Ah cool, we've now moved on to the part of the saga where folk attack anyone who criticises the club.
Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
Even if they get 70 million the same media lynch mob will be after the club to get it donated to some charity.
Or again the club will be evil.
So so much anger toward Riley, Crafton, other posters, other fans.
It's really a bad look. Most of the reasonable debate is long long gone.
It's really a bad look. Most of the reasonable debate is long long gone.
Did staff announce the walking out on news or social media, as I don't remember seeing that.
I think Crafton has either links in the club, or, the staff in the club, who were unhappy with Greenwood's potential return, went to the Athletic to leak/share on what is going on, including how they felt about the club's decision/potential decision, I do not think Crafton or the Athletic has access to evidence on Greenwood's case, but they (Crafton/the Athletic) had information on what the club was planning to do since the club's staff leaked it to them.
Right, and that's completely plausible.
But my point is Crafton has one view and he doesn't have the full picture. He doesn't have close to the full picture.
Has he claimed to?
Did I say he did? He definitely has an obligation to disclose that it's just one of likely many documents though. He knows what he's doing.
Im talking about posters who are just reading headlines and drawing what they believe is the full picture from that.
The truth is in this case it's very likely that there is much confidential information and im
I've read his article and other articles, he mostly reported on what he found out or was leaked to him about what the club was trying to do, according to basically first hand sources.
A full picture is not needed to decide if Greenwood should be allowed to play for United.
It reminds of earlier this year when Barcelona were caught paying a vicepresident of the referee association for 18 years, and a segment of their fanbase responded with meltdowns about a penalty they weren't given in 2015.
Good point. I’ll concede, terrible choice of wording by me. I shouldn’t have said 100%.
But I do think it’s highly likely the club is lying. Greenwood himself has said he isn’t guilty of what he is accused of. We bloody heard the audio. He has to say that otherwise no team at all will touch him. He has to save some face, it’s just whether teams will be fickle enough to latch onto that on a way to justify signing him.
The club has already harmed its reputation enough. They didn’t need Riley’s help for that.
At this rate I discounted every other thing bar the Audio recording and the picture which not even MG / MU / CCP says it's fake. The fact is that the audio is real as real as it gets, the rest is just possibilities and could have been.
And that alone is enough.
If Greenwood says he didn't do it, prove it. If United dared to say they looked at the evidence and claim MG didn't do it. Prove it. Those bruises don't come by themselves.
Emotion aside there could only be 2 possibilities
1. MG is the prick and he indeed tried to rape ******* and physically assault her
2. ******* is lying and make a damning accusation to ruins a man's life
There are no 3rd option.
You can't simply says "Trust me bro, I've seen the evidence, he's innocence" cause this would mean the girl lied.
I made a comment about Rachel not female United supporters in general. The only one making sweeping statements is you.
It's very depressing mate.
Arnold's statement says that United were not given access to all the evidence, and that it was for "reasons they respect." It's a weird note that comes across as hedging.
Although she's of course entitled to her opinion, Rachel Riley will always be about Rachel Riley and that's it.
So on one hand pretty much everyone agrees that the United hierarchy are a joke (and have been for the past decade), screw easy decisions up constantly, don't care about the fans and that the club needs to be sold in order to save it (going by the majority of posts on here) BUT some people simultaneously believe that they nailed the internal investigation (purely altruistic) and handled the situation perfectly (before bowing to supposed media manipulation and forcing MG out after clearing him) and now everyone should stop with all the criticism due to the fact that that the critics "got what they wanted"?
I should probably preemptively apologise for offering my opinion on this (due to the fact that it may appear that I'm milking the story to appeal to the woke Redcafe Mods) but then again I'm not a high profile woman so I should be alright.
I should probably preemptively apologise for offering my opinion on this (due to the fact that it may appear that I'm milking the story to appeal to the woke Redcafe Mods) but then again I'm not a high profile woman so I should be alright.
And I think the club is most likely lying about being satisfied he didn't commit the crimes. They cited talks with Mason, the victim and families and an "alternative explanations" for the photos and recording. Explanations that evidently weren't good enough for the CPS, mind.
The way he brings up the longer recording is also notable. He doesn't mention there being anything in the much longer version that casts what we heard in a different light, he just mentions that there exists a much longer version. If there was anything in it that exculpates/mitigates, he would have said so. The fact that he didn't suggests there isn't, but by mentioning that it's merely a snippet of a much longer recording, he leaves it to others to infer that there must be something there to make the club arrive at the conclusion they did.
It’s carefully worded isn’t it. Inferences dressed up as certainties. With just enough wriggle room that if something adverse were to come out they could cover themselves.
It's a terribly ambiguous statement by Arnold, and a statement that does not exclude the possibility of him covering up Mason's "mistakes".
Of course it is. You object to the only female high profile United fan having an opinion yet have no problem with male celebrities making the same point (usually less eloquently) and you think that is ok?
My assumption is that the people who did the investigation did not have access to the full recording, for "reasons they respect" (the privacy of the alleged victim). Hence the emphasis on "alternative explanations."
But who knows, really.
People should focus on the term "alternative explanations". Think carefully about that, an alternative explanation isn't evidence and it also implies that there is a primary explanation that is presumably not one that the club wanted to accept.
One could say it's almost "angry mob" like wanting her "cancelled".
And in circles it goes.
Nonsense, he has been tried and convicted by the public because of the pictures, video and audio the girl showed the world. Any public figure on the planet would have been treated similary.
Why are you so hung up on gender? At the moment she is the ONLY celebrity making comments. Which male celebrity has made comments on this case? And again my issue is with her and her previous behaviour on social media, which is why I object.
They very specifically said that the evidence that they had seen and been told about, but did not have access to because of respect for privacy, appeared to a reasonable degree to suggest that Mason Greenwood did not commit the actions that he was accused of "attempted rape, assault and coercive control". They do acknowledge he has made mistakes however.
1. What was the evidence they were told about, and by whom? Why are they convinced this evidence is accurate without seeing it?
2. Presumably they have only been privy to evidence from this one particular event, it would be disingenuous to claim knowledge that nothing has ever happened.
I think there are two conclusions that can be drawn from this. Greenwood and the alleged victim's representatives both told the same story. Man Utd has no investigative or prosecuturial authority, so they don't really have much reason to doubt the series of events as presented to them. Second, the audio recording is substantially accurate - Mason did verbally abuse the girl in a very nasty way, but Man Utd are satisfied that nothing criminal happened that day - presumably because a longer audio recording revealed that, or they were told that.
I don't think the club was or is particularly interested in digging any deeper than that. They can claim that their internal investigation resulted in finding Greenwood innocent of the crimes, while still weighing the damage the audio had done to his reputation as substantial enough for termination. Basically leaving them with all options open, and being able to ship him off to be someone else's problem. If it turns out they were lied to, well then they can claim ignorance and deceit, and refer to the fact that they shipped him off for a lesser transgression because those alone were not in line with the club's values.
If someone does bad things then we need to look at both sides of the argument. But saying "bad" things? We need to assemble the mob immediately.
Which would also case doubts over whether there actually is anything that helps Greenwood on it. If there was, surely they would want the people investigating the matter to know about it, be it the CPS or the club. But for whatever reason, they either haven't given it to anyone, or they have and things still played out as they did. Both of which suggests that there isn't anything on it that helps Greenwood's case.
And I think that was Arnold/the club's main motivation. They weren't after the truth, they were after an alternative explanation for the images and recording that would give them cover to bring him back.
It's also weird that they decided to do it inhouse, instead of bring in an impartial third party to do the investigation. There were always going to be question raised over the club doing its own investigation into the wrongdoings of its "£100m asset" and then arriving at the conclusion that he didn't do it and they get to keep him.
Just another one to add to the list people want to blame over the person who actually started all this.
It's quite pathetic.
Very good point that will be lost in here.
Good post. I agree with her on her point that playing for United should be a privilege and the question should have been whether Greenwood would still be appropriate to represent the club. However, some of her criticisms about Arnold’s statements are overly harsh & unrealistic imo. I understand that’s she fighting the corner of women and honorably so, good for her being a voice for women. But whether we like it or not, Greenwood has been at the club since he was 7 and the club also has a duty of care towards him.
Anyway, can’t we now all draw a line in the sand and get back to focusing on people kicking a ball.
To be fair if you followed her during the Depp trial plus aftermath you’d be shocked as to how she isn’t being called out a bit more.
It's actually crazy how much deflection is going on. The club totalled bungled this. They don't need to be defended, they can't be defended.
Good call from @Wing Attack Plan RIf it wasn't for the subject matter, I'd argue it's one of the best!
You never have anything factual to go on with Monday lynches and yet here we are on Wednesday still flogging a dead horse.
Wolves are tearing the village apart.
Most of these posters bash the club, the owners, Arnold et al. on the regular over much less serious matters, which makes it extra confounding that they take such exception to Riley and Crafton taking the very same to task.
It's a no win situation regardless of whatever club would do.
It's best to just get it done quick.
It's best to just get it done quick.
About an external investigation, how would this work? Who appoints what? How long would it take? Surely that would take months & months if not years? What are the legalities particularly considering the victim didn’t wave their rights to anonymity? Is it not harsh on a private organization to expect them to solve everything themselves? Surely the governmental & football authorities also have a responsibility to help out?
I'm talking about the internal investigation, the one to determine what course of action the club would take after the charges were dropped. The government, the FA and the PL have no responsibility to help out with that.
And you hire a law firm, have them look at the available evidence and talk to the involved parties (who are willing to participate) and then write a report. There's no reason their investigation would take any longer than the club's own, unless the club did a piss poor job of investigating the matter.
So the CPS drop all charges and United's own investigation finds no evidence he committed the offences yet he still has to leave. Unfortunately, its how the world is going right now. People in the majority feel its the right decision. It's ridiculous. Judged by the court of opinion. That's not justice. Whatever happened to Innocent until proven guilty. There is an overriding feeling or need to always be seen to be doing the morally right thing - its actually way over the top - a sign of the times. Wishing him the best in his career.
One thing that's irritating the feck out of me in this whole sordid ordeal:
Why are people and media figures etc including the BBC gunning so hard for Manchester United when it was the British Government and Crown prosecution that deemed Mason Greenwood innocent. You know, the same people that PAY the BBC their wages. Deflection perhaps?
It's not for Manchester United to be the arbiters of justice in the United Kingdom or the world, but they -have- made the right decision themselves. The alternative seems to be litigation from the PFA, etc etc. To say that Man Utd and Richard Arnold seem to be catching the most flak here when there are rather a lot of other factors at play here is overly harsh: they were slow to make their decision but they're not the law, for crying out loud.
It was an impossible situation for them, they handled it badly but look at certain other clubs whose players remain on the books and who have escaped THIS level of criticism despite the public evidence being far worse in certain respects. Time for everyone to cut their losses and be the end of this awful ordeal.
Why are people and media figures etc including the BBC gunning so hard for Manchester United when it was the British Government and Crown prosecution that deemed Mason Greenwood innocent. You know, the same people that PAY the BBC their wages. Deflection perhaps?
It's not for Manchester United to be the arbiters of justice in the United Kingdom or the world, but they -have- made the right decision themselves. The alternative seems to be litigation from the PFA, etc etc. To say that Man Utd and Richard Arnold seem to be catching the most flak here when there are rather a lot of other factors at play here is overly harsh: they were slow to make their decision but they're not the law, for crying out loud.
It was an impossible situation for them, they handled it badly but look at certain other clubs whose players remain on the books and who have escaped THIS level of criticism despite the public evidence being far worse in certain respects. Time for everyone to cut their losses and be the end of this awful ordeal.
- Status