Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some of you want to give your head a wobble with all this talk of 'innocence'. All the evidence needed to see what type of individual Greenwood is is out in the public domain.

Just for reference, David Goodwillie was cleared in his criminal case.

Some stinking hot takes in here.
And found guilty in civil court
 
But they havent really made any decision have they? They have just kicked it into the long grass until possible new owners take over and then they can relook at it. If they wanted to make a statement they would have paid up his contract and let him go free. They havent done that - so they will be looking to a) make some money back on him b) bring him back once something changes. Public opinion, new owners, the fanbase asking for him etc. I just think it could have been spun in a different way - there should always be the prospect of rehabilitation. We are not talking about a repeat offender here - hes a kid. Kids make stupid decisions and act incredibly inappropriately at times. I work with a youth rugby team - some kids need as much help as they can possibly get. I dont agree with cutting him loose in this fashion.

It's very rare for domestic abusers to admit they did anything wrong let alone do the work to rehabilitate themselves.

From the club's perspective they've realised the media circus would be far too much for him to have any prospect of getting his career back on track. If you think he deserves a second chance and can rehabilitate himself then moving somewhere else, possiblity abroad, out of the media spotlight is the place to do it.

I and many others couldn't cheer him in on in a United shirt after hearing that audio so for me it's right decision.
 
Richard Arnold wrote "While we were unable to access certain evidence for reasons we respect, the evidence we did collate led us to conclude that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with."

More pertanent to me is they were unable to access certain evidence.

Why would that be?

Assuming the evidence came from Mason and his gf, who were working to get Mason back playing for United, then im sure the evidence presented would have suited their narrative.

It also gives United some wiggle room incase more comes out.
 
But they havent really made any decision have they? They have just kicked it into the long grass until possible new owners take over and then they can relook at it. If they wanted to make a statement they would have paid up his contract and let him go free. They havent done that - so they will be looking to a) make some money back on him b) bring him back once something changes. Public opinion, new owners, the fanbase asking for him etc. I just think it could have been spun in a different way - there should always be the prospect of rehabilitation. We are not talking about a repeat offender here - hes a kid. Kids make stupid decisions and act incredibly inappropriately at times. I work with a youth rugby team - some kids need as much help as they can possibly get. I dont agree with cutting him loose in this fashion.
He can get help and rehab, sure. But not here. United has a reputation to consider too.
 
Wanting money for him is most definitely not worth making a categoric public statement of his innocence if they aren’t entirely satisfied it’s correct. Can you imagine the fallout if it transpired that they were lying and (worst case) something similar happened in the future? They have left no caveat in the wording or ambiguity which would be there if there was any uncertainty - he is (so far as the club is concerned) definitely innocent of the original charges.

There is plenty of ass-covering in that statement to prevent that.
 
You're being incredibly naive here.

United want money for him now. That's the sole aim of that statement.

I didn't think about that, this works even for a loan. Though not addressing it in a statement was in my opinion better. You state that all parties decided that Greenwood moving away from Manchester was ideal and that's it.
 
I don't really understand how the whole "so he can play elsewhere but not for United?!" thing is somehow controversial. There are plenty of players and people who I don't wish to see associated with United for moral/ethical reasons. This doesn't mean I wish they'd all die or be sent to a gulag. How does this make me a hypocrite?

Because then your moral/ethical reasons are not actually moral/ethical, they're more convenient to self. Morals and ethics transcend club fandom.

If you felt Greenwood's presence at your club would be a blight to football, and be a detriment to progress on sexual assault (it's not but bear with me for a second), then why would you be ok with him starring for Liverpool, unless you'd derive pleasure in playing the moral champion card (we're so much better than them)?

If you want to be logically consistent, it's either you

1. Ignore all moral/ethical considerations (that's where I am)
2. Don't want him at United for selfish reasons (don't want the negative attention, losing the moral high ground, not wanting to have difficult conversations with your daughters or something) but don't mind another club taking the hit
3. Don't want him at United for moral/ethical reasons (he should not be a footballer, bad example for kids) in which case, you also don't want him playing football at any top level club, or profession that has people cheering for him. He's free to be a plumber though.

If you don't want him at United but wouldn't care about him at another club, and you're claiming morals/ethics, your morals are low-grade
 
There are a whole load of stock phrases in that statement that any organisation will be told to used by lawyers but I can't believe how tone deaf the club is to try and use the statement as some sort of exoneration of MG and the repeated use of the phrase "alleged victim" is totally appaling.

Why get involved in giving YOUR opinion of his actions....it's totally unnecessary.

It reads like they had 90% of the statement written from the perspective of letting him back, then just changed the outcome at the last minute and forgot about the tone of the whole statement.

:lol: it was a roller coaster of a statement. I'd heard on the radio that he was being let go, but when I read their email I was starting to think I'd misheard.
 
When it comes to terminating and employee you do need legal ground. Additionally if you’re opinion doesn’t need proof or backing, then you’re just a muppet.

Well they're not terminating him are they?

I've made my decision based on the information available. There's no explaining away the audio and none of the actions, statements or lack thereof of on anyone involved since the story broke has given me any reason to change my mind. It all fits so why you do think I don't need proof or backing?

Also nice way to try and call me a muppet with calling me one... Pretty pathetic by you.
 
Are you literally insane?


I wanted did of him from the start and I'm glad he's gone.

However I'm not naive enough to think that a lot of people on the outside urging United to get rid were doing so mostly because they hate everything United and not out of any great moral standing they have
 
The other words are secondary to that statement.

Just for clarity I wanted him gone by the way.

They're not. They start of the premise of the whole email/ statement by saying that they don't have all the evidence. I pretty big caveat that shouldn't have resulted in the claiming they think he's innocent. There should have been a better way to navigate that part because they can't prove he is innocent, nor be 100% sure based on what they know and the nature of these types of cases.

But United need every part cent from this deal, so of course they're going to try to control the narrative.
 
So its obvious what he did and he is guilty from limited social media and its also proven he is innocent due to the clubs statement.

These seem to be tha main arguments seither side of the fence, both of which are being totally judgemental based on very little and pretty naive.
 
You can be neither innocent nor guilty due to the lack of evidence to prove either way.

Then it comes down to the public opinion. Some people believe in innocent until proven guilty. Others believe in guilty until proven innocent. Neither opinion is wrong.

This is the situation we have today.

except innocent until proven guilty is a human right under the right to a fair trial.

so one opinion technically is wrong according to most of the free world
 
Not at all, I genuinely cannot I've been given a warning today already.

If you state your opinion without nonsense you won't get warned.

You are allowed to say you think the evidence was falsified and she lied. I mean, it is the only other explanation right?

But may I ask you about the audio then, you think that was falsified? Or do you think the longer version explains it away? If so, what do you think happened (and you are allowed to say that too).
 
Go read Arnold's statement, he says there was a longer recording and more context, he says she was asking for the case to be dropped in April 22 and that the club was taking into the among the wishes of her family.. Not saying he's innocent or guilty, but I dont think any parents or family of the a DA or SA would wish for him to come back, even if their child is stuck with her abuser.
Why believe Arnold at all? He's covering himself so he can say "he's innocent"
 
I view it the other way ‘round.

I think the situation at Arsenal shows how farcical the handling of this has been by Utd.

To be fair I bet if the tape had never gone into the public domain the club would have done the same as Arsenal
 
I mentioned this yesterday, it’s clear that they didn’t plan for worst case scenario

Would have the backlash still occurred had they announced his "reintegration" during or prior to the tour?

What I am really asking is, if the hierarchy had just shown strong leadership and not delayed allowing a frenzy to whip up online.

I am not on any social media platforms so I do not have the knowledge that others will in regards to how these patterns of news formulate.

But it does always seem to me that story is leaked, it allows people to think and voice opinions that gain traction and then results in the "backlash" by accumulation.
 
You didn't address the point and instead went into actual mental gymnastics. When you decide to not associate with someone which is something that likely happened in your life, do you also try to legislate on whether that person should associate with someone that has nothing to do with you?

It's a very simple and basic question answered by yes or no. Do you legislate the relationship decisions of people that have nothing to do with you?
The first paragraph is literal an answer to you but you want to do the age old thing of throwing back what you perceived an insult. So let’s bury term for now & stay on topic.

Asking me what I’d do as a non-footballing institution when I disassociate with someone isn't exactly comparing Apples to Apples. I work with people I don’t ‘like’. I wouldn’t disassociate myself with them over something I say in a statement I don’t think they’re guilty of.

Now if in my personal life an associate were to defame me, I’d walk away from them but an intelligent poster like yourself knows the difference. Manchester United football club walking away from Mason Greenwood is not in anyway shape or form comparable to the question you pose but you know that.

I’ve seen your name on here a lot & didn’t take you as disingenuous but now I’ve answered your question, how about you answer mine? No need for jabs, just answers. . .
I would ask, what is it that makes you not want Greenwood to play for United? Bit Rhetorical as we all know the answer.

I’d then ask, given the answer why are you okay with him playing football at all?
Do you legislate the relationship decisions of people that have nothing to do with you?

I’m not asking people to legislate where he plays, I’m actually saying the opposite.
 
Due to the rules of this forum I cannot answer that question.

You can say that you're not accusing her, and you can say that you don't know what happened. The only thing you're not allowed to do, is to accuse her of making a false allegation. This means that you do believe that she is guilty, you're just not saying it (even though you are saying it), and your reason for not saying it has nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty", or any legal principle, it's because you don't want to get banned.

This is how it is in almost all cases, people saying the things you do are full of shit. You have no qualms about accusing people of crimes they've not been convicted of. You say do you, but you lie.
 
You stuck on repeat? Shall we try again?

That's the judgment you take from a HR investigation that they called out as limited and reliant on third party statements? Strange disclaimers for 100% certainty
I'm not making a judgement. My judgement was made long ago. He shouldn't be anywhere near the team and the only reason they even started an investigation was because he was a good footballer which it should not have come down to. Let me make that perfectly clear.

The United statement says we have concluded did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged.

I'm questioning how they can even make that statement.
 
I wanted did of him from the start and I'm glad he's gone.

However I'm not naive enough to think that a lot of people on the outside urging United to get rid were doing so mostly because they hate everything United and not out of any great moral standing they have

That's genuinely a bit nuts, mate.
 
Not read the thread but my reaction from the club statement is that his girlfriend must have lied?

The club could clear this up but have chosen not to. If he’s guilty he’d be gone for gross misconduct. The fact he’s still on the payroll suggest there is strong evidence he didn’t commit the crime, the same evidence the police came across and promptly dropped all charges??

of course once she gets pregnant there is no way the lie can be revealed.

So badly handled.
 
Why believe Arnold at all? He's covering himself so he can say "he's innocent"
He didn't say that though did he?

He said he wasn't guilty of what Greenwood was charged with, that suggests that there are things that he wasn't charged with that he was guilty of, Greenwood essentially acknowledges there was some thing other than that what he was charged with
 
Would have the backlash still occurred had they announced his "reintegration" during or prior to the tour?

What I am really asking is, if the hierarchy had just shown strong leadership and not delayed allowing a frenzy to whip up online.

I am not on any social media platforms so I do not have the knowledge that others will in regards to how these patterns of news formulate.

But it does always seem to me that story is leaked, it allows people to think and voice opinions that gain traction and then results in the "backlash" by accumulation.

I think there was no getting away from it. Had they announced it in July, the press would have covered it in detail at the time with a similar outcome. Utd have handled this badly, but I’m not sure there was an ideal time that would have fundamentally changed the result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.