Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
I’m kidding
Bar Getafe, not a single other club was interested in taking him on, there was a backlash to his re-integration and Nike dropped him as an ambassador. Of course it was damning. If you want to make up excuses like it could be faked or its not him, by all means.
I don't know, why did they subsequently reverse that decision if he was so innocent?
It clearly depends on the allegation.
That did play a part, but it's mainly as no one else wanted to take on the risk.
I think the club doesnt want to sell him and his time in Spain is just part of a physical, emotional and a holding PR position so he can rehab back to football at Man Utd.
I see Mason speak more, sign Shirts etc than he did when here, all part of his rehab.
Anyone that thinks the statement about looking after Mason is true, more like the club working out how to hold onto its investment, that they hope both him and his value will 'mature' in time.
I think Sancho for completely different reasons is the same.
The club could cut their loses, sold them both in Jan and moved on but not so easy for new owners to arrive whilst over 100m of talent walks out in the opposite direction. Especially if they havent the money to replace them.
I see Mason speak more, sign Shirts etc than he did when here, all part of his rehab.
Anyone that thinks the statement about looking after Mason is true, more like the club working out how to hold onto its investment, that they hope both him and his value will 'mature' in time.
I think Sancho for completely different reasons is the same.
The club could cut their loses, sold them both in Jan and moved on but not so easy for new owners to arrive whilst over 100m of talent walks out in the opposite direction. Especially if they havent the money to replace them.
As I said if he had apologised to his fans and said he and his partner are in therapy and would respect privacy at this sensitive time I would have been ok with him coming back. He’s a really good footballer. If she can forgive him I don’t see what it has to do with anyone else. The club ballsed it up as they are prone to do. The players clearly need a lot more stern guidance and protection. If they don’t want it they can head off.
It was not up to Eric Cantona to take the law into his own hands, which is why he's not exactly a role model either - I think that is the point most are trying to make here, and he rightly served his punishment for it.
Likewise, John Terry served a punishment for making racially insensitive comments and still went onto play for Chelsea and Villa (I actually google searched him just to get the facts right on his case, and there is even a Chelsea FC webpage on JT. The same Chelsea website that says "No to hate" on the home page
). Interestingly JT denied this allegation and chose not appeal the guilty verdict of the FA (He was cleared by the criminal courts prior to the FA verdict), but people will always hold that FA verdict over him including fickle rival football fans. Being a Chelsea fan, would you then be alright with there being no mention of JT on your website/history because he was found guilty by one organisation (Even if the FA in this case was inept, they are still the governing body for football in England) and not guilty by the other?The FA in the JT case was criticised heavily for being a kangaroo court, and I believe this trial by social media/redcafe that Greenwood seems to be giving echoes of that - Mainly because the public doesn't know the full facts of this case or the context of the leaked evidence to condemn him as a rapist. At this point there is no case, so we will probably never know. Was the evidence leaked to social media damning in Greenwood's case, 100%, but so was the evidence in Johnny Depp's case - Context needs to be provided and witness testimony provided for a jury to convict someone. Do I think Johnny Depp is a saint based on that case, no, in the same way I don't think OJ Simpson is a saint. Which is why I keep saying, why not let the club decide what to do based on the information they have without any external pressure?
Similarly Dani Alves is probably going to prison for rape if he is found guilty in the Spanish courts. While these things all lie on varying degrees of the crime spectrum (Hate Speech is also now considered a crime in certain countries, including the UK I believe) - None of these individuals should be considered role models, right?
I agree that none of these players should be celebrated - Am I then a weirdo for pointing out that we as a fanbase adopt double standards when it comes to some of those players you mentioned, especially Best? If we are going down this rabbit hole, how far do we go? Do we erase the history of George Best, Nicky Butt, Giggs, Ronaldo etc. from the club, take out Best from the United Trinity statue, and stop singing about these players too?
According to the logic of some here, anyone who speaks a word in favour of MG being given a return is now a DV sympathiser. I can extrapolate that view a little bit more and say that any Manchester United fan who doesn't want George Best erased from the history of our club or sings the songs is a DV sympathiser. I personally don't think either of those opinions are correct, but this like US politics is turning into a very polarising debate.
My overall points are as follows (If I'm a weirdo for seeing this situation this way then so be it):
MG is not a criminal legally speaking, and what we have as leaked evidence is not complete without context and witness testimony for us to convict him in a court of public opinion. Calling him a rapist to draw on emotions and gain support for one's argument is pointless. He is no upstanding citizen either, similar to many many other public figures and non-public figures. Public figures are not to be followed for moral guidelines either, your morals are your own at the end of the day - There is also a difference too between illegal and immoral, context can change something from being immoral to illegal as well.
It is up to United to consider their own findings and take action without influence from the public/media - and they're under no obligation to justify their decision with findings to the media either. If they retain Greenwood based on their earlier statement I would respect the club's decision. If they choose to cut ties with him, I would respect their decision too - but that decision should not be driven by public/media outrage but based on what is best for Manchester United Football Club which at the end of the day, is a business listed on the NYSE. If the club decide to retain MG based on their findings, a portion of the fans/media can call the club a bunch of DV sympathisers and try to 'cancel' them if they like, in my opinion that is one viewpoint. Some of us also have alternative viewpoints, and we're not weirdos for having them.
I wouldn't answer. Because you, @Pickle85, wouldn't have the stones to pull the trigger regardless
The bolded is spot on. I mean, I have my personal opinion of what happened that night. But that doesn't matter to me. Relative to the gaping hole that is our right wing, he's a great player, a homegrown player, and important in terms of FFP. I'd rather we keep him for that reason and that reason alone. If this was Antony, I'd wish for his rehabilitation elsewhere.
It's both. If he was found guilty, nobody would want him back. However, he wasn't, so many including myself are willing to take him back. If it was a lesser player who wasn't found guilty, we'd still be well within our rights to take him back should we wish, however obviously people would be less bothered.
It was not up to Eric Cantona to take the law into his own hands, which is why he's not exactly a role model either - I think that is the point most are trying to make here, and he rightly served his punishment for it.
Likewise, John Terry served a punishment for making racially insensitive comments and still went onto play for Chelsea and Villa (I actually google searched him just to get the facts right on his case, and there is even a Chelsea FC webpage on JT. The same Chelsea website that says "No to hate" on the home page
The FA in the JT case was criticised heavily for being a kangaroo court, and I believe this trial by social media/redcafe that Greenwood seems to be giving echoes of that - Mainly because the public doesn't know the full facts of this case or the context of the leaked evidence to condemn him as a rapist. At this point there is no case, so we will probably never know. Was the evidence leaked to social media damning in Greenwood's case, 100%, but so was the evidence in Johnny Depp's case - Context needs to be provided and witness testimony provided for a jury to convict someone. Do I think Johnny Depp is a saint based on that case, no, in the same way I don't think OJ Simpson is a saint. Which is why I keep saying, why not let the club decide what to do based on the information they have without any external pressure?
Similarly Dani Alves is probably going to prison for rape if he is found guilty in the Spanish courts. While these things all lie on varying degrees of the crime spectrum (Hate Speech is also now considered a crime in certain countries, including the UK I believe) - None of these individuals should be considered role models, right?
Cantona is a good role model. I hope I would do the same in his situation. I'd be proud ff my brother or a friend did the same.
John Terry is not a good role model, and not just because he called someone a "black cnut". That doesn't mean he should be erased from the club website.
I think Greenwood beat that woman up and should be fired into the sun.
And as for letting the clubs decide, I'm not stopping them. I'm going to have an option though.
Mike Tyson and Eric Cantona used as examples on this thread in the past few days
This is it for me too. Just because there's been no definitive court of law ruling doesn't prevent individuals from drawing conclusions based on the evidence that we have. I think too many people are using the fact that he wasn't found guilty in court as a convenient way to sidestep having to look at what they know and make a judgment themselves.
Yep, we made a statue of a player that admitted to emotionally and physically abusing women and the club, fans, sponsors and the media all celebrated it...It was not up to Eric Cantona to take the law into his own hands, which is why he's not exactly a role model either - I think that is the point most are trying to make here, and he rightly served his punishment for it.
Likewise, John Terry served a punishment for making racially insensitive comments and still went onto play for Chelsea and Villa (I actually google searched him just to get the facts right on his case, and there is even a Chelsea FC webpage on JT. The same Chelsea website that says "No to hate" on the home page
The FA in the JT case was criticised heavily for being a kangaroo court, and I believe this trial by social media/redcafe that Greenwood seems to be giving echoes of that - Mainly because the public doesn't know the full facts of this case or the context of the leaked evidence to condemn him as a rapist. At this point there is no case, so we will probably never know. Was the evidence leaked to social media damning in Greenwood's case, 100%, but so was the evidence in Johnny Depp's case - Context needs to be provided and witness testimony provided for a jury to convict someone. Do I think Johnny Depp is a saint based on that case, no, in the same way I don't think OJ Simpson is a saint. Which is why I keep saying, why not let the club decide what to do based on the information they have without any external pressure?
Similarly Dani Alves is probably going to prison for rape if he is found guilty in the Spanish courts. While these things all lie on varying degrees of the crime spectrum (Hate Speech is also now considered a crime in certain countries, including the UK I believe) - None of these individuals should be considered role models, right?
I agree that none of these players should be celebrated - Am I then a weirdo for pointing out that we as a fanbase adopt double standards when it comes to some of those players you mentioned, especially Best? If we are going down this rabbit hole, how far do we go? Do we erase the history of George Best, Nicky Butt, Giggs, Ronaldo etc. from the club, take out Best from the United Trinity statue, and stop singing about these players too?
According to the logic of some here, anyone who speaks a word in favour of MG being given a return is now a DV sympathiser. I can extrapolate that view a little bit more and say that any Manchester United fan who doesn't want George Best erased from the history of our club or sings the songs is a DV sympathiser. I personally don't think either of those opinions are correct, but this like US politics is turning into a very polarising debate.
My overall points are as follows (If I'm a weirdo for seeing this situation this way then so be it):
MG is not a criminal legally speaking, and what we have as leaked evidence is not complete without context and witness testimony for us to convict him in a court of public opinion. Calling him a rapist to draw on emotions and gain support for one's argument is pointless. He is no upstanding citizen either, similar to many many other public figures and non-public figures. Public figures are not to be followed for moral guidelines either, your morals are your own at the end of the day - There is also a difference too between illegal and immoral, context can change something from being immoral to illegal as well.
It is up to United to consider their own findings and take action without influence from the public/media - and they're under no obligation to justify their decision with findings to the media either. If they retain Greenwood based on their earlier statement I would respect the club's decision. If they choose to cut ties with him, I would respect their decision too - but that decision should not be driven by public/media outrage but based on what is best for Manchester United Football Club which at the end of the day, is a business listed on the NYSE. If the club decide to retain MG based on their findings, a portion of the fans/media can call the club a bunch of DV sympathisers and try to 'cancel' them if they like, in my opinion that is one viewpoint. Some of us also have alternative viewpoints, and we're not weirdos for having them.
I bet quite a few of the "he wasn't found guilty in a court of law" done share that same sentiment when it comes to John Terry either.
And I have no issue with that, the legal system is flawed and being found guilty (or not guilty in JT's case) doesn't change what actually happened.
Its not side stepping, Feck me we cant even agree with players, signings, positions, the manager or even whether we like the new shirt....
Feck me, you wouldnt be saying that if you were found guilty, doing 20 years for something you didnt do? Especially if the evidence was inconclusive. Feck me, you'd be complaining if some of us thought you should be banned forever off the forum cause we dont like your post....
The problems for me are:
(a) The girl he beat up has made up with him and they're a happy family
(b) Both the police statement and the club statement by Arnold said there was significant evidence that made them believe that the clip that was leaked wasn't the full story. It's not a court that said he wasn't guilty, the prosecutors decided to drop the case entirely.
He said the words he said, that's the extent of what I know.
However, to me it seems like the only "punishment" he gets from all of this is the stain on his reputation and staying away from football for a year or so. It seems like he'll go on to have a good career from now on. We're not really hurting his prospects by kicking him out of the club, most clubs in Europe are open to him. Spanish fans don't seem to give a shit already after some half hearted booing, Italian ones likely don't either. My best guess is the English fans will boo him for a season and forget all about it too.
So given all of this, the only reason to kick him out would be to draw a line in the sand and say we don't tolerate douchebags. That's a bit of a flimsy line to uphold for me. Who knows how douchebags existed at the club over the years w/o the evidence coming to light. The reality of kicking him out is that we don't tolerate douchebags convicted by the court of public opinion. As long as the evidence hasn't been discovered, it's fine.
On Cantona - I'd have probably kicked that guy too and kicked him some more, doesn't make me a good role model for doing stuff like that though. I love Cantona, but he's not perfect.
on JT - Sure, then the same goes for Best, Giggs etc. etc. Which means we both support football clubs and not the 'ethics police'. Just because I too don't want that history erased doesn't mean I support the deeds of those players either.
On Greenwood - You think or you know? Because I genuinely don't know, so I would rather let the club who knows more than me decide. At this stage Richard Arnold has also elaborated further on the leaked evidence (Link). As someone who has read that statement when it was released, I think it's fair that fans who are not against his return are allowed to have that opinion without having all manner of crazy criticisms thrown at them.
What wouldn't I be saying? I'm saying the legal system gets things wrong which is why I'll make my own mind up.
And people have asked for me to be banned from this site and I don't give a shit, I certainly didn't complain. People are free to not want me on here.
Last edited:
What did I write?
....not tolerating douchebags, thats a percentage of the fans losing their season tickets too then...
The reality for Greenwood is that if he can't explain the contents of the tape then lots of people will never see past it.
He seemingly can't explain it, presumably for legal reasons. Depending on whether he did it or not, that's either unfortunate or fortunate. Who knows.
He seemingly can't explain it, presumably for legal reasons. Depending on whether he did it or not, that's either unfortunate or fortunate. Who knows.
If you refer to my original suggestion, the quote is such staff "are welcome to go and help the overall headcount cut". The club does not need to sack them which to your point is illegal anyway. They can resign as they deem necessary. The club also reported as having bloating headcount that needs restructuring, staff resigning themselves would help reduce the number of layoff for the restructuring plan.
Again, this is all based on that we consider football as the priority . If you think that is not the case in Greenwood case, then we need to agree to disagree.
Went back two pages and can see people are saying “he violently raped her”
Lmao…what? We live in the UK where the police don’t and will not need a victim to press charges. Any tiny bit of evidence of “violent rape” and Greenwood would have been charged a long time ago. Stop it. You don’t know that.
I’m guessing but it’s the types that were anti Qatar talking like this.
NEWSFLASH. Sir Jimmy is conservative and would likely bring back Boris for PM if he had a vote on it. I would not be surprised if he’s already planning on bringing Greenwood back. Conservatives don’t believe in cancel culture by social media.
Also stop making up shit. Following an internal review, he was cleared. I’m pretty sure continuing to hire a ‘violent rapist’ counts as gross misconduct and his contract would have been terminated.
Lmao…what? We live in the UK where the police don’t and will not need a victim to press charges. Any tiny bit of evidence of “violent rape” and Greenwood would have been charged a long time ago. Stop it. You don’t know that.
I’m guessing but it’s the types that were anti Qatar talking like this.
NEWSFLASH. Sir Jimmy is conservative and would likely bring back Boris for PM if he had a vote on it. I would not be surprised if he’s already planning on bringing Greenwood back. Conservatives don’t believe in cancel culture by social media.
Also stop making up shit. Following an internal review, he was cleared. I’m pretty sure continuing to hire a ‘violent rapist’ counts as gross misconduct and his contract would have been terminated.
The tape and the pics.
The pics are either (a) real and he did it. (b) real and someone else did it or (c) fake.
Great....but what about when it gets it right or should we just then dont bother with it and see where that takes us?
Either way, my opinion is just that, an opinion. I've not out on the streets in mask and cape dishing out justice to those I deem guilty.
Like you, I'm just talking on the internet.
He's a little scumbag and I'd be saddened to see him ever play for the club again. Beyond that, it makes no sense from his perspective to ever try come back to England. He is getting none of the heat in Spain that he would get if he tried to play in England again. He should be looking to secure a move to Barca or Madrid with a solid end to the season and never set foot in England again as a player. And we as a club need to maximise the amount we can get for him, that is the main priority now. He's done and dusted at this club as far as I'm concerned, the fact that he's way better than any of our current players notwithstanding. It's just a nonstarter for him to ever play here again.
He did it or at least did a part of what he was accused( at least my opinion). My question is how much punishment does he deserve? We speak of second chances, why should he not deserve one?
He is already rasing a family with his ''victim'' and they seem happy, so why should we not look past it?
NB: I apologise if my post is offensive to victims or people affected by domestic violence, that is not my intention
40m is good money for a guy that what seems like most people are bitching about bringing back to the club.....he's worth double that though
I derive no pleasure from it. I think its all up in the air as to what actually happened tbh. But people and fans in the UK will not be reasonable about it - they will whip up storms and give him hell if he ever comes back, and its worthless to us and to him to go through that. It makes total sense from his perspective to say "nah, I'll stay in Spain where I won't get all this shit affecting my game".
I found the recordings quite damning and I'm not sure there's anything we're not hearing around them that could excuse what was on them. But if his Mrs went back to him, he probably deserves a second chance. The fact is, he won't get one, and the club and himself would be tarred and feathered for ever trying to give him one. So sell him. And get good money for him.
His stance at the moment is "I didn't do it". That's why a second chance at Man United is going to be difficult for a lot of fans with no explanation for the pics and audio (other than the club saying "trust me bro").
For the people who think he did it, him being with her is meaningless. Abuse victims stay with their abusers all the time.
Mason Greenwood is assumed innocent as it stands, and there simply isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise. At the moment at the very least. Noone is ever proven innocent, innocence is always assumed until proven otherwise.
The we can't be sure nothing has been proven argument is the backbone of a fair trial. If you can't be sure prove it. It you can't prove it, move on.
The argument is that by the laws of the land he hasn't been found guilty of any crime, so why are alot of people acting like he has, and actively trying to stop him from re-starting his career?
Mike Tyson and Eric Cantona used as examples on this thread in the past few days
Elaborate?
You are right, British courts are famously good at prosecuting rape…Just have a google of rape conviction statistics in the UK and stop peddling bullshit about how he would have been convicted if there was any shred of evidence. Your views are a complete fabrication of reality, and it’s genuinely sad to see people so misinformed.
Luckily not all people who voted for Brexit are fans of rapists, however right wing they may be, so im confident the club will make the right decisions.
Offended colours of race wasn’t trying to stop JT from playing for Chelsea though were they.
I suppose minorities believing in a certain privilege makes things more acceptable and also is probably the reason why so many people feel like their matter should be heard when it comes to Greenwood. However that’s probably a social debate worth having on a different forum.
Godwin's Law
Never once said he would be convicted. Reading comprehension is essential.
Before it can go to court the police have to present evidence to the prosecution service and they decide if it goes to court.
They didn’t have enough evidence to even press charges. Get a grip on reality and stop being judge, juror and executioner.
Also never said conservatives are fans of rapists. Mason Greenwood is not a rapist under the laws of this land. Conservatives don’t believe in cancel culture, especially via social media. Since this kid has not broken any laws, a conservative would likely want the kid to go back to his job. However there is his skin colour to take into consideration. He might want to send him to Rwanda.
Stop it.
Last edited:
Of course they were. For Chelsea and England. People still have opinions about jobs JT should or shouldn't get more than a decade later.
- Status