Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
Duafc said:
Yeah, we definitely know so little;

We know she felt she had to record private interactions, we can hear completely obvious, black and white, abuse. We know she, or indeed a hacker because it was maybe said once but not by her or Mason or ever mentioned again, posted images of injuries literally stating this is what Mason does to me. We know she then completed an ABE interview with police regarding the abuses, leading to him being charged, whilst on bail we know he broke his conditions and saw/impregnated the person the court said he under no circumstances should be in contact with and we know she withdrew her support for the investigation which coupled with 'new material' led the CPS to conclude a prosection was unlikely.

It's just nowhere near enough to fairly hold any opinions, whatsoever.

So little;




The continued attempts to shut down any dialogue around the actual images, the actual recording and the actual likelihood of MG having behaved in the way that is simply most likely continues to be hilarious, it's mildly more tolerable that the minimizing/excusing/denying of the behaviour, at least.
Click to expand...


you/we really don't know much.

your post starts with an assumption that she felt the had to record private interactions - the implication being clear - when 1. you don't know how the recording came about - young people record everything these days. tik tok and ig live feeds are proof of it. I mean the "daddy dick" video was also a private interaction that was recorded and uploaded to the internet, no?

we know that they were in contact, but as far as I'm aware - we don't know who initiated said contact and how.
 
TsuWave said:
you/we really don't know much.

your post starts with an assumption that she felt the had to record private interactions - the implication being clear - when 1. you don't know how the recording came about - young people record everything these days. tik tok and ig live feeds are proof of it. I mean the "daddy dick" video was also a private interaction that was recorded and uploaded to the internet, no?

we know that they were in contact, but as far as I'm aware - we don't know who initiated said contact and how.
Click to expand...

Does it matter? At no time you're allowed to force yourself onto someone.

I dont care if she's a Psychopath who throws plate at him. You run away. Move. Report. Break up.

You dont go around doing what he does.
 
Sky1981 said:
Does it matter? At no time you're allowed to force yourself onto someone.

I dont care if she's a Psychopath who throws plate at him. You run away. Move. Report. Break up.

You dont go around doing what he does.
Click to expand...

Yes, it matters. It matters because the point I’m making is that assumptions and their implications should not be passed and offered up as things that we know for a fact.

Good that we agree on something though, because at no point in my post does it say that you’re allowed to force yourself onto someone.

I’d hope that people can hold conversations without needing disclaimers every other sentence. I mean, I replied to a post that was passing up a relatively high number of assumptions as if they were things we know factually, to say “eh, we don’t know xyz” - your response feels out of place.
 
TsuWave said:
Yes, it matters. It matters because the point I’m making is that assumptions and their implications should not be passed and offered up as things that we know for a fact.

Good that we agree on something though, because at no point in my post does it say that you’re allowed to force yourself onto someone.

I’d hope that people can hold conversations without needing disclaimers every other sentence. I mean, I replied to a post that was passing up a relatively high number of assumptions as if they were things we know factually, to say “eh, we don’t know xyz” - your response feels out of place.
Click to expand...

Honestly mate don't waste your time arguing with the guy, he's a bit simple.
 
TsuWave said:
Yes, it matters. It matters because the point I’m making is that assumptions and their implications should not be passed and offered up as things that we know for a fact.

Good that we agree on something though, because at no point in my post does it say that you’re allowed to force yourself onto someone.

I’d hope that people can hold conversations without needing disclaimers every other sentence. I mean, I replied to a post that was passing up a relatively high number of assumptions as if they were things we know factually, to say “eh, we don’t know xyz” - your response feels out of place.
Click to expand...

The part where mason forced himself on the chick is not assumption. Its fact.

That's all.

@Trequarista10 sorry friend. I dont do mental gymnastics. But humor me. What was your theory again? Was it the roleplay?
 
Last edited:
Mainoldo said:
Just acknowledging the dramatisation of what we might be potentially dealing with.

I didn’t say he was innocent or guilty. End of the day it’s felt with and it is what it is. John Terry is allowed to walk the streets freely and be in football so why can’t Mason.
Click to expand...
You can't be actually serious with that last sentence, surely?
Rhyme Animal said:
Hey Raoul, he said it directly to the mail when the issue first kicked off and I remember it clearly at the time.

I can’t find the article now as it’s quite old but here’s a Twitter link with the whole quote of what he said in the article. He explicitly says that she actually told him that her phone had been hacked…

Click to expand...

Doesn't mean a great deal, Casillias said he was hacked. It's a standard bullshit response.

I remember the statement at the time and remember thinking the dad spends more time lamenting the breakdown of the relationship and the fact the pictures got leaked, than his daughters well being.
 
Lash said:
You can't be actually serious with that last sentence, surely?
Doesn't mean a great deal, Casillias said he was hacked. It's a standard bullshit response.

I remember the statement at the time and remember thinking the dad spends more time lamenting the breakdown of the relationship and the fact the pictures got leaked, than his daughters well being.
Click to expand...

Almost like he knew more than you about the situation
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Absolutely not, the mere fact that Arnold has put his entire career on the line by mentioning a longer tape makes me think I likely don’t know everything about this tape and this story, but hey, you keep repeating that.

We all know hostage syndrome, hell my mum stayed with my old fella until us kids started high school, because she felt trapped, despite domestic abuse, mental abuse, affairs, so I’m in a very decent position to know why some partners remain in abusive relationships.

It’s just that in your certainty, we’d have to believe that for example Arnold has lied and put his entire career on the line (in the event the full tape becomes available and is damning), that seems beyond far fetched. We’d also have to believe her family has given full blessing to someone who horrendously abuses their daughter.

Or, these things can instead lead us to question our certainty in the matter? Nothing more, not declaring him innocent, or not-guilty, or a nice guy, or someone even worthy of playing for Manchester United again. Just a simple matter of humbly admitting that we simply can’t begin to know the full story of those events and the subsequent events thereafter.
Click to expand...

Really good post.
 
sepulturite said:
He wasn't "ran out of England" ffs :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:lol: Eitherway they couldn’t have them both in the team and Terry hadn’t had declaimed as much but with reference to Mason both him and Terry were clearly guilty by social evidence. However Mason’s talent hasn’t been enough to keep him at United. Where Terry’s was enough to keep him at England. That was my underlying point. Eitherway…. Is what it is.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Absolutely not, the mere fact that Arnold has put his entire career on the line by mentioning a longer tape makes me think I likely don’t know everything about this tape and this story, but hey, you keep repeating that.
Click to expand...
I can tell you with 100% certainty that there's nothing of help to MG in that longer tape.
 
The claim that Richard Arnold has put his entire career on the line is a bit over the top.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
The claim that Richard Arnold has put his entire career on the line is a bit over the top.
Click to expand...

Not a chance in hell he remains in his position if a) the full tape is released and is damning or b) she or her family come out in the coming years and say the opposite of Arnold.

If you think he keeps his job in that event, you’ve learnt very little about this UK media in the past weeks.

I don’t even think the claim is even slightly controversial.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Not a chance in hell he remains in his position if a) the full tape is released and is damning or b) she or her family come out in the coming years and say the opposite of Arnold.

If you think he keeps his job in that event, you’ve learnt very little about this UK media in the past weeks.

I don’t even think the claim is even slightly controversial.
Click to expand...

Losing your job as CEO of Manchester United is a far cry from having your entire career on the line. He's a successful accountant and business manager with a solid track record, he would have plenty of opportunities, just in less public roles and with less authority.

I don't disagree with the core of your argument, but you're overselling it. It's not that strong.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
The claim that Richard Arnold has put his entire career on the line is a bit over the top.
Click to expand...
It's complete nonsense. The statement, in keeping with the language companies use in these situations in order to protect themselves legally and financially, is vague, and any commitment is deniable if Greenwood were ever to come out with a full confession that seemed to contradict Arnold.
- "we have limited powers of investigation which meant we were reliant on third party cooperation. "
- "While we were unable to access certain evidence for reasons we respect, the evidence we did collate led us to conclude that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with. "
Click to expand...
I consider it next to worthless as an assessment of the incidents previously described, and as a guarantee of innocence.
 
Business wise Arnold at best could have done better to salvage a supposedly 70m asset.

That's all. That's chump change in financial Banking. Hardly a dent

As to criminal allegations. He worded the statement carefully and sure as hell have consulted the teams of lawyer covering their 4 corners.

He's safe.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Not a chance in hell he remains in his position if a) the full tape is released and is damning or b) she or her family come out in the coming years and say the opposite of Arnold.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. The fact that he sounded so definitive in United’s investigation statement is suggestive he knows something that would lead him to such a conclusion, and by doing so putting his own once in a lifetime job on the line to make it public. United could’ve come out with much more conservative, legally cautious language - but opted instead to do the opposite.
 
Raoul said:
Agree with this. The fact that he sounded so definitive in United’s investigation statement is suggestive he knows something that would lead him to such a conclusion, and by doing so putting his own once in a lifetime job on the line to make it public. United could’ve come out with much more conservative, legally cautious language - but opted instead to do the opposite.
Click to expand...

Also in agreement. I view the language used in Arnold’s statement that he is satisfied Greenwood is innocent of the charges as fairly astonishing, bearing in mind the legal review that must have taken place to craft the wording. He/United’s legal team must be utterly confident that it’s correct.
 
It may be correct (that Greenwood did not commit certain crimes he was accused of) based on the limited information Arnold/the club have. They have acknowledged they don’t have all the information. We also don’t know if the full recording was shared with the club. It could just be that Mason and his gf/her family told the club that the full recording paints a different picture but they don’t want to share it.
Arnold is not the law and he can only go with what had been told to him.
 
united_99 said:
It may be correct (that Greenwood did not commit certain crimes he was accused of) based on the limited information Arnold/the club have. They have acknowledged they don’t have all the information. We also don’t know if the full recording was shared with the club. It could just be that Mason and his gf/her family told the club that the full recording paints a different picture but they don’t want to share it.
Arnold is not the law and he can only go with what had been told to him.
Click to expand...

Except the chances that Arnold is basing the entire United investigation on Greenwood's word alone would be virtually zero. They've had seven months to look into it officially and another year to do so unofficially, so the body of evidence would be far more comprehensive than issuing a statement that simply echoes what Greenwood told them.
 
I’m looking forward to see how he does for Getafe. It’s hard to judge though because he’ll be playing with less quality players. But on the other hand it means he’ll stand out. I bet Getafe fill their stadium a lot more now though.
 
Raoul said:
Except the chances that Arnold is basing the entire United investigation on Greenwood's word alone would be virtually zero. They've had seven months to look into it officially and another year to do so unofficially, so the body of evidence would be far more comprehensive than issuing a statement that simply echoes what Greenwood told them.
Click to expand...

Yep.

But also what they found isn't being released to save the £100m player and his career at the club.


Chesterlestreet said:
It's more than that - it's bollocks, and a blatant attempt to attach a significance to the statement which it doesn't actually carry.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
DJ_21 said:
I’m looking forward to see how he does for Getafe. It’s hard to judge though because he’ll be playing with less quality players. But on the other hand it means he’ll stand out. I bet Getafe fill their stadium a lot more now though.
Click to expand...

As luck would have it, Getafe play two of the top 5 clubs in last year's table within a 6 day period beginning on 24 Sep (Sociedad & Villarreal), so he should make a few appearances.
 
Raoul said:
Except the chances that Arnold is basing the entire United investigation on Greenwood's word alone would be virtually zero. They've had seven months to look into it officially and another year to do so unofficially, so the body of evidence would be far more comprehensive than issuing a statement that simply echoes what Greenwood told them.
Click to expand...
You forgot to include his gf and / or her family. Nowhere did I say that it was Greenwood’s word alone. As I said we also don’t know what his gf / the gf’s family told the club.
 
united_99 said:
You forgot to include his gf and / or her family. Nowhere did I say that it was Greenwood’s word alone. As I said we also don’t know what his gf / the gf’s family told the club.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, all parties would've been consulted, which would also include videos not in the public domain.
 
Raoul said:
Agree with this. The fact that he sounded so definitive in United’s investigation statement is suggestive he knows something that would lead him to such a conclusion, and by doing so putting his own once in a lifetime job on the line to make it public. United could’ve come out with much more conservative, legally cautious language - but opted instead to do the opposite.
Click to expand...

There is a possibility that what he knows is that the family have no intention of moving forward with any charges especially now that a child is involved. Whether we as social justice proponents like it or not, the family, girl (victim) included, may want to move forward with their lives and have hope that this nasty history is just that.

In that scenario, an astute business decision - let's be honest, morals and ethics have never meant jack for business - would be to protect the homegrown talent and potentially largest club asset in a decade and use language to assuage the public out cry, get him out of the spotlight (loan) and pave the way back once things have settled down. I expect lots of happy looking family photos/posts between now and when Mason rejoins United.
 
Ted Lasso said:
There is a possibility that what he knows is that the family have no intention of moving forward with any charges especially now that a child is involved. Whether we as social justice proponents like it or not, the family, girl (victim) included, may want to move forward with their lives and have hope that this nasty history is just that.

In that scenario, an astute business decision - let's be honest, morals and ethics have never meant jack for business - would be to protect the homegrown talent and potentially largest club asset in a decade and use language to assuage the public out cry, get him out of the spotlight (loan) and pave the way back once things have settled down. I expect lots of happy looking family photos/posts between now and when Mason rejoins United.
Click to expand...

So the club can be sure that there’s no possible way anything could ever be released to social media again if there was a subsequent falling out? No risk at all in a year or so’s time of the victim coming out with a public story of how she has no idea how United came to the conclusion that Greenwood was innocent and how they didn’t protect her from further abuse?

The idea that Arnold would have lied about being satisfied he is innocent to protect Greenwood’s value is fanciful. The damage to him individually and the club reputation generally if this statement proves to be wrong in due course is extremely substantial in my view. United clearly have good grounds for believing him to be innocent of the charges.
 
Last edited:
Duafc said:
The continued attempts to shut down any dialogue around the actual images, the actual recording and the actual likelihood of MG having behaved in the way that is simply most likely continues to be hilarious, it's mildly more tolerable that the minimizing/excusing/denying of the behaviour, at least.
Click to expand...

It's insane, especially people making comparisons between greenwood and antony or partey. Maybe they're all abusers, who knows, but greenwood definitely is one. Audio and pictures never denied, but somehow people come up with crazy scenarios to justify it, being the roleplay the most hilarious one.
 
Raoul said:
Absolutely, all parties would've been consulted, which would also include videos not in the public domain.
Click to expand...
But know they weren't. We know that she wasn't consulted, her family member on her behalf was and they also said they didn't have access to certain evidence:

- "we have limited powers of investigation which meant we were reliant on third party cooperation. "
- "While we were unable to access certain evidence for reasons we respect, the evidence we did collate led us to conclude that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with. "
Click to expand...

So they didn't consult the alleged victim, caveat the investigation with being reliant on third party cooperation and they didn't have all the evidence. That's hardly a robust investigation and the decision is heavily caveated. Arnold is hardly going out on a limb and puts the onus squarely on the information from third parties and the evidence they were allowed to see.
 
Doracle said:
The idea that Arnold would have lied about being satisfied he is innocent to protect Greenwood’s value is fanciful.
Click to expand...

For one thing, no - it really isn't all that fanciful to anyone who isn't either genuinely or conveniently naive to an unhealthy degree.

But never mind that.

There's no need to introduce the idea that Arnold is positively lying about this. He doesn't know the full story, and has admitted as much himself.

My take on it:

Arnold's "investigation" involved only third party sources other than Greenwood himself (who can obviously be dismissed as a biased source). He doesn't have the full audio. What he has is an explanation for the part that was made public provided to him by Greenwood himself and someone representing the alleged victim. Arnold has decided to go with that explanation. That is what him being "satisfied" actually amounts to.
 
Last edited:
Lash said:
But know they weren't. We know that she wasn't consulted, her family member on her behalf was and they also said they didn't have access to certain evidence:



So they didn't consult the alleged victim, caveat the investigation with being reliant on third party cooperation and they didn't have all the evidence. That's hardly a robust investigation and the decision is heavily caveated. Arnold is hardly going out on a limb and puts the onus squarely on the information from third parties and the evidence they were allowed to see.
Click to expand...

A fair point, which makes the last part of the sentence leading them to conclude Greenwood didn't commit the acts for which he was charged somewhat contradictory, particularly given that employers have a much lower bar to meet in terms of employee related misbehavior.

The legal case may have not been able to proceed for lack of witness participation, but United could've nonetheless still easily concluded that the existing information on social media was more than enough to meet their standard of violating any number of their policies. Not only did they not make any such conclusion, they went in the opposite direction by using pretty conclusive language that he didn't commit the acts for which he was charged, and were even reportedly preparing a campaign to reintegrate him into the first team.
 
Raoul said:
A fair point, which makes the last part of the sentence leading them to conclude Greenwood didn't commit the acts for which he was charged somewhat contradictory, particularly given that employers have a much lower bar to meet in terms of employee related misbehavior.

The legal case may have not been able to proceed for lack of witness participation, but United could've nonetheless still easily concluded that the existing information on social media was more than enough to meet their standard of violating any number of their policies. Not only did they not make any such conclusion, they went in the opposite direction by using pretty conclusive language that he didn't commit the acts for which he was charged, and were even reportedly preparing a campaign to reintegrate him into the first team.
Click to expand...
I think the lack of a legal case to answer and the family presenting their case as to why he did not commit the acts he was charged, was enough for Arnold and co. to pull the trigger for reintegration. There's no chance that the family want a legal case brought against him, so you have to be conclusive if you're preparing the ground for him to come back.

When you think he is a potentially £100m asset and you're judged solely on performance, they calculated it was worth the risk - at first. The backlash internally was the straw that broke the camels back in my opinion and the campaign would make them look extremely callous to a large % of concerned employees within their organization. They'll have another crack at it in January if he's smashing it in Getafe. They'll probably cite being closer to family, etc. was a driver for the decision. It's obvious the end goal is to have him back here, it's probably his and his families too, so United probably do feel a duty of care in that respect.

I don't think we'll ever know the full story, because there's probably parts that will incriminate either one of them, so United have two options as far as I see it:
  1. To take their word it won't happen again, know there's a potential risk, due to the caveats they stated in their own investigation
  2. Feel the risk is too great and the potential for issues in the future isn't sufficiently quelled, so let him go.
These are the decisions you have to make and be judged by. I don't envy anyone in this situation as you're going to upset someone.
 
Raoul said:
He's a United player on loan, so people are going to talk about his actual football here once he actually plays.
Click to expand...
We have the performance thread. This thread has become a debate over rape reporting and the issue, for now, has come to a close. Unless further evidence is released, this conversation is going nowhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.