Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bwuk said:
That's the only reason I think there's a chance he isn't back, but still lean towards him being here next year.

No chance we get anywhere near 45m-50m. If teams know we aren't going to play/register him, they are going to completely low ball us for him. We'll be lucky to get 20.
Click to expand...
If you get 20 plus a massive sell on %, that's a pretty good return considering the situation.
 
golden_blunder said:
SJR has already laid out what he will be looking at and it boils down to whether he thinks greenwood is a good guy or not.
Click to expand...

Yes and SJR will have access to the details of the internal investigation to make an appropriate assessment of the facts.

I assume that how he performs on the pitch between now and end of season will also be a factor in any decision.

He didn't play last weekend due to 5 yellow card suspension
 
Last edited:
Rood said:
Yes and SJR will have access to the details of the internal investigation to make an appropriate assessment of the facts.
Click to expand...

It's exceptionally tenable whether or not 'facts' were the concluding factor in the so-called internal investigation. Your own second paragraph, alluding to 'football reasons', is proof of this.

Hanging on to Arnold's fluffed lines is not in anyway 'appropriate' in this case, especially if the findings are not shared publicly.

What Greenwood needs to do is provide the mitigation for the recording.

But, well, there isn't any.
 
adexkola said:
We don't have the leverage to demand a massive sell on %.

To the contrary, we had to give Getafe incentives to take him on loan.
Click to expand...

I expect we'd have more leverage this summer than last, the situation is quite different now

Still not clear what exactly the terms of the Getafe deal are anyway - 20% has been reported and if true then it's another major feck up from the club.
 
Rood said:
Yes and SJR will have access to the details of the internal investigation to make an appropriate assessment of the facts.

I assume that how he performs on the pitch between now and end of season will also be a factor in any decision.
Click to expand...
Personal opinion but I don’t think his performance will hold sway on that decision other than helping to put a price tag on him
 
brontelicious said:
It's exceptionally tenable whether or not 'facts' were the concluding factor in the so-called internal investigation. Your own second paragraph, alluding to 'football reasons', is proof of this.

Hanging on to Arnold's fluffed lines is not in anyway 'appropriate' in this case, especially if the findings are not shared publicly.

What Greenwood needs to do is provide the mitigation for the recording.

But, well, there isn't any.
Click to expand...

No point speculating about the internal investigation when we have no idea about the details.
We can only go off the info that was made public but I do agree that Arnold made a mess of presenting the findings, it was all rushed through after the leak unfortunately.

Hopefully the club learned from these mistakes and I would expect INEOS to deal with things much better this time around.
 
Rood said:
No point speculating about the internal investigation when we have no idea about the details.
We can only go off the info that was made public but I do agree that Arnold made a mess of presenting the findings, it was all rushed through after the leak unfortunately.

Hopefully the club learned from these mistakes and I would expect INEOS to deal with things much better this time around.
Click to expand...

Of course there is point in speculating. What is this sudden crippling of all our brain functions? It's almost like it suits the argument to have no discussion beyond, 'the club said he's a grand lad' or 'she took him back'.

Almost all of the discussion on this board is without ALL the data, but only in this thread is it used to shut down conversation we don't like as it undermines a stance.

Absurd.
 
moses said:
Of course there is point in speculating. What is this sudden crippling of all our brain functions? It's almost like it suits the argument to have no discussion beyond, 'the club said he's a grand lad' or 'she took him back'.

Almost all of the discussion on this board is without ALL the data, but only in this thread is it used to shut down conversation we don't like as it undermines a stance.

Absurd.
Click to expand...

If you want to speculate then go ahead, personally I find it pointless and will certainly mention that when sweeping speculative statements about what kind of evidence exists are made.

INEOS will look at whatever evidence the club collected and make their own decision.
 
Rood said:
If you want to speculate then go ahead, personally I find it pointless and will certainly mention that when sweeping speculative statements about what kind of evidence exists are made.
Click to expand...

So you're just policing speculation, but only negative speculation it seems.
 
moses said:
So you're just policing speculation, but only negative speculation it seems.
Click to expand...

I'm just having a conversation with another poster, they have their opinion and I gave mine - not sure why that's a problem for you.

In fact the only 'policing' and attempts to 'shut down conversation' I see going on here is your constant critique of my posts!
 
Rood said:
No point speculating about the internal investigation when we have no idea about the details.
Click to expand...

That's my point, Rood, and I used it to question the veracity of Ratcliffe being empowered through the investigation.



Rood said:
but I do agree that Arnold made a mess of presenting the findings, it was all rushed through after the leak unfortunately.

Hopefully the club learned from these mistakes and I would expect INEOS to deal with things much better this time around.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest Arnold made a mess of just the 'presentation of facts', rather his entire handling of the investigation.

How do Ineos 'deal with things better', though? What will they do which Arnold didn't? Do you mean 'presenting facts' whilst their status of facts is not properly established?

Either Ineos find, publish and then successfully defend the mitigating reason(s) he is threatening his partner with rape, or he has got to go.
 
Rood said:
No point speculating about the internal investigation when we have no idea about the details.
We can only go off the info that was made public but I do agree that Arnold made a mess of presenting the findings, it was all rushed through after the leak unfortunately.

Hopefully the club learned from these mistakes and I would expect INEOS to deal with things much better this time around.
Click to expand...
Nothing was rushed, they thought they didn't have to do anything and then they completely U-turned. It's not like they were about to present anything if they were bringing him back, they'd just planned photo ops, etc.
 
Looking at it from a completely cynical POV, even if he continues the trajectory he was on from a footballing POV before the world found out he's a little psychopath, there's no way to know how he'll respond to the constant abuse and scrutiny he would be under if he played for United again. If someone wants to offer anything close to the money that reflects the footballer he was on his way to becoming I don't see how you give a second thought to selling him.
 
Lash said:
Nothing was rushed, they thought they didn't have to do anything and then they completely U-turned. It's not like they were about to present anything if they were bringing him back, they'd just planned photo ops, etc.
Click to expand...

The final statement was undoubtedly rushed due to the late U-turn - the fact that the club put out a short official communication and then followed it up with an 'Open letter from Richard Arnold' was weird in the first place
 
brontelicious said:
That's my point, Rood, and I used it to question the veracity of Ratcliffe being empowered through the investigation.





I didn't suggest Arnold made a mess of just the 'presentation of facts', rather his entire handling of the investigation.

How do Ineos 'deal with things better', though? What will they do which Arnold didn't? Do you mean 'presenting facts' whilst their status of facts is not properly established?

Either Ineos find, publish and then successfully defend the mitigating reason(s) he is threatening his partner with rape, or he has got to go.
Click to expand...

The biggest issue last year was that the club took too long to announce anything to the public and that resulted in leaks, backlash and a uturn.
It was all reactive and having to deal with public protests rather than a properly planned announcement.

INEOS can review the findings of the internal inquiry and hopefully better communicate how the verdict was reached - there are details out there that were never even included on the official statements.

Plus I've always said that Mason and probably his partner will need to do an interview if they want to return.
 
Rood said:
The biggest issue last year was that the club took too long to announce anything to the public and that resulted in leaks, backlash and a uturn.
It was all reactive and having to deal with public protests rather than a properly planned announcement.

INEOS can review the findings of the internal inquiry and hopefully better communicate how the verdict was reached - there are details out there that were never even included on the official statements.

Plus I've always said that Mason and probably his partner will need to do an interview if they want to return.
Click to expand...

Do you think they want to come back? It feels like for them personally it might be for the best to forge a new life abroad. It might die down with time, but It'll never completely go away, and the level of abuse they'd face coming back to the UK would be a lot to put yourself through.

Regardless of how I feel about Greenwood, I'm not sure I want to see his young family go through that.
 
Crimson King said:
Do you think they want to come back? It feels like for them personally it might be for the best to forge a new life abroad. It might die down with time, but It'll never completely go away, and the level of abuse they'd face coming back to the UK would be a lot to put yourself through.

Regardless of how I feel about Greenwood, I'm not sure I want to see his young family go through that.
Click to expand...

Not clear if they do and yes there are definitely reasons they might not want to come back.

At the same time they had to move to Spain very suddenly with a new born. For her in particular you would assume it could be difficult to settle and I don't know what kind of support network she has now. What's best for her and the child is rarely discussed.
Both families obviously live in Manchester so might be a reason they want to return, although his father and agent, Andrew, is out in Spain with them.
 
Crimson King said:
Do you think they want to come back? It feels like for them personally it might be for the best to forge a new life abroad. It might die down with time, but It'll never completely go away, and the level of abuse they'd face coming back to the UK would be a lot to put yourself through.

Regardless of how I feel about Greenwood, I'm not sure I want to see his young family go through that.
Click to expand...

I somehow doubt their plans include indefinite exile. They're both local and will most probably want to reside in the area, especially if he's under contract at United.
 
Rood said:
I'm just having a conversation with another poster, they have their opinion and I gave mine - not sure why that's a problem for you.

In fact the only 'policing' and attempts to 'shut down conversation' I see going on here is your constant critique of my posts!
Click to expand...

Nonsense Rood, you constantly any negative comments on MG.

I'm a moderator and don't like bad faith arguments and neutral posturing. It's not great for the boards. It's akin to shit stirring and not good for the boards. As a, scout you get the benefit of the doubt and I engage.
 
Rood said:
INEOS can review the findings of the internal inquiry and hopefully better communicate how the verdict was reached - there are details out there that were never even included on the official statements.

Plus I've always said that Mason and probably his partner will need to do an interview if they want to return.
Click to expand...

Any such interview needs to be scrutinised. That is to say, any statements provided need to be scrutinised within the interview. A neutral host is imperative. Emily Matliss, for example (Ineos only want the best...)

Somehow, I strongly doubt Ineos would allow such, so we'd wind up with some well-rehearsed PR guff, 'Mason' crying and her saying 'move on' a suspicious amount with bonus references to the children.

If you thought the previous backlash was decisive, the backlash to any planted slot would be monumental.
 
moses said:
Nonsense Rood, you constantly any negative comments on MG.

I'm a moderator and don't like bad faith arguments and neutral posturing. It's not great for the boards. It's akin to shit stirring and not good for the boards. As a, scout you get the benefit of the doubt and I engage.
Click to expand...

Don't think it's that clear cut from the outside looking in, @Rood seems to shut down the negative speculation being presented as fact and you from what I have seen shut down what you consider to be posters overlooking moral implications you deem outweigh any worth he has a pitch? Surely both can co-exist equally?

Feels a bit like in this thread, like some others (E.g. Messi vs Ronaldo one back in the day), seem to want to score points pointing out why others are wrong rather than explaining why they believe they are right, chances are nobody will be converted but we should be free to give opinions.
 
brontelicious said:
Any such interview needs to be scrutinised. That is to say, any statements provided need to be scrutinised within the interview. A neutral host is imperative. Emily Matliss, for example (Ineos only want the best...)

Somehow, I strongly doubt Ineos would allow such, so we'd wind up with some well-rehearsed PR guff, 'Mason' crying and her saying 'move on' a suspicious amount with bonus references to the children.

If you thought the previous backlash was decisive, the backlash to any planted slot would be monumental.
Click to expand...

I can't see any extra information coming to light, especially while he still has a career, it will be PR spin in a bid to best spin that we may want to keep him and raise the price we eventually sell him for.
 
Raoul said:
I somehow doubt their plans include indefinite exile. They're both local and will most probably want to reside in the area, especially if he's under contract at United.
Click to expand...

I would hope they as a family consider what's best for their children as well as them and their unit as a whole, can't see how he will come back to England to play football - Don't think that is where his near immediate future is as the scrutiny in this country is unparalleled.
 
AngeloHenriquez said:
Don't think it's that clear cut from the outside looking in, @Rood seems to shut down the negative speculation being presented as fact.
Click to expand...

Yes, he does. Yet doesn’t fact check anyone defending the scrote or mitigating the offences? That's not the neutral stance he claims. That's all I said. It's bad faith posturing in an attempt to sway the discussion.

I don't hide my stance.

Some posters want MG back and I don't engage. They are entitled to their good faith opinions and stances. I'm not monitoring opinions, just the thread.
 
Rood said:
The final statement was undoubtedly rushed due to the late U-turn - the fact that the club put out a short official communication and then followed it up with an 'Open letter from Richard Arnold' was weird in the first place
Click to expand...
It was rushed because they changed their decision, because it was leaked they were bringing him back. The findings didn't change, just the decision to bring him back.

Based on what was planned, it was clear they were bringing him back before the leak. They then had to somehow present the findings - which led them to plan to re-integrate, mean he should go to Getafe.

I struggle to see how the investigation and it's findings were particularly convincing (or if they were ever willing to share the details), if they u-turned so easily on them and refuse to go into any detail. My main point is I don't understand how the investigation details are going to be any use to INEOS, if United already deemed it meant he had to go to Getafe.
 
Lash said:
I struggle to see how the investigation and it's findings were particularly convincing (or if they were ever willing to share the details), if they u-turned so easily on them and refuse to go into any detail.
Click to expand...

If the findings were particularly convincing, it seems (extremely) unlikely that United opted to ship him out on loan (rather than simply reintegrate him).

Everything indicates that United were ready to take him back, but that they thought the better of it...because? Yes why?

Let's go with the "they heard the full audio, it ain't what it seems" angle: United know that the whole thing was...pretty much nothing. But...they can't welcome Greenwood back because...doing so would...yes? Finish that sentence and make that scenario sound somewhat believable.
 
moses said:
Nonsense Rood, you constantly any negative comments on MG.

I'm a moderator and don't like bad faith arguments and neutral posturing. It's not great for the boards. It's akin to shit stirring and not good for the boards. As a, scout you get the benefit of the doubt and I engage.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about so I'm just going to ignore your constant derailment and go back to discussing the topic at hand - feel free to chime in
 
brontelicious said:
Any such interview needs to be scrutinised. That is to say, any statements provided need to be scrutinised within the interview. A neutral host is imperative. Emily Matliss, for example (Ineos only want the best...)

Somehow, I strongly doubt Ineos would allow such, so we'd wind up with some well-rehearsed PR guff, 'Mason' crying and her saying 'move on' a suspicious amount with bonus references to the children.

If you thought the previous backlash was decisive, the backlash to any planted slot would be monumental.
Click to expand...

I think we both know there is no chance of an independent interview.

I don't agree that the backlash to an in-house interview would be bigger than last summer, but I suppose it all depends what exactly was said.
 
Lash said:
It was rushed because they changed their decision, because it was leaked they were bringing him back. The findings didn't change, just the decision to bring him back.

Based on what was planned, it was clear they were bringing him back before the leak. They then had to somehow present the findings - which led them to plan to re-integrate, mean he should go to Getafe.

I struggle to see how the investigation and it's findings were particularly convincing (or if they were ever willing to share the details), if they u-turned so easily on them and refuse to go into any detail. My main point is I don't understand how the investigation details are going to be any use to INEOS, if United already deemed it meant he had to go to Getafe.
Click to expand...

Well that's up to INEOS to check and decide, the club say they had access to witness statements, phone records etc plus did further enquiries beyond the police investigation. Sounds like a lot more evidence that can be assessed than some seem to suggest.

And i don't think they u-turned easily, seems clear that even Ten Hag was told that Greenwood was coming back.
They just clearly weren't prepared for the leak and subsequent backlash.

Obviously we have no idea what exactly was going on behind the scenes - what different options they looked at, why there was such a delay, when did they actually finish the investigation etc.

But we know Arnold has not survived and i think the handling of this situation will be a major reason for that.
So whatever happens from here it will be someone else making these decisions and surely they will learn a lot from the mistakes last summer.
 
Bwuk said:
I still think he comes back here.

The players have been caught liking his Instagram posts, Garnacho, Shaw etc, and a lot of players he played with that have since left the club. I don’t buy that the players wouldn’t want him back.

It'll come down to how we can spin it PR wise. I see people mention an interview but I don’t think the club will do that. It just opens it further for discussion/debate.
Click to expand...

Surely an interview would help
 
Can't see us being able to demand more than 25-30m Euros.

United have no leverage in the negotiations unless there are several clubs bidding for him.
 
I saw Bruno liking a few of his IG posts, so that pretty much confirms he'll be back.

juskiddin.

In my honest opinion, If the club has serious intentions to be successful in EPL/CL again, we shouldn't throw away our best RW for pennies on the dollar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.