Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

[NicolaSacco]

There is nothing positive about making up explanations for domestic/sexual abuse, it is creepy. Especially this one.

My post was an unsuccessful attempt at irony; I entirely agree with you. Victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have a tough enough time proving it in court. The last thing they need is someone ‘making things up in a positive way’, whatever the hell that even means.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Should be pinned to the thread so that it appears at the top of every page.

The amount of people repeating the same erroneous thing is ridiculous.

I thought there were a lot of trolls but I genuinely don't think people understand how this works. It's like when you see lots of posters saying 'City were found innocent by CAS'

 

[Redlambs]

You have forgotten something here. "Innocent until proven guilty". Mason Greenwood was not “convicted in court”. He was convicted by the court of public opinion. The boy made a mistake and apologized for it, but the extent is only being assumed by social media warriors. None of us know what actually happened and probably never will.

Once again, if you read the thread you'll find nothing of the sort has been forgotten. They have been discussed over and over with a lot more depth.

Oh, and what was his "mistake" he apologised for exactly?

The best thing they could've done is as soon as the charges were dropped by CPS, United should've released him straight away. It was clear from the moment the allegations were made that Mason Greenwood would never be able to play for Man Utd again.

He should have been leaving the club sooner, yes I agree. But for different reasons to you.

You can blame everyone and everything all you like, but ultimately both Greenwood and Arnold have accepted the responsibility for this situation and him leaving. Why are the two people with most information about this all not being listened to? Why are you lot trying to find scapegoats if you care so much about truth?

Half of our Tory government are Oxford educated. Would you call them intelligent?

Considering what they are blatantly getting away with, you can't call them stupid.

There is nothing positive about making up explanations for domestic/sexual abuse, it is creepy. Especially this one.

Creepy is the nicest possible way of putting it.

100% agree with this. To delay and delay the decision, attempt to bring him back in the squad, then in less than a few days u-turn the decision because of some reaction on social media is extremely poor. They may as well released him immediately after charges were dropped due to brand damage or something.

When people ask "what did the club do wrong?" one of the major things was expected the majority of fans to just accept "oh we know something you don't know" about that audio and those pictures. It's absolutely pathetic the way they think they could brush it off like that, no matter the side of the fence you are on. And it also shows very little disregard to the subject matter too, no wonder they didn't get any specialists involved.

I thought there were a lot of trolls but I genuinely don't think people understand how this works. It's like when you see lots of posters saying 'City were found innocent by CAS'

It's funny, but those people also accuse the other side of running on emotions only too...

 

[Baxquux]

Well she's an Oxford graduate with a Masters in mathematics so I imagine "intelligent" is also one of her traits.

Compare that to some of the posters in here saying things like "Mason proven not gilty in court of law so maybe he vicktum in all dis?" and she could accuse Arnold of being a witch and it wouldn't be nearly as daft. Unless the comparisons with the fecking witch trials of Salem start up again...

Maybe we don't all have Masters in Maths ( just by the by, Oxford converts your BA to an MA after a certain number of Semesters for a fee of £50 or so, so I think hers is 'just' an undergrad with a fancier title... of course it doesn't make much difference in practice, no-one's denying she's 'smart') but I'd be careful about making assumptions about people's educational backgrounds purely based upon their pointing out inaccuracies relating to proof of guilt and the incontrovertibility of evidence in the light of new circumstances etc.

As other people have pointed out, you can graduate with a good Oxford degree and still say lots of things relating to current affairs people deem stupid (whether said in earnest or potentially just to provoke) .

 

[red.knight]

Do you pass every issue through this logic I wonder? If not why?

No one here is saying he should receive a criminal punishment without going through a court of law which is where your point falls down.

We have civil courts and employment law and just general opinion that all judge outside a criminal court context, there's nothing unusual here.

He doesn't have to be found guilty of a crime to lose his job. No one here does either. He doesn't have to have been found guilty of a crime for people to make a judgment and treatment him accordingly which again is standard and applies to all.

I respectfully disagree. The notion that someone like Mason ought to be punished by “the court of pubic opinion” for the rest of his life because of allegations, for which he has not been convicted, is preposterous. The guy denies the allegations but admits to making mistakes. Can he not get on with his life? I wish them both the best, life won't be easy for either. I hope we all leave them alone, bringing up a kid is hard enough.

 

[Wibble]

Half of our Tory government are Oxford educated. Would you call them intelligent?

Largely not. RR yes.

 

[FortunaUtd]

You have forgotten something here. "Innocent until proven guilty". Mason Greenwood was not “convicted in court”. He was convicted by the court of public opinion. The boy made a mistake and apologized for it, but the extent is only being assumed by social media warriors. None of us know what actually happened and probably never will.

United completely bottled this situation. The best thing they could've done is as soon as the charges were dropped by CPS, United should've released him straight away. It was clear from the moment the allegations were made that Mason Greenwood would never be able to play for Man Utd again.

English is not my first language so apologies if I misunderstand. But I wonder - if he was convicted by the court of public opinion, why is he not in jail?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Maybe we don't all have Masters in Maths ( just by the by, Oxford converts your BA to an MA after a certain number of Semesters for a fee of £50 or so, so I think hers is 'just' an undergrad with a fancier title... of course it doesn't make much difference in practice, no-one's denying she's 'smart') but I'd be careful about making assumptions about people's educational backgrounds purely based upon their pointing out inaccuracies relating to proof of guilt and the incontrovertibility of evidence in the light of new circumstances etc.

As other people have pointed out, you can graduate with a good Oxford degree and still say lots of things relating to current affairs people deem stupid (whether said in earnest or potentially just to provoke) .

The point is that judging someone based purely on how they look and how they speak/present themselves seems to only happen to certain people. But I'm not here to argue and you make good points.

But I also stand by my point that what she said isn't the strangest thing that's been posted in this thread in recent days. I know we're all idiots here but some stuff has been quite surprising.

 

[MyUnconventionalViews]

He wasnt found innocent by anyone. Charges where dropped. Two very different things.

Why do people banging the "he wasn't declared innocent" drum. Innocent has no real legal standing, even after a trial someone is either declared "guilty" or "not guilty" and, in the latter case, the charges are dropped/he individual is acquitted.

It's fine to have your opinion in this highly unfortunate and, equally, complex case but at least base this opinion on sound technical knowledge.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

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.

Greenwood was not judged by the court of public opinion. He was judged by Manchester United, who claim that they decided, with Greenwood, that he was better off moving elsewhere.

 

[Mingus]

English is not my first language so apologies if I misunderstand. But I wonder - if he was convicted by the court of public opinion, why is he not in jail?

Mourinho would call them "judicial Einsteins".

 

[Yorke to Cole]

Why does she have to have a "need" that you approve of? She is a United fan and even if she wasn't she is entitled to an opinion. Doubly so when it is such a reasonable opinion.

Holding the club to ransom? Really? Get a grip.

And it is great to see some bloke from the internet telling women what they are and aren't allowed to do or how they are allowed protest. I'm guessing you don't see the inherent misogyny and irony in such a statement?

I am not saying that women are not allowed to protest. I am saying that she should use her platform to highlight the issue with organisations that work with these issues on a day to day basis. That would be getting to the root of the issue and do more good in the long term. There also seems to be an aspect of her delivering opinions online with various topics, in the acknowledgement she knows she is going exposure for it. The typical trend for Internet.

I much prefer it if people who engaged with social issues on a consistent basis which could lead to prominent change.

And seen as you have referred to me as "some bloke" from the Internet, I have seen a lot of mental health issues, leading to domestic violence within the home. Fortunately, with a lot of determination, hard work and hurt we got to the I say it again got to the "root of the issue".

My opinion was/is that if the club found that Mason Greenwood was not culpable or that there were extenuating circumstances or a wider picture to those incidents, that the club should have undertaken a rehabilitation process and got the support he needed to allow this never to happen again.

I do not think it is fair to just disregard someone who is still at a very young age and just make him someone else's problem. I did not do that with a member of my family, because I could not and would not. Manchester United is far more powerful and has much more access to support networks then what I ever could.

 

[Roboc7]

It would have been easier if he was out of contract like Mendy, but even Gylfi Sigurðsson found a club.

I don’t think his case not being acquitted makes a huge difference, he’s a free man regardless.

He’s a free man but there is also an audio file in the public domain which alleged shows him attempting to rape someone. That audio has and always will be what makes his scenario different to other players.

An acquittal would have made a huge difference to Greenwood, from his perspective he needed to go to court and be found not guilty. If that audio didn’t exist he may not have even been suspended.

 

[11101]

English is not my first language so apologies if I misunderstand. But I wonder - if he was convicted by the court of public opinion, why is he not in jail?

Court of public opinion means he was assumed guilty by the public based on a sliver of the facts. He wasn't convicted in any legal sense. Its just a phrase.

 

[Ainu]

I respectfully disagree. The notion that someone like Mason ought to be punished by “the court of pubic opinion” for the rest of his life because of allegations, for which he has not been convicted, is preposterous. The guy denies the allegations but admits to making mistakes. Can he not get on with his life? I wish them both the best, life won't be easy for either. I hope we all leave them alone, bringing up a kid is hard enough.

Who exactly is preventing him to get on with his life? There's a lot of criticism aimed at how the club have handled it, but that's a separate issue. I'm seeing most people express a hope that Greenwood and his partner are now in a healthy relationship and can move on from this, including many who did not want him at the club anymore.

 

[L1nk]

Rachel Riley really is not the hill to die on. Though I don’t think she was wrong in voicing her concerns initially - now that the decision has been made it’s just feels a bit like putting the boot in

That's not what I was replying to. I have no thoughts on Rachel Riley either way because I barely know her or anything about her. But for some to criticise her opinions on the situation whilst not criticising similar opinions from men, given the context of the situation, is interesting to say the least and certainly telling.

 

[padzilla]

What is undeniable is this is a terrible situation in which there are no winners and has only served to divide the fanbase. It is understandable that emotions are running high and will remain to do so for time.

 

[NLunited]

My post was an unsuccessful attempt at irony; I entirely agree with you. Victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have a tough enough time proving it in court. The last thing they need is someone ‘making things up in a positive way’, whatever the hell that even means.

Your quote got in there by mistake.

I think it is time to close this thread and stop discussing MG again. All it does is bring out the worst in some.

 

[Redlambs]

English is not my first language so apologies if I misunderstand. But I wonder - if he was convicted by the court of public opinion, why is he not in jail?

Because it doesn't mean anything real.

Some like to be angry at other people for speaking out about what they think and so blame them for problems even when told otherwise by those involved.

Greenwood was not judged by the court of public opinion. He was judged by Manchester United, who claim that they decided, with Greenwood, that he was better off moving elsewhere.

Brick. Wall.

Maybe we don't all have Masters in Maths ( just by the by, Oxford converts your BA to an MA after a certain number of Semesters for a fee of £50 or so, so I think hers is 'just' an undergrad with a fancier title... of course it doesn't make much difference in practice, no-one's denying she's 'smart') but I'd be careful about making assumptions about people's educational backgrounds purely based upon their pointing out inaccuracies relating to proof of guilt and the incontrovertibility of evidence in the light of new circumstances etc.

As other people have pointed out, you can graduate with a good Oxford degree and still say lots of things relating to current affairs people deem stupid (whether said in earnest or potentially just to provoke) .

He's not actually saying she should be listened to based on that, he was pointing out that the poster went straight to things like her gender, hair colour and looks. Which I'm sure most of us can agree that's a particular way of looking at it which is entirely unwelcome at best.

That's not what I was replying to. I have no thoughts on Rachel Riley either way because I barely know her or anything about her. But for some to criticise her opinions on the situation whilst not criticising similar opinions from men, given the context of the situation, is interesting to say the least and certainly telling.

But not surprising.

 

[JPRouve]

I don't really get the "court of public opinion" angle. Unless the audio is supposed to be ignored or if people are not allowed to have an opinion on it why are so many acting as if people opinions on the matter are worthless?
The only alternative that I see, is that some think that the audio was perfectly fine and that the interaction shouldn't lead to any opinion which to me is strange but maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Halftrack]

I would imagine an independent panel would first have to be appointed & vetted or the investigation wouldn’t be independent. I’m no expert, but my common sense tells me just to appoint a panel will probably take longer than the whole internal investigation took. Maybe there’s a poster who’s an expert on these kind of things?

There's no need to appoint a panel. The club clearly had a vested interest in a given outcome (being able to keep their 100m asset) so no process carried out by Arnold and his team could ever be seen as unbiased. So bring in a third party, like a law firm, to look at the available evidence and materials, conduct interviews and write up a report. The same things the club did, but without the bias (the weird declaration of innocence.)

 

[Oranges038]

Well she's an Oxford graduate with a Masters in mathematics so I imagine "intelligent" is also one of her traits.

Compare that to some of the posters in here saying things like "Mason proven not gilty in court of law so maybe he vicktum in all dis?" and she could accuse Arnold of being a witch and it wouldn't be nearly as daft. Unless the comparisons with the fecking witch trials of Salem start up again...

Nah.

She done gets all her answers on countdown through her ear piece. There's a man upstairs what tells her how to do the sums.

 

[MyUnconventionalViews]

Should be pinned to the thread so that it appears at the top of every page.

The amount of people repeating the same erroneous thing is ridiculous.

What is the erroneous fact, that the courts/prosecution services do not pronounce someone as “innocent”, but rather “not guilty” and means that the evidence was not strong enough for a guilty verdict?

 

[NotThatSoph]

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.

We're in a similar position as Liverpool with Suarez, without comparing (alleged!) racial abuse with what Greenwood is accused of, so everyone is acting similarly. The club is trying to protect their asset, and Redcafe is lashing out at the media like rawk did.

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.

It's basically an HR investigation, and it's interesting how in all other HR case everyone in the world will agree that HR is looking out for the company first. It's why you'll always be told that going to HR about a boss is a big risk. This is of course even more true when it's not HR, it's the CEO, yet people are so willing to buy everything. The club has every incentive to find as little as possible, and that's what they did.

How is that Manchester United's fault though? Why do people expect a football club to be the arbiters of justice here? Again: I agree that Mason Greenwood is probably guilty but you, I, and everyone IN this thread clearly aren't privy to every detail in this case or else the CPS surely would have prosecuted.

To quote the CPS:



Now as to what that material was I've not seen but I'd be loathe to dare guess, nor feel like it's Manchester United's duty to share whatever it was. Clearly it was enough that they dared to navigate this absolute shitstorm, but somehow have ended up being the ones most covered IN shit despite the quotes above.

It's innocent until proven guilty and trial by social media as per the CPS guidelines themselves present some serious challenges to the justice system, so it can't be easy for them, but I feel like they absolutely would have prosecuted but for whatever material that was.

You don't have to guess, we know. The new material is that the victim recanted her previous statements. You can guess that there's even more new material if you want, but you can't use the CPS statement as a reason.

 

[Rams]

There's no need to appoint a panel. The club clearly had a vested interest in a given outcome (being able to keep their 100m asset) so no process carried out by Arnold and his team could ever be seen as unbiased. So bring in a third party, like a law firm, to look at the available evidence and materials, conduct interviews and write up a report. The same things the club did, but without the bias (the weird declaration of innocence.)

I don’t want to get into even more endless discussions, but just paying & appointing a law firm to investigation is imo just biased as doing it yourself. Surely an independent panel would have to be appointed for proper independent investigation. Just my 2 cents anyhow. Let’s leave it at that.

 

[Smores]

I don't really get the "court of public opinion" angle. Unless the audio is supposed to be ignored or if people are not allowed to have an opinion on it why are so many acting as if people opinions on the matter are worthless?
The only alternative that I see, is that some think that the audio was perfectly fine and that the interaction shouldn't lead to any opinion which to me is strange but maybe I'm missing something.

Because myopically sticking to a criminal judgement allows them to support him or stand by prior support without having to personally justify opinions.

Judgment isn't passed only in a criminal setting that's obvious to all but its a problematic concept apparently.

I really don't get why people can't just stand behind their own opinion though. If you think he most likely did it based on the public evidence available but despite that think he should still be allowed to represent the club then stand by it. Too many people relying on logical fallacies as an out.

 

[saivet]

I don't really get the "court of public opinion" angle. Unless the audio is supposed to be ignored or if people are not allowed to have an opinion on it why are so many acting as if people opinions on the matter are worthless?
The only alternative that I see, is that some think that the audio was perfectly fine and that the interaction shouldn't lead to any opinion which to me is strange but maybe I'm missing something.

It's the imaginary context that no one knows about makes the audio just a misunderstanding or an out of context snippet for some. Lots of people seem to be comfortable with the angle that the police, United and Greenwood have the precise context of what the audio was about but can't tell anybody, even in a vague manner other than 'it's not what it sounds like' and give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Redlambs]

Because myopically sticking to a criminal judgement allows them to support him or stand by prior support without having to personally justify opinions.

Judgment isn't passed only in a criminal setting that's obvious to all but its a problematic concept apparently.

I really don't get why people can't just stand behind their own opinion though. If you think he most likely did it based on the public evidence available but despite that think he should still be allowed to represent the club then stand by it. Too many people relying on logical fallacies as an out.

Bang on.

But as with all the rest, it will be ignored. As an side I do wonder how many of the people hiding behind the criminal judgement also believe the police/CPS/Courts get it right 100% of the time? Or if they've even bothered to try to understand how the CPS choose what to push to courts and what not to.

 

[red.knight]

Once again, if you read the thread you'll find nothing of the sort has been forgotten. They have been discussed over and over with a lot more depth.

Oh, and what was his "mistake" he apologised for exactly?

There is “rule of law”. To penalise him after he has not been charged with criminality is unjust. He was just 20 we all commit mistake. I'm sure he has learned the lesson by being 1.5 yrs on the side. And as human being, I believe he deserves a second chance.

 

[Chris-Red]

Will people stop saying that he would come straight back in and be a super striker!?
He’s 21 and lost nearly 2 years of his development. That is huge. There’s no guarantee he’s going to be the same player anymore.

and that’s without looking at posts that rate his supposed football ability above morals.

Ah yes, the longer they're out the better they become. I remember when Tom Cleverly was out injured for a period. He went from being a useful player to being the ultimate saviour in midfield before he came back.

 

[NotThatSoph]

There is “rule of law”. To penalise him after he has not been charged with criminality is unjust. He was just 20 we all commit mistake. I'm sure he has learned the lesson by being 1.5 yrs on the side. And as human being, I believe he deserves a second chance.

Say you have a kid. You hire a 20 year old babysitter, who you witness molesting your child. You go to the cops, but the case isn't strong enough.

If you don't hire this babysitter again, are you being unjust? Rule of law, second chances, all that.

 

[GazTheLegend]

You don't have to guess, we know. The new material is that the victim recanted her previous statements.

Forgive me for asking but where is this detailed out? The phraseology presented in that statement suggests new evidence to the contrary of their case as opposed to the recanting of their previous evidence - to whit "a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses" surely covers the recanting of the previous statements whereas the "new material that came to light" does not.

 

[Wibble]

I respectfully disagree. The notion that someone like Mason ought to be punished by “the court of pubic opinion” for the rest of his life because of allegations, for which he has not been convicted, is preposterous. The guy denies the allegations but admits to making mistakes. Can he not get on with his life? I wish them both the best, life won't be easy for either. I hope we all leave them alone, bringing up a kid is hard enough.

He is more than being allowed to "get on with his life".

Still earning $70 per week until he earns the same or more somewhere else.

 

[Fanatic 00237]

That isn't going to happen, we both know that. But there's also no need to be getting as dramatic as some of those guys do though, especially by blaming them for this mess.

Just another one to add to the list people want to blame over the person who actually started all this.

Actually, no, I don't get it, really. Why can't people be more rational about an event so long after it took place, especially when those directly involved seem to have moved on themselves.

I think (very) few are absolving all blame from MG, and/or blaming anyone else over him. What I'm blaming the press and internet/social media crowds is for trying to ruin his life forever wherever he goes. He has lost his present job and the "privilege" (as people call it) to play for Man Utd. The case has been closed (for now) by all those who carried out investigations and looked beyond what was made public. Why can't people put it to bed and let go now. The couple and both of their families seem to have moved on, maybe it's time the press and public opinion let go as well. Right now I'm not sure what positive outcome can be achieved by the continuous outrage everywhere over the matter. All that is being achieved now is scaring off all potential employers (both at home and abroad) who might be thinking of signing him up. Perhaps some people are happy for him never to get to play professional football again (like some have gleefully predicted he will absolutely never play in England again).

I just think the relentless outrage by everyone against him is becoming a bit too much and really unnecessary. Do his sins deserve a life sentence? Yes, he messed up at 19 and he is fully to blame for losing his job, but are people supposed to do their best to make sure he never gets his life back, ever again?

 

[Wumminator]

There is “rule of law”. To penalise him after he has not been charged with criminality is unjust. He was just 20 we all commit mistake. I'm sure he has learned the lesson by being 1.5 yrs on the side. And as human being, I believe he deserves a second chance.

red.knight when a player has audio released of him sexually assaulting a woman, she posts pictures of her after being physically assaulted and he breaks bail.

This is going to push a lot of fans over the edge, he’s going to cop it big time now. I think it will get freaking toxic for him if he doesn't move on and he prevents us bringing in somebody else. He's already very unpopular with the fanbase, but now with this news, if he sticks around holding the club to ransom when he's been sh*t, the fans will really turn on him. Maguire has always been toxic from being given the captaincy which boosted his ego to his back-room politics in the dressing room trying to get Pickford signed. He is a selfish arrogant man.

The same poster when a player he doesn’t like refuses to lower his wage demands.

 

[red.knight]

Who exactly is preventing him to get on with his life? There's a lot of criticism aimed at how the club have handled it, but that's a separate issue. I'm seeing most people express a hope that Greenwood and his partner are now in a healthy relationship and can move on from this, including many who did not want him at the club anymore.

He is more than being allowed to "get on with his life".

Still earning $70 per week until he earns the same or more somewhere else.

i have an honest question, why are the people who believe that hes guilty happy for him to leave and go play for another club, so are they saying we dont care about where he goes just as long as he goes from Manchester United ... so if thats true what does that say about them....

 

[JPRouve]

Forgive me for asking but where is this detailed out? The phraseology presented in that statement suggests new evidence to the contrary of their case as opposed to the recanting of their previous evidence - to whit "a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses" surely covers the recanting of the previous statements whereas the "new material that came to light" does not.

There is no mention of new evidence, people keep swapping words that have different meaning from a legal standpoint.

And no procedurally speaking there is no covering. The prosecution has at least two different statements and the second one is a new material, any new statement is a new material. They don't erase statements.

 

[El Zoido]

I don't really get the "court of public opinion" angle. Unless the audio is supposed to be ignored or if people are not allowed to have an opinion on it why are so many acting as if people opinions on the matter are worthless?
The only alternative that I see, is that some think that the audio was perfectly fine and that the interaction shouldn't lead to any opinion which to me is strange but maybe I'm missing something.

The audio, bad as it is, doesn’t necessarily tell a complete story. If there’s more to it we may never know. It’s already been decided that he’s a violent abuser, and they’d sell out Old Trafford to watch the bloke get hanged from the gallows on the centre circle. He may well truly be a horrible rapist and violent abuser of women, but the audio alone does not leave this cut and dried, despite the incriminating content. This is why we have a criminal justice system.

Some of us (myself included) try not to get emotions involved in such discussions and to let the facts speak. We don’t have all the facts, and there’s clearly more to this than just the audio we heard, so I’m personally not drawing any strong conclusion or opinion either way. I feel that’s the logical way to approach it. People in these instances tend to defer to the verdict of the law, because although not perfect, it’s a better than any alternative.

 

[Jam]

I don't really get the "court of public opinion" angle. Unless the audio is supposed to be ignored or if people are not allowed to have an opinion on it why are so many acting as if people opinions on the matter are worthless?
The only alternative that I see, is that some think that the audio was perfectly fine and that the interaction shouldn't lead to any opinion which to me is strange but maybe I'm missing something.

Nah you’re correct, there’s large swathes of the fan base that are completely okay with what he did. They just hide behind weak excuses.

They either support what he did, or think it’s okay because he plays for Manchester United and is quite good.

 

[Alex99]

i have an honest question, why are the people who believe that hes guilty happy for him to leave and go play for another club, so are they saying we dont care about where he goes just as long as he goes from Manchester United ... so if thats true what does that say about them....

They don't have the power to incarcerate him for the crimes they believe he's committed so the next best thing is him not being at the club they support and cheer on every week.

This is very easy to understand.