The alt statement (simplified):
We wanted to keep him because he is an asset, but it is not possible because too many people are upset. But hey, the guy is innocent, pay us 70 million and he is yours!
Did staff announce the walking out on news or social media, as I don't remember seeing that.Do you find club staff threatening to walk out interesting? They forgot to mention that in their statement
I've come to the conclusion over last 10 years any PR from this era of the club is damage limitation for their own incompetence, and give the impression everything is always hunky dory
The problem with your argument is that you have no idea on the context or the full picture, just like Crafton doesn't.
He got his hands on one document which has the reintegration planning if they were to opt with it.
There are likely tons of other documents outlining detail of other options.
Staff threatening to leave was one of the 'club options'? They were briefed get ready for his return
Right, and that's completely plausible.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.
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.Has he claimed to?
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.
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.
How do you know she is 100% right? Have you had access to the club’s internal investigation?
I think it’s highly unlikely that the club is lying about being satisfied he didn’t commit the offences. Riley has chosen to say that they aren’t telling the truth but has no way of knowing if she is right or wrong. If she is correct, then yes they are gaslighting us. If she isn’t, then they are correctly setting out the results of their investigation. She is prepared to harm the club reputation regardless.
How do you know she is 100% right? Have you had access to the club’s internal investigation?
I think it’s highly unlikely that the club is lying about being satisfied he didn’t commit the offences. Riley has chosen to say that they aren’t telling the truth but has no way of knowing if she is right or wrong. If she is correct, then yes they are gaslighting us. If she isn’t, then they are correctly setting out the results of their investigation. She is prepared to harm the club reputation regardless.
Maybe you should be more careful about making such comments about female United supporters, who have have perfectly valid opinions about how United have dealt with this. Especially when male celebrities aren't criticised for the same opinions.
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.
I think it’s highly unlikely that the club is lying about being satisfied he didn’t commit the offences.
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.I think it’s highly unlikely that the club is lying about being satisfied he didn’t commit the offences. Riley has chosen to say that they aren’t telling the truth but has no way of knowing if she is right or wrong. If she is correct, then yes they are gaslighting us. If she isn’t, then they are correctly setting out the results of their investigation. She is prepared to harm the club reputation regardless.
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.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.
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.
I made a comment about Rachel not female United supporters in general. The only one making sweeping statements is you.
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.
Ah cool, we've now moved on to the part of the saga where folk attack anyone who criticises the club.
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.
who gives a shit about what club she supports....she's a woman and using the club as the reason to speak out only proves the point that this kid has been tried and convicted by the public simply b/c he plays for United and he's English
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?
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.
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.One could say it's almost "angry mob" like wanting her "cancelled".
And in circles it goes.
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.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).
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.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.
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.
This is the problem with bowing to outside pressure when making difficult decisions. It's never enough
I've nothing against Riley but she probably feels empowered now and that she has some level of influence, whether her views had any bearing at all on the outcome so is now using her position again.
One thing she should be called out on though is the idea that not condemning something equates to justification and even encouragement of it. The club should be the ones to call her out on this but I doubt they will.
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.One could say it's almost "angry mob" like wanting her "cancelled".
And in circles it goes.
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.Ah cool, we've now moved on to the part of the saga where folk attack anyone who criticises the club.
Good call from @Wing Attack Plan RIf it wasn't for the subject matter, I'd argue it's one of the best!![]()
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.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.
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.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?