Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

[Yorke to Cole]

I have to agree with the Muppetier James. He said that these events and others at clubs show that the Premier League needs to establish a body that advises clubs what to do when situations arise.

Have protocol to handle the social media element. Like he said, and I also believe that it is completely unfair that we have this spotlight and criticism aimed at us when there is a player at Arsenal not getting anywhere near the attention United are getting. I would go as far to say it is disgraceful.

These procedures should uphold the structure of the law and not what is said online and the threats that people make. These people are not qualified to judge what is the correct step or not. Like the Anthony situation, we also do not have the full account of what has or has not occurred.Particularly, if someone has not been declared guilty.

 

[frostbite]

I have to agree with the Muppetier James. He said that these events and others at clubs show that the Premier League needs to establish a body that advises clubs what to do when situations arise.

Have protocol to handle the social media element. Like he said, and I also believe that it is completely unfair that we have this spotlight and criticism aimed at us when there is a player at Arsenal not getting anywhere near the attention United are getting. I would go as far to say it is disgraceful.

These procedures should uphold the structure of the law and not what is said online and the threats that people make. These people are not qualified to judge what is the correct step or not. Like the Anthony situation, we also do not have the full account of what has or has not occurred.Particularly, if someone has not been declared guilty.

This makes no sense. Why does a company valued at 6 billion need some external body to tell them what to do with their employees? It is like asking for an "external body" to decide how Apple or Google or your local grocery store will handle an employee with sexual harassment issues.

 

[Rood]

He's a United player on loan, so people are going to talk about his actual football here once he actually plays.

A seperate 'Loan Watch' thread might be a good idea ?

 

[Yorke to Cole]

This makes no sense. Why does a company valued at 6 billion need some external body to tell them what to do with their employees? It is like asking for an "external body" to decide how Apple or Google or your local grocery store will handle an employee with sexual harassment issues.

Because these allegations are very serious and if someone is found guilty and proven so, yes they should go to prison. However, if someone is found not guilty, the the case drops/collapses, there seems to be chasm or grey area with how to reintegrate players back to their clubs or indeed another club.

They are being judged by the court of public opinion. What should the player at Arseanl has very little focus on what he has allegedly done and Anthony have what he is going through?

If there sexual or domestic violence cases then surely everyone should face the same scrutiny within the realms of the law.

An official body can give guidance , not tell football clubs what to and when to do after these issues occur.

Like your first point. Why should Manchester United have allowed the Athletic, a TV presenter and a debate on Newsnight influence their decision if they found that their investigation found Mason Greenwood had not committed the offences he was initially charged with?

Having an independent body allows Manchester United say that we have followed the guidance, done an internal investigation and therefore we can't be accused of "marking our own homework."

 

[frostbite]

Because these allegations are very serious and if someone is found guilty and proven so, yes they should go to prison. However, if someone is found not guilty, the the case drops/collapses, there seems to be chasm or grey area with how to reintegrate players back to their clubs or indeed another club.

They are being judged by the court of public opinion. What should the player at Arseanl has very little focus on what he has allegedly done and Anthony have what he is going through?

If there sexual or domestic violence cases then surely everyone should face the same scrutiny within the realms of the law.

An official body can give guidance , not tell football clubs what to and when to do after these issues occur.

Like your first point. Why should Manchester United have allowed the Athletic, a TV presenter and a debate on Newsnight influence their decision if they found that their investigation found Mason Greenwood had not committed the offences he was initially charged with?

Having an independent body allows Manchester United say that we have followed the guidance, done an internal investigation and therefore we can't be accused of "marking our own homework."

You mean, it allows the Man Utd CEO to have zero responsibility.

But that's not how companies work. Or how companies should work.

 

[M4YON]

Because these allegations are very serious and if someone is found guilty and proven so, yes they should go to prison. However, if someone is found not guilty, the the case drops/collapses, there seems to be chasm or grey area with how to reintegrate players back to their clubs or indeed another club.

They are being judged by the court of public opinion. What should the player at Arseanl has very little focus on what he has allegedly done and Anthony have what he is going through?

If there sexual or domestic violence cases then surely everyone should face the same scrutiny within the realms of the law.

An official body can give guidance , not tell football clubs what to and when to do after these issues occur.

Like your first point. Why should Manchester United have allowed the Athletic, a TV presenter and a debate on Newsnight influence their decision if they found that their investigation found Mason Greenwood had not committed the offences he was initially charged with?

Having an independent body allows Manchester United say that we have followed the guidance, done an internal investigation and therefore we can't be accused of "marking our own homework."

This is actually a very good idea and probably what should be done moving forward with any allegations of abuse but unfortunately good ideas are rarely implemented in football.

 

[Yorke to Cole]

You mean, it allows the Man Utd CEO to have zero responsibility.

But that's not how companies work. Or how companies should work.

No, it allows a CEO to state that I have taken the correct steps in assessing whether x employee can continue or not to represent the club. It also serves to allows Manchester United not to be heavily scrutinised in comparison to other clubs who have their own players that have allegations made against them.

I am not saying Richard Arnold did not try to take "responsibility" for the procedures, but there were to many external factors that disrupted Machester United's attempt to assess whether an employee should return or not. An independent body that works with club and within the guidelines, after the criminal procedure has taken place can assist with the practicalities of reintegration an employee.

I think this could be beneficial given that we live in era where people online and have social media platforms that influence and exacerbate an opinion. Especially, seen as the criminal justice system and it's procedures is not enough for people to allow someone to continue at their clubs, without the threat of a backlash.

 

[Belisarius]

No, it allows a CEO to state that I have taken the correct steps in assessing whether x employee can continue or not to represent the club. It also serves to allows Manchester United not to be heavily scrutinised in comparison to other clubs who have their own players that have allegations made against them.

I am not saying Richard Arnold did not try to take "responsibility" for the procedures, but there were to many external factors that disrupted Machester United's attempt to assess whether an employee should return or not. An independent body that works with club and within the guidelines, after the criminal procedure has taken place can assist with the practicalities of reintegration an employee.

I think this could be beneficial given that we live in era where people online and have social media platforms that influence and exacerbate an opinion. Especially, seen as the criminal justice system and it's procedures is not enough for people to allow someone to continue at their clubs, without the threat of a backlash.

It also allows for competitive fairness between clubs. In North American sports the commissioner of the NBA or NFL or NHL would make the call on whether players were suspended and for how long in these kinds of cases.

 

[Sky1981]

You mean, it allows the Man Utd CEO to have zero responsibility.

But that's not how companies work. Or how companies should work.

Arnold isnt responsible for Mason losing his head and doing stupid stuff.

Arnold responsibility is damage control and he will be judged by that parameter. And even then it's also a fraction of his assessment.

Like i said before, at worse he could have handled it better. At best? Not much. He too must consider endorsement and marketing image which probably most fans dont wanna care apart from MG kicking football.

MG is toast once the tape leaked. Arnold only decides how to dress it up. And to be fair he did the most logical thing possible, wait to see if help comes his way. Maybe some new evidence comes up, maybe she drop the case, why be so quick to take your stance when you can wait and see.

Imho he did what any textbook CEO would

 

[frostbite]

No, it allows a CEO to state that I have taken the correct steps in assessing whether x employee can continue or not to represent the club. It also serves to allows Manchester United not to be heavily scrutinised in comparison to other clubs who have their own players that have allegations made against them.

I am not saying Richard Arnold did not try to take "responsibility" for the procedures, but there were to many external factors that disrupted Machester United's attempt to assess whether an employee should return or not. An independent body that works with club and within the guidelines, after the criminal procedure has taken place can assist with the practicalities of reintegration an employee.

I think this could be beneficial given that we live in era where people online and have social media platforms that influence and exacerbate an opinion. Especially, seen as the criminal justice system and it's procedures is not enough for people to allow someone to continue at their clubs, without the threat of a backlash.

But this whole idea is meaningless, that's why this doesn't happen anywhere, in any industry. An external committee that decides if the CEO of a particular company will suspend an employee or not! Sorry, this idea sounds completely absurd to me.

 

[Sky1981]

But this whole idea is meaningless, that's why this doesn't happen anywhere, in any industry. An external committee that decides if the CEO of a particular company will suspend an employee or not! Sorry, this idea sounds completely absurd to me.

Who decided what?

Arnold only got 2 options. If he choose the other way around the assumtion that he's doing it because the fans pressure to have their players back.

These sorts of decisions off course are going to be affected by public opinion, like it or hate it. Just like Disney, Marvell, Coca cola, budweiser, these are the bread and butter of CEO. Handling public perception

 

[Newtonius]

Who decided what?

Arnold only got 2 options. If he choose the other way around the assumtion that he's doing it because the fans pressure to have their players back.

These sorts of decisions off course are going to be affected by public opinion, like it or hate it. Just like Disney, Marvell, Coca cola, budweiser, these are the bread and butter of CEO. Handling public perception

BS this is changing history theres a difference between perception and decision making. They believed he was innocent, decided to keep him at the club then bowed to the court of public opinion when that became clear.

Don't care whether you feel the outcome is good or bad there is no praise for Arnold in this it stinks of weakness and cowardice, leadership is supposed to mean something if your job is to steer the club down a specific course then you stick to it come hell or highwater. Particularly when you can never please everybody and the public is an ignorant one who weren't part of the internal investigation rendering such a thing meaningless.

 

[Sky1981]

BS this is changing history theres a difference between perception and decision making. They believed he was innocent, decided to keep him at the club then bowed to the court of public opinion when that became clear.

Don't care whether you feel the outcome is good or bad there is no praise for Arnold in this it stinks of weakness and cowardice, leadership is supposed to mean something if your job is to steer the club down a specific course then you stick to it come hell or highwater. Particularly when you can never please everybody and the public is an ignorant one who weren't part of the internal investigation rendering such a thing meaningless.

Go on, tell me how Arnold could have done better apart from maybe a slightly better wording and timing

I sure as hell won't like it if he kept Mason and continue as if nothing happened as many others feel similar.

They believed he was innocent : No shit Sherlock, he ain't gonna wrote "Yes was Innocent" as CEO Of Manchester United as that'll open United to a hell of a lawsuit.
They believed he wasn't innocent : No shit as well, he can't say "Yes he was Guilty" as CEO of Manchester United, as you can actually get sued for libel pretty easily since the CPs already dropped the case

MU statement was a carefully picked tiptoeing statement based on bullshits masqueraded as "internal investigations" and words like "we believe he didn't do it" or "we've seen other explanation and choose to believe that one but we can't tell you what it is". It's not a stupid comment, it's the only comment they can make in this situation.

 

[stevoc]

I have to agree with the Muppetier James. He said that these events and others at clubs show that the Premier League needs to establish a body that advises clubs what to do when situations arise.

Have protocol to handle the social media element. Like he said, and I also believe that it is completely unfair that we have this spotlight and criticism aimed at us when there is a player at Arsenal not getting anywhere near the attention United are getting. I would go as far to say it is disgraceful.

These procedures should uphold the structure of the law and not what is said online and the threats that people make. These people are not qualified to judge what is the correct step or not. Like the Anthony situation, we also do not have the full account of what has or has not occurred.Particularly, if someone has not been declared guilty.

It is unfair but I guess that comes with the territory. The completely different levels of chatter in the Greenwood case and the Arsenal player, drastically highlights the vast difference in interest levels between one of the Worlds Biggest clubs and a club the size of Arsenal.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

They believed he was innocent : No shit Sherlock, he ain't gonna wrote "Yes was Innocent" as CEO Of Manchester United as that'll open United to a hell of a lawsuit.
They believed he wasn't innocent : No shit as well, he can't say "Yes he was Guilty" as CEO of Manchester United, as you can actually get sued for libel pretty easily since the CPs already dropped the case

He didn’t need to mention anything about his guilt in fairness, just see the Getafe manager quick rebuttal when asked about MG.

Arnold absolutely did stick his neck on the line (in the court of public opinion) court by making that claim.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

You mean, it allows the Man Utd CEO to have zero responsibility.

But that's not how companies work. Or how companies should work.

This is literally the whole point of management consultants.

 

[Sky1981]

He didn’t need to mention anything about his guilt in fairness, just see the Getafe manager quick rebuttal when asked about MG.

Arnold absolutely did stick his neck on the line (in the court of public opinion) court by making that claim.

With the public probably split 70-30 at best to either direction.

If MU wants to play MG they need to come up with something. Like it or hate it a good portion of our fans wants him gone.
If MU decided they want to cut him, they also need to come up with something. Like it hate it a good portion of our wants would lambast MU for keeping him in our book
If MU said nothing, they got lambasted by both sets of fans for having no balls. The left think MU's right, the right think MU's left

MU can't win, silence is not an option.

Getafe was simply loaning a player, and their sets of fans seems happy to stick it to MU.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

With the public probably split 70-30 at best to either direction.

If MU wants to play MG they need to come up with something. Like it or hate it a good portion of our fans wants him gone.
If MU decided they want to cut him, they also need to come up with something. Like it hate it a good portion of our wants would lambast MU for keeping him in our book
If MU said nothing, they got lambasted by both sets of fans for having no balls. The left think MU's right, the right think MU's left

MU can't win, silence is not an option.

Getafe was simply loaning a player, and their sets of fans seems happy to stick it to MU.

He didn’t have to be silent, but nothing forced him to put his neck out and for the club to declare they believe him not guilty of the acts he was charged with.

He could easily have hid behind due process, the courts and an alternative explanation from the family, without adding that conclusion, not least when the same statement was already confirming MG would not be reintegrated with the squad and would instead attempt to rebuild his career away from MU.

However you spin it, Arnold absolutely did say much more than he had to there.

 

[Smores]

No, it allows a CEO to state that I have taken the correct steps in assessing whether x employee can continue or not to represent the club. It also serves to allows Manchester United not to be heavily scrutinised in comparison to other clubs who have their own players that have allegations made against them.

I am not saying Richard Arnold did not try to take "responsibility" for the procedures, but there were to many external factors that disrupted Machester United's attempt to assess whether an employee should return or not. An independent body that works with club and within the guidelines, after the criminal procedure has taken place can assist with the practicalities of reintegration an employee.

I think this could be beneficial given that we live in era where people online and have social media platforms that influence and exacerbate an opinion. Especially, seen as the criminal justice system and it's procedures is not enough for people to allow someone to continue at their clubs, without the threat of a backlash.

Every major organization has a third party legal team advising on such matters. The decision still falls with the club in employment law and whilst the FA could have a body they could only suspend him from their competitions. Why they'd take on such a legal risk is beyond me.

People still don't understand the decision the club had to make is not solely based on whether he committed a crime. I can understand why some thought that buts it's just not true. His behavior criminal or not is still a factor as is the impact of the events on the club and whether it's feasible for him to proceed. Those who wanted him to play because he kick a ball good are focusing on a limited outcome

The decision the club came to was to effectively do what a lot of organisations do when the situation is untenable, move the staff member to another department, office, or here club.

 

[adexkola]

Those who wanted him to play because he kick a ball good are focusing on a limited outcome

It's not a limited outcome. It is the main outcome. Success on the football pitch, directly (through playing the talent) or indirectly (through not tanking the market value of the talent, and by selling for the highest bidder to reinvest the funds).

There is no wider outcome gained by not reintegrating MG (or not looking to elevate his value so he could be sold for a hefty fee). If you value "sending a message" above tangible accomplishments on or off the pitch, that's your right but it's a shame that our board has bought into such nonsense.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

BS this is changing history theres a difference between perception and decision making. They believed he was innocent, decided to keep him at the club then bowed to the court of public opinion when that became clear.

Yes, possibly - to some degree.

But the decision to keep him could also have been - let's say - challenged by sponsors.

For what it's worth, I do believe that United wanted to keep him. But I repeat that this does not equate to the club/Arnold having access to undeniable proof that he's "innocent" (specifically, that he's 100% in the clear with regard to possible crimes committed).

If that had been the case (if they had access to proof that he was indeed 100% in the clear), I don't see them bowing to "the court of public opinion". The latter concept has been blown out of proportion in these debates. The idea that "public opinion" (or specific high-profile media figures) genuinely dictates club policy is unfounded (and quite ridiculous): it's far more complicated in reality.

 

[Cascarino]

That has nothing to do with the specific nature of this particular instance. If you're not willing to believe her then that's your choice.

It has everything to do with it. People going back to abusive partners is a well documented phenomenon, and it’s why it’s so nefarious when people point to it as some kind of sign that everything’s rosy, or as some posters have done, that it’s a sign he wasn’t that bad or that the initial (known) incident might have been misinterpreted by the public.

 

[Raoul]

It has everything to do with it. People going back to abusive partners is a well documented phenomenon, and it’s why it’s so nefarious when people point to it as some kind of sign that everything’s rosy, or as some posters have done, that it’s a sign he wasn’t that bad or that the initial (known) incident might have been misinterpreted by the public.

Although this is true, you can't apply this to every instance and in the process ignore the agency of the alleged victim. If someone says they want to continue with their partner then you have to take them at their word and move on.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Although this is true, you can't apply this to every instance and in the process ignore the agency of the alleged victim. If someone says they want to continue with their partner then you have to take them at their word and move on.

Nobody is stopping them from being together, but we don't have to support a guy that we have extremely strong suspicions is a rapist.

They can move on and we can move on, but that doesn't mean forgive and forget

 

[RedMistyDevil]

But this whole idea is meaningless, that's why this doesn't happen anywhere, in any industry. An external committee that decides if the CEO of a particular company will suspend an employee or not! Sorry, this idea sounds completely absurd to me.

Regardless of the EPL forming a body for such matters, I do think that United needs to bring in a consultancy firm to develop a new strategy for handling issues like this (or tbh, a new strategy of how to run the club)...

In this situation alone, the following issues must be considered:

1. Contract clauses: The club should have something in place for when players are arrested and awaiting trial--does the club continue to pay the player, or can clauses be included where they will be suspended without pay? Or half pay? Their salaries are significant and trial dates aren't immediate. The club needs to protect itself from actions of individual players.
2. Independent investigators: If a player is convicted, then the decision for the club is easy. But for any other outcome, the club needs a 3rd party to investigate to ensure objectivity and transparency. I doubt this system will be perfect, but I would hope these investigators are more experienced than the club execs at this. Perhaps the EPL contracting an independent group (like the ATP did) to investigate may help here.
3. Independent/anonymous feedback system: In this day and age, companies still retaliate when employees speak out against them. The club running around asking for opinions of their employees may not get the same responses as having an anonymous system. Yes, that's what HR is for, but I don't know what the state of HR at United is like. But Arnold has to know that the staff resignations would've been an issue before the journalists did.
4. Market research: The club absolutely needs to know where the fans and the sponsors stand on this, not just what they see on Twitter. The shareholders should absolutely have an idea of what the potential losses are before making decisions like these. And they need to find out how the negative PR will affect the club. I do not believe that the executives at United are equipped to handle this at all considering the current state of things.

 

[Cascarino]

Although this is true, you can't apply this to every instance and in the process ignore the agency of the alleged victim. If someone says they want to continue with their partner then you have to take them at their word and move on.

I don’t disagree with the bolded, I know from painful experience that when it comes to these dynamics it’s not something outside parties can interfere with, beyond encouragement and support. But as @Peter van der Gea said, that’s a separate issue to how your club approaches the situation.

Also incidentally I apologise for my initial comment, your comment didn’t warrant that, I actually misinterpreted what you said.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Although this is true, you can't apply this to every instance and in the process ignore the agency of the alleged victim. If someone says they want to continue with their partner then you have to take them at their word and move on.

Yeah, there's very little else anyone can do.

However, there are plenty of posters in this thread who - blatantly - use the fact that they're back together/have a baby in his defence (it can hardly be described otherwise).

And it's right to point out that this is highly problematic, let's say.

 

[RuudTom83]

So do we recon he is gonna kick a ball on Saturday or is it too soon?

It would be great to stop talking about Mason as a person and have some football to discuss.

 

[Redlyn]

So do we recon he is gonna kick a ball on Saturday or is it too soon?

It would be great to stop talking about Mason as a person and have some football to discuss.

Apparently he is impressing in training so is likely to feature vs Osasuna. Once he starts playing maybe the focus will shift to that. If not maybe a thread could be created for his performances.

 

[Raoul]

I don’t disagree with the bolded, I know from painful experience that when it comes to these dynamics it’s not something outside parties can interfere with, beyond encouragement and support. But as @Peter van der Gea said, that’s a separate issue to how your club approaches the situation.

Also incidentally I apologise for my initial comment, your comment didn’t warrant that, I actually misinterpreted what you said.

No need to apologize at all.

Anecdotally, I've seen situations among friends and extended family members that completely align with the broad data, as well as one or two where there was a genuine desire to reconcile and seek counseling. Ultimately, its next to impossible to get into a person's mind on a case by case basis to see what is driving their specific decision making imo.

 

[MancunianAngels]

Yes, possibly - to some degree.

But the decision to keep him could also have been - let's say - challenged by sponsors.

For what it's worth, I do believe that United wanted to keep him. But I repeat that this does not equate to the club/Arnold having access to undeniable proof that he's "innocent" (specifically, that he's 100% in the clear with regard to possible crimes committed).

If that had been the case (if they had access to proof that he was indeed 100% in the clear), I don't see them bowing to "the court of public opinion". The latter concept has been blown out of proportion in these debates. The idea that "public opinion" (or specific high-profile media figures) genuinely dictates club policy is unfounded (and quite ridiculous): it's far more complicated in reality.

Interesting post and completely agree with the court of public opinion not really having anything to do with this.

United saw his worth/value as a footballer over anything. They believed he could/would contribute a lot to the team.

They also said they had evidence that essentially exonerated him didn't they?

Despite both those things, there was never a clear consensus from the club about whether we should keep him. That for me speaks volumes. Similar to what you say, I'm not having that a few tweets from Rachel Riley and a few other high profile United fans even entered their minds when making the final decision.

Perhaps more interesingly, I heard from a semi reliable source during the 20/21 full covid season (and pre allegation) that United were concerned about his general attitude. There's every chance he was getting closer to final warning territory when all this started to come out

 

[davidmichael]

I think if Greenwood impresses on loan at Getafe and gets to the point more focus is on his performances on the pitch whilst him and his missus come across as settled and a proper family now the baby is here that we’ll see him back at United next season, so much of him playing again has died down that within a year it won’t garner anywhere near the attention it has this summer rightly or wrongly.

 

[padzilla]

What has been the reaction from Getafe fans?

 

[LInkash]

What has been the reaction from Getafe fans?

They love him and think he could the greatest ever play to have ever played for them.

 

[padzilla]

Looks like they aren't worried about what type of person plays for them then.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Perhaps more interesingly, I heard from a semi reliable source during the 20/21 full covid season (and pre allegation) that United were concerned about his general attitude. There's every chance he was getting closer to final warning territory when all this started to come out

This is a...thing going back to well before the actual case, yes.

Let's just say that when the news broke that a United player had been arrested on suspicion of x, y and z, it wasn't particularly shocking to some of us that the player turned out to be him.

 

[adexkola]

Looks like they aren't worried about what type of person plays for them then.

No reports of sponsors dropping out or them suffering any damage "in the wider scope of things" either

 

[Marwood]

Interesting post and completely agree with the court of public opinion not really having anything to do with this.

United saw his worth/value as a footballer over anything. They believed he could/would contribute a lot to the team.

They also said they had evidence that essentially exonerated him didn't they?

Despite both those things, there was never a clear consensus from the club about whether we should keep him. That for me speaks volumes. Similar to what you say, I'm not having that a few tweets from Rachel Riley and a few other high profile United fans even entered their minds when making the final decision.

Perhaps more interesingly, I heard from a semi reliable source during the 20/21 full covid season (and pre allegation) that United were concerned about his general attitude. There's every chance he was getting closer to final warning territory when all this started to come out

Yeah there was already stuff going on. He was deliberately being kept away from the England set ups. Ole and Southgate only gave very vague answers as to why.

He wasn't lasting 90 mins, didn't look like he was working on his physique, his game was starting to suffer a bit.

It definitely wasn't a solid upwards trajectory even before all this.

 

[Levi1]

Interesting post and completely agree with the court of public opinion not really having anything to do with this.

United saw his worth/value as a footballer over anything. They believed he could/would contribute a lot to the team.

They also said they had evidence that essentially exonerated him didn't they?

Despite both those things, there was never a clear consensus from the club about whether we should keep him. That for me speaks volumes. Similar to what you say, I'm not having that a few tweets from Rachel Riley and a few other high profile United fans even entered their minds when making the final decision.

Perhaps more interesingly, I heard from a semi reliable source during the 20/21 full covid season (and pre allegation) that United were concerned about his general attitude. There's every chance he was getting closer to final warning territory when all this started to come out

Time to put these prima donnas on commission heavy remuneration.

 

[padzilla]

No reports of sponsors dropping out or them suffering any damage "in the wider scope of things" either

There was a report of a domestic abuse charity in Spain urging them to drop him but we've seen recently how forward thinking some of those associated with Spanish football are.