Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whatever the outcome Manchester United and Greenwood have not played this well.

I am sure Greenwood has been told to keep his head down and not say anything which I guess is fair enough but once the charges were dropped both should have been in PR overdrive to prevent what has happened since.
 
SilentWitness said:
Not really, as if the question is about morals, perhaps people do not wish to have an individual at the club who is like that (inflamed further by images).



- If there is a different context it would be quite easy to come out and say that. There hasn't been, which is very odd. If it were me in that situation I'd make sure damn well that the correct context of the situation was being told.

Many victims of DV go back to their partners.

There is no such thing as trial by social media.
Click to expand...

They'll both have been advised to make no further comment. It's easy to come out and say what the context is to any legal dispute, from the trivial to the serious. Fact is, no one ever does as it can be prejudicial to any future court case or open up grounds for prosecution - e.g. she might be liable for making false claims to the police (who knows).

They do, but she has decided to proactively support him. If we were just told they had gone back and you never heard from her again, it would be slightly more sus.

As things stand, all the facts of the case and the public opinion have been formed on Twitter formerly known as X. You're judging him purely based on that (and fair enough, may I add - this is not to say you're wrong). However, if you're to rip up a contract I think it should purely be down to a conviction in the courts, not public opinion.
 
zbcrow15 said:
Too bad that's not your decision to make for her. Let her live her life bud.
Click to expand...
Eh? I don't think I'm in any position to make someone's decision for them so not sure what you mean? The point I was making, which has obviously gone over your head, relates to the false equivalency that was made between the settlement that Alonso made with the family of the man he killed and the Greenwood/girlfriend situation.
 
Curious as to the damage (if any) that has been done to La Liga or Getafe by Greenwood playing football in Spain. Recall a few saying him coming back to play for United would cause so much damage.
 
Rood said:
Then he'd be in prison and rightly so
Click to expand...
But that's not necessarily true, is it? The key witness withdrawing is an enormous issue for the prosecution and one which may make then believe, on balance of likelihood of securing a conviction, that pursuing a prosecution isn't worthwhile.
 
Pickle85 said:
But that's not necessarily true, is it? The key witness withdrawing is an enormous issue for the prosecution and one which may make then believe, on balance of likelihood of securing a conviction, that pursuing a prosecution isn't worthwhile.
Click to expand...
They can go ahead without her
 
Spark said:
They'll both have been advised to make no further comment. It's easy to come out and say what the context is to any legal dispute, from the trivial to the serious. Fact is, no one ever does as it can be prejudicial to any future court case or open up grounds for prosecution - e.g. she might be liable for making false claims to the police (who knows).

They do, but she has decided to proactively support him. If we were just told they had gone back and you never heard from her again, it would be slightly more sus.

As things stand, all the facts of the case and the public opinion have been formed on Twitter formerly known as X. You're judging him purely based on that (and fair enough, may I add - this is not to say you're wrong). However, if you're to rip up a contract I think it should purely be down to a conviction in the courts, not public opinion.
Click to expand...

Not really, DV victims go back to support their partners.

Audio and images were released on Instagram so you can form an opinion without ever stepping foot on Twitter.

It's fine for you to have that opinion, as it is for United or myself to have ours. There is no given right to have a football contract.

afrocentricity said:
They can go ahead without her
Click to expand...

They can but run the risk of the individual being a 'hostile witness'.
 
adexkola said:
Curious as to the damage (if any) that has been done to La Liga or Getafe by Greenwood playing football in Spain. Recall a few saying him coming back to play for United would cause so much damage.
Click to expand...

He's mostly gone unnoticed (not many headlines). Nobody pays attention to Getafe.
 
Leethal said:
And what if it's not?

Easiest counter argument in the world.....
Click to expand...
Exactly, what you're saying can be countered just as easily. It is worth noting that there is more evidence out there that it happened, than it not happening.
Rood said:
Then he'd be in prison and rightly so
Click to expand...
Not really, she dropped charges and the case got thrown out as a consequence.
 
Pickle85 said:
But that's not necessarily true, is it? The key witness withdrawing is an enormous issue for the prosecution and one which may make then believe, on balance of likelihood of securing a conviction, that pursuing a prosecution isn't worthwhile.
Click to expand...

If the full audio is available and worse than the short excerpt released then he'd definitely be in prison - they don't need her cooperation to proceed and in fact they had already continued the case for 10months after she withdrew.

What exactly is in the full audio is one of the key unknowns - the club said that:
"We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording, and for the images posted online."

The full audio is around 13 minutes - we heard around 1 minute in the middle.

The CPS also mentioned 'new material that came to light' - the rumours are that this was the full audio but no confirmation.
 
SilentWitness said:
Not really, DV victims go back to support their partners.

Audio and images were released on Instagram so you can form an opinion without ever stepping foot on Twitter.

It's fine for you to have that opinion, as it is for United or myself to have ours. There is no given right to have a football contract.



They can but run the risk of the individual being a 'hostile witness'.
Click to expand...

Assume you've conceded the first point, by choosing to ignore it?

Quite pedantic, so it was all hosted on social media and all opinions have been formed from there then. No one is saying that he has a right to play for United. I will understand why he won't play for United ever again, if that's what happens. I just don't think the reason for him not to play for United should be a PR one, which is what this will be.

And to my original point in a previous post, it won't wash away the fact that there are multiple clubs currently playing players under investigation for sexual abuse. If we are to take a stand on Greenwood, we need to make sure we're forcing through a framework that deals with sexual abuse claims properly across the league.
 
Rood said:
If the full audio is available and worse than the short excerpt released then he'd definitely be in prison - they don't need her cooperation to proceed and in fact they had already continued the case for 10months after she withdrew.

What exactly is in the full audio is one of the key unknowns - the club said that:
"We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording, and for the images posted online."

The full audio is around 13 minutes - we heard around 1 minute in the middle.

The CPS also mentioned 'new material that came to light' - the rumours are that this was the full audio but no confirmation.
Click to expand...
I absolutely disagree that he'd definitely be in prison. As said, although they can proceed the prospect of securing a conviction without the cooperation of the key witness (and victim) is much slimmer.Also, if anything, the fact that they chose to continue pursuing things for ten months after the witness withdrew could be seen to show just how much they believed in Greenwood's guilt.

I really struggle to see what possible acceptable context could be provided for the audio beyond the (ludicrous) roleplay nonsense.
 
SilentWitness said:
Not really, as if the question is about morals, perhaps people do not wish to have an individual at the club who is like that (inflamed further by images).



- If there is a different context it would be quite easy to come out and say that. There hasn't been, which is very odd. If it were me in that situation I'd make sure damn well that the correct context of the situation was being told.

Many victims of DV go back to their partners.

There is no such thing as trial by social media.
Click to expand...

Says he as he is engages in trial by social media.
 
Spark said:
Assume you've conceded the first point, by choosing to ignore it?

Quite pedantic, so it was all hosted on social media and all opinions have been formed from there then. No one is saying that he has a right to play for United. I will understand why he won't play for United ever again, if that's what happens. I just don't think the reason for him not to play for United should be a PR one, which is what this will be.

And to my original point in a previous post, it won't wash away the fact that there are multiple clubs currently playing players under investigation for sexual abuse. If we are to take a stand on Greenwood, we need to make sure we're forcing through a framework that deals with sexual abuse claims properly across the league.
Click to expand...

No, I just think discussion is going round in circles regarding it. I still believe people would deny it was them in the audio or explain the context of it due to what the alternative is if you do not. No point hashing over a topic constantly when we obviously disagree and it's not leading anywhere.

Opinions have been formed by the audio, which hasn't been denied by Greenwood as being him, or an explanation of it and the images which again, haven't been explained. Most people would subsequently be seeing that as a major red flag and have serious moral issues with it.

I don't disagree that there needs to be better procedure regarding abuse claims in football.

Belisarius said:
Says he as he is engages in trial by social media.
Click to expand...

I'm offering an opinion, that's not a trial.
 
SilentWitness said:
I'm offering an opinion, that's not a trial.
Click to expand...
You're using social media to campaign for economic / career sanctions against an individual based on snippets of publicly available information. That is the definition of trial by social media. What makes it so awful is that it is not a real trial and the individual being attacked never has an opportunity to challenge evidence or cross-examine witnesses as they would in a proper trial.
 
Belisarius said:
You're using social media to campaign for economic / career sanctions against an individual based on snippets of publicly available information. That is the definition of trial by social media. What makes it so awful is that it is not a real trial and the individual being attacked never has an opportunity to challenge evidence or cross-examine witnesses as they would in a proper trial.
Click to expand...

I'm not campaigning anything. Im offering my opinion that I'd want them nowhere near my club or English football. It's up to other fans to decide if they want that or not or the respective clubs or institutions. I'm not pressuring anyone else to have the same view as me if they don't wish to. It was up to United what they chose to do.
 
Belisarius said:
You're using social media to campaign for economic / career sanctions against an individual based on snippets of publicly available information. That is the definition of trial by social media. What makes it so awful is that it is not a real trial and the individual being attacked never has an opportunity to challenge evidence or cross-examine witnesses as they would in a proper trial.
Click to expand...
Who's campaigning? He's hardly hiring Russian bot farms to support his case or going door to door. It's a person expressing an opinion on the internet.
 
Bring the kid back next summer....see if he's matured, see how he has handled himself and how the family dynamic is at that time and then make a decision

ffs...there are several players who've had domestic issues occur and are still playing football wihtout fuk all being said about it. It's only because he plays for United that it creates such a buzz
 
bosskeano said:
Bring the kid back next summer....see if he's matured, see how he has handled himself and how the family dynamic is at that time and then make a decision

ffs...there are several players who've had domestic issues occur and are still playing football wihtout fuk all being said about it. It's only because he plays for United that it creates such a buzz
Click to expand...
You're not really wrong (unfortunately). Plenty of players out there who almost literally got away with murder in more ways than one. And some of their clubs have clearly covered for them (Hey Real!).
 
Belisarius said:
You're using social media to campaign for economic / career sanctions against an individual based on snippets of publicly available information. That is the definition of trial by social media. What makes it so awful is that it is not a real trial and the individual being attacked never has an opportunity to challenge evidence or cross-examine witnesses as they would in a proper trial.
Click to expand...


We're nobodies on an internet forum, calm down.

Are you here to campaign?
 
pascell said:
Not really, she dropped charges and the case got thrown out as a consequence.
Click to expand...

People keep saying this but it's not true, I assume most people have not understood the timelines.

she dropped out in April '22 (a few months after first posting on Instagram), the case was not closed until Feb '23.

That's almost a year later so it was not her withdrawing that caused the CPS to close the case. In fact they only charged him in Oct '22 so were content to pursue the case without her.

The CPS also referred to 'new material that came to light'.
 
Rood said:
People keep saying this but it's not true, I assume most people have not understood the timelines.

she dropped out in April '22 (a few months after first posting on Instagram), the case was not closed until Feb '23.

That's almost a year later so it was not her withdrawing that caused the CPS to close the case. In fact they only charged him in Oct '22 so were content to pursue the case without her.

The CPS also referred to 'new material that came to light'.
Click to expand...
She wasn't co-operating with their investigation. How can anyone investigate the case without co-operation from the key witness? They can't, hence why the case was dropped.
 
pascell said:
She wasn't co-operating with their investigation. How can anyone investigate the case without co-operation from the key witness? They can't, hence why the case was dropped.
Click to expand...

The investigation continued for 10 months after she withdrew so quite clearly you are wrong
 
Irrespective of your views about the CPS decision and personal preferences regarding the player's future career, does anyone think that there is any way back for Greenwood at United without a reasonable explanation being offered (by the player and / or the club) for the audio and images that were released? It seems obvious to me that, absent such an explanation, there is no chance that Greenwood will ever play for United again - the magnitude of the inevitable backlash would simply be beyond what United are willing to endure.

True, there is probably no explanation that will fully satisfy all those who have followed this case, but if there is a context to the released material that casts it in a different light and there is a desire to resurrect Greenwood's United career, then the club and / or player will need to elucidate that context, publicly.
 
Infra-red said:
does anyone think that there is any way back for Greenwood at United without a reasonable explanation being offered (by the player and / or the club) for the audio and images that were released?
Click to expand...
Yes I think. The club can just play dumb, deaf and blind for a while then it's fine. After all the media and fans have very short memory and they'd be all over the next scandal anyway.
 
Infra-red said:
does anyone think that there is any way back for Greenwood at United without a reasonable explanation being offered (by the player and / or the club) for the audio and images that were released?
Click to expand...

Of course.

He would literally just have to be selected by the coach and step on the pitch, and decline all media interviews. Cop loads of abuse for the first few weeks, and see it die down eventually like it did with Zouma. If he performs well that will be the end of it, bar a few who keep this thread alive.
 
Strelok said:
Yes I think. The club can just play dumb, deaf and blind for a while then it's fine. After all the media and fans have very short memory and they'd be all over the next scandal anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't think they can. People do indeed have short memories, but not that short. Greenwood has 18 months left on his United deal, no?

The fact that neither the player nor club have publicly detailed the context of the released material, leads me to believe that they cannot do so. That does not of course necessarily mean that there is no context, but it does lead me to conclude that the player is unwilling/unable to share that explanation publicly (probably not helpful to speculate what the reasons might be for this, but some obvious possibilities spring to mind). For that reason, I don't expect him to play for United again.
 
adexkola said:
Of course.

He would literally just have to be selected by the coach and step on the pitch, and decline all media interviews. Cop loads of abuse for the first few weeks, and see it die down eventually like it did with Zouma. If he performs well that will be the end of it, bar a few who keep this thread alive.
Click to expand...

That, it appears, was United's original plan. They appear to have been somewhat taken aback by the scale and intensity of the backlash, and did an about-turn, accordingly. I don't think they will be willing to stir up that hornet's nest again so soon.
 
Infra-red said:
People do indeed have short memories, but not that short.
Click to expand...
Oh people do have that short memory mate. Not all but most imo.

Of course he'll have to live with it for the rest of his career. But for the club the most important thing is how big/how long the backlash would be since that might affect the commercial activities. It might be big at first but eventually it'll die down like all the other scandals.
 
Infra-red said:
That, it appears, was United's original plan. They appear to have been somewhat taken aback by the scale and intensity of the backlash, and did an about-turn, accordingly. I don't think they will be willing to stir up that hornet's nest again so soon.
Click to expand...
If he's smashing it, they will. Question for me is, would they (he and his family) want to?
 
Infra-red said:
That, it appears, was United's original plan. They appear to have been somewhat taken aback by the scale and intensity of the backlash, and did an about-turn, accordingly. I don't think they will be willing to stir up that hornet's nest again so soon.
Click to expand...

The board were bitches (non-gender usage). Or lacked a spine.

Other clubs with more of a backbone behind their decisions would have stuck to the initial decision. West Ham with Zouma is a perfect example.
 
afrocentricity said:
If he's smashing it, they will. Question for me is, would they want to?
Click to expand...
Imo it depends.

Forget about moral. United are and have been a business for decades. Most businesses pretend to care about moral but they actually do not give a feck.

So now it's only money or football.

If the new management still think money is the most important thing they won't call him back.

If they think football (I mean the results) is the most important thing they'll call him back. It's too fecking obvious we desperately someone who can dribble, create and score right now.
 
Club messed it up if their plan was to re-integrate him. Should have made a statement right after the CPS dropped the charges - and before TheAthletic expose happened - saying that the internal investigation found him not guilty of w/e he was accused of - furthermore as no criminal charges were being pursued - and respecting the wishes of the victim - that the club would reintegrate him with close supervision along with tailored counselling/support for both him and the victim etc etc. Could have even had him move in with a mentor figure or to the club facilities for a while.

TheAthletic expose set the tone and the backlash never really abated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.