No you can't even if the Buyer and seller agrees with it , it would still need Players consent otherwise its a non starter .
Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
He's demonstrably not that fussed about consent, to be fair.
Yeah, agreed. It is what it is and assuming he signs for a club competing in Europe, chances are high that he’ll eventually have to come back to a packed stadium in the UK.
But I think @Rood is arguing that the fact that the police didn't drop the charge until quite a while after the witness withdrew which to him shows that the witness withdrawal wasn't the key factor in the charges being dropped, when I think that all that gap shows is that the police wanted to continue but the CPS vetoed that when they took a look at the case, some time later, with the witness withdrawal taken into account.
Personally couldn't give a flying feck if he plays at Old Trafford for another team tbh, as long as it isn't in our shirt then so be it, people would then be free to express their issues with him in anyway they see fit.
Isn’t there a specific rule specifically saying that clubs can’t agree to this as it damages the integrity of the game?
In any event, it won’t happen in this case. We have no bargaining power and I’d be surprised if we get anything for Greenwood beyond a nominal fee.
Whilst I'm sure that was true at the time (2002), more recent government publications dispute the fact that they virtually never go ahead when there is robust accompanying evidence:
The police response to domestic abuse: An update report (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk)
Having worked with Communications departments in the public sector, I know that press releases are scrutinised word by word. There is zero percent chance that they would they say that "new material came to light" without it being salient and true.
All this chat about him and he's not exactly ripped up trees has he. 5 goals and 5 assists.
No offense, but you don't have to work with Comms departments to realize that press releases are scrutinized closely. It's common sense. But, again, there's nothing to say what that new material is. It could be connected to witnesses withdrawing.
So probably why they continued until it was confirmed that she wouldn't testify combined with it being a high profile case where they wanted to muddy the waters when discontinuing a prosecution.
Pretty decent return considering just six months ago many thought he would never play professionally again.
No, as a writer of press releases, the aim is to control a narrative. You can't lie but you can overstate, understate and misdirect as needed.
For a player coming back after 18 months out, playing in a top tier league in Europe, on the right hand side of midfield, for a team traditionally more likely to be fighting relegation than playing in the top half of their league- it’s actually very impressive. Pretty much every game he’s played he’s been one of the best players on the pitch also!
You also have to take into account that he wasn't even charged with any crime until October '22, that's 6 months already since she asked for the case to be closed.
So at that point the CPS deemed it worthy to continue but in Feb '23 they suddenly announced that:
“In this case a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. In these circumstances, we are under a duty to stop the case."
People can debate their interpretations of this all they want, but to me it's pretty clear that's it's more than just the alleged victim withdrawing in April '22 that lead to this case being closed by the CPS in Feb '23.
When you have the CPS mentioning 'new material' plus the club refering to a longer audio and other evidence that's not in the public domain then it's only natural to have major questions about what exactly happened here.
The other possibility is that they had another witness or witnesses who withdrew at a later date that his GF
i don’t think that we will ever know
The hypotheticals are endless.
Yes certainly possible - in fact the CPS do say 'witnesses' (plural) but I don't know if we should read too much into that
But yes there are a lot of unanswered questions that we probably won't ever get an answer to
I'm still of the view that if he and she have reconciled that perhaps can accept their reconciliation.
I don't think anyone here is not accepting their reconciliation, are they? They're objecting to him playing for us again. The two are very different.
Some people here are looking for any nuance or technicality possible to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. A couple of them would make pretty good lawyers.
We will never know any more information than we have now. Speculating about some mysterious new evidence is a literal blind alley.
What we have is the visuals and audio. That information is what I make my decision on that Greenwood is a rapist and woman beater.
This thread is obviously not about trying to convince anyone else to change their opinion, so believe in nuances and technicalities if you want, I will believe that he is a rapist and you are rapist apologists.
We will never know any more information than we have now. Speculating about some mysterious new evidence is a literal blind alley.
What we have is the visuals and audio. That information is what I make my decision on that Greenwood is a rapist and woman beater.
This thread is obviously not about trying to convince anyone else to change their opinion, so believe in nuances and technicalities if you want, I will believe that he is a rapist and you are rapist apologists.
Given his age at the time, I think this is a reasonable starting point. Providing there are no other warning signs. If he seems genuinely to have grown up and is remorseful. If he acts in a professional manner at work and isn't just another asshole when he thinks he can get away with it.
If he's out partying all the time, not showing genuine remorse or known to still be treating anyone badly, then fukk him off.
Anyone offering him a new contract now would need to be satisfied that his behaviour wasn't quite as bad as the audio made it sound and are convinced enough that he won't come close to repeating such actions again. If he's not offered a new contract, then that probably tells us quite a lot.
It's really not a reasonable starting point, an actual explanation for what so many have heard and seen would have been.
He wasn't 5 years old at the time of the alleged events, age shouldn't be an excuse here.
I'm not sure it's possible to look at a person's actions as remorseful if they've always denied doing what you think they should be remorseful for.
Could we get this the feck out of the football Forum???
An important distinction, but the objection to him playing for us again is based on his treatment toward the woman, the very woman who has reconciled with him. But I understand the objection to refusing to accept their reconciliation in light of what happened between the two.
I'm pretty sure you couldn't limit someone's right to employment after they're no longer under contract with you. You could have a gentleman's agreement with the other club, but there's absolutely no way that would be enforceable.
Plus it nukes the value of the player.
It's something only a non-serious club would do. Thankfully we've shown we're nothing of the sort...
It could very much be in their interest to not play him in such a hostile atmosphere, but if he was their top scorer, there's no way they'd care.
Has that ever happened?
Real Madrid: Figo, rumor has it that pig heads in Barcelona are sold out. We really think you should sit this game out
Real Madrid: Ronaldo, they still love you in Manchester. You're in the squad
Manchester United: Van Persie, take the day off. We're playing at the Emirates
City: Sigh... look Tevez...
Hopefully the point is clear
Slightly different situation from just a common jeer instead of when a crowd might make him and his family relive a traumatic time in his life and potentially get lumps kicked out of him and very pointed abuse . We are agreeing, but I can see a reason why it would be detrimental to do so.
What if that explanation doesn't particularly show the victim here in a favourable light? Should she be forced to air it anyway?
We aren't owed anything from her. And, if he wants to move clubs, given that the victim and the police have decided to move on from whatever happened, Greenwood doesn't have to give us any more information either.
If he wants to stay here, I'd suggest the only way that is likely to happen is a public interview to clear up what did and didn't happen. Though again, that could well involve the victim, which seems like quite a lot to ask of her even if she has forgiven whatever occured.
I didn't mention an excuse, did I? But being a teenager in a particularly odd situation surely gives some level of mitigation. Age is often taken into account at sentencing, for example. That doesn't mean he wasn't an asshole. Likely meeting a criminal threshold. But intimating age is not even a factor seems overly harsh to me.
Your last sentence is just plain wrong. He can only be remorseful if he tells everyone exactly what happened? Nah.
Nobody is trying to force anyone to do anything, he's freely playing for a different club at the moment without anyone demanding anything from him. I think it's fair of fans to say they need an explanation for those things if he's going to play for the club they support.
Owe might be the wrong word but in a situation where you've publicly accused someone of a serious crime, why should you not be correcting that narrative if it wasn't true?
What do you mean by particularly odd situation?
How is this paragraph not using his age as an excuse? What does his age have to do with moving on because he's back with his partner? What does growing up have to do with what he may have done?
You've misinterpreted my last sentence. If he says he is innocent then how can you look at anything he's done and think "that shows he's remorseful"? How can he be remorseful for something he apparently didn't do?
You would have to believe he's lying to you about what he did and at the same time believe his actions show he's truly sorry for doing it...
Yeah like I said above. If he wants to come back here then he will have to come clean publicly, to some extent.
Because there's something to hide, in all likelihood.
I was talking about him being a multi millionaire famous prodigy at a massive club. I had in mind the increased likelihood of young men who have excessive wealth behaving in an entitled way, with the power imbalance that can bring to relationships and the difficulty in dealing with that at a young age. To be clear: I'm not saying young men with money should be treated more leniently than those without. But we've long been aware of the dangers of propelling these young men into sudden fame and fortune. Nobody thought that started and ended with buying a sports car.
I didn't say excuse because I don't think it excuses him. Merely slight mitigation. With the overall aim to be to assess just how much of an asshole was he, how remorseful he is and whether he has changed sufficiently.
No I got it the first time.
By admitting to having 'made mistakes', what do you think was meant? I think the reasonable reading here is that he did something that could/should/would be considered criminal. The CPS would have proceeded with charges had the victim not withdrawn, so we kind of know that something like one of the 3 charges happened, at a minimum.
Again though, being remorseful can happen without a public display of explanations/tears/apologies. Especially if it's not what the victim wants. His behaviour could have completely changed(it clearly needed to) since then. If it hasn't, then that's a very clear sign that he isn't genuinely remorseful. If it had though(and you could know this for certain), would it make a difference to you and your feelings towards him?
he's done pretty well considering a year off football, mid table side, not playing as a true forward, age 22
That’s something I never considered before.
Would Mason even want to come back to play for the club? If he’s getting on peacefully with football at the moment and living happily with his family . Why would he come back to subject himself and his loved ones to the abuse of the crowd and media scrutiny.
Probably not worth it for him.
Why would that matter?
I've told this story before, I walked in on a friend of mine getting raped. This happened many years ago, and she is still friends with her rapist. Nothing is ever going to happen to him legally. I've never hung out with him since that night, and I have done what very little I can to prevent more rapes, was that wrong of me just because my friend decided to reconcile?
I’d say if your friend doesn’t have ongoing sexual relationship with her reconciled rapist friend, that’s definitely a rape and unforgivable act in my book, no matter what.
I mean rape is always wrong no matter what and unacceptable at any circumstance. But sometimes it’s also very hard to draw a line of what would constitute as rape or nonconsensual sex when it involves long term ongoing sexual relationship with a partner. The partner could be not in the mood or they are in fight (argument) when it happened, whereas next day everything could be fine and forgiven again and they would keep on having sex everyday anyway. It’s just so hard to draw the line especially when there is ongoing sexual relationship involved as it’s complicated thing. But of course if the girl insists it’s a no, then it should qualify as rape for sure no matter what.
For example, by definition I could even sue my wife or girlfriend for rape if she has nonconsensual sex with me during middle of the night when I am well asleep or drunken and not aware of it why/how it started to happen too, but chances are I wouldn’t even bother to think of it as rape because we are in long term ongoing sexual relationship anyway and maybe I would end up kind of enjoyed the whole incidence too, as it spices things up. I surely wouldn’t label my wife or girlfriend as rapist after that (unless I want to spice things up).
But that could have nothing to do with Greenwood case of course, as every cases are different (especially when it involves forced violence). I am just arguing for argument sake here.
Last edited:
Unlike the certainty of the recording - no context where that doesn't make him a scumbag we shouldn't want anywhere near the club.
Yet you haven't excused your former friend's behavior based on the fact that his victim hasn't wanted to push her legal options. Funny that.
Hell? A few thousand people would scream abuse at from the sidelines, then he'd go back to his family mansion in Spain on 80k a week to play top flight football in the sunshine. If that's hell, where do I sign up?
No team would ever accept such a "non playing" clause, regardless there is no way we'd even ask for it.
- Status