The post you're replying to didn't say MG was innocent.
Yeah I understand. The posts saying he's been cleared/found not guilty/exonerated are very tiresome.True - but it referenced the no legal case. Previous posts suggested innocence by way of the charges being dropped, so it was a general response to any of that - apologies for it not being absolutely in line with this post I replied to.
I guess it was just the straw that broke the camel's back with all this, but it's why I didn't want to target the person, just the general viewpoint of those that suggest we should bring him back based on no conviction.
This has been explained probably close to a hundred times, literally, in this very thread.The thing is I dont think any of us can say he is innocent. We just dont have any information, evidence or the like to even build an innocence case.
Domestic violence is not something anyone should condone.
I wouldn't want to comment on your family situation but what we do know for a fact, which to me makes no sense is that the victim accused him, dropped charges then had a kid with him.
So shes accepted him with open arms
They may explain themself later, but they never said that though, at least not in the post you're replying to. The poster said "carries the inference that they have been proven innocent", which absolutely does when it comes to the social consequences of a trial, unless it's in the public domain that the acquital was based on some sort of ridiculous technicality.Incorrect. First of all, no judge or jury ever renders a verdict of “innocent”. When a verdict is rendered, the defendant is either found guilty or not guilty, not “innocent”.
If a jury can’t agree on a verdict, there is no verdict of either guilty pr not guilty and what results is a “hung jury”. The prosecution may, legally, seek a new trial or it may drop the charges.
Until a person is convicted of a crime, from a legal perspective that person has not been found to have committed that crime. The public may “know” that that person actually committed the crime, but from a legal perspective that person is not guilty of that crime until a jury agrees that the prosecution has the met of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.
Where your analysis struggles is the meaning of the word “cleared”. The court system does not purport to “prove innocence”, which is implied in how you are using the word “cleared”. When charges or dropped or a not guilty verdict is rendered, all that has happened is that a decision was reached that the evidence that would be or was allowed in court would not likely or or did not meet the standard of proof required to reach a guilty verdict.
We do not live in a world, perhaps not even in Russia, where once a person is charged with a crime the defendant carries the burden of proving one’s innocence. It would be a terribly unjust world if it were so.
I may have video evidence that X shot Y but if that’s my only evidence that X shot Y and for whatever reason a judge suppresses that evidence from being submitted at trial, X walks a free man. You and I would be appalled, but in the eyes of the law that man is not guilty. He wasn’t “cleared” in the sense that the court affirmatively found it was not X who shot Y, but he was cleared in the sense that X was not convicted of that crime (there is often a plea agreement to other charges) and legally is a free man. The record will forever show that he was accused of a crime, but it will also show that he was not convicted of the crime, free to take a job at the local Starbucks or to play for a professional football club.
As for what each of us believes, that’s an entirely separate question and we are all free to believe what we wish based on what we have seen, heard or read.
I wonder if there is any truth in the swap for Felix and what the figures would be going either way.
Looks like Dalot and Bruno will be with us for a dew years so there is a Portuguese flavour at the club already.
Did you see how much we had to pay for the last young quality striker we brought in?I wouldn't be a good deal for us given that Felix has been underwhelming his entire career after leaving Portugal. If anything, we should be aiming for an outright sale so we can fund Neves and a quality young striker as part of a broader transfer strategy that clears a number of other players from our books.
Did you see how much we had to pay for the last young quality striker we brought in?
Opposition teams see us coming when we are looking for new players.
The thing is I dont think any of us can say he is innocent. We just dont have any information, evidence or the like to even build an innocence case.
Domestic violence is not something anyone should condone.
I wouldn't want to comment on your family situation but what we do know for a fact, which to me makes no sense is that the victim accused him, dropped charges then had a kid with him.
So shes accepted him with open arms
You're 31 and your lack of understanding of how domestic violence works is scary, worrying and troubling.
Have we just got a whole generation of men who need to be sat down and actually explained it like they're literal children?
If he came back would we lose some of the caf ?
Sell for 30-40 million. Spend the rest of the summer on more important issues like getting a better beer in the stands or something.
I’ll rephrase , would people stop supporting United if he was brought backLikely not, as its not the CAF he would be coming back to.
I’ll rephrase , would people stop supporting United if he was brought back
Where do you draw the line with this? What if he'd killed someone, would that be enough to justify 'ruining his career'? To call it one wrong action is to minimize it enormously. And from what is most likely, it's not just one wrong action, is it? It's a series of incidents. It's allegedly sustained abuse.I'll be honest, I wouldn't. We have supported and cheered players who have done all sorts of questionable acts. I don't believe one wrong action should ruin his whole career, there were whispers about him before this came out so the club clearly knew something and again I would say we probably didn't provide the support he needed.
But I think in terms of how it came about, vocals and visuals and how it has been handled after, as in there has been no effort to integrate him back into society and show us how he has changed. Thinking you can just drop him back into the team and say nothing was never going to work.
Where do you draw the line with this? What if he'd killed someone, would that be enough to justify 'ruining his career'? To call it one wrong action is to minimize it enormously. And from what is most likely, it's not just one wrong action, is it? It's a series of incidents. It's allegedly sustained abuse.
Which of our players do you find us still rooting/have we rooted for that have done similar things to this? And before you say Ronaldo, I don't think most knew the ins and puts of those accusations while he was here. And, again, it's not just one wrong action. That's massively underplaying it.Of course I wouldn't condone him killing someone, my point is that we have and we will route for players who have done similar things only difference is Greenwood's scenario has happened in the public eye.
Which of our players do you find us still rooting/have we rooted for that have done similar things to this? And before you say Ronaldo, I don't think most knew the ins and puts of those accusations while he was here. And, again, it's not just one wrong action. That's massively underplaying it.
I already addressed the Ronaldo point. Most seem not to have known about the accusations when he returned - that certainly goes for me.But he came back and nobody had an issue in fact it hasn't impacted his career apart from the fact his team's don't do pre-season in America. Alonso drink driving leading to someone's death, Arsenal fans with Partey etc. This is not specifically about our fans because other fanbases are also taking the morale high ground of how could you let him play for you again?
If the actions are in his past, which I am assuming they are as I have no proof to the contrary. I have no issue with him playing for us again.
There are people on these boards who have said that they are prepared to do thatI’ll rephrase , would people stop supporting United if he was brought back
I already addressed the Ronaldo point. Most seem not to have known about the accusations when he returned - that certainly goes for me.
So because other shitty humans get away without punishment for being shitty humans, we should accept Greenwood back? And it's solely because he's a good footballer. You'd have no issue with us cutting him loose if he was bang average.
I'm fine with him being sold, don't get me wrong. But I never want him at united again.You may not have, but people did and continue to do so for the players I mentioned and more. Talent leads to you being given a longer lease in life. Plus this is business, he was a potential 100 million player, the club will still want to recoup some of his value in some way, especially considering the financial mess we are in.
I don't think what he did is irredeemable.
I expect him to be sold, we will get all the profit because he came through our academy and that will cover the losses of hopefully selling Antony. i don't think he will play for another big team in this country or if he does it will be a good few years and he would have gone under a public rehabilitation.
I'm fine with him being sold, don't get me wrong. But I never want him at united again.
Which of our players do you find us still rooting/have we rooted for that have done similar things to this? And before you say Ronaldo, I don't think most knew the ins and puts of those accusations while he was here. And, again, it's not just one wrong action. That's massively underplaying it.
I can't see a world where Ineos, as one of their first big decisions, alienate half the fanbase by welcoming him back this summer. I'm almost certain he'll be sold abroad.
I'm guessing you're new to this thread. What percentage of the fanbase do you estimate they'd alienate by welcoming him back?There's no way they'd alienate half the fanbase by welcoming him back, and i doubt they'd be worried about losing a few fans either. The real concern is the potential damages to the image of the club, as that could have serious consequences in relation to sponsors, and i doubt they're going to dip their toes in that tub.
I'm guessing you're new to this thread. What percentage of the fanbase do you estimate they'd alienate by welcoming him back?
To be fair, it deserved moderating. You're suggesting to attribute what he did to mental health issues, without any evidence of that being the case, just to get him back. It's a horrendous post.
feck all relative to number of fans.
I genuinely had no idea about it when he came back. Only found out about it when folks on here started talking about it. It really wasn't that widely covered in the mainstream media in the UK as far as I saw.The Ronaldo stuff was high profile for years, would be surprised if people didn't know about. Not that it matters all that much, it was a case with no evidence.
Yep, pretty grim stuff.Not just that, he literally stated that it was a PR spin.
or bring him back and cash in on a very lucrative deal with stella.
That doesn't answer the question - number of fans is irrelevant with regard to a percentage.
I’ll rephrase , would people stop supporting United if he was brought back
