Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
MUFC OK said:
Aware this won’t sit right with some but United should’ve had him back in training as soon as the CPS case was dropped, if the manager wanted him in the squad. This 6 month “internal investigation” nonsense when they were happy to u-turn because of twitter sentiment and the host of countdown going to the BBC just shows what a joke both the investigation and the leadership at the club are. As if anyone needed reminding.

Instead the decision was informed by an online backlash and what the club perceived as the general sentiment on the decision.

Spineless, gutless, feckless leadership at a commercial shell of a once great football club.
Click to expand...
With respect, I think your post is entirely wrong. Greenwood is an employee of the club, and was suspended from the club the same as you or I might be suspended from work.
The investigation carried out by the club was purely a HR process to determine the facts of his actions and if they had grounds to dismiss MG. It would be untenable, if not impossible for him to return to work without an outcome from the club investigation. If they allowed him to train but not play they might be breaching his employment contract (speculation) and if they subsequently terminated his contract that would likely have legal ramifications too.

Your post also ignores the fact that the decision to move away from OT was mutual by the club and MG, therefore not entirely fair to apportion blame entirely to Arnold/the club especially as if we believe reports they were looking at having MG back. Maybe as a shy and low key type Mason himself decided he didn’t want the worlds media attention of turning out for United again, not to mention the bitter and vitriolic abuse he would have received from fans, home and away.
 
MUFC OK said:
I firmly believe SAF would have reintegrated MG if he were manager - no doubt in my mind, a unique situation but he had a track record of protecting his players in toxic circumstances. This club now however is too scared to make a decision, fixated on share price and commercial product.

That the pitch forks on social media could change a decision at the 11th hour of a farcically long “investigation” is just diabolical.

For MG - he should be given the chance to rebuild his career. He is not guilty of an offence and that’s how to function of the law works and has to work. I think the club has made that infinitely more difficult for him though with their handling of this.
Click to expand...

I said in an earlier post that he always acknowledged the support of the fans and the executives and that they cant do it without them, but the manager needs to run the club otherwise it is a "free fall.".

I like to think Ten Hag has not closed the door on him in terms of a support network as he probably goes abroad. He may allow him to come back and train with the under 23's or set him up with a Dutch side.

You never know, MUFC OK, we maybe in the process of ownership change. The structure at the top maybe changing within the next 6 months. There maybe infrastructural developments occurring and the vibe around the club will not be so fragile? That is what I am hoping.

I think Greenwood's aim, will be to play at the highest level and still be able to do it in the UK at some point.
 
Howl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Some people respect the answer "no". I, for one, could never conceive of not respecting someone who says no to sex or sexual acts. Conversely you, it seems, feel otherwise to the point where you are defending that disgusting recording and horrific photos. You are deranged and dangerous if that is truly what you think and i hope no one i know, especially if they are female, ever comes across you.
 
Howl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like hell I did.

And that aside he wasn't charged with being petulant.

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.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the police and DPP only saw 52 seconds of the recording before he was charged? Or asked the complainant about the context of what was recorded?
 
Howl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Disgraceful
 
Howl said:
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.
Click to expand...

You should seek help mate. Just so you know, that's not a normal reaction to being turned down by a woman.
 
Last edited:
Denis79 said:
You should seek help mate. Just so you know, that's not a normal reaction to being turned down by a woman.
Click to expand...

I am not condoning any type of language used in relation to extracting sexual attention. But I have done a lot of reading and watched a couple of documentaries and there is a significant shift
of attitudes towards young relationships and how they interact with each other. What teenagers can say now compared with a teenager 20-25 years ago is a stark contrast.

This is a wider sociological debate that needs to obviously happen because this attitude towards sexual relations is changing. It is being exacerbated by the easy access to porn on the internet and social media. A lot of commentators on this subject have also said that the pandemic and its subsequent lockdowns are a factor in people exploring different attitudes towards sex.

Education around this topic needs to evolve if values are going to be retained. This is what I have been saying during this whole topic. You need to get to the root of the issue in order to completely understand it. Once that happens, then you can start to make the changes.
 
Last edited:
Yorke to Cole said:
I am condoning any type of language used in relation to extracting sexual attention. But I have done a lot of reading and watched a couple of documentaries and there is a significant shift
of attitudes towards young relationships and how they interact with each other. What 16 teenagers can say now compared with a teenager 20-25 years ago is a stark contrast.

This is a wider sociological debate that needs to obviously happen because this attitude towards sexual relations is changing. It is being exacerbated by the easy access to porn on the internet and social media. A lot of commentators on this subject have also said that the pandemic and its subsequent lockdowns are a factor in people exploring different attitudes towards sex.

Education around this topic needs to evolve if values are going to be retained. This is what I have been saying during this whole topic. You need to get to the root of the issue in order to completely understand it. Once that happens, then you can start to make the changes.
Click to expand...

This is another reason that all the PL clubs will avoid Greenwood. No club wants to encourage this type of hateful behavior towards women.

And there are sick morons among the fans who might actually cheer Greenwood exactly for what he did. That would be really embarrassing for the club, any club. Much more embarrassing than the fans who will boo him.

We should release Greenwood asap. Pay him and release him. It is not healthy for our club to associate with this kind of behavior. We are not getting any money for him, it is over, nobody is going to buy him.
 
frostbite said:
This is another reason that all the PL clubs will avoid Greenwood. No club wants to encourage this type of hateful behavior towards women.

And there are sick morons among the fans who might actually cheer Greenwood exactly for what he did. That would be really embarrassing for the club, any club. Much more embarrassing than the fans who will boo him.

We should release Greenwood asap. Pay him and release him. It is not healthy for our club to associate with this kind of behavior. We are not getting any money for him, it is over, nobody is going to buy him.
Click to expand...

The club need to take a degree of responsibility as they found him not guilty of what he was accused of. After 10 months of the withdrawal of the statement, the CPS dropped the charges.

The club need to safeguard other young players in the future and help set out the next steps for Greenwood. They have taken it upon themselves ( arguably belatedly) that they have a duty of care for him. Therefore they need to demonstrate that.
 
Yorke to Cole said:
I am not condoning any type of language used in relation to extracting sexual attention. But I have done a lot of reading and watched a couple of documentaries and there is a significant shift
of attitudes towards young relationships and how they interact with each other. What teenagers can say now compared with a teenager 20-25 years ago is a stark contrast.

This is a wider sociological debate that needs to obviously happen because this attitude towards sexual relations is changing. It is being exacerbated by the easy access to porn on the internet and social media. A lot of commentators on this subject have also said that the pandemic and its subsequent lockdowns are a factor in people exploring different attitudes towards sex.

Education around this topic needs to evolve if values are going to be retained. This is what I have been saying during this whole topic. You need to get to the root of the issue in order to completely understand it. Once that happens, then you can start to make the changes.
Click to expand...

This generation is 100% more aware of the issue than ever and the issues around consent are mandatory learning for every teenager in the country.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
No-one claimed he bullied them, just that some put downs were harsh.

My point was that the football environment actually encourages this as “banter”, and the vast vast majority of footballers are at it, it’s not specific to MG or “horrible individuals”.

Here’s from a separate article on “banter culture”.



And here’s the study.

https://www.shu.ac.uk/news/all-articles/latest-news/professional-football-bullying-banter

It’s why I have an issue with people using Ladyman as proof he was some scumbag before this, when tonnes of teenagers can be moody, in fact, tonnes of adults on a bad day can be rude to each other on occasions so one example of him being moody in cab, is well… a nothing thing. An comment that his football “banter” could be brutal means nothing either.

What means something is what came next.

Ladyman’s piece feels like a journo desperate to get in on the MG action and generate clicks with some background that’s made out to be a character study of someone nasty, when in reality giving some harsh banter to teammates and one single occasion of being in a grumpy mood could be said about a million people all over the UK. He gives zero examples of the banter and the driver anecdote… when even was this? Before/after the shit hit the fan? What had the driver said, because apparently he was trying to “strike up a conversation”? About what? Was he trying to give him banter? Ask for some inside info? Talk the ears off him? He gives absolutely zero details so I’m not even convinced it aint made up, chinese whispers or just rumour. Where the feck has he even dragged this anecdote up from several years later?
Click to expand...

The entire point of that article was to show that MG wasn't like most other teenagers, which is why it was called illuminating in the other thread btw. Several people then tried to explain it to you yet here you are still writing novels about why a couple of anecdotes in it, that you're doing your very best to downplay and that must've made up not more than two sentences, aren't actually anything bad at all which means the entire article must be BS.
 
Zlaatan said:
The entire point of that article was to show that MG wasn't like most other teenagers, which is why it was called illuminating in the other thread btw. Several people then tried to explain it to you yet here you are still writing novels about why a couple of anecdotes in it, that you're doing your very best to downplay and that must've made up not more than two sentences, aren't actually anything bad at all which means the entire article must be BS.
Click to expand...

It absolute nonsense though, nothing in the article pints him as an abnormal teenager at all.
Which part makes him abnormal?

It was a nothing piece desperate to get in on the MG story and attract clicks, and it worked a treat.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
It absolute nonsense though, nothing in the article pints him as an abnormal teenager at all.
Which part makes him abnormal?

It was a nothing piece desperate to get in on the MG story and attract clicks, and it worked a treat.
Click to expand...
Right the way some of the posters are going on about the article it seems they themselves were never teenagers or have never interacted with one .
 
Last edited:
I’ve got a sneaky feeling that he’s staying, he hasn’t been linked with any club being interested in taking him. So after Friday he’ll still be a United player and therefore be reintroduced slowly to the team.
 
While I would love to have him as part of the squad, if they go down the route of "We were unable to find a team to take a punt on him and for him to support his family we have decided to...", if they believe him innocent they should stand by their convictions and support him if that's what they believe.
 
Neil67 said:
I’ve got a sneaky feeling that he’s staying, he hasn’t been linked with any club being interested in taking him. So after Friday he’ll still be a United player and therefore be reintroduced slowly to the team.
Click to expand...
The only way this conceivably happens is if MG and his partner face the cameras and offer a fuller explanation. People can speculate with all kinds of more sympathetic or less sympathetic readings as to why they wouldn't want to do this (again, my point has always been that we can't judge either way until this is made available). However, they have to take hold of the narrative, both in terms of interpretation of (a) the existing evidence and (b) the way that his partners 'best interest' has been framed.

If his partner herself essentially frames the narratives of 'concern' as being forms of exploitation and (in certain cases, in so many words) 'concern-trolling' which are stopping her partner from being able to pursue his career and allow them to live a happy family life, whilst also offering a concrete rebuttal of the existing interpretation of the leaked evidence (irrespective of whether that explanation fully convinces some critical mass of people) then he might be 'OK'. OK in the sense of being on 'parole' and allowed to restart his career but being watched for any slip-ups.. Right now, though, social media pressure on clubs and sponsors is essentially barring him from signing for any club.

Again, none of that has anything to do -either way- with innocence or guilt likelihood...its purely descriptive,
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
It absolute nonsense though, nothing in the article pints him as an abnormal teenager at all.
Which part makes him abnormal?

It was a nothing piece desperate to get in on the MG story and attract clicks, and it worked a treat.
Click to expand...

The part where he's said to be "a complex lad. Fragile with a childlike brain"? That he was a 17-year old with a brain of a 14-year old? That people weren't surprised that he had struggled considered how immature he is? That he didn't understand what he had done wrong after being sent home from international duty when he broke the most obvious rule he could at that time? That people think his brain doesn't tell him to conform or to listen or to stop? That Ole was excessively protective of him due to his many issues and other players were told to look after him? That the police had to be called to the training ground because of him?

And then there's the quote from the audio recording with his girlfriend, which I hope you're excluding from your argument.


Do you honestly think that this could describe most of the academy/teenage players at United? (and by that I mean all of it, not if one player could possibly do one of the things once)
 
Neil67 said:
I’ve got a sneaky feeling that he’s staying, he hasn’t been linked with any club being interested in taking him. So after Friday he’ll still be a United player and therefore be reintroduced slowly to the team.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the club statement.

Man Utd official club statement on Mason Greenwood | 21 August 2023 | Manchester United

A key part of it,

All those involved, including Mason, recognise the difficulties with him recommencing his career at Manchester United. It has therefore been mutually agreed that it would be most appropriate for him to do so away from Old Trafford

He is never playing for this club again.
 
Wibble said:
Like hell I did.

And that aside he wasn't charged with being petulant.



Do you really think the police and DPP only saw 52 seconds of the recording before he was charged? Or asked the complainant about the context of what was recorded?
Click to expand...

Well the complainant asked for him not to be charged before he was officially charged. Police and prosecutors in the cases of DV and Coercive behaviour will try and get as much evidence without the victim though. Hence when he had bail extended numerous times.
 
hiswizardness said:
Hello everyone, this is my first post here but I was a United supporter since I can remember. I truly still love this club but I consider the way many fans have pressured the club into dismissing Mason Greenwood is deeply immoral.

While I understand that this isn't what they really wanted I still think it was the club's decision to take so long to bring him back, and seemingly trying to find ways to control the narrative so much that allowed the media, a large part of the fanbase and some influencers to take advantage of the situation and essentially lynch Mason Greenwood. I am sorry if what I say is shocking or ridiculous to you, but I truly feel very strongly about the moral implications and I don't feel that what has happened here is right at all, so I don't feel that it makes sense to continue support the club if this conflicts with the values I believe I hold.

The main point for me is this: I've read pretty much this whole thread, and I still haven't seen an actual reply as to why most people accusing Greenwood believe they are entitled to claim they know for sure that Greenwood raped, or beat his girlfriend based off of 2 bits of information posted on a social media platform? You may claim that the answer is already in the previous pages, but can you provide a quote or a link? I'm saying that it is actually impossible for you to know that, but still you felt entitled to pressure the club into deciding to part ways with him.

All that say it is still on the club for not having stood their ground and brought him back. I believe that a good system is built on truth and facts, but the club has shown a lack of spine to stand by that principle.
Click to expand...
The club has done a thorough investigation and decided not to bring him back. I think they handled it as well as can be expected in such circumstances.

The only truth you need to let sink in is that MG behaved atrociously and damaged his own and the club’s reputation.
 
Zlaatan said:
The part where he's said to be "a complex lad. Fragile with a childlike brain"? That he was a 17-year old with a brain of a 14-year old? That people weren't surprised that he had struggled considered how immature he is? That he didn't understand what he had done wrong after being sent home from international duty when he broke the most obvious rule he could at that time? That people think his brain doesn't tell him to conform or to listen or to stop? That Ole was excessively protective of him due to his many issues and other players were told to look after him? That the police had to be called to the training ground because of him?
Click to expand...

Slow down lad.

The well informed source actually says in the same article….

None of it was really bad stuff, certainly not on a scale of what we used to have with someone like Ravel Morrison,'
Click to expand...

And…

You do get issues with lots of young players and United care about them.

'The attitude is: "He is one of their own, he's a great player and whatever they need to do to help they will do".

'That doesn't go as far as cover ups. Yes, Ole may have been excessively protective. Some players thought that. But that's only in hindsight.


A lot of it was stereotypical player stuff and only now do you look back and wonder if they were indicative of more deep seated issues.'
Click to expand...

Look at the article through a less biased lens and you’ll see it actually tends to agree with me, there was no really bad behaviour, and lots of the things were in fact stereotypical of many players, only hindsight bias has people thinking they were early signs of something much darker.

The part in red is what has pissed me off with the article, because there’s a huge difference between being a teenage twerp and a violent abuser. In fact, many abusers can look like the most wonderful people in the World to people outside their homes. Being a teenage twerp isn’t indicative of much deeper issues at all, it’s hindsight drivel.
 
Neil67 said:
I’ve got a sneaky feeling that he’s staying, he hasn’t been linked with any club being interested in taking him. So after Friday he’ll still be a United player and therefore be reintroduced slowly to the team.
Click to expand...
He will be released and able to go elsewhere as a free agent. Don't see any way back.
 
pocco said:
I honestly can't get over the number of people that want him to stay and are trying to defend his actions based on guesswork. fecking weirdos.
Click to expand...

It's embarrassing.

If Greenwood ever plays for this club again it will be the darkest most shameful day in the clubs history.
 
Neil67 said:
I’ve got a sneaky feeling that he’s staying, he hasn’t been linked with any club being interested in taking him. So after Friday he’ll still be a United player and therefore be reintroduced slowly to the team.
Click to expand...

Surely not given our statement. Yes he hasn't been able to find a new club to date, but that doesn't mean he should auto return for us. I do think he will be allowed to train with us/use facilities though. But game time? Would be a shit storm.
 
So many people on the last page saying they think he's staying or want him to stay. I seriously don't know what to say anymore. Whatever "side" you're on, after the statement released by the club, there is simply no way he's going to be reintroduced in the first team. It's completely inconceivable. He might technically remain contracted to the club for a time, but that's it.

hiswizardness said:
Hello everyone, this is my first post here but I was a United supporter since I can remember. I truly still love this club but I consider the way many fans have pressured the club into dismissing Mason Greenwood is deeply immoral.

While I understand that this isn't what they really wanted I still think it was the club's decision to take so long to bring him back, and seemingly trying to find ways to control the narrative so much that allowed the media, a large part of the fanbase and some influencers to take advantage of the situation and essentially lynch Mason Greenwood. I am sorry if what I say is shocking or ridiculous to you, but I truly feel very strongly about the moral implications and I don't feel that what has happened here is right at all, so I don't feel that it makes sense to continue support the club if this conflicts with the values I believe I hold.

The main point for me is this: I've read pretty much this whole thread, and I still haven't seen an actual reply as to why most people accusing Greenwood believe they are entitled to claim they know for sure that Greenwood raped, or beat his girlfriend based off of 2 bits of information posted on a social media platform? You may claim that the answer is already in the previous pages, but can you provide a quote or a link? I'm saying that it is actually impossible for you to know that, but still you felt entitled to pressure the club into deciding to part ways with him.

All that say it is still on the club for not having stood their ground and brought him back. I believe that a good system is built on truth and facts, but the club has shown a lack of spine to stand by that principle.
Click to expand...

This is going to come across as harsh, and I'm not sorry for it: this is a terrible first post. Very few people in this thread have claimed they know for sure that Greenwood is guilty of everything he was accused of. Outside of some voices that are best ignored, no one has lynched him. It's exactly posts like this, with zero nuance and attempting to overly simplify everything, that make the entire conversation around Greenwood so terrible.
 
The main counter to any of these suggestions of him having ASD or something like that, is why would he not get diagnosed and use that information to his advantage?

He's hardly going to just sit on that if he could use it to explain why he may have acted the way he did etc., it makes very little sense to suggest there is some sort of issue there that he is just not bringing to light.
 
pocco said:
I honestly can't get over the number of people that want him to stay and are trying to defend his actions based on guesswork. fecking weirdos.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know.

I think it's a combination of three factors (in no particular order):

1) Tribalism. Look at the number of posts trying to make a huge deal out of the supposed ABU element in certain media outlets' coverage of the story: "Why don't they target Arsenal...something something The Athletic..."

2) PC/cancel culture gone mad - that whole angle. "United have condemned the lad to a life of poverty 'cause they're afraid of the social media reaction, something something Rachel Riley..."

3) A more straight-forward and cynical take: he's too good a prospect to lose over something like this (after all, he didn't kill anyone and Giggs was a bit of a creep too, etc.).
 
Ainu said:
So many people on the last page saying they think he's staying or want him to stay. I seriously don't know what to say anymore. Whatever "side" you're on, after the statement released by the club, there is simply no way he's going to be reintroduced in the first team. It's completely inconceivable. He might technically remain contracted to the club for a time, but that's it.


This is going to come across as harsh, and I'm not sorry for it: this is a terrible first post. Very few people in this thread have claimed they know for sure that Greenwood is guilty of everything he was accused of. Outside of some voices that are best ignored, no one has lynched him. It's exactly posts like this, with zero nuance and attempting to overly simplify everything, that make the entire conversation around Greenwood so terrible.
Click to expand...
Quite unfair to the poster, considering how many dittos and 'seconds' the most aggressive posts about MG get here , the ones which call everyone who says that we need to understand what this further evidence is' before we even think of coming to some sort of judgement, as being 'morons' and 'evil', saying that MG is the worst thing to happen to football and bordering upon saying he should die.

People have also been shouted down, figuratively, for pointing out that players actually convicted for violent crimes, causing death through negligence (drink-driving and speeding) or being involved in blackmail around underaged prostitution rings have been reintegrated into top football clubs in recent memory with little to no fuss. That doesn't mean that it's right that there was so little discussion then, just that it's proper to ask why someone with no criminal conviction, cleared in different ways by two investigations (the CPS had every incentive to take a profile case like this to trial if they felt the evidence finally stood up, particularly given public awareness around issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault, the aftermath of Me Too etc), and who is supported by his erstwhile accuser should be singled out. What are the factors, what are the ethical differences, are we tilting too far into allowing trial by social media etc? That doesn't mean people posing those questions have any kinds of full answers either, but its important to recognize our collective gaps in understanding or unexamined premises if we're going to be fair.

At least the poster started with the correct premise that none of us can know whether MG is innocent or guilty based upon the current public evidence. Just because it wasn't a forensic breakdown of the facts of the case as we understand them or anything like that, doesn't mean their comment should be 'cancelled' or subject to significantly different levels of judgement compared to posts that fly by here consistently. There's a lot of motivated reasoning flying about.
 
Howl said:
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.
Click to expand...
WTF !!!! This is one of the worst posts I have ever read.
When I was 16, no meant no and will always mean no, if that annoyed you WOW.
Just when I thought this thread had reached rock bottom :eek:
 
Conor said:
The main counter to any of these suggestions of him having ASD or something like that, is why would he not get diagnosed and use that information to his advantage?

He's hardly going to just sit on that if he could use it to explain why he may have acted the way he did etc., it makes very little sense to suggest there is some sort of issue there that he is just not bringing to light.
Click to expand...
Probably because having autism doesn’t even slightly explain why he would be violent to a woman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.