But the argument is that he is taking a stance. He's got the 3rd most posts on the thread. And argues in one direction only.
Not taking a stance is not what people have objection to.
Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
But the argument is that he is taking a stance. He's got the 3rd most posts on the thread. And argues in one direction only.
Not taking a stance is not what people have objection to.
I don't understand what you're asking with the the first bolded bit, as that's not something I said. I specifically said that they're NOT in a position to conduct an impartial investigation.
Re your third paragraph, you say that we shouldn't make any kind of judgment because of a show you watched where there were people wrongfully convicted, but I would point out that these sorts of miscarriages of justice are much less common than situations in which evidence of domestic violence is present but the aggressor isn't charged.
Following a discussion of a case in which evidence was fabricated by saying 'Does this mean I'm suggesting the accuser in this case has fabricated evidence? No' doesn't absolve you of doing just that, too. In connecting the two you're doing just that.
'I personally refuse to decide which crimes he is/isn't guilty of with the evidence available because I can't - it defeats logic for me to do that when you can't be certain.' Can I ask if this is how you make all decisions in your life? Or just the ones that it suits you to take this approach to?
Last edited:
Sometimes I wonder if people ever bothered check the date of the audio and what was happening with him and the team before and after.
In light of zero transparency then questions are inevitable. They are questions that need to be answered. To have no questions about this crazy and distasteful affair is weird.
I work in a field where press releases are part of it. You use them to guide a narrative and shut down the dialogue you don't want. If you don't deal or address glaring issues that could lead to awful PR, it's usually for a reason. We may not have a right to know that reason but we have a right to be curious and base our opinion on the deliberate lack of information.
On the language people use, personally, I think he's a domestic abuser. To what degree I don't know. But the leaked media we have seen combined with zero mitigation or explaination is really dodgy.
I also have strong views on rehab. But part of that process is facing your actions. Not hiding behind a vague press release.
He is guilty of something though, he himself admitted he has "made mistakes" and there's audio and pictures that haven't been explained away. Until he explains what he's admitting, why should anyone believe he's innocent? I think the reason people get called apologists is because they seem to suggest he's done nothing wrong because he wasn't found guilty, which even Greenwood himself doesn't believe. You also must think he's guilty of something if you cite rehab as a reason for wanting him back!
So to me, even if you have strong views on rehab, does everyone in our team get a chance to do this once in your view? As long as they apologize and mea culpa? I personally don't think Greenwood has properly owned up to anything.
Before he went away I wouldn’t have sold him for £100 million. You simply can’t buy players of his talent for much less.
Do you think Mason Greenwood was involved in domestic abuse?
If no, please explain why?
Copy and paste as needed.
If we are to have a new poll on this dumpster fire of a thread, I'd like it to be...
"Do you think MG put those bruises on his partner?"
Yes or No.
30 minutes
Also, what mistakes do you think he's admitting to?
Well my whole point is that only a tiny minority of fans at Old Trafford would actually boo Greenwood whereas you intially suggested 50% would so of course it's relevant
I don't even know what point you want me to address
Maybe they won't boo. Maybe, like me they'll give up. Support him you want. I will never forget that audio. His voice, saying those things.
I thought there was merit to him staying as jetting off to Spain/Turkey/wherever the feck basically ended the hope of him having to work through his behaviours and thought processes with psychological professionals. That also meant he wouldn't have played until those involved felt like there had been emotional development and understanding from his side. I genuinely believed the best place for him to be challenged was in Manchester. I would have wanted the same for a shite player as well. If he's going to come back into the team like nothing happened then feck that.
Could you sum it up for those of us who never did that?
That seems to be what certain posters on here want
What happened before and after mate? Asking for my own knowledge as this is the first ‘new’ thing I’ve seen in here in a while.
Agreed. Trying to spin them to mean anything other than what they obviously meant is ludicrous. Even he hasn't had the nerve to invent an excuse.
Getting caught? Or perhaps just some half hearted non-apology. The politician style "I regret if anyone was offended" as opposed to actually apologising for doing something.
We aren't even talking about crimes as the CPS have declined to continue with the prosecution now that his partner has withdrawn cooperation with the prosecution.
It is a question of if we want a person capable of such despicable behavior representing the club. And that is a resounding no for me.
That is an idiotic analogy to draw. You can't say that you aren't suggesting this then keep talking about it as that is simply muddying the waters by discussing irrelevant nonsense. There is no suggestion, and zero possibility, that the recording was faked. I don't know why people are so desperate for him to play football for us that they have to bring things in to "support" their desire that even Greenwood doesn't have the face to pretend happened.
Last edited:
I'd say you have made up shit I supposedly think on several occasions! Even in this post you misrepresent my position because I'm not dismissing anything and the club investigation is just one part of it
Lots of people here have decided he's guilty too, many have said it and they might even be right but I can't support 'trial by social media' (which this is a text book case of) based on limited info.
Just because audio was released on social media doesn't mean trail by social media.
We heard his fecking voice saying those things. That's it, it doesn't matter how we got the audio, we got it, and he hasn't given any kind of excuse for what he said.
Without a reasonable excuse or denial, we heard what he said and that's what we are judging him for.
What else could be on any kind of extended audio would excuse what we heard him say.
Trail by social media is bollocks
I think the fact we have no idea is a big problem for any supposed rehabilitation angle people are looking for. I flippantly said earlier in the thread, he could be apologising for not taking the bins out, that's how opaque the statement is.
The audio is from two days after the CL home game v Atalanta.
What happened before?
1) Greenwood starts the season scoring in our first three games, then Cristiano joins
2) It was clear to us all they didn't gel at all, everyone had to play for CR and Greenwood looked at odds with that and out of sorts.
3) After six or seven games he scores again v Leicester but we lose 4-2. Then a few days later is subbed off v Atalanta and Cristiano scores a late winner, saviour, yadda yadda.
[AUDIO INCIDENT 2 DAYS LATER]
What happens after?
Our patchy form finally nosedives as two days later we lose 5-0 to Liverpool (subbed off at HT), then City and Watford and Ole gets sacked.
Claims he lost the dressing room, players downed tools, etc. To me it just looked like Cristiano had completely derailed "Vibes FC".
The weeks after the audio Ole keeps tinkering so can't read much into Greenwood's starts, substitutions or absences.
What is quite telling is Carrick didn't use him at all in his rather successful caretaker stint. Not in the match squad for one and unused sub in another two.
Interpretation
I won't speculate on whether the club actually knew about the incident back when it happened (e.g. see Antony). What is clear is Greenwood was in a bad place, unhappy with how Cristiano's arrival was unfolding for him and his form had dipped pretty badly. At the very least, his head and attitude weren't right and that's what makes Carrick plan games without him being on the pitch.
All that is consistent with the moody and aggressive nature of the audio. Speculating on it being a role play or out of context is, quite literally, ignoring the context.
Ahh thanks mate. There definitely was something to him and Ronaldo not getting along, but also that’s a fair point regarding the nature of the audio and what was going on at the time.
Can you point out what I've made up?
I'm just trying to ascertain what it is you hold so strongly. Usually strongly held views, which you claim to hold are not that nebulous. And people holding them not that evasive.
This is a discussion, on a social media platform. Not every opinion is a verdict. Unless you want it to be so you can rail against the apparent injustice of it.
Trial by social media is unacceptable but the leaked evidence of domestic violence can be easily mitigated by an empty statement from the club.
Sorry Rood, not buying it.
I understand people dont like the 'trial by social media' tag but this really is an absolutely textbook case of it. The release of evidence via social media (and in particular the audio) is also what makes this such a unique case.
It is clear by now that the public release of evidence means many people expect a public explanation. I said myself that this will need to happen if the club and Greenwood want him to return.
Well I pointed a couple of things out in that post alone, in the past couple of days I've been busy watching football and drinking too much beer so mostly only read replies to me in this thread so haven't even seen what else might have been said.
I've written plenty on this subject in this thread, I think my position is pretty clear by now.
Some posters are always trying to pigeon hole views into black/white and seem to struggle to accept that you don't have to make a judgement here, but to me the only logic place to be in this case is in the grey area.
A large slice of speculation here of course but still interesting as I've never looked at the timeline of when the audio was recorded from this angle
His talent? He mainly excels in shooting but that is about it. Wouldn't say he is some Mbappe or Haaland level talent. That said I understand what you mean when guys like Enzo and Antony are going for 95 million Euros, Joško Gvardiol went for 90 million euros so maybe you are right. I just think players valuations are massively inflated/overrated nowadays. I don't see a 100 million player when I watched him
I understand people like the "trial by social media tag", but it is an utterly stupid tag. It's an ideological concept and you happen to like the ideology behind it, there's not much more to it. Saying things like "textbook case" doesn't make it any more technical than it is, which is not at all. I already explained that to you a few weeks ago in the thread but you just claimed that you didn't understand a question I asked and that you didn't want to go too far off the thread topic anyway. Just to be absolutely clear, "trial by social media" is an ideological concept, and some people in the thread just agree with that ideology.
In the same way it's ideological to claim the "grey area" is somewhere between what we actually know and what we want to imagine. No one who is actually "in the grey area" has ever had to constantly remind anyone they actually are "in the grey area". Normally the things we actually say and stand for speak for themselves, unfortunately for you.
Also, how the feck can something be "an absolutely textbook case" of something and at the same time "such a unique case"?
If you don't like the term then feel free to write to all the lawyers writing articles (I linked several for you and there are many more) about this legal term and tell them to stop using it.
People keep asking me so I keep reminding them.
So, a lawyer writing about something makes it a "legal term"? This certainly can't possibly get any dumber.
I'd like you to link the legal text where "trial by social media" is defined. Thanks.
I think his stance is that he'd take him back at united, that's the impression I have. Not taking a stance upon seeing one set of evidence posted online isn't an uncommon position.
You say Man Utd aren't in a position to do an impartial investigation. Are you not doing your own impartial investigation where you've determined he's guilty having only seen one side of the evidence? Surely taking a position having not seen all the evidence is also being impartial?
I don't doubt you that miscarriages of justice are less common but I'm not willing to gamble on someone's innocence over it.
I don't make serious decisions on a whim - no. If I'm choosing a chocolate bar it's an easy decision. Choosing a new car, I do a bit more research and due diligence. Deciding if someone is guilty of serious crimes? I try to reserve judgement unless I can be certain. I don't just gamble on an outcome for the sake of taking a position.
Questions would be great to be answered but I don't think any of us are going to get the answers which we need. The case is closed, the couple are back together and they're now living in Spain. We're not owed anything and I doubt we will get an explanation in the near future. I hope at some stage maybe through a book or interview we learn me but for now I can't see that news coming anytime soon.
That's an interesting field which I presume gives you a different perspective. So do you think that Man Utds investigation was a mickey mouse investigation with the press release then used to push a narrative that he's not guilty?
What about the parents though? Do you not find the statement her dad made to the press strange and then I believe her mum was also involved in the Man Utd investigation. Between what the dad said and the conclusion of the Man UTd investigation - it leaves the impression both think he's not guilty after presumably seeing the same stuff on social media as the rest of us. How do we explain their position if the evidence was so damning?
I think the zero explanation or mitigation does make it difficult. Initially maybe was due to being under investigation but that no longer applies. Is it something embarrassing? Is it because he's guilty of some/all so there is no explanation. Does some of it reflect badly on her? I don't know. And that's where the parents confuse me too. Why are they seemingly defending MG from as early as the morning after the content was released. Yes abusers can talk people round but within 12 hours of accusations being made and spread across the internet? I'm sure he has lots of friends and families contact him too. So it just doesn't make sense. Can you make sense of it or offer an explanation?
And what are those opinions? Say he was found guilty and served a sentence and became involved with a domestic abuse charity sharing his story. Do you support his return to football and/or United. I agree about serving a punishment/sentence/consequences first for your actions too.
He is guilty of "making mistakes" but that's such a vague statement that it's impossible to comprehend what said mistakes are. Again we can go through different scenarios and come up with some theories but that's all they'll be.
I'm not saying anyone should believe he's innocent. How can people believe he's guilty when there's so much unknown too? We don't know. Unfortunately.
I've not seen many people try to claim he's innocent but I've not read the full thread. I just don't think everyone supporting a return is an apologist for his alleged crimes. I can maybe see why some may use that language but I think it's also used unfairly to quash discussion too.
But how can you be certain they're capable of such behaviour? To say they're capable is making an assumption of guilt. Or if by being accused makes you capable then you sort of are taking a stance.
The recording certainly isn't fake, I think if it was this would have been debunked by now? But if it's part of a longer recording which adds more context then this is critical. Man Utd give the impression the evidence doesn't give the full picture- does this mean there's a longer recording they've had access to which gives an explanation? Possibly. Or is it just a case of a statement which contradicts it? Possibly. But that's an important unknown.
Going through replying to all of these exchanges has made me reflect though. Mason Greenwood was a very exciting academy graduate and one of my favourite players in recent years. So is there a bias from my side- certainly will be.
Do I think alot of wealthy people get away with serious crimes? 100% I do. Wasn't the Giggs case possibly settled out of court or the accuser didn't show up to give evidence or something?
Then there is the Mendy case which did go to court but he wasn't found guilty? Was I as invested in that case - not at all. But due to it being multiple women (I believe?) accusing him of crimes I was more inclined to think that would have drawn a guilty verdict. I haven't researched the case to know the finer details and maybe he genuinely was innocent as he was found out to be. I presume he was given the verdict but again I've not followed the case in enough detail to have a strong view of it.
If I think of the Mason case compared to the Mendy one where I wasn't as invested then I can't deny there's an element of bias in my decision making.
But my principles still stand. I support players return to football guilty/innocent providing they've served the sentence for what they were found guilty and thst they're not a repeat offender or a risk. In instances which haven't went to court and no guilt has been found I stand the same.
It's a difficult subject and one I've reflected alot over in my reply. Particularly these last few paragraphs where I'm looking at my reaction to Greenwood compared to Mendy. Is that my conscious and unconscious bias influencing me? Quite possibly. But if both players were found guilty then I'd still support a return following their sentence and that doesn't change.
I've tried to be honest in my replies. Now I best get back to work as this took much longer than it should have.
If you don't like the term then feel free to write to all the lawyers writing articles (I linked several for you and there are many more) about this legal term and tell them to stop using it.
If you read the articles online you will find that many lawyers are asking the government to update laws about this because the law is out of date and not keeping up with such things.
Further than that, I have zero interest in this discussion in the Mason Greenwood thread
It's not a legal term though so why do you keep saying that?
Of course you do
Just Google the term 'trial by social media' and have a look at the long list of legal articles written by law firms and lawyers on the matter.
If you read them you will find that many lawyers are asking the government to update laws about this because the law is out of date and not keeping up with technological and societal developments - there will undoubtedly be new laws about this in the future.
The shambles that is this thread is the perfect illustration of why we need to sell the fecker. The back and forth would never stop, and a good chunk of our fan base would always despise the guy.
None of that makes it a legal term and for someone that has been so adamant in being a stickler for the rules around this subject I don't get why you keep beating a drum about it.
Well I think it does but not really important to the point being made anyway
- Status