "acted out" like that in order to force themselves on someone begging to be left alone.

 

[Howl]

If acted out means threatening to hurt the person that says no to having sex with you, i sure as hell hope that you very wrong here. And you don´t have to be a grown up to understand how wrong that is.

I expanded it to reflect what I meant better. It's a very general easy question. Can anyone say they have never acted out when told no before? It's not unreasonable to assume that someone who was most likely never told no, could act this way. We also however, have no idea what's on either side of the 52 seconds. It could have ended with him apologizing, or it could have gone very south. We also do not know what happened before, or why there was a recording in the first place. We will never know either. Well, most likely anyway.

This is a shocking post. Sorry to break it to you but no, not everybody has "acted out" when told no at some point. Least of all in the way that greenwood was captured doing it.

This is a blatant lie. You cannot honestly say at no point in your life, you have never acted out when told no.

Like the MPs and people at the club who said they were going to quit if he come back?

Yeah. If your basis of judgement are politicians. I've got a bridge to sell you. I can guarantee if there wasn't so much backlash to Greenwood coming back to United, this Rachel Riley wouldn't have made a statement. That's literally what politicians do and have always done, they pick a winning side to get brownie points. Also, they don't have all the facts either, so their occupations make zero difference. The fact that you even thought that was some kind of "gotcha" is baffling to me.

While I agree with the wider point of not technically having enough evidence either way if no one is corroborating anything (even if what is out there is quite convincing), this POV is shocking.
Threatening rape is not petulance, and no, not everyone hasn't "acted out" like that in order to force themselves on someone begging to be left alone.

It is petulance. You can say it's very extreme, which I agree with but it was petulant nonetheless. I don't understand how it's even an argument. If acting out when you don't get your way isn't immaturity then I don't know what is. In the post you quoted, I expanded what I said originally to better reflect what I meant. It's a broad question- have you ever acted out when told no. Anyone who says no is lying because they seem to think the question pertains to assault. It doesn't. It's all about how children will act out, and Greenwood by all accounts is still mentally a child, which is not unreasonable to assume when you factor in he has most likely lived his life without being told no, because he's a footballer. You say my point of view is shocking and that's because? I've never condoned what he may or may have done. Never defended it either. I've merely stated when listening to the audio clip that it sounded like a petulant teenager, and that the evidence is not enough for a reasonable person to form a conclusion which people have.

 

[Slops]

What could possibly even be in the remainder of the recording that would excuse what we hear in the portion of it that's available to us? It seems strange to say we shouldn't judge that portion of the recording in isolation, when what we hear in isolation is the threat of sexual violence. For me that's enough, cheers.

And also, no, at the age of 20 I certainly can't remember acting out in a way that is in any way applicable here.

 

[Fabio Rochemback]

So tired of people defending him because he plays for Manchester United and was a talented player.

It baffles me. I just can't wrap my head around grown adults caring so much about the success of a professional sports team that they'll make excuses for this kind of behaviour.

 

[pocco]

@Howl and others saying this was a small part of a longer recording. There is a very obvious and most likely explanation for that. If its happened before and she wanted to catch him in the act, she likely started recording and left it running till it happened.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I expanded it to reflect what I meant better. It's a very general easy question. Can anyone say they have never acted out when told no before?

This is just so, so dumb. You don't do this in any other situation, why now?

We're coming up on the anniversary for the 9/11 attack, killing a few thousand people. Are we going to see you ask people if they've never had a political disagreement before? Famously Chris Benoit killed his family and then himself, but has anyone stopped to ask themselves if they never had a family argument that got out of hand before?

Describing rape threats as "acting out", and then putting it in a big bag of diverse behaviours of "acting out" that includes things like slamming your door or not cleaning your room, is profoundly idiotic. The most offensive part of it is that you think it's going to work as a rhetorical tactic.

 

[Bobade]

You think this thread cant stoop any lower, then it does. @Howl posts are disgusting.

 

[golden_blunder]

he would have sued the club into oblivion

Not necessarily, we could have fired him on the premise of bringing the club into disrepute. Charges were dropped but that doesn’t equal innocence of all alleged. Either way the club should have acted decisively.

 

[Pickle85]

I expanded it to reflect what I meant better. It's a very general easy question. Can anyone say they have never acted out when told no before? It's not unreasonable to assume that someone who was most likely never told no, could act this way. We also however, have no idea what's on either side of the 52 seconds. It could have ended with him apologizing, or it could have gone very south. We also do not know what happened before, or why there was a recording in the first place. We will never know either. Well, most likely anyway.


This is a blatant lie. You cannot honestly say at no point in your life, you have never acted out when told no.


Yeah. If your basis of judgement are politicians. I've got a bridge to sell you. I can guarantee if there wasn't so much backlash to Greenwood coming back to United, this Rachel Riley wouldn't have made a statement. That's literally what politicians do and have always done, they pick a winning side to get brownie points. Also, they don't have all the facts either, so their occupations make zero difference. The fact that you even thought that was some kind of "gotcha" is baffling to me.


It is petulance. You can say it's very extreme, which I agree with but it was petulant nonetheless. I don't understand how it's even an argument. If acting out when you don't get your way isn't immaturity then I don't know what is. In the post you quoted, I expanded what I said originally to better reflect what I meant. It's a broad question- have you ever acted out when told no. Anyone who says no is lying because they seem to think the question pertains to assault. It doesn't. It's all about how children will act out, and Greenwood by all accounts is still mentally a child, which is not unreasonable to assume when you factor in he has most likely lived his life without being told no, because he's a footballer. You say my point of view is shocking and that's because? I've never condoned what he may or may have done. Never defended it either. I've merely stated when listening to the audio clip that it sounded like a petulant teenager, and that the evidence is not enough for a reasonable person to form a conclusion which people have.

Well, yes, I've obviously acted out when told I needed to go to bed when I was a child, for instance, or that I couldn't go out on a Tuesday night as a teen. But there's quite a big difference between these and 'acting out' (your phrase, not mine) when told someone doesn't agree to sex. You see that, right?

 

[golden_blunder]

“Acting out”

my youngest acts out at 8 because he wants a packet of sweets and I tell him no he’s had enough.

telling someone you’re going’s go ahead and have sex with them after they’ve turned you down is not acting out, it’s a crime

 

[Hackman2210]

Weve thrown this boy to the wolves - its a fecking disgrace. If he tops himself - who's to blame, him, us the media. Where is the humanity in this decision. Someone said earlier, as a club we dont have the balls to say he fecked up but we are going to rehabilitate him. He's not a serial sex offender, surely he has the right to a future. The mind boggles at how badly Man Utd have misread this one.

 

[flameinthesun]

From Oliver Holt's column...his discussion with a United official about Greenwood.

"An hour or so before the home game with Nottingham Forest on Saturday, a Manchester United official sat down next to me in the press room at Old Trafford and began to explain everything that was wrong with a critical piece I had written about the club’s handling of the Mason Greenwood affair.

What had happened to Greenwood was a tragedy, the United official said. It was a tragedy for the player, a tragedy for his family and a tragedy for football. He said money – specifically the potential loss of a lot of it - had never, ever, ever been a consideration in United’s internal discussions about whether to restore the player to their squad.

All things considered, he said, it would have been far better if I had written, as others had done, that United should have been allowed to manage Greenwood’s rehabilitation themselves rather than abandoning him to his fate and waiting for someone else to carry his baggage."

Makes clear that, even after the announcement, ideally for the club he'd still be here.

Which is an angle I proposed. Taking into account everything (the dropped case, the United review, etc), from a rehabilitation purpose for Mason as well as the family I would think the best scenario would be for him to be under United's wing but that doesn't chime with the Mason must be punished crew.

 

[Mockney]

Weve thrown this boy to the wolves - its a fecking disgrace. If he tops himself - who's to blame, him, us the media. Where is the humanity in this decision. Someone said earlier, as a club we dont have the balls to say he fecked up but we are going to rehabilitate him. He's not a serial sex offender, surely he has the right to a future. The mind boggles at how badly Man Utd have misread this one.

Sorry, I must’ve missed when we do this for every other academy product who’s been with us since 7 that we just let go if they aren’t good enough? ‘The Manchester United Rehabilitation Charity for Players Who Dont Get to Be In Our Team Anymore’ must just be doling out the money and counselling, to even the non-rapey ones.

 

[Pickle85]

Weve thrown this boy to the wolves - its a fecking disgrace. If he tops himself - who's to blame, him, us the media. Where is the humanity in this decision. Someone said earlier, as a club we dont have the balls to say he fecked up but we are going to rehabilitate him. He's not a serial sex offender, surely he has the right to a future. The mind boggles at how badly Man Utd have misread this one.

How do you know? I mean, I'm certainly not saying he is by any means but all we can say is he's never been caught/convicted.

 

[Gordon S]

I expanded it to reflect what I meant better. It's a very general easy question. Can anyone say they have never acted out when told no before?

I think you need to explain more what you mean when you say "acted out"... and how that connects to what we heard from Mason.
There is a lot of miscommunication here if you are not perfectly clear what you mean. And please stop calling people liars.

 

[Brophs]

2 seconds to google:

2020:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/b...ng-millions-way-idiot-Billy-Joe-Saunders.html
2019:
https://ronaldo.com/football-news/oliver-holt-says-theres-still-misogyny-in-womens-football/
2014:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/oliver-holt-column-richard-scudamore-3577037

I don't even care about Oliver Holt or his journalism so much but this thread is full of people plucking stuff out of the ether about journalists, celebrities, The Athletic, bdsm role play etc. to derail and distract from justified criticism and to construct bad non sequitur arguments. So boring and corrosive.

Couldn’t agree more. The stuff around the media particularly leaves me about as uncomfortable as I’ve ever been on here.

 

[Tom Cato]

Not necessarily, we could have fired him on the premise of bringing the club into disrepute. Charges were dropped but that doesn’t equal innocence of all alleged. Either way the club should have acted decisively.

The club certainly could have. The club have also seen more than the public have and have decided that the full body of evidence apparently does not rise to that level of transgression, or they would have terminated the contract. If the clubs legal team have found that terminating the contract would pose a legal issue that could be challenged, there has to be information there that speaks against the damning social media post.

The alternative is a conspiracy theory that evil rich people want money for letting Greenwood go.

It strikes me as a bit odd that we were not allowed to even mention Greenwoods name for the longest time, but now that the crown have decided to not prosecute due to new evidence (and key witness withdrawing, but the new evidence bit is the interesting unknown bit here) any conclusion and assumption that paints him as an absolute demon goes unchecked.

I want to know what the club knows, because its more than we do