If the guys watching would discuss his performances and not their opinions on when he'll come back, fine, but too many posters are looking for him to achieve targets before his return on a football basis only.
Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
Mods, come on, that's obvious sarcasm
People really don't like their golden boy being called out do they 
He went out with a bang.Looking at the clip I have no idea what was said, I'm not convinced it was rapist though
However I'm going to assume getafe aren't acting alone and that Greenwood or one of his teammates heard him say it and reported back Seems a silly move to me as it will now lead to everyone else calling him it at every opportunity (if they weren't already) in the hopes of winding him up
However I'm going to assume getafe aren't acting alone and that Greenwood or one of his teammates heard him say it and reported back Seems a silly move to me as it will now lead to everyone else calling him it at every opportunity (if they weren't already) in the hopes of winding him up
It's not if you check his posting history.
Exactly, it's a mad move from Getafe.
OK, fair.
Like golden_blunder said, it's a different situation. And it simply doesn't have as much traction on social media/news cycles as violence against women does. Not saying it's right, but it is what it is. This will follow Greenwood big time in any northern European country. Our best choice is a sale to a bigger club in a country where the media are less inclined to make an issue out of this.
At least we know now who we will be negotiating with.
How did he actually play last night?
Maybe? Who gives a toss? I'm not going to assume that Bellingham has somehow heard the longer version of the tape/heard the abridged version from an England teammate and that's why he's said what he said to Greenwood last night. Much more likely is he's heard what the rest of the world heard and just doesn't like him and made it clear. Seems often the people who do the back and forth rigamarole on here ending up arguing the toss about inane things like this. It's completely irrelevant and a waste of everybody's time.
Interesting.
In large parts of the world, it would have been the other way around.
Unfortunately, not many of these parts of the world have the clubs that could afford Greenwood. Maybe Saudi Arabia ?
I knew next to nothing about them ahead of this move but they seem a bit of a mad club tbh
I kind of get why they went for him, purely from a football stance an opportunity to have a huge talent for next to nothing could really improve their season (and because humans suck he's grown their profile too despite the grottiness) but not sure they really needed to front up as much as they have for him off the field. Maybe they think if they woo him hard enough they'll get him permanent and can then sell him on for a big profit cutting us out of the loop
Araujo swap
We've been discussing Bellingham's reaction to Greenwood, in the Greenwood thread, after a game between their two respective clubs.
If you don't want to comment, don't
In parts of the world where women are treated not as equals to men so I find your comment a bit strange
anyway now we’re going way off track
I seem to have struck a nerve. You can throw around insults but I'm not embarrassed, i responded to a ridiculous post with derision, as that pathetic post deserved.
There is a chance Bellingham knows more than us. But also maybe not.
I would imagine if he hugged him and gave him a character reference in the post-match interview it would be dismissed by a whole other cohort.
This does not necessarily have to do with gender equality, it has to do with being desensitized to certain things and vice versa .
The soviets had women working in science in droves (and working in general) far before the west and people from most ex Soviet countries would have a bigger problem with what Alonso did than Greenwood. Make of that what you will.
No, that would be further evidence from an inside source about how he's viewed from inside the football industry. Same as this is.
You are right, however, my views are pretty concrete, I don't want someone who said what he said playing for my club, and I will argue with those who are consciously ignore the evidence we have to hand, on the blind belief that maybe it'll be enough to stop him coming back and allowing me to carry on supporting the club I have for over 30 years.
I don't expect anyone from any side to fully understand my point of view and the reasons my personal opinion is what it is, but I will try and explain it.
Oh, I don't think a fellow pro and potential international teammate would say that to him (if that's what he said) without reason. (Maybe the reason is that Jude is a dick.) My main point is that it makes no difference to the conversation or development of anyone's opinion, it just stirs it up a bit.
No, I do think the response of colleagues is relevant, both if it was positive or negative. These are the people who may have to bunk up with Greenwood on an away international
I dont understand what Bellingham said has to do with accounting - some are speculating that he said 'Rubbish' others going with 'Rapist', again we have no idea.
As usual, people believe what they want to believe - I guess we will find out soon enough if the rumours (I dont see anything official about this) that Getafe reported it are true.
This is one of the weirdest comments I've ever read. If she both withdrew as a witness and recanted her previous witness statements, as we know she did, that is both withdrawing as a witness and new material. This does not mean, or even in the slighest even imply, that anyone lied.
Arnold also never said that the longer audio explained anything, only that it exists.
Amen brother.
u ok hun?
I don't think pie in the sky theorising which only serve to entrench viewpoints either way is of value and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest as much. But fair dinkum if that's yer bag.
Yeh, there's enough to go off which tells us Bellingham and other footballers won't like Greenwood one jot and won't be arsed telling him so. More power to them if that's how they feel.
It's a drip, drip, drip of new evidence. Ignore it if you want.
I haven't said Bellingham said it, I was hypothesising what it meant if he did.
Just like loads of posters are hypothesising that that audio wasn't someone threatening sexual assault, but it was part of some role play
I think he offered him a taste of crisps.
You did to begin with though, as we all do all the time.
Until, at least, we have to remind ourselves that it underpins a ridiculous stance on a player we want back at United.
The interesting bit about Getafe reporting Bellingham to La Liga is the player will now have to take a position either admitting or denying it. Admitting it would result in a sanction, so denying it would seem like the rational decision given that nothing can be proven either way.
Well no I didnt actually, I said I dont think it is but Im open to the possibility as obviously none of us know the actual truth.
I havent taken the time to check when this apparently happened in the match, if they had been arguing, had a bad tackle or what exactly.
The short clip Ive seen was completely innocuous so seems weird that Bellingham would suddenly decide to call him out like that - the entire thing is fueled by one post on Twitter as far as I can tell.
Ive not seen anything official about Getafe reporting it - again seems to come from one questionable source on Twitter which is then rereported all over the place. I guess we will find out soon enough as Spain publish the referee reports quite quickly after a match.
It is. One post, that was subsequently retweeted ad nauseam for point scoring purposes. Bellingham could well have actually said it, although we will never know unless he admits it, which is highly unlikely imo.
That's entirely plausible as well.
Well we know that the victim tried to withdraw from April 2022. Charges were made in October 2022 despite this.
The CPS do not make decisions over someone's guilt, only if they should face a court. The two questions the CPS has to consider when making charges are "Does the evidence provide a realistic prospect of conviction?" and "Is it in the public interest to prosecute?"
In October 2022, after the alleged victim made attempts to cancel the investigation, the CPS charged Greenwood because the evidence at the time provided a realistic prospect of conviction and/or it was in the public interest to prosecute.
Between October and Feb 2023 the case was closed due to witnesses withdrawing and new material coming to the light. If the new material is a redacted statement, the likelihood is that redaction is from April 2022 (or not long after) and was already known to the CPS when they decided to press charges. So this wouldn't have been new material - it was already existing material they were aware of at the time of prosecution.
The likelihood is that the new material isn't a redacted statement and I think you know this too. Nothing in the timelines we know or the information in the public domain suggests this.
You, and myself, also do not know what statements were provided by the alleged victim to begin with and any redactions made. What we do know is the alleged victim did try to cancel the investigation 5 months prior to charges being applied.
For full transparency and to ensure we are both talking about the same thing. Can you possibly provide a source which expands on this point, "You can withdraw as a witness without recanting the statements you've already made". It would help me understand your theory better if I can read the legal text which explains what you're suggesting. I'm struggling to find anything myself so feel we need to clarify this.
Richard Arnold clearly said that the audio was a part of a longer recording alongside saying he was provided alternative explanations for the recording.
"We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording"
Explanations is the operative word of course and the following line is further evidence he likely didn't listen to it "While we were unable to access certain evidence for reasons we respect".
They does not mean the CPS didn't access it and that it wasn't potentially the new material which influenced the case being dropped. If the CPS didn't have access to it then Richard Arnold's statement could incriminate whoever was in hold of the tape for perverting the course of justice through the withholding of crucial evidence.
You seem to discount the likelihood that the new material referenced by the CPS is an extended audio or other evidence. Instead pushing that it's actually a redacted statement from a witness who attempted to cancel the investigation 5 months prior to Greenwood being charged. In which case its existing material and not new material.
Unless you believe it was redacted after October 2022 which would imply Richard Arnold is lying or knowingly being misleading when he says:
"The alleged victim requested the police to drop their investigation in April 2022."
And lastly please do provide your source which explains your witness withdrawing/redacted statement claim better as this will allow me to better understand what you're suggesting happened in the timeline.
- Status