Why is Richard Arnold getting a free pass from the fans?

The club sale can't come soon enough. He is the direct continuation of what went wrong at the club when it started with Ed Woodcunt.

Just feck off already, Richard Arnold!
 
OverratedOpinion said:
If he believes him to be innocent then the decision shouldn't have been taken to part company.
Click to expand...
This is what I can't understand. Have a back bone and stand by him then if that's what your investigated truly found. Otherwise don't say that.

His statement has raised more questions than answers for me. I am now left wondering should we actually have stuck by him whereas before I was dead set on him getting the boot.
 
edcunited1878 said:
So you're going to ignore the criminal investigation which precludes all else.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that investigation ended, completely, over 6 months ago.

Arnold / Utd has completely fecked this up and have also fecked around and strung along a young family.

Backtracked on their decision when the new season has already started. Left ETH and Greenwood and his family in the lurch with minimal time to sort out the fall out.

Complete shambles.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Yeah, that investigation ended, completely, over 6 months ago.

Arnold / Utd has completely fecked this up and have also fecked around and strung along a young family.

Backtracked on their decision when the new season has already started. Left ETH and Greenwood and his family in the lurch with minimal time to sort out the fall out.

Complete shambles.
Click to expand...
Can you imagine his return being pitched as a new signing. silly i know, but you never know with this lot
 
I don’t see any way that a normal company lets the CEO continue after this. But then again, it’s the Glazers, so I’m sure they will continue radio silence and avoid any form of decision. Rotten.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
The club sale can't come soon enough. He is the direct continuation of what went wrong at the club when it started with Ed Woodcunt.

Just feck off already, Richard Arnold!
Click to expand...

I have to say this, but I actually had doubts about Arnold when I saw him with Murtough being pictured in Barcelona last summer , negotiating for a player we were never going to get.

Yes, I do think he is a degree of improvement on Woodward, I commend that he looked into the possibility of trying to retain Greenwood as he is a young man and been with us since the age of 7.

However, the mistake like the De Jong was the amount of time taken. They now have to find replacements for our side as well as find a club for Mason I the space of over a week.

I think, if they made the decision in June and prior to that hired an outside barrister to assist with their internal investigation, they may have not had the uproar within the Manchester United working parameters. The outside backlash may have still been there, but the investigation would have looked stronger from the outside.
 
Lot of "me, me, I, I" in his statement. He made the decision. Were the Glazers really that hands-off?
 
Yorke to Cole said:
I have to say this, but I actually had doubts about Arnold when I saw him with Murtough being pictured in Barcelona last summer , negotiating for a player we were never going to get.

Yes, I do think he is a degree of improvement on Woodward, I commend that he looked into the possibility of trying to retain Greenwood as he is a young man and been with us since the age of 7.

However, the mistake like the De Jong was the amount of time taken. They now have to find replacements for our side as well as find a club for Mason I the space of over a week.

I think, if they made the decision in June and prior to that hired an outside barrister to assist with their internal investigation, they may have not had the uproar within the Manchester United working parameters. The outside backlash may have still been there, but the investigation would have looked stronger from the outside.
Click to expand...
The uproar would have been there no matter what. The point keeps being proven but there are too many people committed, for one reason or another, to their first impressions over this case, and no reframing of the evidence, re-examination, casting into doubt, formal exoneration, etc, whether it came through the legal system, independent investigators or through a hypothetical statement from the chief witness herself describing in greater detail how the initial materials came to be, would change their minds. Any attempt to point this out just sees you branded as an apologist for abuse or cynical. Aside from the general mob-on, I just find it repellent that we're supposed to accept as virtuous this clear collusion between political hacks and bad faith actors like Rachel Riley who have histories in using twitter and the public sphere to smear people they disagree with ( both responsible for genuine social cruelty and malign incompetence or the undermining of opposition to it) now trying to launder their consciences, together with media hucksters and clout chasers, along with third sector organizations trying to raise funds in a time of prolonged financial crises. None of them gave a damn about *******, and with any kind of full public interview pushing back against the narrative and explaining the origins of the material we'd just have the code words emerging - 'coerced', 'naive', or insinuations of money grabbing- either from these minor politicos and influencers and ersatz feminists or, more feasibly, their followers, but backed up and boosted by these high-minded figures

The Athletic - have they investigated City's ability to buy off charges, or the influence their owners have over Manchester politics? They've run a few general stories about city and newcastle and FFP as well as sportswashing but nothing really risky or challenging to them. They're going for the line of least resistance- getting employees with little knowledge of the facts of the case beyond what's being reported to demonstrate their outrage and leak information when the club's dealing with a genuinely delicate situation; where have these threats to strike been in the face of the Glazers running of the club, to their mismanagement, to their support of reactionary causes and destruction of a community institution. Employees here, like many alleged supporters, are practically revelling in the opportunity to take a stand, fully doing so in ignorance of the circumstances except for discredited av materials. If there's an issue it might be one with culture, in the club, a disease connected to the Glazers that's made its way into every aspect, including a moralization rather than aspiration to succeed alongside genuine moral virtue: do you think people at PSG would behave like this if , say, Mbappe were faced with equivalent circumstances, or Madrid if one of their first team players faced this same scenario- neither employees nor fans. No-one would or should countenance any of the female footballers being driven out of a club because of innuendo, which, since we've been asked to discount the visual evidence in the public domain for reasons that aren't fully available either to us or to the Athletic , is all that remains), or subject to 'shaming' over their personal lives in the absence of any current complaint, so why MG.

In this case what the Athletic are asking for , in full knowledge of how unfeasible this is, are for confidential details to be leaked out - the only things that could potentially fully exonerate Mason. Since they know full well the club is having to communicate decisions without revealing the full reasons for those decisions being taken, and likewise, were faced having to potentially reintroduce MG without being able to revealing information that might impugn the reputation of the chief witness, for instance, for legal and personal reasons, TA are creating a bind merely for the purposes of demonstrating their own personal and brand virtue to their subscriber base and social circle as journalists. It's irresponsible journalism in terms of priorities, both in terms of challenging any sort of power and in terms of affirming a click-driven piety instead of accepting whatever complexities surrounding MGs' relationship and the circumstances that led to this matter coming into the public domain are in turn reproduced by the lack of 'easy, clean' solutions. Instead he should have been brought back in and reintegrated and the club should have stuck to its guns, protected its asset and suffered the slings in a principled way. If they'd taken a stand, not only does it protect the player but it sets a precedent around institutions reacting to social media bullying, concern-trolling, self-boosting and manipulation and being able to distinguish these from considered, rigorous process of investigation and determining accountability- doubly so, since United are disproportionately subject to all of the former...
 
I think he chose the safer option in case of Greenwood but dont think we can find fault him too much as there might be a lot of things happening in the background.

But on the subject, no he should not be given free pass and has every right to criticize him atleast in terms of transfers. We spent a fortune in last couple of seasons and player we bought for highest fee( Antony) is no way good enough to start for this club.
 
Baxquux said:
The uproar would have been there no matter what. The point keeps being proven but there are too many people committed, for one reason or another, to their first impressions over this case, and no reframing of the evidence, re-examination, casting into doubt, formal exoneration, etc, whether it came through the legal system, independent investigators or through a hypothetical statement from the chief witness herself describing in greater detail how the initial materials came to be, would change their minds. Any attempt to point this out just sees you branded as an apologist for abuse or cynical. Aside from the general mob-on, I just find it repellent that we're supposed to accept as virtuous this clear collusion between political hacks and bad faith actors like Rachel Riley who have histories in using twitter and the public sphere to smear people they disagree with ( both responsible for genuine social cruelty and malign incompetence or the undermining of opposition to it) now trying to launder their consciences, together with media hucksters and clout chasers, along with third sector organizations trying to raise funds in a time of prolonged financial crises. None of them gave a damn about *******, and with any kind of full public interview pushing back against the narrative and explaining the origins of the material we'd just have the code words emerging - 'coerced', 'naive', or insinuations of money grabbing- either from these minor politicos and influencers and ersatz feminists or, more feasibly, their followers, but backed up and boosted by these high-minded figures

The Athletic - have they investigated City's ability to buy off charges, or the influence their owners have over Manchester politics? They've run a few general stories about city and newcastle and FFP as well as sportswashing but nothing really risky or challenging to them. They're going for the line of least resistance- getting employees with little knowledge of the facts of the case beyond what's being reported to demonstrate their outrage and leak information when the club's dealing with a genuinely delicate situation; where have these threats to strike been in the face of the Glazers running of the club, to their mismanagement, to their support of reactionary causes and destruction of a community institution. Employees here, like many alleged supporters, are practically revelling in the opportunity to take a stand, fully doing so in ignorance of the circumstances except for discredited av materials. If there's an issue it might be one with culture, in the club, a disease connected to the Glazers that's made its way into every aspect, including a moralization rather than aspiration to succeed alongside genuine moral virtue: do you think people at PSG would behave like this if , say, Mbappe were faced with equivalent circumstances, or Madrid if one of their first team players faced this same scenario- neither employees nor fans. No-one would or should countenance any of the female footballers being driven out of a club because of innuendo, which, since we've been asked to discount the visual evidence in the public domain for reasons that aren't fully available either to us or to the Athletic , is all that remains), or subject to 'shaming' over their personal lives in the absence of any current complaint, so why MG.

In this case what the Athletic are asking for , in full knowledge of how unfeasible this is, are for confidential details to be leaked out - the only things that could potentially fully exonerate Mason. Since they know full well the club is having to communicate decisions without revealing the full reasons for those decisions being taken, and likewise, were faced having to potentially reintroduce MG without being able to revealing information that might impugn the reputation of the chief witness, for instance, for legal and personal reasons, TA are creating a bind merely for the purposes of demonstrating their own personal and brand virtue to their subscriber base and social circle as journalists. It's irresponsible journalism in terms of priorities, both in terms of challenging any sort of power and in terms of affirming a click-driven piety instead of accepting whatever complexities surrounding MGs' relationship and the circumstances that led to this matter coming into the public domain are in turn reproduced by the lack of 'easy, clean' solutions. Instead he should have been brought back in and reintegrated and the club should have stuck to its guns, protected its asset and suffered the slings in a principled way. If they'd taken a stand, not only does it protect the player but it sets a precedent around institutions reacting to social media bullying, concern-trolling, self-boosting and manipulation and being able to distinguish these from considered, rigorous process of investigation and determining accountability- doubly so, since United are disproportionately subject to all of the former...
Click to expand...

An excellent read. Thank you for posting.

I said in another discussion that have decided to unsubscribe from TA. I do not think the they challenge the major issues like state ownership. I do not know if they produced anything on Abrahamovich and his links to Putin?

They could have taken a stand against the consequences of the article and the likes of Riley by stating we have conducted a thorough investigation and have learnt that there were extenuating circumstances in relation to the incident. In other words they have a complete picture of what actually happened and why.

The structure of the law in Western society has to count for something. What I have is that the court of public opinion online can be autocratic from a certain perspective. That is not justice.
 
arnie_ni said:
This is what I can't understand. Have a back bone and stand by him then if that's what your investigated truly found. Otherwise don't say that.

His statement has raised more questions than answers for me. I am now left wondering should we actually have stuck by him whereas before I was dead set on him getting the boot.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think we might regret not sticking by him,as someone else said in here Fergie would have done that. Crafton's article and protestors like Riley have clearly made him change his plans completely. Doesn't give you any confidence of decisions when he can be swayed so easily by opinions. He will keep his job though as leeches have no intention of selling and he's a lackey.
 
Baxquux said:
The uproar would have been there no matter what. The point keeps being proven but there are too many people committed, for one reason or another, to their first impressions over this case, and no reframing of the evidence, re-examination, casting into doubt, formal exoneration, etc, whether it came through the legal system, independent investigators or through a hypothetical statement from the chief witness herself describing in greater detail how the initial materials came to be, would change their minds. Any attempt to point this out just sees you branded as an apologist for abuse or cynical. Aside from the general mob-on, I just find it repellent that we're supposed to accept as virtuous this clear collusion between political hacks and bad faith actors like Rachel Riley who have histories in using twitter and the public sphere to smear people they disagree with ( both responsible for genuine social cruelty and malign incompetence or the undermining of opposition to it) now trying to launder their consciences, together with media hucksters and clout chasers, along with third sector organizations trying to raise funds in a time of prolonged financial crises. None of them gave a damn about *******, and with any kind of full public interview pushing back against the narrative and explaining the origins of the material we'd just have the code words emerging - 'coerced', 'naive', or insinuations of money grabbing- either from these minor politicos and influencers and ersatz feminists or, more feasibly, their followers, but backed up and boosted by these high-minded figures

The Athletic - have they investigated City's ability to buy off charges, or the influence their owners have over Manchester politics? They've run a few general stories about city and newcastle and FFP as well as sportswashing but nothing really risky or challenging to them. They're going for the line of least resistance- getting employees with little knowledge of the facts of the case beyond what's being reported to demonstrate their outrage and leak information when the club's dealing with a genuinely delicate situation; where have these threats to strike been in the face of the Glazers running of the club, to their mismanagement, to their support of reactionary causes and destruction of a community institution. Employees here, like many alleged supporters, are practically revelling in the opportunity to take a stand, fully doing so in ignorance of the circumstances except for discredited av materials. If there's an issue it might be one with culture, in the club, a disease connected to the Glazers that's made its way into every aspect, including a moralization rather than aspiration to succeed alongside genuine moral virtue: do you think people at PSG would behave like this if , say, Mbappe were faced with equivalent circumstances, or Madrid if one of their first team players faced this same scenario- neither employees nor fans. No-one would or should countenance any of the female footballers being driven out of a club because of innuendo, which, since we've been asked to discount the visual evidence in the public domain for reasons that aren't fully available either to us or to the Athletic , is all that remains), or subject to 'shaming' over their personal lives in the absence of any current complaint, so why MG.

In this case what the Athletic are asking for , in full knowledge of how unfeasible this is, are for confidential details to be leaked out - the only things that could potentially fully exonerate Mason. Since they know full well the club is having to communicate decisions without revealing the full reasons for those decisions being taken, and likewise, were faced having to potentially reintroduce MG without being able to revealing information that might impugn the reputation of the chief witness, for instance, for legal and personal reasons, TA are creating a bind merely for the purposes of demonstrating their own personal and brand virtue to their subscriber base and social circle as journalists. It's irresponsible journalism in terms of priorities, both in terms of challenging any sort of power and in terms of affirming a click-driven piety instead of accepting whatever complexities surrounding MGs' relationship and the circumstances that led to this matter coming into the public domain are in turn reproduced by the lack of 'easy, clean' solutions. Instead he should have been brought back in and reintegrated and the club should have stuck to its guns, protected its asset and suffered the slings in a principled way. If they'd taken a stand, not only does it protect the player but it sets a precedent around institutions reacting to social media bullying, concern-trolling, self-boosting and manipulation and being able to distinguish these from considered, rigorous process of investigation and determining accountability- doubly so, since United are disproportionately subject to all of the former...
Click to expand...

Damn… that’s a mic drop post.

I don’t agree that he should’ve been put back in the team as I think it’s best for him and his young family to start fresh at a club where they’re welcome and have less pressure. But I do agree with a lot of what lot of what you’ve said.
 
croadyman said:
Yeah I think we might regret not sticking by him,as someone else said in here Fergie would have done that. Crafton's article and protestors like Riley have clearly made him change his plans completely. Doesn't give you any confidence of decisions when he can be swayed so easily by opinions. He will keep his job though as leeches have no intention of selling and he's a lackey.
Click to expand...
I'm actually in the camp of glad hes gone. I was talking about united not what I would do. If they believe he's innocent. Stand by him
 
Baxquux said:
The uproar would have been there no matter what. The point keeps being proven but there are too many people committed, for one reason or another, to their first impressions over this case, and no reframing of the evidence, re-examination, casting into doubt, formal exoneration, etc, whether it came through the legal system, independent investigators or through a hypothetical statement from the chief witness herself describing in greater detail how the initial materials came to be, would change their minds. Any attempt to point this out just sees you branded as an apologist for abuse or cynical. Aside from the general mob-on, I just find it repellent that we're supposed to accept as virtuous this clear collusion between political hacks and bad faith actors like Rachel Riley who have histories in using twitter and the public sphere to smear people they disagree with ( both responsible for genuine social cruelty and malign incompetence or the undermining of opposition to it) now trying to launder their consciences, together with media hucksters and clout chasers, along with third sector organizations trying to raise funds in a time of prolonged financial crises. None of them gave a damn about *******, and with any kind of full public interview pushing back against the narrative and explaining the origins of the material we'd just have the code words emerging - 'coerced', 'naive', or insinuations of money grabbing- either from these minor politicos and influencers and ersatz feminists or, more feasibly, their followers, but backed up and boosted by these high-minded figures

The Athletic - have they investigated City's ability to buy off charges, or the influence their owners have over Manchester politics? They've run a few general stories about city and newcastle and FFP as well as sportswashing but nothing really risky or challenging to them. They're going for the line of least resistance- getting employees with little knowledge of the facts of the case beyond what's being reported to demonstrate their outrage and leak information when the club's dealing with a genuinely delicate situation; where have these threats to strike been in the face of the Glazers running of the club, to their mismanagement, to their support of reactionary causes and destruction of a community institution. Employees here, like many alleged supporters, are practically revelling in the opportunity to take a stand, fully doing so in ignorance of the circumstances except for discredited av materials. If there's an issue it might be one with culture, in the club, a disease connected to the Glazers that's made its way into every aspect, including a moralization rather than aspiration to succeed alongside genuine moral virtue: do you think people at PSG would behave like this if , say, Mbappe were faced with equivalent circumstances, or Madrid if one of their first team players faced this same scenario- neither employees nor fans. No-one would or should countenance any of the female footballers being driven out of a club because of innuendo, which, since we've been asked to discount the visual evidence in the public domain for reasons that aren't fully available either to us or to the Athletic , is all that remains), or subject to 'shaming' over their personal lives in the absence of any current complaint, so why MG.

In this case what the Athletic are asking for , in full knowledge of how unfeasible this is, are for confidential details to be leaked out - the only things that could potentially fully exonerate Mason. Since they know full well the club is having to communicate decisions without revealing the full reasons for those decisions being taken, and likewise, were faced having to potentially reintroduce MG without being able to revealing information that might impugn the reputation of the chief witness, for instance, for legal and personal reasons, TA are creating a bind merely for the purposes of demonstrating their own personal and brand virtue to their subscriber base and social circle as journalists. It's irresponsible journalism in terms of priorities, both in terms of challenging any sort of power and in terms of affirming a click-driven piety instead of accepting whatever complexities surrounding MGs' relationship and the circumstances that led to this matter coming into the public domain are in turn reproduced by the lack of 'easy, clean' solutions. Instead he should have been brought back in and reintegrated and the club should have stuck to its guns, protected its asset and suffered the slings in a principled way. If they'd taken a stand, not only does it protect the player but it sets a precedent around institutions reacting to social media bullying, concern-trolling, self-boosting and manipulation and being able to distinguish these from considered, rigorous process of investigation and determining accountability- doubly so, since United are disproportionately subject to all of the former...
Click to expand...

Some great points in here.

If anyone thinks there was a scenario whereby the media, football Twitter and oppo fans would have NOT stuck the boot in they’re delusional. A single day investigating following the charges being dropped would have been a day too long and United would have been dragged regardless.
 
Dan_F said:
I don’t see any way that a normal company lets the CEO continue after this. But then again, it’s the Glazers, so I’m sure they will continue radio silence and avoid any form of decision. Rotten.
Click to expand...

Woodward continued after however many years of being totally incompetent... So I don't think they care
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Woodward continued after however many years of being totally incompetent... So I don't think they care
Click to expand...

Yeah of course, but that was just poor sporting performance which was passed off as the managers fault for years. The Glazers were still making money. These one off PR disasters usually spell the end for CEO’s, such as the Super League fiasco for Woodward.

Either way, you’re probably right, they’ll do feck all as usual.
 
I think it’s very sad situation for Manchester United. We’ve lost someone who a couple of years ago would have been valued at 100m with bags of potential. From a footballing perspective we’ve lost a very good player but from a human perspective we’ve lost nothing.
 
Baxquux said:
The uproar would have been there no matter what. The point keeps being proven but there are too many people committed, for one reason or another, to their first impressions over this case, and no reframing of the evidence, re-examination, casting into doubt, formal exoneration, etc, whether it came through the legal system, independent investigators or through a hypothetical statement from the chief witness herself describing in greater detail how the initial materials came to be, would change their minds. Any attempt to point this out just sees you branded as an apologist for abuse or cynical. Aside from the general mob-on, I just find it repellent that we're supposed to accept as virtuous this clear collusion between political hacks and bad faith actors like Rachel Riley who have histories in using twitter and the public sphere to smear people they disagree with ( both responsible for genuine social cruelty and malign incompetence or the undermining of opposition to it) now trying to launder their consciences, together with media hucksters and clout chasers, along with third sector organizations trying to raise funds in a time of prolonged financial crises. None of them gave a damn about *******, and with any kind of full public interview pushing back against the narrative and explaining the origins of the material we'd just have the code words emerging - 'coerced', 'naive', or insinuations of money grabbing- either from these minor politicos and influencers and ersatz feminists or, more feasibly, their followers, but backed up and boosted by these high-minded figures

The Athletic - have they investigated City's ability to buy off charges, or the influence their owners have over Manchester politics? They've run a few general stories about city and newcastle and FFP as well as sportswashing but nothing really risky or challenging to them. They're going for the line of least resistance- getting employees with little knowledge of the facts of the case beyond what's being reported to demonstrate their outrage and leak information when the club's dealing with a genuinely delicate situation; where have these threats to strike been in the face of the Glazers running of the club, to their mismanagement, to their support of reactionary causes and destruction of a community institution. Employees here, like many alleged supporters, are practically revelling in the opportunity to take a stand, fully doing so in ignorance of the circumstances except for discredited av materials. If there's an issue it might be one with culture, in the club, a disease connected to the Glazers that's made its way into every aspect, including a moralization rather than aspiration to succeed alongside genuine moral virtue: do you think people at PSG would behave like this if , say, Mbappe were faced with equivalent circumstances, or Madrid if one of their first team players faced this same scenario- neither employees nor fans. No-one would or should countenance any of the female footballers being driven out of a club because of innuendo, which, since we've been asked to discount the visual evidence in the public domain for reasons that aren't fully available either to us or to the Athletic , is all that remains), or subject to 'shaming' over their personal lives in the absence of any current complaint, so why MG.

In this case what the Athletic are asking for , in full knowledge of how unfeasible this is, are for confidential details to be leaked out - the only things that could potentially fully exonerate Mason. Since they know full well the club is having to communicate decisions without revealing the full reasons for those decisions being taken, and likewise, were faced having to potentially reintroduce MG without being able to revealing information that might impugn the reputation of the chief witness, for instance, for legal and personal reasons, TA are creating a bind merely for the purposes of demonstrating their own personal and brand virtue to their subscriber base and social circle as journalists. It's irresponsible journalism in terms of priorities, both in terms of challenging any sort of power and in terms of affirming a click-driven piety instead of accepting whatever complexities surrounding MGs' relationship and the circumstances that led to this matter coming into the public domain are in turn reproduced by the lack of 'easy, clean' solutions. Instead he should have been brought back in and reintegrated and the club should have stuck to its guns, protected its asset and suffered the slings in a principled way. If they'd taken a stand, not only does it protect the player but it sets a precedent around institutions reacting to social media bullying, concern-trolling, self-boosting and manipulation and being able to distinguish these from considered, rigorous process of investigation and determining accountability- doubly so, since United are disproportionately subject to all of the former...
Click to expand...
Brilliant post.
 
Baxquux said:
The uproar would have been there no matter what. The point keeps being proven but there are too many people committed, for one reason or another, to their first impressions over this case, and no reframing of the evidence, re-examination, casting into doubt, formal exoneration, etc, whether it came through the legal system, independent investigators or through a hypothetical statement from the chief witness herself describing in greater detail how the initial materials came to be, would change their minds. Any attempt to point this out just sees you branded as an apologist for abuse or cynical. Aside from the general mob-on, I just find it repellent that we're supposed to accept as virtuous this clear collusion between political hacks and bad faith actors like Rachel Riley who have histories in using twitter and the public sphere to smear people they disagree with ( both responsible for genuine social cruelty and malign incompetence or the undermining of opposition to it) now trying to launder their consciences, together with media hucksters and clout chasers, along with third sector organizations trying to raise funds in a time of prolonged financial crises. None of them gave a damn about *******, and with any kind of full public interview pushing back against the narrative and explaining the origins of the material we'd just have the code words emerging - 'coerced', 'naive', or insinuations of money grabbing- either from these minor politicos and influencers and ersatz feminists or, more feasibly, their followers, but backed up and boosted by these high-minded figures

The Athletic - have they investigated City's ability to buy off charges, or the influence their owners have over Manchester politics? They've run a few general stories about city and newcastle and FFP as well as sportswashing but nothing really risky or challenging to them. They're going for the line of least resistance- getting employees with little knowledge of the facts of the case beyond what's being reported to demonstrate their outrage and leak information when the club's dealing with a genuinely delicate situation; where have these threats to strike been in the face of the Glazers running of the club, to their mismanagement, to their support of reactionary causes and destruction of a community institution. Employees here, like many alleged supporters, are practically revelling in the opportunity to take a stand, fully doing so in ignorance of the circumstances except for discredited av materials. If there's an issue it might be one with culture, in the club, a disease connected to the Glazers that's made its way into every aspect, including a moralization rather than aspiration to succeed alongside genuine moral virtue: do you think people at PSG would behave like this if , say, Mbappe were faced with equivalent circumstances, or Madrid if one of their first team players faced this same scenario- neither employees nor fans. No-one would or should countenance any of the female footballers being driven out of a club because of innuendo, which, since we've been asked to discount the visual evidence in the public domain for reasons that aren't fully available either to us or to the Athletic , is all that remains), or subject to 'shaming' over their personal lives in the absence of any current complaint, so why MG.

In this case what the Athletic are asking for , in full knowledge of how unfeasible this is, are for confidential details to be leaked out - the only things that could potentially fully exonerate Mason. Since they know full well the club is having to communicate decisions without revealing the full reasons for those decisions being taken, and likewise, were faced having to potentially reintroduce MG without being able to revealing information that might impugn the reputation of the chief witness, for instance, for legal and personal reasons, TA are creating a bind merely for the purposes of demonstrating their own personal and brand virtue to their subscriber base and social circle as journalists. It's irresponsible journalism in terms of priorities, both in terms of challenging any sort of power and in terms of affirming a click-driven piety instead of accepting whatever complexities surrounding MGs' relationship and the circumstances that led to this matter coming into the public domain are in turn reproduced by the lack of 'easy, clean' solutions. Instead he should have been brought back in and reintegrated and the club should have stuck to its guns, protected its asset and suffered the slings in a principled way. If they'd taken a stand, not only does it protect the player but it sets a precedent around institutions reacting to social media bullying, concern-trolling, self-boosting and manipulation and being able to distinguish these from considered, rigorous process of investigation and determining accountability- doubly so, since United are disproportionately subject to all of the former...
Click to expand...
Good read
 
Baxquux said:
The uproar would have been there no matter what. The point keeps being proven but there are too many people committed, for one reason or another, to their first impressions over this case, and no reframing of the evidence, re-examination, casting into doubt, formal exoneration, etc, whether it came through the legal system, independent investigators or through a hypothetical statement from the chief witness herself describing in greater detail how the initial materials came to be, would change their minds. Any attempt to point this out just sees you branded as an apologist for abuse or cynical. Aside from the general mob-on, I just find it repellent that we're supposed to accept as virtuous this clear collusion between political hacks and bad faith actors like Rachel Riley who have histories in using twitter and the public sphere to smear people they disagree with ( both responsible for genuine social cruelty and malign incompetence or the undermining of opposition to it) now trying to launder their consciences, together with media hucksters and clout chasers, along with third sector organizations trying to raise funds in a time of prolonged financial crises. None of them gave a damn about *******, and with any kind of full public interview pushing back against the narrative and explaining the origins of the material we'd just have the code words emerging - 'coerced', 'naive', or insinuations of money grabbing- either from these minor politicos and influencers and ersatz feminists or, more feasibly, their followers, but backed up and boosted by these high-minded figures

The Athletic - have they investigated City's ability to buy off charges, or the influence their owners have over Manchester politics? They've run a few general stories about city and newcastle and FFP as well as sportswashing but nothing really risky or challenging to them. They're going for the line of least resistance- getting employees with little knowledge of the facts of the case beyond what's being reported to demonstrate their outrage and leak information when the club's dealing with a genuinely delicate situation; where have these threats to strike been in the face of the Glazers running of the club, to their mismanagement, to their support of reactionary causes and destruction of a community institution. Employees here, like many alleged supporters, are practically revelling in the opportunity to take a stand, fully doing so in ignorance of the circumstances except for discredited av materials. If there's an issue it might be one with culture, in the club, a disease connected to the Glazers that's made its way into every aspect, including a moralization rather than aspiration to succeed alongside genuine moral virtue: do you think people at PSG would behave like this if , say, Mbappe were faced with equivalent circumstances, or Madrid if one of their first team players faced this same scenario- neither employees nor fans. No-one would or should countenance any of the female footballers being driven out of a club because of innuendo, which, since we've been asked to discount the visual evidence in the public domain for reasons that aren't fully available either to us or to the Athletic , is all that remains), or subject to 'shaming' over their personal lives in the absence of any current complaint, so why MG.

In this case what the Athletic are asking for , in full knowledge of how unfeasible this is, are for confidential details to be leaked out - the only things that could potentially fully exonerate Mason. Since they know full well the club is having to communicate decisions without revealing the full reasons for those decisions being taken, and likewise, were faced having to potentially reintroduce MG without being able to revealing information that might impugn the reputation of the chief witness, for instance, for legal and personal reasons, TA are creating a bind merely for the purposes of demonstrating their own personal and brand virtue to their subscriber base and social circle as journalists. It's irresponsible journalism in terms of priorities, both in terms of challenging any sort of power and in terms of affirming a click-driven piety instead of accepting whatever complexities surrounding MGs' relationship and the circumstances that led to this matter coming into the public domain are in turn reproduced by the lack of 'easy, clean' solutions. Instead he should have been brought back in and reintegrated and the club should have stuck to its guns, protected its asset and suffered the slings in a principled way. If they'd taken a stand, not only does it protect the player but it sets a precedent around institutions reacting to social media bullying, concern-trolling, self-boosting and manipulation and being able to distinguish these from considered, rigorous process of investigation and determining accountability- doubly so, since United are disproportionately subject to all of the former...
Click to expand...
Some good points - I disagree with your conclusion that he should have been reintroduced to the squad but I respect that you feel differently and the part about mob culture and The Athletic's hypocrisy rings particularly true.
 
Asger said:
He and ETH should leave asap!
Click to expand...

Eric has a track record of overperforming to a level in professional football that got him to the point of being one of the most sought after coaches in the world.

Richard Arnold was friends with the crap CEO who only had is job due to helping the owners force through a deal that would never be allowed today.

They are not comparable.
 
VP89 said:
Think he handled it just fine to be honest. Literally any iteration of action would have moaners and whingers on the caf.
Click to expand...

The biggest issue is the process 'fine' wouldn't have taken months to investigate and come to a decision. This is why businesses have mission statements, code of ethics and regulatory foundations so that a consensus is formed from the standards alone. If the CEO of the club would have stated at an earlier period "we have assessed the evidence and in light of a critical review of evidence feel the player is innocent. However, in representation of our commercial brand, business and establishment we have an ethical standard to uphold and integration of player X damages our interests therefore we conclude we will mutually part ways". That is dealt with thoroughly the club cover their concerns and it's done with.

The issue with Arnold is that he represents United as a business. When it comes to business there are certain accrutenents you have to do in order to be compliant in some regards and show a level of competence.

For instance at the bottom of this page is a privacy policy and it should reinstate what this site does with regards to information and the distribution of information if there is any. If this site ever suffered a data breach and the admin took months to investigate without having procedural safeguards (which is not to rectify the situation but to inform) the longer it takes the more it's a reflection of bad practice.

The issue with Arnold never was his decision, it was the process it has taken to reach the decision. It's worth noting that he in his own mind saw it fit to accommodate the player back into the first team. News is leaked (likely intentionally) and he makes a decision that is a direct contradiction to the choice he supposedly took months to investigate. It's hard to look at the sequence of events, the time ordination of it all, the standing and feel any form of confidence towards the matter. It's farcical and obtrusive. The club now have almost a week to find a solution for the player. And that's the fruit of uncertainty and double-mindedness it's an equivalent to instability.
 
Last edited:
All the arguments over this...... everyone going around in circles. The right decision was made and probably by both sides. He would have received an unbelievable amount of abuse had he been kept on. Those saying the club were spineless and should have kept him, it could have been Mason that suggested it. Said it before, if this was a mediocre player that hardly played, everyone would be saying it was a great decision.
 
Redstain said:
The biggest issue is the process 'fine' wouldn't have taken months to investigate and come to a decision. This is why businesses have mission statements, code of ethics and regulatory foundations so that a consensus is formed from the standards alone. If the CEO of the club would have stated at an earlier period "we have assessed the evidence and in light of a critical review of evidence feel the player is innocent. However, in representation of our commercial brand, business and establishment we have an ethical standard to uphold and integration of player X damages our interests therefore we conclude we will mutually part ways". That is dealt with thoroughly the club cover their concerns and it's done with.

The issue with Arnold is that he represents United as a business. When it comes to business there are certain accrutenents you have to do in order to be compliant in some regards and show a level of competence.

For instance at the bottom of this page is a privacy policy and it should reinstate what this site does with regards to information and the distribution of information if there is any. If this site ever suffered a data breach and the admin took months to investigate without having procedural safeguards (which is not to rectify the situation but to inform) the longer it takes the more it's a reflection of bad practice.

The issue with Arnold never was his decision, it was the process it has taken to reach the decision. It's worth noting that he in his own mind saw it fit to accommodate the player back into the first team. News is leaked (likely intentionally) and he makes a decision that is a direct contradiction to the choice he supposedly took months to investigate. It's hard to look at the sequence of events, the time ordination of it all, the standing and feel any form of confidence towards the matter. It's farcical and obtrusive. The club now have almost a week to find a solution for the player. And that's the fruit of uncertainty and double-mindedness it's an equivalent to instability.
Click to expand...
I think the leak was calculated to see the sentiment before making a final decision.
He made the right decision and I don't actually think many CEOs in football would play it much differently. He has to balance the value of the asset against the PR and in many ways its a no win situation. When you're CEO for United, its certainly a no win situation.
 
I really don't get the problem. The issue was clearly far more complex to deal with than people believe on here.

They took time to discuss this and came to a decision in the end. This was not something to be rushed.

I guarantee that a lot of this would have been the advice of the legal professionals, who know more about dealing with things like this.
 
I do think the issue was at the level you can consider it unprecedented - but from a PR perspective it's been handled wrong on pretty much every occasion bar the initial suspension.

My issues with Arnold centre more on football and use of club money.

We were told to expect change, new structures and a move away from the old ways. He even had the front to say "we've burned through money" in the past, and yet we're still doing the same. The PR in regardless to contracts and maximum wages, almost proven to be false. We're shelling out 85m on Antony, 55-60m on Mason Mount and signing players to contracts over the supposed 200k/week threshold leaked.

Being the frontline 'operator' of Manchester United is obviously a tough job, but it seems the club is still taking backwards steps.
 
Up until a month ago I think the consensus was he was doing a decent job. Majorly fecked up with Mason, however he has allowed the football men in the club autonomy to run the club, and tried to engage with fans more than his predecessor. It's not his fault if the team isn't improving as much as we would like, it's Murtough's.
 
I'm just completely guessing, obviously, but I have a feeling ETH has basically said he needs another attacker so that's either Greenwood coming back or United stumps up the money to buy someone. I also am assuming the Glazer's were happy to leave the decision up to Arnold but probably make it clear there was no more money.

Do I think Arnold handled it well? Obviously not. I still think most of the blame goes back to the Glazers though. You can't tell me they just completely decided to stay out of it with the club for sale right now.
 
dubplate warrior said:
Up until a month ago I think the consensus was he was doing a decent job. Majorly fecked up with Mason, however he has allowed the football men in the club autonomy to run the club, and tried to engage with fans more than his predecessor. It's not his fault if the team isn't improving as much as we would like, it's Murtough's.
Click to expand...
One of the underlying questions about Murtough will always be how the hell did he qualify for this job he's in.

His history suggests he's been involved in academy football and 'development' roles, but nothing suggests he should be the first iteration of a technical director for a club the size of United. You'd expect United to go out and procure the services or someone qualified and experienced.

That is now surely on Arnold if the role is legitimately in place to make the first team squad better. I can't remember who gave Murtough the job initially, but it always felt like a decision to make a point to the fans...but internally I wouldn't be surprised if there is very little weight or value added from Murtough and his team.
 
NotoriousISSY said:
One of the underlying questions about Murtough will always be how the hell did he qualify for this job he's in.

His history suggests he's been involved in academy football and 'development' roles, but nothing suggests he should be the first iteration of a technical director for a club the size of United. You'd expect United to go out and procure the services or someone qualified and experienced.

That is now surely on Arnold if the role is legitimately in place to make the first team squad better. I can't remember who gave Murtough the job initially, but it always felt like a decision to make a point to the fans...but internally I wouldn't be surprised if there is very little weight or value added from Murtough and his team.
Click to expand...

It was Woodward who put him in place, I don't think Arnold has done anything wrong by giving him the reigns. up to about 3 weeks ago everyone was pretty happy.

I do think that if Murtough fecks up this season he should get the sack, but I'm not really willing to put that on Arnold yet.
 
This is what happens when a bunch of Uni friends take over one of the biggest sporting institutions in the world. They run it into the ground.

The media are just running roughshod on us and we're taking it up the arse whilst saying Thank you.

We look so pathetic as a club right now. Easy target for every random cnut to come out the woodwork and take their shot.

I've never seen such a weak CEO and leadership.

Anything other than a full takeover won't be able to save this club. Otherwise we're just going to fade into mediocrity.
 
Last edited:
DevilRed said:
This is what happens when a bunch of Uni friends take over one of the biggest sporting institutions in the world. They run it into the ground.

The media are just running roughshod on us and we're taking it up the arse whilst saying Thank you.

We look so pathetic as a club right now. Easy target for every random cnut to come out the woodwork and take their shot.

I've never seen such a weak CEO and leadership.

Anything other than a full takeover will be able to save this club. Otherwise we're just going to fade into mediocrity.
Click to expand...
The whole football management structure is inept. Glazers dont care. Its wierd because it wouldnt cost them much more to get experienced quality people in. I also dont get the issue they want control, they can still sign off each deal if they want but all they do is keep wasting money in overpaying and giving silly wages to players who arent good enough
 
With the whole MG debacle, I’m hoping he compensates with some quick fire couple
Of signings before the window closes. We are in desperate need of a CM and CB. We’ll we fecked if Varane goes off injured
 
DevilRed said:
This is what happens when a bunch of Uni friends take over one of the biggest sporting institutions in the world. They run it into the ground.

The media are just running roughshod on us and we're taking it up the arse whilst saying Thank you.

We look so pathetic as a club right now. Easy target for every random cnut to come out the woodwork and take their shot.

I've never seen such a weak CEO and leadership.

Anything other than a full takeover won't be able to save this club. Otherwise we're just going to fade into mediocrity.
Click to expand...
What should he have done different
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Yeah, that investigation ended, completely, over 6 months ago.

Arnold / Utd has completely fecked this up and have also fecked around and strung along a young family.

Backtracked on their decision when the new season has already started. Left ETH and Greenwood and his family in the lurch with minimal time to sort out the fall out.

Complete shambles.
Click to expand...

We don't know what his final decision was going to be until it was the final decision. When you have big decisions to make, you have to outline all possible outcomes and in this case it included bringing back the player.

The family wasn't strung along, he's getting paid.

Highly sensitive things of this nature don't have a definitive timeline, however long it takes it takes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.