Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

[moses]

There is though . You eventually get shot down and get sucked into an argument so it’s much easier not to post.

Good, I think we should follow the club's example and send him into exile.

 

[Belisarius]

If they are good posters, then listen to them?

It's boring to read someone posting the same thing for the 400th time in a row. What made the Greenwood performance thread interesting was that when you saw it bumped it was normally because there was something NEW. For instance he had played in a new game. I don't believe the Greenwood thread has genuinely contained anything newsworthy (as in new) since the loan was arranged.

 

[moses]

It's boring to read someone posting the same thing for the 400th time in a row. What made the Greenwood performance thread interesting was that when you saw it bumped it was normally because there was something NEW. For instance he had played in a new game. I don't believe the Greenwood thread has genuinely contained anything newsworthy (as in new) since the loan was arranged.

True. But context can be boring.

 

[RedNome]

It's boring to read someone posting the same thing for the 400th time in a row. What made the Greenwood performance thread interesting was that when you saw it bumped it was normally because there was something NEW. For instance he had played in a new game. I don't believe the Greenwood thread has genuinely contained anything newsworthy (as in new) since the loan was arranged.

Deal with it? You're lucky there's this thread to discuss him tbh.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Deal with it? You're lucky there's this thread to discuss him tbh.

We are lucky that there’s a thread about a Man Utd player on loan who hasn’t officially been charged with anything? How come? Any other player on loan and we can freely discuss. Had he been convicted he’d have had zero support on here, but that hasn’t been the case.

 

[RedNome]

We are lucky that there’s a thread about a Man Utd player on loan who hasn’t officially been charged with anything? How come? Any other player on loan and we can freely discuss. Had he been convicted he’d have had zero support on here, but that hasn’t been the case.

I ain't going round in circles with you, if it was up to me there would be no thread at all now, deal with it.

My opinion.

 

[moses]

We are lucky that there’s a thread about a Man Utd player on loan who hasn’t officially been charged with anything? How come? Any other player on loan and we can freely discuss. Had he been convicted he’d have had zero support on here, but that hasn’t been the case.

On loan? Or exiled for alleged rape and coercive behaviour?
The reason he's 'on loan' is pretty important.

Just for the record he was in fact charged with attempted rape, controlling and coercive behaviour and assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

But the charges were dropped?

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Am I the only rape survivor commenting? Nobody who has loved one who has been raped? How about just sexual assault?

Anyone with a sister or female cousin? The likelihood is that they've suffered SA.

Show your messages on here to them. You won't, because you are all normal people and you know that vocal clip was wrong. Just fecking wrong

 

[Belisarius]

True. But context can be boring.

It's not providing context. It's repeating the same things over and over as you would to a 3 year old you don't want to touch a hot stove. Some of us our capable of understanding something the first time we read it.

The other thread was providing a service to a sub-set of redcafe users who come onto a discussion forum to discuss the latest developments regarding the football team they follow and the players associated with it. While there may have been multiple reasons for combining the threads, it seems most likely it was done to deny this service to those who were using it because some who weren't participating in this discussion resented its existence and were determined to deny the service to those who were interested in it.

 

[saivet]

UtdThruthful aren't being very thruthful - pretty obvious that isn't an official club statement, apparently it comes from a fan group.

Pretty sure they can edit tweets too but they've just left the misleading tweet up as it is.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

The fact that his name is mentioned by us shoes that his behavior has context to us, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it

 

[Rood]

On loan? Or exiled for alleged rape and coercive behaviour?
The reason he's 'on loan' is pretty important.

It's pretty clear that he's on loan due to the negative public reaction to news that the club were planning to bring him back.

As it is I think going on loan was the right decision, just a shame that the club was forced into it rather than making the correct decision in the first place.

 

[Raoul]

It's pretty clear that he's on loan due to the negative public reaction to news that the club were planning to bring him back.

As it is I think going on loan was the right decision, just a shame that the club was forced into it rather than making the correct decision in the first place.

I think the loan was the club's (Arnold, probably in consultation with Joel and Avi) attempt at kicking the can so they could buy themselves time and a later option of potentially trying again at season's end. If there is enough of pushback, they will probably sell and move on.

 

[Rood]

Am I the only rape survivor commenting? Nobody who has loved one who has been raped? How about just sexual assault?

Anyone with a sister or female cousin? The likelihood is that they've suffered SA.

Show your messages on here to them. You won't, because you are all normal people and you know that vocal clip was wrong. Just fecking wrong

Maybe you missed it, but at least one other person who replied to you said they had been through the same and IIRC a few others have mentioned having either direct or indirect experiences of abuse.

Obviously sad to read about such awful personal experiences and it's only normal that it will impact your view of this situation.
I hope you are getting the help you need to deal with it.

Quite a few posters did respond to you directly so would be interesting if you had further thoughts on their replies.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Maybe you missed it, but at least one other person who replied to you said they had been through the same and IIRC a few others have mentioned having either direct or indirect experiences of abuse.

Obviously sad to read about such awful personal experiences and it's only normal that it will impact your view of this situation.
I hope you are getting the help you need to deal with it.

Quite a few posters did respond to you directly so would be interesting if you had further thoughts on their replies.

Maybe I did, did you quote them?

Is it obvious?

My replies are for when and if I decide to respond, my questions, however, are for discussion, hence why I was reading the responses

 

[Rood]

Maybe I did, did you quote them?

Is it obvious?

My replies are for when and if I decide to respond, my questions, however, are for discussion, hence why I was reading the responses

I can't remember who it was but if you check your notifications of who replied to you then you should be able to find it

 

[Peter van der Gea]

I can't remember who it was but if you check your notifications of who replied to you then you should be able to find it

OK. I'll do the work then. You just say it...

 

[Rood]

I think the loan was the club's (Arnold, probably in consultation with Joel and Avi) attempt at kicking the can so they could buy themselves time and a later option of potentially trying again at season's end. If there is enough of pushback, they will probably sell and move on.

Ye definitely and I suppose it's the new regime's problem now.

If I was the new CEO then I'd basically be telling Greenwood and his partner that they need to do a public interview if they want to return (quite possible that they don't want to). Otherwise best option is to exercise the contract extension and sell to the highest bidder this summer.

 

[Raoul]

Ye definitely and I suppose it's the new regime's problem now.

If I was the new CEO then I'd basically be telling Greenwood and his partner that they need to do a public interview if they want to return (quite possible that they don't want to). Otherwise best option is to exercise the contract extension and sell to the highest bidder this summer.

Agreed, and that's what I suspect will be conveyed at some point.

 

[sepulturite]

We are lucky that there’s a thread about a Man Utd player on loan who hasn’t officially been charged with anything? How come? Any other player on loan and we can freely discuss. Had he been convicted he’d have had zero support on here, but that hasn’t been the case.

He was officially charged though, they were dropped, but he was charged.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

He was officially charged though, they were dropped, but he was charged.

With more than one thing, not just the initial charges

 

[sepulturite]

With more than one thing, not just the initial charges

Yep exactly. So how people still think he didn't do what he did just because the charges were dropped are crazy.

 

[Lash]

OK. I'll do the work then. You just say it...

Believe it was @Spaghetti

 

[Lash]

I think the loan was the club's (Arnold, probably in consultation with Joel and Avi) attempt at kicking the can so they could buy themselves time and a later option of potentially trying again at season's end. If there is enough of pushback, they will probably sell and move on.

Maybe yourself and @Rood are including the workforce of United as "the public", but I think the real issue was the internal backlash. We don't know for sure how high that even went, were any of them players? I think they were just backed into a corner. It was clear they thought they could bring him back without briefing internally, it massively back fired and couldn't let him down after most likely telling him he'd come back and couldn't risk a mutiny internally. They were lucky Getafe were interested, otherwise they'd have royally pissed every conceivable stakeholder in this with their incompetence.

 

[Raoul]

Maybe yourself and @Rood are including the workforce of United as "the public", but I think the real issue was the internal backlash. We don't know for sure how high that even went, were any of them players? I think they were just backed into a corner. It was clear they thought they could bring him back without briefing internally, it massively back fired and couldn't let him down after most likely telling him he'd come back and couldn't risk a mutiny internally. They were lucky Getafe were interested, otherwise they'd have royally pissed every conceivable stakeholder in this with their incompetence.

I don’t disagree. The internal staff issue would need to be addressed simultaneously to anything with the general public.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Believe it was @Spaghetti

Sorry

 

[Lash]

I don’t disagree. The internal staff issue would need to be addressed simultaneously to anything with the general public.

I think the general public bit was overblown though. Rachel Riley became public enemy number one, like she's where we always look to capture the zeitgeist.

Sorry

The poster who said they were a survivor also.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

@Spaghetti , I'm sorry, I missed you

 

[Rood]

Maybe yourself and @Rood are including the workforce of United as "the public", but I think the real issue was the internal backlash. We don't know for sure how high that even went, were any of them players? I think they were just backed into a corner. It was clear they thought they could bring him back without briefing internally, it massively back fired and couldn't let him down after most likely telling him he'd come back and couldn't risk a mutiny internally. They were lucky Getafe were interested, otherwise they'd have royally pissed every conceivable stakeholder in this with their incompetence.

Not clear how widespread internal backlash was, it probably did have an impact but I personally think the more public pushback lead by Rachel Riley, the female fans group and also Twitter email campaign made much more of a difference.

Public image for the club and brand is biggest asset they want to protect, especially when they were in the middle of a potential sale process.

The club definitely mismanaged the communications of the internal investigation - all took too long, poorly worded statements etc. I'm sure it's a big reason that Arnold has gone.

 

[Fridge chutney]

With more than one thing, not just the initial charges

According to various sources, Greenwood was originally arrested on suspicion of rape and assault. He was then "further arrested" on suspicion of sexual assault and making death threats.

According to CNN, Greenwood was charged with:

• attempted rape
• assault
• coercive and controlling behaviour

He was then arrested for breaching bail conditions and contacting his accuser.

Couple this with the video and audio, which so far have no explanation, and I genuinely don't understand why so many people defend this guy.

 

[Lash]

Not clear how widespread internal backlash was, it probably did have an impact but I personally think the more public pushback lead by Rachel Riley, the female fans group and also Twitter email campaign made much more of a difference.

Public image for the club and brand is biggest asset they want to protect, especially when they were in the middle of a potential sale process.

The club definitely mismanaged the communications of the internal investigation - all took too long, poorly worded statements etc. I'm sure it's a big reason that Arnold has gone.

The reports suggested people would strike internally from Craftons report. That could be the tea lady or that could be players from the mens or women's team, but it's a hell of a lot harder to replace employees (them leaving would also have a big effect on brand image) than to PR manage a twitter campaign. I don't think the public pushback was a big of a factor as you think, wasn't this thread discussing earlier that public opinion on social media was pretty pro or 50/50 on him coming back?

Agreed wholeheartedly on your last point.

 

[Red_toad]

According to various sources, Greenwood was originally arrested on suspicion of rape and assault. He was then "further arrested" on suspicion of sexual assault and making death threats.

According to CNN, Greenwood was charged with:

• attempted rape
• assault
• coercive and controlling behaviour

He was then arrested for breaching bail conditions and contacting his accuser.

Couple this with the video and audio, which so far have no explanation, and I genuinely don't understand why so many people defend this guy.

Probably perceive him as a young man who made mistakes. Him and ******* have moved on had a child etc.Then there’s the club statement of him being not guilty which casts doubt on what went on between them. I don’t believe anyone is defending his actions, nor the voice recordings etc.
Can’t wait for him to be sold and the club to draw a line under the whole situation.

 

[Rood]

The reports suggested people would strike internally from Craftons report. That could be the tea lady or that could be players from the mens or women's team, but it's a hell of a lot harder to replace employees (them leaving would also have a big effect on brand image) than to PR manage a twitter campaign. I don't think the public pushback was a big of a factor as you think, wasn't this thread discussing earlier that public opinion on social media was pretty pro or 50/50 on him coming back?

Agreed wholeheartedly on your last point.

Not sure which Crafton report you are refering to but I never saw anything that suggested more than a handful of staff were considering strikes etc and certainly never saw any suggestions it was players involved.

Although the club will monitor social media sentiment, opinions from minor anonymous accounts are not that important - it's when articles like this appear on the BBC that the club are going to sit up and take notice:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66540492

Plus there was a big email campaign and United responded to them all apparently:
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1803252/Man-Utd-news-Mason-Greenwood

In my opinion, it's that kind of thing that caused the U-turn

 

[BristolMick]

Yeah see the problem is, is that your putting this down to a 'difference of opinion'

A difference of opinion is like, oh I think the best flavour of ice cream is vanilla, and you saying well actually I think its strawberry.

The 'difference of opinion' in this thread is people saying I don't think he should play for the club because of the things he has done* or the things i've experienced (people who we should listen to in this matter) and others saying well I excuse the potential of rape etc because it didn't happen to me or anyone I know, therefore my worldview hasn't been changed by this, oh and he plays football good.

Sorry but no, it's ridiculous quite frankly that it's trying to be explained away like this. Too many people in this thread showing their true colours and completely undermining the seriousness of what this is all about because you want to see Greenwood dribble past a couple of players on the right wing and get excited. I'd suggest people go outside, get some fresh air, and maybe think about another footballer to obsess over maybe.

If we have two different opinions on the topic then it's a difference of opinion.

I think I listened to Peters post and responded to their request for a reply in a dignified manner. They aren't the only person with experiences though and not all those with experiences share that view either. I feel you're unfairly accusing me of not listening to those with experiences and using it as an attack and to accuse me of "showing my true colours".

Out of interest is everyone who wants greenwood back "showing their true colours"?

Accused to have done*

How or what do you value and respect about it though? I feel like this just gets said sometimes without a real explanation, but really just a nicety to say, when you don't really take it into consideration to forming your opinion.

I can't really speak for Peter as the posts I read were quite short. I respect that they have a strong view based on their own personal anecdotal experience whereby they don't want Greenwood to return to Man United.

I value that through their experiences they'll relate better to the victim and the trauma they went through as well as lasting effects.

You say that I don't take their opinions into consideration when forming an opinion. But could the same not be said for those not taking the opinions of the accused and their family on board? I think both sides are taking their opinions on board - just because it doesn't override your own doesn't mean it's not taken on board.

I have strong views about second chances and redemption which I've held for a long time. Greenwood being alleged of an offence doesn't change those views. Whether it was assault, racism, drugs, theft, manslaughter, murder etc.. if he's not a serial offender then I'd support their return after serving an appropriate sentence. In Greenwoos case there's been no prosecution and he's had 18 months out- I support his second chance and I want him to come out of this a better person.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

If we have two different opinions on the topic then it's a difference of opinion.

I think I listened to Peters post and responded to their request for a reply in a dignified manner. They aren't the only person with experiences though and not all those with experiences share that view either. I feel you're unfairly accusing me of not listening to those with experiences and using it as an attack and to accuse me of "showing my true colours".

Out of interest is everyone who wants greenwood back "showing their true colours"?

Accused to have done*



I can't really speak for Peter as the posts I read were quite short. I respect that they have a strong view based on their own personal anecdotal experience whereby they don't want Greenwood to return to Man United.

I value that through their experiences they'll relate better to the victim and the trauma they went through as well as lasting effects.

You say that I don't take their opinions into consideration when forming an opinion. But could the same not be said for those not taking the opinions of the accused and their family on board? I think both sides are taking their opinions on board - just because it doesn't override your own doesn't mean it's not taken on board.

I have strong views about second chances and redemption which I've held for a long time. Greenwood being alleged of an offence doesn't change those views. Whether it was assault, racism, drugs, theft, manslaughter, murder etc.. if he's not a serial offender then I'd support their return after serving an appropriate sentence. In Greenwoos case there's been no prosecution and he's had 18 months out- I support his second chance and I want him to come out of this a better person.

At least @ me. Also, I have a posting history. It's on my profile.

 

[Bondi77]

What happened to the Poll?
Too many people voting Yes I would imagine.

 

[RedRocket08]

Am I the only rape survivor commenting? Nobody who has loved one who has been raped? How about just sexual assault?

Anyone with a sister or female cousin? The likelihood is that they've suffered SA.

Show your messages on here to them. You won't, because you are all normal people and you know that vocal clip was wrong. Just fecking wrong

I'm sorry for what you went through, and regardless of any legal outcomes in your case, I hope you've got the support of some great people out there to help rebuild and move on from what I can only imagine to be a traumatic period in your life. I haven't experienced SA first hand, but I have testified as a witness on behalf of someone who was housemates with my ex-girlfriend, this happened some time back when we were in university back in Australia - This particular person didn't win that case unfortunately, but I'm happy to see that she's moved on with her life since that incident, and is doing well now.

You have to understand that those in this forum who are not against MG returning are not DV/SA sympathisers (Most including myself, are looking at everything that happened subsequently and not just the audio/video on its own). Everyone here is speculating in some form or another, not just about the initial leaks but about the subsequent statements from CPS/club as well - We have become in essence the hung jury to a case that never was, which never presented the full evidence to an actual jury. Someone was discussing OJ Simpson on this thread a few days back - just because OJ was acquitted from his criminal case, we can't consider the jurors in that case to be supporters of murder right. Putting people who have a differing opinion into a group and attaching negative connotations to that group doesn't help make this a civil debate that allows for some freedom of expression imo - Those who want him in (And there are reasons as to why they hold that opinion, beyond MG being able to kick a ball well - their reasoning is already stated in this thread) are allowed to have that opinion without being called DV/SA sympathisers and those who want him out are also allowed to have that opinion (And they make great points too).

 

[Pickle85]

According to various sources, Greenwood was originally arrested on suspicion of rape and assault. He was then "further arrested" on suspicion of sexual assault and making death threats.

According to CNN, Greenwood was charged with:

• attempted rape
• assault
• coercive and controlling behaviour

He was then arrested for breaching bail conditions and contacting his accuser.

Couple this with the video and audio, which so far have no explanation, and I genuinely don't understand why so many people defend this guy.

Agreed. One of the frustrating things in arguing this, though, is that the folks defending him will use the 'I am not defending him, I'm just saying we don't have all the evidence so I can't decide one way or another' smokescreen. Which to me is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Rood]

Agreed. One of the frustrating things in arguing this, though, is that the folks defending him will use the 'I am not defending him, I'm just saying we don't have all the evidence so I can't decide one way or another' smokescreen. Which to me is intellectually dishonest.

There is nothing dishonest about the truth. You don't have all the evidence and don't know what actually happened - these are indisputable facts.

Many posters have posted detailed rationale behind their point of view, you should respond directly to anything you disagree with - ignoring that and trying to pigeonhole a variety of opinions into one sentence is actually the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Pickle85]

There is nothing dishonest about the truth. You don't have all the evidence and don't know what actually happened - these are indisputable facts.

Many posters have posted detailed rationale behind their point of view, you should respond directly to anything you disagree with - ignoring that and trying to pigeonhole a variety of opinions into one sentence is actually the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

I have responded directly but if there are any particular points you think I haven't responded to then feel free to point them out.

'There is nothing dishonest in the truth' is such a BS non-sequitur. The 'truth' in this context is that people are willing themselves to disregard the only evidence we have available to us because it's apparently incomplete. If we felt we had to have all available data at any given point to make judgements, we'd never get anything done.