Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lash said:
Well yeah, why would you think that is? Are you being deliberately obtuse about this? Why would a legal representative advise you not to comment on something? He has denied the charges levelled against him, but admitted to "mistakes", he's not just said "no comment".
Click to expand...

As I understand, it's because it is to protect a client's right to not say anything that might incriminate themselves, after denying the charges.
A 'mistake' is what an individual may perceive has occurred, its their opinion, but it is not a legal charge.
 
Maticmaker said:
Exactly, when does one 'duty of care' cancel out another? It doesn't, the club would have to put procedures in place, to protect him and also any female employees who felt threatenened.

----

I understand what I mean by 'virtue signalling' and it fits perfectly.
Click to expand...
I think you've just committed an actual act of virtue signalling there - I doubt that it's our "duty of care" that interests you here. I doubt anyone would even mention it if he wasn't a potential first team player.

Nor is it just about female employees who feel threatened. It's also about any United employee who is angry or insulted by the idea that he can return to the club.

I'd also suggest it's about our duty of care to the lads who are going through the Academy teams and how they view relationships and partners going into the future. Our duty to them includes them seeing that actions have consequences even if you might get a goal every couple of weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: golden_blunder
Maticmaker said:
As I understand, it's because it is to protect a client's right to not say anything that might incriminate themselves, after denying the charges.
A 'mistake' is what an individual may perceive has occurred, its their opinion, but it is not a legal charge.
Click to expand...
Exactly, so in what way is the veracity of the audio/photos in doubt? The only thing you've pointed to is the fact it wasn't tested in court, you have no reason to think they might not be real based on the information out there.
 
Maticmaker said:
Exactly, when does one 'duty of care' cancel out another? It doesn't, the club would have to put procedures in place, to protect him and also any female employees who felt threatened.



It certainly does, he has not been found guilty of anything, if he wishes to stay at the Club then he has that right until his contract expires. As above there may need to be procedures in place that protect him and/or others who maybe felt threatened, but the club would have to assess such risks.

I understand what I mean by 'virtue signalling' and it fits perfectly.
Click to expand...
Honestly, duty of care doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. You're confusing it with some sort of legal obligation it seems. You're not using it in the right context.
Berbasbullet said:
If you wanted to go the ‘duty of care’ route you’d surely argue taking him out of the spotlight and loaning him out is the right decision anyway. If you didn’t care about his duty of care you’d stick him on the pitch to get booed by 70k people and score a few goals for us.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Lash said:
Exactly, so in what way is the veracity of the audio/photos in doubt? The only thing you've pointed to is the fact it wasn't tested in court, you have no reason to think they might not be real based on the information out there.
Click to expand...

And there is no reason to suppose they are real, simply because they 'are out there'.. recent events have proved this in high profile.
What exactly does 'out there ' mean in determining truth?
 
Maticmaker said:
Exactly, when does one 'duty of care' cancel out another? It doesn't, the club would have to put procedures in place, to protect him and also any female employees who felt threatened.



It certainly does, he has not been found guilty of anything, if he wishes to stay at the Club then he has that right until his contract expires. As above there may need to be procedures in place that protect him and/or others who maybe felt threatened, but the club would have to assess such risks.

I understand what I mean by 'virtue signalling' and it fits perfectly.
Click to expand...
And the duty of care to the others could involve sending him packing.

if for example I was accused of the same, my employer would remove me without question. It wouldn’t matter if I was good at my job. And rightly so.
 
Maticmaker said:
And there is no reason to suppose they are real, simply because they 'are out there'.. recent events have proved this in high profile.
What exactly does 'out there ' mean in determining truth?
Click to expand...
Because as we've established, he's not denied them to be fake/not real/whatever you want to say, at any point. You can certainly go down the argument of context if you like - best of luck with that, but you are claiming they might not be real, which is absurd.
 
Maticmaker said:
And there is no reason to suppose they are real, simply because they 'are out there'.. recent events have proved this in high profile.
What exactly does 'out there ' mean in determining truth?
Click to expand...

No one attached to this situation, right down to the alleged perpetrator and victim, has made any claim or suggestion that the recording is not genuine, so why are you?
 
Maticmaker said:
And there is no reason to suppose they are real, simply because they 'are out there'.. recent events have proved this in high profile.
What exactly does 'out there ' mean in determining truth?
Click to expand...

Well as the only person saying they are not real is you, it looks like they might be?
 
Slops said:
No one attached to this situation, right down to the alleged perpetrator and victim, has made any claim or suggestion that the recording is not genuine, so why are you?
Click to expand...
That was going to be my next point - the alleged victim only suggested she had been "hacked".
 
jojojo said:
I think you've just committed an actual act of virtue signalling there - I doubt that it's our "duty of care" that interests you here. I doubt anyone would even mention it if he wasn't a potential first team player.

Nor is it just about female employees who feel threatened. It's also about any United employee who is angry or insulted by the idea that he can return to the club.

I'd also suggest it's about our duty of care to the lads who are going through the Academy teams and how they view relationships and partners going into the future. Our duty to them includes them seeing that actions have consequences even if you might get a goal every couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
Pickle85 said:
Honestly, duty of care doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. You're confusing it with some sort of legal obligation it seems. You're not using it in the right context.
Click to expand...

Yes I it does, the legal obligation forms part of the duty of care requirement. Having charges dismissed, means if Greenwood wants to come back and continue to play for the club then the club must respond positively, otherwise they are harming Greenwood's livelihood and his personal integrity.
Sending him abroad was a first stage 'duty of care' matter when the outcomes of possible legal proceedings were not fully known, it was to allow him to ply his trade without the pressure and possible harassment he would have felt in Manchester.
Since then the relationship between the two has been developed positively and should he want to come back to United and try to restart his career at Old Trafford, then both legally and under duty of care United are obliged to act.
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes I it does, the legal obligation forms part of the duty of care requirement. Having charges dismissed, means if Greenwood wants to come back and continue to play for the club then the club must respond positively, otherwise they are harming Greenwood's livelihood and his personal integrity.
Sending him abroad was a first stage 'duty of care' matter when the outcomes of possible legal proceedings were not fully known, it was to allow him to ply his trade without the pressure and possible harassment he would have felt in Manchester.
Since then the relationship between the two has been developed positively and should he want to come back to United and try to restart his career at Old Trafford, then both legally and under duty of care United are obliged to act.
Click to expand...

An employer's duty of care refers to the legal obligation to safeguard employees from foreseeable harm or risks while at work. It's not to potentially put others at risk by pretending very serious acts never happened.
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes I it does, the legal obligation forms part of the duty of care requirement. Having charges dismissed, means if Greenwood wants to come back and continue to play for the club then the club must respond positively, otherwise they are harming Greenwood's livelihood and his personal integrity.
Sending him abroad was a first stage 'duty of care' matter when the outcomes of possible legal proceedings were not fully known, it was to allow him to ply his trade without the pressure and possible harassment he would have felt in Manchester.
Since then the relationship between the two has been developed positively and should he want to come back to United and try to restart his career at Old Trafford, then both legally and under duty of care United are obliged to act.
Click to expand...
You're speaking confidently as if you really know what you're on about when it's clear you don't. We are absolutely not bound to bring him back, duty of care or not.

1. He would still be subjected to pressure and harassment if we bring him back now

2. How would not taking greenwood back 'harm his personal integrity' (a phrase that yet again may sound impressive to you but is actually meaningless in this context).

3. How would it harm his livelihood? He's not going to be sacked and we won't break his contract.

You're honestly talking total nonsense and it's frustrating to discuss.
 
I wonder what the general consensus is now, is the idea of a poll dead and buried? Be interested to know not in a would you/ wouldn't you bring him back but a hypothetical in terms of is there anything ethically (Statement, public reform etc) or football form (scoring every game) would change your mind or not..
 
Pickle85 said:
You're speaking confidently as if you really know what you're on about when it's clear you don't. We are absolutely not bound to bring him back, duty of care or not.

1. He would still be subjected to pressure and harassment if we bring him back now

2. How would not taking greenwood back 'harm his personal integrity' (a phrase that yet again may sound impressive to you but is actually meaningless in this context).

3. How would it harm his livelihood? He's not going to be sacked and we won't break his contract.

You're honestly talking total nonsense and it's frustrating to discuss.
Click to expand...
This conversation is hilarious. :lol:
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes I it does, the legal obligation forms part of the duty of care requirement. Having charges dismissed, means if Greenwood wants to come back and continue to play for the club then the club must respond positively, otherwise they are harming Greenwood's livelihood and his personal integrity.
Sending him abroad was a first stage 'duty of care' matter when the outcomes of possible legal proceedings were not fully known, it was to allow him to ply his trade without the pressure and possible harassment he would have felt in Manchester.
Since then the relationship between the two has been developed positively and should he want to come back to United and try to restart his career at Old Trafford, then both legally and under duty of care United are obliged to act.
Click to expand...
”Legally” “obliged” ….are you just making up it?

Regardless of what you may think, he‘s already caused the club a huge amount of bad press and embarrassment. Given the circumstances the club has treated well.

To bring him back now (which won’t happen) would be nothing short of a colossal PR disaster, something Utd would never contemplate.
 
Unironically arguing that the photos and/or audio might be fake after all this time is very probably the most stupid and malicious take in this whole thread, and it's not as if there's little competition. Disgusting but expectable from @Maticmaker.
 
Maticmaker said:
And there is no reason to suppose they are real, simply because they 'are out there'.. recent events have proved this in high profile.
What exactly does 'out there ' mean in determining truth?
Click to expand...

Well other than the fact that as part of his defence it was established that the tape was part of a longer recording.
 
Maticmaker said:
Sending him abroad was a first stage 'duty of care' matter when the outcomes of possible legal proceedings were not fully known
Click to expand...

What? No.

Have you followed this case at all?

Greenwood isn't involved in any legal proceedings at the moment. The case was dropped. And United (obviously) knew this when they decided to send him out on loan.
 
Wilt said:
I nominate you
Click to expand...
You might be overrating the club, didn't we almost bring him back and it cost Arnold his job end in the end? Eth was all but expecting him in the team this summer. Unless you meant something Ineos would never contemplate.
 
jojojo said:
I think you've just committed an actual act of virtue signalling there - I doubt that it's our "duty of care" that interests you here. I doubt anyone would even mention it if he wasn't a potential first team player.

Nor is it just about female employees who feel threatened. It's also about any United employee who is angry or insulted by the idea that he can return to the club.

I'd also suggest it's about our duty of care to the lads who are going through the Academy teams and how they view relationships and partners going into the future. Our duty to them includes them seeing that actions have consequences even if you might get a goal every couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Good post (needless to say, one can hope).

The part in bold is (obviously) the actual point here.
 
mu4c_20le said:
You might be overrating the club, didn't we almost bring him back and it cost Arnold his job end in the end? Eth was all but expecting him in the team this summer. Unless you meant something Ineos would never contemplate.
Click to expand...
Ineos or whoever, I could never imagine him playing for the club. Do you think he might?
 
AngeloHenriquez said:
I wonder what the general consensus is now, is the idea of a poll dead and buried? Be interested to know not in a would you/ wouldn't you bring him back but a hypothetical in terms of is there anything ethically (Statement, public reform etc) or football form (scoring every game) would change your mind or not..
Click to expand...
A poll isn't going to happen, realistically, or at least until there is some new development. The question of whether people would bring him back in certain hypothetical scenarios, eg if some exonerating evidence suddenly emerged or MG does an emotional mea culpa with his partner and explains how he's having anger counselling or whatever, has too many ifs and buts to be worthwhile.
 
He's an obvious candidate to sell.

If he was taking la liga by storm, I think INEOS would genuinely consider bringing him back, but he's not. With FFP issues and the PR issues with his return, the payoff isn't great enough and the benefit from just £20m would be fair more beneficial to the club.
 
Wilt said:
Ineos or whoever, I could never imagine him playing for the club. Do you think he might?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't rule it out 100%.

But the thinking would have to be:

There will be a reaction, quite possibly a significant one. But it will fade away soon-ish.

(If they don't think there will be any reaction, they're not media savvy to the point of being media illiterate.)

But. And this is the point: the above could make sense if the player was truly special, someone you would risk an initial PR disaster for.

Greenwood isn't that player.

Bottom line: they won't risk it. He's not worth it. They will make a deal with someone and be permanently rid of him.
 
Yeah and as been said before, if the club really want to do it, they would have to arrange for some sort of interview for them. They already tested the waters and it wouldn't work just bringing him back. Ffp and our current weak options are the main cases, but if we get a good enough offer he's gone.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
I wouldn't rule it out 100%.

But the thinking would have to be:

There will be a reaction, quite possibly a significant one. But it will fade away soon-ish.

(If they don't think there will be any reaction, they're not media savvy to the point of being media illiterate.)

But. And this is the point: the above could make sense if the player was truly special, someone you would risk an initial PR disaster for.

Greenwood isn't that player.

Bottom line: they won't risk it. He's not worth it. They will make a deal with someone and be permanently rid of him.
Click to expand...
I’d say pretty much your last sentence.
 
Has he been linked to any club yet? I can't see who in Europe is spending £40m on him when no one seems to have money
 
Status
Not open for further replies.