Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
flameinthesun said:
Are you comfortable answering the follow up question I asked you?
"Now admittedly actually being cynical, were you prepared to stop supporting the club when Ronaldo came back? By every metric what he did can be argued to be equally or worse than what Greenwood was accused of. I'd like to understand where your moral stance begins and stops."
Click to expand...

I didn't want Ronaldo back and I didn't even know about the allegations.

I wouldn't want him back again for a number of reasons and that accusation would be one of them. I wouldn't want Giggs anywhere near the club again either as he is plainly a scumbag, albeit on a lesser scale than Greenwood.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Hm. Can't say I understand why it would upset anyone - but fair enough.

Like I said above, my guess would be something like 6/10 in favour of bringing him back.

On here, I mean. Without qualifications or caveats - just "yeah" or "nay".

If you did the same thing on FB or X/Twitter (feck, I hate having to do that) - it would probably be 8/10.

That's the reality of the thing - I suspect.

We can't hide from reality, dude - that will never get us anywhere.
Click to expand...

I was one of the main voices against adding a poll. It wasn't due to me being upset or threat of anyone else being upset. Just that it put a beacon on one of the shittest threads I've seen on the Caf. About a player the club saw fit to exile.

And yes, the further we get from any awful situation the more densensited we get, but I don't see that being a reason to add a poll so some could allow that natual distancing to use a poll to try and make a point, as some may have been doing.
 
Last edited:
Lash said:
I do understand that, but are footballing reasons more important the chance he might have done wrong in your eyes?
Click to expand...

The key word in your question is "might." I do not KNOW that he's guilty. I have made a few posts in this thread. I've explained (vaguely) that I have previously been part of a jury. During the trial I learned that things that seem very apparent are not always the case.

I would have him back for footballing reasons under the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. If he was proven guilty then I wouldn't have him back.
 
Rood said:
I just would have liked to have seen the results with more votes

Whether Redcafe is representative of the whole fanbase is an interesting question and probably worthy of seperate thread
Click to expand...


If it just a peek into an envelope then maybe, but definitely not worth fuelling the tedium of this discussion.

I know I contribute to that tedium. I've only made about 5 points, over and over. But sadly that's the nature of the thread, which is why anything that fuels it without more info is just more of the same but slightly accelerated.
 
moses said:
I was one of the main voices against adding a poll. It wasn't due to me being upset or threat of anyone else being upset. Just that put a beacon on one of the shittest threads I've seen on the Caf. About a player the club saw fit to exile.

And yes, the further we get from any awful situation the more densensited we get, but I don't see that being a reason to add a poll so some could allow that natual distancing to use a poll to try and make a point, as some may have been doing.
Click to expand...

I was mainly curious about the actual number - which is (to use my own term) frivolous.

I understand - and I have no issue with the decision!
 
Rood said:
Whether Redcafe is representative of the whole fanbase is an interesting question and probably worthy of seperate thread
Click to expand...

Definitely worthy of its own thread imo; particularly if some of the more recent market research numbers are accurate (Kantar 2023) etc. If those numbers are even remotely accurate then a sizable majority of United's global fanbase are in Asia, which might affect the numbers in terms of how many would entertain a return of Greenwood, as well as a number of other issues.
 
Lash said:
The bit bolded for me is where I struggle with your stance. Why are you taking the risk? I understand the other side of what you've put, but I'm not sure it's truly empathy for the poster if you're happy to take that risk.
Click to expand...

Which is a point that I think is reasonable for you to hold. However, for myself, I am uncomfortable saying "why take the risk when they might be guilty". That path can lead and historically has lead to egregious decisions being made for certain communities for which I should not need to explain. From my perspective when you have all charges being dropped, the Club itself via an internal investigation with a 3rd party deeming him to have not done what he was accused of, having had access to information not available to the public (poster's keep trying to wriggle away from this fact by saying oh it was written by PR etc etc which is disingenuous as they know it doesn't represent what the statement said), you add on top the partner returning to him and them moving on with their lives with what appears to be the blessings of all involved and no dissenting peep from anybody over a period of almost 2 years, that is more than just the accused saying "I did not do it". Furthermore, that is far more than the likes of Ronaldo has ever had, yet there is a massive double standard and hypocrisy being displayed between how this forum and the public have treated the two players. Again, can I confidently say he did not do it? No, Can I confidently argue in the opposite, no. I do not think that is an extreme take.

Regarding empathy for the poster, that is exactly what it is, empathy. I can understand why coming from the poster's background why they would hold the stance that they hold. That is not a lack of empathy, quite the opposite. You can have empathy for why someone takes the stance they take without yourself taking the same stance. Now, if a poster or certain mod on here reads the above and interprets that as support for Domestic Violence, Rapists etc then I can't help them as again they are choosing to be deliberately obtuse and are just more interested in creating an us vs them dynamic.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
I was mainly curious about the actual number - which is (to use my own term) frivolous.

I understand - and I have no issue with the decision!
Click to expand...

If we get new info from any quarter, one that alters the landscape, a poll would probably be a great idea to see if there is a shift.
 
moses said:
Which is basically meaningless swing considering the potentially massive margin of error on such a small sample size.

To introduce another random poll at an unannounced random juncture in a long running conversation which many except the zealots have become tired with misses out on the sober centre.

That combined with the fact some people who already voted may not have realised the poll was new making any results even more nebulous.

All in all it was an awful idea which only served to agitate a shit thread on an unsavoury subject.
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure the poll was on around 350 votes when I last saw it. In a simple two
option poll, this is definitely enough of a sample to provide a mean with fairly high confidence.

There is no reason to suggest that those who most want him to leave or stay would see or miss the poll more than the other. However it is likely that those who care more about the subject would be more likely to see the poll and vote.

So the result of the poll probably shows instead that 56% of those forum members, who care enough to visit the thread, want him back. You’d ideally want to weight for non respondents I.e. those who rarely visit the thread, to understand what the mean of this forum is, or include more respondents to understand what the view of the whole fan base is.

But there is no evidence that the general fan’s views are massively different, although I’d assume they have greater ambivalence.
 
Wibble said:
I didn't want Ronaldo back and I didn't even know about the allegations.

I wouldn't want him back again for a number of reasons and that accusation would be one of them. I wouldn't want Giggs anywhere near the club again either as he is plainly a scumbag, albeit on a lesser scale than Greenwood.
Click to expand...

I'll take you at face value that you did not know about the allegations against Ronaldo despite them being pretty prominently part of the discourse on here at the time and arguably a lot worse than the allegations Greenwood faced and arguably a lot worse for the alleged victim in that incident.
 
moses said:
A football only thread, which was almost wholly positive, that proactively allowed no room for context could have been seen at a glance as hugely misrepresentative of how a lot of caf users feel.

It would look the same as all the other loanees, which again doesn't represent the truth.

Why should the caf ignore the complications surrounded the alleged rape when the club didn't?
Click to expand...
It was a player performance thread only and it was to discuss on the field performance only which the moderators had stated . The off the field shitstorm was on a different thread and it certainly wasn’t been ignored .
 
Red00012 said:
It was a player performance thread only and it was to discuss on the field performance only which the moderators had stated . The off the field shitstorm was on a different thread and it certainly wasn’t been ignored .
Click to expand...

Yes, this 'safe space' to just discuss the football progress of an alleged rapist which the club exiled was problematic in terms of optics as I explained.

You can put all the posters who aren't talking about the football on ignore, and enjoy the chat without as much interruption, nobody is stopping the football discussion.
 
Pickle85 said:
I guess my question was more why you've spent so much time trying to defend someone that, whether he's an actual domestic abuser or not (I think he is) you've never met and comes across as a dreadful person anyway (unless you think the audio was faked too).
Click to expand...

Wasn't really going to humour you but... feel free to show me where I have defended domestic abuse and/or defended a convicted domestic abuser.

If the point behind your post is why am I discussing a Man United player on a Man United forum, I'm sure you've got the ability to arrive to that conclusion yourself.
 
goalscholes said:
I’m pretty sure the poll was on around 350 votes when I last saw it. In a simple two
option poll, this is definitely enough of a sample to provide a mean with fairly high confidence.

There is no reason to suggest that those who most want him to leave or stay would see or miss the poll more than the other. However it is likely that those who care more about the subject would be more likely to see the poll and vote.

So the result of the poll probably shows instead that 56% of those forum members, who care enough to visit the thread, want him back. You’d ideally want to weight for non respondents I.e. those who rarely visit the thread, to understand what the mean of this forum is, or include more respondents to understand what the view of the whole fan base is.

But there is no evidence that the general fan’s views are massively different, although I’d assume they have greater ambivalence.
Click to expand...

350 is a problematically small group to survey, especially with all the factors I have already pointed out. But we are taking the thread off topic.

PM me of you want to discuss it further.
 
Borussia Teeth said:
The key word in your question is "might." I do not KNOW that he's guilty. I have made a few posts in this thread. I've explained (vaguely) that I have previously been part of a jury. During the trial I learned that things that seem very apparent are not always the case.

I would have him back for footballing reasons under the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. If he was proven guilty then I wouldn't have him back.
Click to expand...

I’ve done jury duty twice. It’s very eye opening and has completely changed the way I think about evidence and how we create narratives without knowing the whole story.

Evidence which seems damning during the prosecution’s case can be completely debunked.

And on juries, it’s easier as the court has made a decision on the quality of evidence before it reaches you and you can rely on the help of the judge. Without that, the wrong verdict would surely be given far more often.
 
goalscholes said:
The research suggests the vast majority don’t get back with their partner following DV.

There is no evidence that I’ve seen about ongoing DV to those who do stay with the perpetrator, so it is difficult to gauge whether this was the correct decision (and that is such a subjective area anyway).

But I’d imagine (anecdotally, rather than from research) that people are less likely to go back if they have financial freedom, no kids with the abuser, no substance abuse issues, a lack of friend/ family network etc.

And I imagine people are more likely to go back if they feel the person has changed and has forgiven them, or feel they cannot get away for many of the reasons listed in the para above.

This would be in line with findings from research with vulnerable groups.

Again, reasonable hypothesis but hugely speculative, and I’m generalising as speaking across a population does not pick up on the unique factors in each case.
Click to expand...

Yes...but I'm tempted to say: so what?

What I said was that it is common for DV victims to get back together with the abuser.

You can argue that it is not statistically common for any DV victim to get back together with any abuser, regardless of circumstances - but why would you do that?

What I suggested was this: it is common for a DV victim who is in an abusive relationship to NOT get out of that relationship, but rather to STAY in the relationship. It is also very common for abusive relationships to involve children - that is, for the abusive relationship to yield children, as it were. The presence of children doesn't mean the abuse didn't take place, or is any less likely to take place after the child is born, sadly.

Point? Yes, that would be the original point: stop using the fact that "they got back together" as an argument in this discussion. There is no other point. Do you disagree with this point?
 
flameinthesun said:
Wasn't really going to humour you but... feel free to show me where I have defended domestic abuse and/or defended a convicted domestic abuser.

If the point behind your post is why am I discussing a Man United player on a Man United forum, I'm sure you've got the ability to arrive to that conclusion yourself.
Click to expand...
Please do show me where I've claimed that you have?

Anyway, you can obfuscate as much as you like but ultimately you won't directly address why you've spent so much time in this thread arguing in favour of Greenwood returning and against his alleged guilt. And to say it's simply 'discussing a Man United player on a Man United forum' is facile and reductive, and we both know it.
 
Borussia Teeth said:
The key word in your question is "might." I do not KNOW that he's guilty. I have made a few posts in this thread. I've explained (vaguely) that I have previously been part of a jury. During the trial I learned that things that seem very apparent are not always the case.

I would have him back for footballing reasons under the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. If he was proven guilty then I wouldn't have him back.
Click to expand...
Of course, that's why I put might. I don't know he did or didn't, but the fact that I don't know he didn't is more important to me personally.

I think you're putting too much stock into assumption of innocence. I do understand where you're coming from though.
flameinthesun said:
Which is a point that I think is reasonable for you to hold. However, for myself, I am uncomfortable saying "why take the risk when they might be guilty". That path can lead and historically has lead to egregious decisions being made for certain communities for which I should not need to explain. From my perspective when you have all charges being dropped, the Club itself via an internal investigation with a 3rd party deeming him to have not done what he was accused of, having had access to information not available to the public (poster's keep trying to wriggle away from this fact by saying oh it was written by PR etc etc which is disingenuous as they know it doesn't represent what the statement said), you add on top the partner returning to him and them moving on with their lives with what appears to be the blessings of all involved and no dissenting peep from anybody over a period of almost 2 years, that is more than just the accused saying "I did not do it". Furthermore, that is far more than the likes of Ronaldo has ever had, yet there is a massive double standard and hypocrisy being displayed between how this forum and the public have treated the two players. Again, can I confidently say he did not do it? No, Can I confidently argue in the opposite, no. I do not think that is an extreme take.

Regarding empathy for the poster, that is exactly what it is, empathy. I can understand why coming from the poster's background why they would hold the stance that they hold. That is not a lack of empathy, quite the opposite. You can have empathy for why someone takes the stance they take without yourself taking the same stance. Now, if a poster or certain mod on here reads the above and interprets that as support for Domestic Violence, Rapists etc then I can't help them as again they are choosing to be deliberately obtuse and are just more interested in creating an us vs them dynamic.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure based on very conflicting evidence out in the public it's the equivalence your inferring, with regards to communities. The risk isn't based on stereotypes or held beliefs, it's conflicting evidence and statistics involved with these offences.

Who's the 3rd party you're referring to? I don't take a great deal of stock in the club statement, considering the sate in which it came out - rolling back to cover their arse from the backlash of a decision that had quite clearly been made. If this had been proactive, I think there would be a lot less skepticism surrounding it. I think them being back together is a strong argument, but as we also know there's a massive risk in DV situations. There's just so much murkiness around everything you've put forward, I don't see any risk being mitigated.

I'm curious as what you understand about it though? Do you understand it, but it doesn't matter in your opinion? I don't think anything you've said would make me think you're supporting DV or Rapists, etc., but I don't think you've particularly shown any empathy apart from saying the words "you understand" or "I am empathetic".
 
Lash said:
I'm not really sure based on very conflicting evidence out in the public it's the equivalence your inferring, with regards to communities. The risk isn't based on stereotypes or held beliefs, it's conflicting evidence and statistics involved with these offences.

Who's the 3rd party you're referring to? I don't take a great deal of stock in the club statement, considering the sate in which it came out - rolling back to cover their arse from the backlash of a decision that had quite clearly been made. If this had been proactive, I think there would be a lot less skepticism surrounding it. I think them being back together is a strong argument, but as we also know there's a massive risk in DV situations. There's just so much murkiness around everything you've put forward, I don't see any risk being mitigated.

I'm curious as what you understand about it though? Do you understand it, but it doesn't matter in your opinion? I don't think anything you've said would make me think you're supporting DV or Rapists, etc., but I don't think you've particularly shown any empathy apart from saying the words "you understand" or "I am empathetic".
Click to expand...

First off I will say I actually appreciate you keeping good faith in your replies!

Regarding the empathy point, I'm not sure there's much more that I can provide for you in that regard. I think my previous statement on it falls in line with the definition of empathy (which admittedly the wording right now does sound cold!). I can 100% understand why someone who is a survivor of Rape or DV would have a Zero Tolerance on the subject and allow no nuance. I would not necessarily attempt to dissuade them from that stance. However, and I am loathe to make this point, as someone else has pointed out there is a reason why the aforementioned for example would likely not be selected for a jury in which they were emotionally invested (whether for right reasons or not). Having said that, their point of view should 100% be taken into account. I'm not saying that that person's point of view is not valid, however it is not the only point of view/perspective. So I think you can perfectly have empathy for that poster and still believe that based on the findings of United that the player should be allowed to resume his life at the point where it was disrupted.

I do believe the confusing state of the statement came about due to the backlash to the Athletic article. However, and this is just speculation, I think based on the wording and some details in the Athletic article that they were thinking of bringing him back which would have been consistent with their findings as stated in the article, after all the argument is "If you believe he did not do what he was accused of, then he should be allowed to return". The confusion for me has come from them not sticking to their guns and weathering the storm. I personally am reluctant to say that the club has lied when it says it believes Greenwood did not do what he was accused of.

Thirdly, a point that I have avoided but might as well raise as I think it's the elephant in the room and likely is persuading a lot of people to be open to the idea of him returning is due to the fact they have reconciled, had a baby, moved on it seems and with what looks like is the blessing of their families with no peep or rumour from anyone about any discontent. Whilst stats around what percentage of DV victims return to their abusers is valid, the image of a happy couple, having a baby etc I would imagine is hard to shake off (and you can make a valid argument regarding the pictures/audio being hard to shake off).

As I've stated numerous time's I'm fine for United to make the decision for me on this one as I believe they are in a better position than I am due to the access to Info and those involved. If they choose, based on their investigation, to bring him back I'm fine with it, If they choose not to then I'm fine with it.

Regarding the 3rd party section that may have been an oversight on my part due to the wording in Richard Arnold's statement.
 
moses said:
Crikey, this shouldn't be this complicated.

Nobody is saying it's irrelevant, just that because of the studies and resulting statistics, it's not conclusive.
Click to expand...
And I don’t think anyone has said it is, but neither is irrelevant. Too many unknowns are spoken as facts yet we seem to disregard the facts for what the are.
 
flameinthesun said:
First off I will say I actually appreciate you keeping good faith in your replies!

Regarding the empathy point, I'm not sure there's much more that I can provide for you in that regard. I think my previous statement on it falls in line with the definition of empathy (which admittedly the wording right now does sound cold!). I can 100% understand why someone who is a survivor of Rape or DV would have a Zero Tolerance on the subject and allow no nuance. I would not necessarily attempt to dissuade them from that stance. However, and I am loathe to make this point, as someone else has pointed out there is a reason why the aforementioned for example would likely not be selected for a jury in which they were emotionally invested (whether for right reasons or not). Having said that, their point of view should 100% be taken into account. I'm not saying that that person's point of view is not valid, however it is not the only point of view/perspective. So I think you can perfectly have empathy for that poster and still believe that based on the findings of United that the player should be allowed to resume his life at the point where it was disrupted.

I do believe the confusing state of the statement came about due to the backlash to the Athletic article. However, and this is just speculation, I think based on the wording and some details in the Athletic article that they were thinking of bringing him back which would have been consistent with their findings as stated in the article, after all the argument is "If you believe he did not do what he was accused of, then he should be allowed to return". The confusion for me has come from them not sticking to their guns and weathering the storm. I personally am reluctant to say that the club has lied when it says it believes Greenwood did not do what he was accused of.

Thirdly, a point that I have avoided but might as well raise as I think it's the elephant in the room and likely is persuading a lot of people to be open to the idea of him returning is due to the fact they have reconciled, had a baby, moved on it seems and with what looks like is the blessing of their families with no peep or rumour from anyone about any discontent. Whilst stats around what percentage of DV victims return to their abusers is valid, the image of a happy couple, having a baby etc I would imagine is hard to shake off (and you can make a valid argument regarding the pictures/audio being hard to shake off).

As I've stated numerous time's I'm fine for United to make the decision for me on this one as I believe they are in a better position than I am due to the access to Info and those involved. If they choose, based on their investigation, to bring him back I'm fine with it, If they choose not to then I'm fine with it.

Regarding the 3rd party section that may have been an oversight on my part due to the wording in Richard Arnold's statement.
Click to expand...
And yourself, I'm certainly not trying to trap anyone, I'm testing my own opinion to myself more than anything.

Thank you for expanding, I can understand that point of view and I think you've done a better job of trying to explain that than most. Not that I agree, mind you :lol:.

I certainly wouldn't say they lied about believing he did not do what he was accused of, but I think we can probably see them as just as emotionally invested for him to be innocent as we discussed in your previous paragraph. I totally agree the club doing this halfway house has only made things more confusing and muddied the waters.

I do certainly see why people would be persuaded by that, but as you put in brackets, there always seems to be a counter point with everything surrounding this. That's why I think it would be well advised the club and he moves on and use this as a massive learning opportunity for the future.

No problem. I was against a 3rd party at first, because I thought it shirked responsibility, but I now think it's probably the only way we could have had a semblance of objectivity in the process.
 
Lash said:
I think you're putting too much stock into assumption of innocence.
Click to expand...
But I could say that you're putting too much stock into assumption of guilt. No one on this forum knows what actually happened despite many having their minds made up.
 
Borussia Teeth said:
But I could say that you're putting too much stock into assumption of guilt. No one on this forum knows what actually happened despite many having their minds made up.
Click to expand...
Not really, there's not assumption of guilt, there's a risk of guilt though.

In the same way you probably don't go to a restaurant with a bad review and pictures of shit food. It's not "fair", but why would I bother risking the fact that they might be exactly that, based on what I've seen.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Really?

Use that logic on a random DV case - does it work?

He probably didn't do it - or at the very least it wasn't that serious. 'Cause they're back together. And they even have a kid now!

Would that be a compelling argument?

Look, we don't know anything about Mason Greenwood's family life. But we do know something about domestic violence in general. And it is feckin' infuriating to see this idiotic "argument" being posted over and over again in this thread.

No offence to you personally, but do some research.

It is very common for DV victims to get back together with their abuser, including having a kid with said abuser.

That doesn't mean we should assume anything in this particular case. But it means we should stop using this utterly illogical, stupid feckin' "argument".

Because it isn't a valid argument. So, stop using it. Simple - yeah? Just stop using bullshit arguments, it's not hard.
Click to expand...
WTF does that statistic peddled in your post even mean? They get together back have a kid and they happily live together forever after or the victim suffers again after that? Genuine question because I really don’t know.
moses said:
Yes they have. Several times.
Click to expand...
Okey my mistake, I certainly don’t think it is.
 
Lash said:
And yourself, I'm certainly not trying to trap anyone, I'm testing my own opinion to myself more than anything.

Thank you for expanding, I can understand that point of view and I think you've done a better job of trying to explain that than most. Not that I agree, mind you :lol:.

I certainly wouldn't say they lied about believing he did not do what he was accused of, but I think we can probably see them as just as emotionally invested for him to be innocent as we discussed in your previous paragraph. I totally agree the club doing this halfway house has only made things more confusing and muddied the waters.

I do certainly see why people would be persuaded by that, but as you put in brackets, there always seems to be a counter point with everything surrounding this. That's why I think it would be well advised the club and he moves on and use this as a massive learning opportunity for the future.

No problem. I was against a 3rd party at first, because I thought it shirked responsibility, but I now think it's probably the only way we could have had a semblance of objectivity in the process.
Click to expand...

No worries! and honestly I am absolutely comfortable with you not agreeing with me. I think the nature of this whole incident and the way its been handled means there are several positions that people can make valid arguments for (taking away the very extreme opinions). Another poster today has tried a gotcha question with me by asking why I am as active in this thread. The simple answer is that whilst I hold the view that whatever decision United takes, whether in Greenwood's favor or not, is fine with me and therefore in theory I don't really have a dog in this fight, I have seen a lot of hypocrisy, double standards and plain misrepresentation of facts and of a lot of users on here who have not immediately joined in on the demonizing of Greenwood and rally for him to never play for United again. Are there poster's (mainly newbies) who pop up and say "Bring him back at any cost", of course, but they are generally well policed. However, the jumping on posters who have either taken stances like mine, or similar in relation to charges being dropped or United's statement has been way over the top. Poster's who have made valid points or maybe not worded them correctly being called idiots or allusions to being DV sympathizers, rape apologists etc. It's all a bit silly. At the end of the day you have your opinion and you've explained it well and I empathize (no pun intended) with your view, as I hope you with mine, without the need of me saying you just want to lockup Greenwood and you saying I'm a DV apologists which I think is conducive to a good forum.

On the the 3rd party point I agree. There are actually a few law firm's who have done high level reviews of the United statement/handling of the Greenwood issue and a few have recommended that ideally it should have been done by a third party which makes sense.
 
flameinthesun said:
No worries! and honestly I am absolutely comfortable with you not agreeing with me. I think the nature of this whole incident and the way its been handled means there are several positions that people can make valid arguments for (taking away the very extreme opinions). Another poster today has tried a gotcha question with me by asking why I am as active in this thread. The simple answer is that whilst I hold the view that whatever decision United takes, whether in Greenwood's favor or not, is fine with me and therefore in theory I don't really have a dog in this fight, I have seen a lot of hypocrisy, double standards and plain misrepresentation of facts and of a lot of users on here who have not immediately joined in on the demonizing of Greenwood and rally for him to never play for United again. Are there poster's (mainly newbies) who pop up and say "Bring him back at any cost", of course, but they are generally well policed. However, the jumping on posters who have either taken stances like mine, or similar in relation to charges being dropped or United's statement has been way over the top. Poster's who have made valid points or maybe not worded them correctly being called idiots or allusions to being DV sympathizers, rape apologists etc. It's all a bit silly. At the end of the day you have your opinion and you've explained it well and I empathize (no pun intended) with your view, as I hope you with mine, without the need of me saying you just want to lockup Greenwood and you saying I'm a DV apologists which I think is conducive to a good forum.

On the the 3rd party point I agree. There are actually a few law firm's who have done high level reviews of the United statement/handling of the Greenwood issue and a few have recommended that ideally it should have been done by a third party which makes sense.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a 'gotcha' question but why is it that whatever decision united takes on this is fine with you? Is it because you trust the club to make the right decision and will just go along with it, despite everything we've heard and seen? Can you not see how they may have a vested interest in his reputation being sanitized, at 'best' giving him an easier way back or, at worst, ensuring that his value is preserved? And even though you apparently don't have a dog in the fight you only ever chirp up to speak in Greenwood's favour, or at least to rail against anyone that speaks against him. And then when called on it you retreat into a cloud of faux objectivity because you've ostensibly fence sat the whole debate (though your actual position is pretty clear). It's disingenuous and frustrating. If you're so objective, why is it that you've never spoken against folks mewling for Greenwood's return? Your 'objectivity' is only applied in one direction and it's clear as day.
 
Pickle85 said:
It wasn't a 'gotcha' question but why is it that whatever decision united takes on this is fine with you? Is it because you trust the club to make the right decision and will just go along with it, despite everything we've heard and seen? Can you not see how they may have a vested interest in his reputation being sanitized, at 'best' giving him an easier way back or, at worst, ensuring that his value is preserved? And even though you apparently don't have a dog in the fight you only ever chirp up to speak in Greenwood's favour, or at least to rail against anyone that speaks against him. And then when called on it you retreat into a cloud of faux objectivity because you've ostensibly fence sat the whole debate (though your actual position is pretty clear). It's disingenuous and frustrating. If you're so objective, why is it that you've never spoken against folks mewling for Greenwood's return? Your 'objectivity' is only applied in one direction and it's clear as day.
Click to expand...

Buddy, if you're still asking those questions after all my previous posts you may as well put me on ignore. I can't help ya.
 
moses said:
Yes, this 'safe space' to just discuss the football progress of an alleged rapist which the club exiled was problematic in terms of optics as I explained.

You can put all the posters who aren't talking about the football on ignore, and enjoy the chat without as much interruption, nobody is stopping the football discussion.
Click to expand...

But, you can't put them on ignore for this thread only. Which means you end up having to put a lot of good posters on ignore for the whole forum which isn't really a practical option.
 
moses said:
Yes, this 'safe space' to just discuss the football progress of an alleged rapist which the club exiled was problematic in terms of optics as I explained.

You can put all the posters who aren't talking about the football on ignore, and enjoy the chat without as much interruption, nobody is stopping the football discussion.
Click to expand...
There is though . You eventually get shot down and get sucked into an argument so it’s much easier not to post.
 
Belisarius said:
But, you can't put them on ignore for this thread only. Which means you end up having to put a lot of good posters on ignore for the whole forum which isn't really a practical option.
Click to expand...

If they are good posters, then listen to them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.