Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
I suspect he will be loaned out and/or sold, and only released at the end of his contract if nobody wants him.
I think any potential suitors have the advantage here. They can wait until after the window closes. We release him from his contract, and he becomes a free agent with a potential for a signing bonus.
I doubt we will keep him on wages and out of the team for another 4 months until January but then again, this club has made more bonkers decisions so only time will tell.

Another possibility that would not surprise me in the slightest is that he is not loaned or sold, we don't release him, the club is then sold in the next few months, and the new owners, manager, CEO, bring him back in. I don't think anyone would be surprised at that happening with the way this club is run.
 
I think any potential suitors have the advantage here. They can wait until after the window closes. We release him from his contract, and he becomes a free agent with a potential for a signing bonus.
I doubt we will keep him on wages and out of the team for another 4 months until January but then again, this club has made more bonkers decisions so only time will tell.

Another possibility that would not surprise me in the slightest is that he is not loaned or sold, we don't release him, the club is then sold in the next few months, and the new owners, manager, CEO, bring him back in. I don't think anyone would be surprised at that happening with the way this club is run.
I would be very surprised if this happened, new owners of not, his position at United is untenable and for me always will be
 
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.

Which is irrelevant - so why do people keep bringing it up?

As for the CPS and their decision to drop the case, this has been mentioned a million times already, but it would be a waste of time and resources to proceed after the principal witness a) declared that they wouldn't cooperate and b) recanted their actual testimony.
 
Which is irrelevant - so why do people keep bringing it up?

As for the CPS and their decision to drop the case, this has been mentioned a million times already, but it would be a waste of time and resources to proceed after the principal witness a) declared that they wouldn't cooperate and b) recanted their actual testimony.

Because people hide all the time behind word salads, however intelligently written, but there are always tells to how they really feel.


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:

It's an ongoing theme that so many fail to call out trash like this. Especially from those who see themselves on that "side" of the debate.
 
Probably because having autism doesn’t even slightly explain why he would be violent to a woman.
Or course having autism would impact his ability to handle conflict and relationships :lol:
 
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:
He can't reply, he's been permed.

This thread has yielded the mosts perms I can remember from a single thread. Maybe between blackface discussion and gay footballers threads for second and third.
 
Which is irrelevant - so why do people keep bringing it up?

As for the CPS and their decision to drop the case, this has been mentioned a million times already, but it would be a waste of time and resources to proceed after the principal witness a) declared that they wouldn't cooperate and b) recanted their actual testimony.
Well, its circumstantial, but so are the counterfacts provided by people not only convinced of his guilt but convinced that the available evidence is sufficient to supersede any doubts which might hypothetically be raised by new evidence brought into the public domain. If the support is irrelevant then so is the public evidence, given that we have been informed this material has not been properly contextualised. Yet people are extremely eager to de facto convict anyway off the back of it.

If the claim about games and leaking these as retribution for his adultery were true - and I'm not saying this is the claim made by MG/his partner, nor that this claim would be true either way, before anyone jumps on this - would the audio evidence still be admissible as a justification for excluding him from the club? The fact that counterfactuals reasonably exist in the first place mean that until the case in defence of MG, or the explanation alongside any other material evidence provided to the CPS and to the club, is made clear, we can't consider the available evidence relating to these criminal charges to be 'unequivocal' or more than circumstantial either. If that absolute is excluded, then we are merely in the territory of contentious probabilities.

This new evidence is a known unknown , which only select senior members of the club/legal team(that cleared him) and the CPS have access to. And it would help if people acknowledged that the withdrawing of the claim was, as far as we have been made to understand, not the only reason. This is what I mean about motivated reasoning. Acknowledging those things doesn't mean committing to the idea that MG must be innocent in any way. But not acknowledging them is committing to pre-emptive guilt.
 
"Everyone has a bit of a rapey phase when they're a teenager, right guys?" is a top shout for worst post in a thread with a whole lot of contenders. :lol:
 
He can't reply, he's been permed.

This thread has yielded the mosts perms I can remember from a single thread. Maybe between blackface discussion and gay footballers threads for second and third.
I come on to read , telling myself , that I wont reply back, but sometimes you just have t, it was genuinely one of the worst post I have ever seen on here.
 
I would be very surprised if this happened, new owners of not, his position at United is untenable and for me always will be
I get that and the majority of the fan base feel that way, but you just don't know what the new owners will do, especially if it's SJ. Take into account, the current hierarchy were very close to bringing him back.
 
I come on to read , telling myself , that I wont reply back, but sometimes you just have t, it was genuinely one of the worst post I have ever seen on here.

I don't know, not too long ago some used the phrase "tiny rape" to suggests there are levels to this.

Another suggested it's her fault for waking Greenwood up and he didn't know what he was doing.

My favourite, though not as bad as a post just funny, was the guy blaming Simon Cowell :lol:
 
"Everyone has a bit of a rapey phase when they're a teenager, right guys?" is a top shout for worst post in a thread with a whole lot of contenders. :lol:

It's truly one of the dumbest things I've read. As if its normal to threaten rape when you don't get your way... the actual feck.
 
Every time I see this thread title I get whiplash. Tragic stuff. Potentially two lives ruined - not even accounting for collateral damage - and a colossal talent and economic loss for the club.

Top 5 scoring teen in the prem - still growing into his body and learning the game and was already a starter for Manchester United - Ronaldo at his age was getting benched by Park Ji Sung - star, and more importantly, match winning quality, technically sound, both feet, could beat a man with a drop of the shoulder or step-overs, peach of a shot, and expert at the Carrington knee slide celebration. If only the head was screwed on tight.

fecking hell.
 
If the claim about games and leaking these as retribution for his adultery were true - and I'm not saying this is the claim made by MG/his partner, nor that this claim would be true either way, before anyone jumps on this - would the audio evidence still be admissible as a justification for excluding him from the club?

I don't know, possibly - if it could be interpreted as him bringing the club into disrepute.

But this is surely moot, as the club haven't even tried to play this angle. The club wanted to keep him. But then realized that this may be...inconvenient for a number of reasons.

ETA But the actual reason provided for why he can't be kept on has nothing to do with the audio evidence: Arnold explicitly states that they have been given an explanation for the audio, and they clearly consider this explanation good enough - to the point of pretty much absolving Greenwood of the original charges (make of that what you will - in my opinion that's quite preposterous given that Arnold, in the very same statement, makes it clear the club do not and cannot have access to all the evidence. Basically: they've talked to Greenwood himself and his partner's mother. They clearly have not heard the full audio - what they've done is to accept Greenwood's and the mother's explanation for the "bad" part).

As for the rest of it, the obvious argument against the "games" theory is that it seems utterly unlikely that Greenwood wouldn't have played that card if he could have.

(The "theory" that he's actually protecting his partner at the cost of his career is extremely hard to believe for a number of reasons.)
 
Last edited:
I get that and the majority of the fan base feel that way, but you just don't know what the new owners will do, especially if it's SJ. Take into account, the current hierarchy were very close to bringing him back.

Yeah, people seem to be suggesting the Qataris will not give a feck and take him back anyway...

Which is a whole another level of nope.


It's truly one of the dumbest things I've read. As if its normal to threaten rape when you don't get your way... the actual feck.

We continue to see the worst side of people in here.
 
Probably because having autism doesn’t even slightly explain why he would be violent to a woman.
It absolutely would explain it. Not an excuse, or a justification but those on the spectrum struggle with relationships, communication, social norms and conventions (like personal space or inappropriate touching) and dealing with emotions and their reactions to that.
I’m not saying that is definitely the case here, but it could certainly play in to it. You can’t just dismiss it.
 
It's truly one of the dumbest things I've read. As if its normal to threaten rape when you don't get your way... the actual feck.
I grew up in a very rough area, but I cant imagine many. people.....if any....agreeing with this.
don't confuse the number of people with rape fantasies. who. really want them. acted out
 
I don't know, not too long ago some used the phrase "tiny rape" to suggests there are levels to this.

Another suggested it's her fault for waking Greenwood up and he didn't know what he was doing.

My favourite, though not as bad as a post just funny, was the guy blaming Simon Cowell :lol:
I missed that one. The 'tiny rape' guy's use of smileys was the icing on the cake.

I come on to read , telling myself , that I wont reply back, but sometimes you just have t, it was genuinely one of the worst post I have ever seen on here.
Yeah some attitudes have been genuinely disturbing. Plus you do think the worst has passed in this thread, then someone steams in on p113 or whatever with a fresh abhorrent take.
 
People are seriously still trying to say the audio could be games or role play? fecking hell.

It's fecking obvious that the released audio is exactly what it sounds like or Greenwood or his family would have disputed it straight away. Now the longer version may add context that shows things in a different light, however unlikely I think that is, but people who are still trying to deny the released audio for what it is clearly aren't arguing in good faith.
 
Or course having autism would impact his ability to handle conflict and relationships :lol:
It absolutely would explain it. Not an excuse, or a justification but those on the spectrum struggle with relationships, communication, social norms and conventions (like personal space or inappropriate touching) and dealing with emotions and their reactions to that.
I’m not saying that is definitely the case here, but it could certainly play in to it. You can’t just dismiss it.

I can still remember the words on that recording and autism or not, it’s not an explanation for it. Not being able to read social cues properly is not the same as being told definitively no and saying the stuff he said.

These are pretty desperate attempts to justify what took place, without any shred of evidence to suggest he even suffers mildly from something like autism.
 
Ronaldo at his age was getting benched by Park Ji Sung...

Very different circumstances, one has to say.

But yes, you could say he showed enough promise to make the whole thing positively tragic also in pure football terms.

(It obviously is nothing but tragic for everyone involved in non-football terms.)
 
I can still remember the words on that recording and autism or not, it’s not an explanation for it. Not being able to read social cues properly is not the same as being told definitively no and saying the stuff he said.

These are pretty desperate attempts to justify what took place, without any shred of evidence to suggest he even suffers mildly from something like autism.
I very clearly said ‘not a justification’ (it was underlined for emphasis) and I am opposed to MG playing for United again and therefore satisfied with the outcome.
I was trying to explain and educate you about something I have first hand experience of but clearly it’s not well received so believe what you like, I don’t care.
 
"Everyone has a bit of a rapey phase when they're a teenager, right guys?" is a top shout for worst post in a thread with a whole lot of contenders. :lol:

Couldn't actually believe what I was reading, holy feck there are some seriously sick people on this forum.
 
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.
So you decided the correct remedy for a lack of nuance, which I criticized in my post, is to start off with the stuff in bold? I'm not sure how you want me to react to that. It makes it difficult for me to take anything else following that seriously. Who on here has "seconded" posts saying Greenwood is the worst thing to happen to football, or anything close to suggesting he should die?

As for the rest of the post, you're not saying anything wrong. None of us have all the answers.
 
I very clearly said ‘not a justification’ (it was underlined for emphasis) and I am opposed to MG playing for United again and therefore satisfied with the outcome.
I was trying to explain and educate you about something I have first hand experience of but clearly it’s not well received so believe what you like, I don’t care.
I am aware of what autism is and the impact it can have on social skills, reading body language etc but attempted rape threats like the recording, it doesn’t sound like someone who is struggling to understand what her intentions are.
 
I am aware of what autism is and the impact it can have on social skills, reading body language etc but attempted rape threats like the recording, it doesn’t sound like someone who is struggling to understand what her intentions are.
It’s not about her emotions, it’s about understanding and controlling his own.
But whatever, I don’t want to come off as offering excuses for him. We don’t know what’s gone on in full but either way his behaviour has dipped far below what should be expected if somebody representing Manchester United and we are better off without him.
 
Very different circumstances, one has to say.

I don't think that needs saying as it's understood. Much like, I'm not saying he'd go on to emulate or accomplish what Ronaldo has.

Still remains that at 18/19 he was ahead on his development curve relative to most of his peers and even established stars before him, hence why he's a top 5 scoring teens in the prem. He was a special talent.
 
Much like, I'm not saying he'd go on to emulate or accomplish what Ronaldo has.

Fair enough, I get you.

It was mainly that you mentioned Park, I guess. An unspectacular - but very good - player at the time. A symbol (one could say) of what we used to be: a team where a very good player was considered unspectacular.
 
Slow down lad.

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


And…

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.

Hindsight bias has a single person, the "source from the agent world", thinking there were early signs of something much darker. You've extrapolated a single sentence to be the consensus of the entire article, when it actually is just the personal opinion of some random agent.

I read an article that described a troubled guy and what he's been like over the course of his career, and that's it. The only way you could read it and think that the point of it was to show that MG was on a path to become a potential abuser and rapist would be if you read it through the other end of that biased lens you're talking about.
 
As an autistic person, I just would like to tell some of you very kindly that what has been written on this page has been insulting beyond measure, has no real scientific background and is quite frankly a testament to ignorance of the highest order. I would write harsher words, but those would get me banned.
You need to be more specific if you are calling people out.
 
Last edited:
Hindsight bias has a single person, the "source from the agent world", thinking there were early signs of something much darker. You've extrapolated a single sentence to be the consensus of the entire article, when it actually is just the personal opinion of some random agent.

I read an article that described a troubled guy and what he's been like over the course of his career, and that's it. The only way you could read it and think that the point of it was to show that MG was on a path to become a potential abuser and rapist would be if you read it through the other end of that biased lens you're talking about.

And the insider info is just the random personal opinion of one inside source. The whole ”he’s got a 14 year old brain” and everything else was the opinion, not of a fecking trained mental health professional, but some random inside source at the club. We have no idea if it’s a coach, a director or the fecking tea lady.

And yet you’ve taken that and decided he was troubled as feck and mentally undeveloped with a fecking “child like brain”, even quoting it :lol: despite the very same article saying it was stereotypical footballer stuff and nothing bad like the club had seen with Ravel. But that was the point of the article, to get clicks and get people to think there’s more to it than there is.

I’m sure half the people at OT thought Pogba and Lingard had child like brains too, just as the majority of this forum does. Not least those brought up in a much different era, those of us born before the 90’s tend to think the entire new generation are babies in mens bodies, hence Lingard being constantly referred to as a man-child even in his late twenties.

Take away the recency bias and it paints a picture of many a regular teenager, an extremely talented one, sometimes petulant, nothing more, nothing less. You’ve taken that article and decided on very little that he was really troubled, as if he had Ravel Morrison issues or something. That’s what the article wanted.
 
Last edited:
I love when the cockroaches come crawling out the woodwork to say oh I knew he was a wrongun. He was a kid who was incredible at 16 and in the United first team at 17. If he wasn't petulant then he would be the first talented teen I've ever read about who wasn't. Blows my mind that people think these things are so simple.

We thought Giggsy was a model human being, all reports said he was a fantastic boy. They used him as an example to the younger ones coming through...we now know he was anything but.
 
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.
would like to see it happen
I think he's staying - feck it I need some good news in my life.

He’s gone and it’s a FANTASTIC decision. Move on lads.
 
I took a couple of days away from this thread, but, fecking hell, we have some absolute mother fecking cnuts on here.

I'll take the infraction, but that Howl guy was a fecking prick.

And yes, I insulted the poster, not the post
 
I took a couple of days away from this thread, but, fecking hell, we have some absolute mother fecking cnuts on here.

I'll take the infraction, but that Howl guy was a fecking prick.

And yes, I insulted the poster, not the post
Ha, dont worry you arent alone in how you feel
 
You already know the answer to that. But I'll humour you:

We've turned a blind eye to his behaviour, which led to even the England manager taking a stance on it above us, we clearly led him to believe he could come back and then fecked the whole situation over...oh and then all these problems with him have happened on our watch under our "care".

Do you disagree?

You have been incredibly unspecific there.

What behaviour did we turn a blind eye to? The stuff on England duty? That was different behaviour and we continued to employ him and play him afterwards. It was not a precedent.

Our duty of care does not extend to having someone follow him around to prevent him from abusing women.

He then placed his employer in a position with his own behaviour and the club stated we would investigate and did so whilst paying him every week. All of this comes back to his behaviour, Man Utd did not fail Mason Greenwood it was very much the other way around.

The club indicated he may be coming back then had to change their decision? Well the public backlash was nothing to do with anything Man Utd did and purely his behaviour. He just got paid for doing nothing for 18 months, poor lad.
 
And the insider info is just the random personal opinion of one inside source. The whole ”he’s got a 14 year old brain” and everything else was the opinion, not of a fecking trained mental health professional, but some random inside source at the club. We have no idea if it’s a coach, a director or the fecking tea lady.

And yet you’ve taken that and decided he was troubled as feck and mentally undeveloped with a fecking “child like brain”, even quoting it :lol: despite the very same article saying it was stereotypical footballer stuff and nothing bad like the club had seen with Ravel. But that was the point of the article, to get clicks and get people to think there’s more to it than there is.

I’m sure half the people at OT thought Pogba and Lingard had child like brains too, just as the majority of this forum does. Not least those brought up in a much different era, those of us born before the 90’s tend to think the entire new generation are babies in mens bodies, hence Lingard being constantly referred to as a man-child even in his late twenties.

Take away the recency bias and it paints a picture of many a regular teenager, an extremely talented one, sometimes petulant, nothing more, nothing less. You’ve taken that article and decided on very little that he was really troubled, as if he had Ravel Morrison issues or something. That’s what the article wanted.

No, I really didn't decide on "very little" that he was "troubled as feck" or "really troubled as if he had RM issues". I specifically said in the very post you're quoting - "I read an article that described a troubled guy and what he's been like over the course of his career, and that's it."
So please tell me again that I decided something I didn't decide and that the article made me think something I'm not thinking, because that's such a fantastic argument that clearly fits in with what I'm saying.

Also, unlike the example from the agent that you're so shocked about and the one you're posting emojis about now I also quoted things that were not the personal opinion of the source but recollections of incidents that actually took place. And that's the thing you don't seem to get, I used the entire article to form my opinion instead of just a quote and a half extrapolated into oblivion.


If you want the last reply you can have it, I feel like I'm done with this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.