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

suheilsworld said:
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
Click to expand...

You're miss guided the fact he isn't involved in transfers.

United know they have to sell in order to acquire more players this window.

And if Varane goes off injured United can turn to Lindelof who did very well last year.

Typical doom and gloom.
 
Yorke to Cole said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, 1% of rape cases end in convictions. That's not justice either.

I don't really see a big issue with The Athletic's coverage. They seem to me to report the information they have, in a reasonably balanced manner. Clearly they have no shortage of in-house sources who are opposed to MGs return, but they also duly note that there are others who feel differently. Probably few of the latter have chosen to talk to them, for the obvious reason that leaking to the press would make the outcome they want less likely to occur. What they do or don't on state ownership and other issues is neither here nor there.
 
justsomebloke said:
Well, 1% of rape cases end in convictions. That's not justice either.

I don't really see a big issue with The Athletic's coverage. They seem to me to report the information they have, in a reasonably balanced manner. Clearly they have no shortage of in-house sources who are opposed to MGs return, but they also duly note that there are others who feel differently. Probably few of the latter have chosen to talk to them, for the obvious reason that leaking to the press would make the outcome they want less likely to occur. What they do or don't on state ownership and other issues is neither here nor there.
Click to expand...

That is down to the British justice system. That has nothing to do with Mason Greenwood. That is the responsibility of the Police and the CPS to make sure that victims feel safe to be able to testify against the alleged assailant.

If they need more support in ensuring that happens, then the Govenment need to provide more funding for resources so convictions increase ( support workers, case workers, liaison officers etc).
 
Lecland07 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except they did rush it. The plan as of last Wednesday was to bring Greenwood back. Backlash caused them to reverse course. The entire 18 months or so process is now seen to be a sham, because they were always going to bring him back. Now that they are jettisoning Greenwood, it makes their havering the last 18 months look ridiculous.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
Except they did rush it. The plan as of last Wednesday was to bring Greenwood back. Backlash caused them to reverse course. The entire 18 months or so process is now seen to be a sham, because they were always going to bring him back. Now that they are jettisoning Greenwood, it makes their havering the last 18 months look ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yeah man. I mean Arnold must have been on it with the cops and Greenwood just to piss everybody off like.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
Except they did rush it. The plan as of last Wednesday was to bring Greenwood back. Backlash caused them to reverse course. The entire 18 months or so process is now seen to be a sham, because they were always going to bring him back. Now that they are jettisoning Greenwood, it makes their havering the last 18 months look ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't bother. Some of the people on here haven't got a scooby about the weight of the CEO role at a big corporate and keep crying 'He's done his best', like all the covid bullshit with regard to Boris Johnson.

If you have any, and I mean any, ability to read between the lines, United fecked up the handling of this situation irrespective of the final decision. They literally wrote a statement that could be read either way in terms of final outcome, and more likely in favour of him staying and then said he's never playing for us again.

It doesn't take a genius to understand there would be a huge backlash and sending him on loan would have made sense (and him coming back immediately would be dumb PR), irrespective of whether you believe he was at fault or not. That's just shambolic management and anyone playing the pity card is excusing incompetence.

All I'm missing now is my favourite two-page essay merchant to come in and 'explain it all '.
 
Ultimately I can see Arnold resigning as a result of this. The story seems like it’s going to run and run. And now it seems United ARE the story cos of how they dealt with it.

Pretty much universally accepted that United have fecked this up in the worst possible way and he has to carry the can for that.

Might hang in there for a while yet but I’m betting this takes him down.
 
Rightnr said:
But, but, but... he did his best. I swear some of the people in these threads need to eat their humble pie and write less shite.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article? Be honest.

Its referring to Rachel fecking Riley. And you were talking about writing less shite were you?
 
Rightnr said:
But, but, but... he did his best. I swear some of the people in these threads need to eat their humble pie and write less shite.
Click to expand...
Anyone believe it really is? Or more PR from the club/Glazers.

I know he fecked up the handling of the MG situation but I don’t think the club cares. Seems like just a leak to appease the reaction to his handling of the situation.

He’ll most likely only get fired if it starts costing the club money
 
Mickeza said:
Like feck he will. He’s under pressure from Rachel Riley. Weirdly enough she doesn’t get to sack CEO’s. Neither does Adam Crafton or the Guardian.
Click to expand...

It will blow over in a couple of weeks and fans will be on to the next shiny object
 
Why would they sack him over this, they never sacked Woodward. They have no inclination whatsoever to trust anyone not in the established clique
 
He’s on borrowed time if the club is sold. He has made a dog‘s dinner of this and his willingness to be front and centre, a la Woodward, has put him right in the crosshairs.

New owners will make his departure part of a “new broom” statement I feel (unless he’s doing incredible stuff behind the scenes).
 
Loon said:
He’s on borrowed time if the club is sold. He has made a dog‘s dinner of this and his willingness to be front and centre, a la Woodward, has put him right in the crosshairs.

New owners will make his departure part of a “new broom” statement I feel (unless he’s doing incredible stuff behind the scenes).
Click to expand...
I think he would've been gone anyway. New owners would want their own guy.
 
Maybe the answer is to appoint Rachel Riley she seems to have self appointed herself as top spoke person of United.
 
Like many people, I think there's been significant mismanagement around the club even up to the present, particularly around recruitment structure /football exec, which is what most of us are able to have a more 'informed' opinion on, given the results and the picture provided by leaks. In this case though, Arnold was in an unconscionable situation, as the attitude displayed towards MG by large parts of this very forum exemplifies.

You have an investigation which confirms what the CPS decision, statement and other evidence (MG and partner reuniting, leaks about family supporting MG; statements, direct and second-hand, on social media from the the young woman and her friends regarding the circumstances in which the visual and audio material was produced and entered the public domain) suggested. You have a player cleared of charges, supported and vouched for by the person he's been previously accused of assaulting, a player who asserts he's changed his behaviour and by all accounts shows signs of it - behaviour here referring to the less contested incidents of adultery as well as being verbally antagonistic to his partner when challenged, general indiscipline with regards to personal conduct. A player under contract, essentially co-raised by the club through the youth system, as well as a valuable asset. Meanwhile, the former accuser indicates that in terms of 'their interest', it lies with MG being allowed to play for the club.

As far as the facts can be established, based on what's available in the public record in the form of corroborated statements, the person who's been hurt most by Mg's previous conduct and whom he owes an apology for whatever he actually did - things which the evidence suggests don't match up to what was originally claimed, but might still qualify as 'toxic behaviour'.... has forgiven him. From a crime, it becomes domestic dispute; the territory not of public interest or the club's concern, but of MG's personal responsibilities to his partner.

Then you have a media keen to make hay out of any scandal, whether relating to players or club managemet, regardless of new facts, along with people keen to make a casue celebre out of this, either for organizational reasons, virtue signalling and oppositional fandom. You have visual materials which, instead of being qualified with new evidence, people are asked to disregard based upon a prior judgement arrived at through knowledge of facts which can't be made public. Instead of taking this latter factor into account, people are driven to regard this as another form of conspiracy to exculpate MG - driven by mimetic or peer pressure and signalling that they're not toxic, they don't support toxic behaviour, they're virtuous. I've argued that you could produce equally 'explicit' evidence of the materials being fabricated wholesale (nb I don't believe this... again, because there isn't currently evidence to suggest the audio material was deepfaked, and I at least try and follow the evidence) , and this wouldn't change the judgement of a significant number of people. Instead, it would just see the creation of new forms of quasi-conspiratorial thinking. It's not 'stupidity' ( twitter and the forum have quite a 'range' of participants, but the Athletic aren't idiots; Rachel Riley is, in formal terms, a 'smart' person, if not always an honest one) but motivated reasoning.

So you have supposedly responsible, reflective journalists, elsewhere able to weight things fairly objectively, acting in extremely disingenuous ways and essentially turning decisions made under the pressure of contradictions, into a kind of failing, condemning the club for not passing summary judgement, for not simply taking at face value evidence that the law itself as well as interviews have indicated should be interpreted quite differently and the particular, substantive 'difference of circumstance' is unknown to the same journalist. Social media, along with a media ecosystem that has demolished the distinction between 'alleged' and 'is' (despite libel law), between personal matters and public interest, between small scandals and scandals of national mismanagement and ecological destruction, mean that no kind of reasonable debate can be had about this as soon as there's sufficient pressure from one or more 'old' or 'new' (social media) public figures. Questions of responsibility to the facts as presented as well as to the difference between innuendo/supposition and judgment under the law disappear, boosted by people who, in a terrible irony, claim the moral high ground. So, however well he gets paid, however partially implicated he is in the Glazers ongoing squatting and extraction, in this case, at least, I have to slightly sympathise with Arnold.
 
clarkydaz said:
Why would they sack him over this, they never sacked Woodward. They have no inclination whatsoever to trust anyone not in the established clique
Click to expand...

Yeah they appoint people like Arnold because they are part of that clique, people they know won’t rock the boat and will say and do what they want.

Woodward was a disaster but left by his own choice, it’s hard to see Arnold going for this. He won’t last if we get new owners so hopefully he goes fairly soon under those circumstances.
 
VP89 said:
Did you read the article? Be honest.

Its referring to Rachel fecking Riley. And you were talking about writing less shite were you?
Click to expand...
Will Rachel Riley now decide what the club should be doing or who they should hire? Can she not just shut up and feck off?
 
TheGame said:
Click to expand...

Serious question but what the feck is wrong with this?
Any competent CEO would exhaust all of the avenues in complete detail.

Crafton is a fecking bellend and hasn't put any context into anything.
 
Baxquux said:
Like many people, I think there's been significant mismanagement around the club even up to the present, particularly around recruitment structure /football exec, which is what most of us are able to have a more 'informed' opinion on, given the results and the picture provided by leaks. In this case though, Arnold was in an unconscionable situation, as the attitude displayed towards MG by large parts of this very forum exemplifies.

You have an investigation which confirms what the CPS decision, statement and other evidence (MG and partner reuniting, leaks about family supporting MG; statements, direct and second-hand, on social media from the the young woman and her friends regarding the circumstances in which the visual and audio material was produced and entered the public domain) suggested. You have a player cleared of charges, supported and vouched for by the person he's been previously accused of assaulting, a player who asserts he's changed his behaviour and by all accounts shows signs of it - behaviour here referring to the less contested incidents of adultery as well as being verbally antagonistic to his partner when challenged, general indiscipline with regards to personal conduct. A player under contract, essentially co-raised by the club through the youth system, as well as a valuable asset. Meanwhile, the former accuser indicates that in terms of 'their interest', it lies with MG being allowed to play for the club.

As far as the facts can be established, based on what's available in the public record in the form of corroborated statements, the person who's been hurt most by Mg's previous conduct and whom he owes an apology for whatever he actually did - things which the evidence suggests don't match up to what was originally claimed, but might still qualify as 'toxic behaviour'.... has forgiven him. From a crime, it becomes domestic dispute; the territory not of public interest or the club's concern, but of MG's personal responsibilities to his partner.

Then you have a media keen to make hay out of any scandal, whether relating to players or club managemet, regardless of new facts, along with people keen to make a casue celebre out of this, either for organizational reasons, virtue signalling and oppositional fandom. You have visual materials which, instead of being qualified with new evidence, people are asked to disregard based upon a prior judgement arrived at through knowledge of facts which can't be made public. Instead of taking this latter factor into account, people are driven to regard this as another form of conspiracy to exculpate MG - driven by mimetic or peer pressure and signalling that they're not toxic, they don't support toxic behaviour, they're virtuous. I've argued that you could produce equally 'explicit' evidence of the materials being fabricated wholesale (nb I don't believe this... again, because there isn't currently evidence to suggest the audio material was deepfaked, and I at least try and follow the evidence) , and this wouldn't change the judgement of a significant number of people. Instead, it would just see the creation of new forms of quasi-conspiratorial thinking. It's not 'stupidity' ( twitter and the forum have quite a 'range' of participants, but the Athletic aren't idiots; Rachel Riley is, in formal terms, a 'smart' person, if not always an honest one) but motivated reasoning.

So you have supposedly responsible, reflective journalists, elsewhere able to weight things fairly objectively, acting in extremely disingenuous ways and essentially turning decisions made under the pressure of contradictions, into a kind of failing, condemning the club for not passing summary judgement, for not simply taking at face value evidence that the law itself as well as interviews have indicated should be interpreted quite differently and the particular, substantive 'difference of circumstance' is unknown to the same journalist. Social media, along with a media ecosystem that has demolished the distinction between 'alleged' and 'is' (despite libel law), between personal matters and public interest, between small scandals and scandals of national mismanagement and ecological destruction, mean that no kind of reasonable debate can be had about this as soon as there's sufficient pressure from one or more 'old' or 'new' (social media) public figures. Questions of responsibility to the facts as presented as well as to the difference between innuendo/supposition and judgment under the law disappear, boosted by people who, in a terrible irony, claim the moral high ground. So, however well he gets paid, however partially implicated he is in the Glazers ongoing squatting and extraction, in this case, at least, I have to slightly sympathise with Arnold.
Click to expand...

Greenwood was not "cleared of charges". And I have to say I find your attempt to construe a set of possible motives for everyone who disagrees with you here that are all different shades of malignant, dishonest or misguided to be distasteful. You are not making a reasonable case. Whatever your view on Greenwood, there are perfectly valid reasons to think otherwise that do not require being misled or misconstruing the realities out of some ulterior agenda.
 
Yorke to Cole said:
That is down to the British justice system. That has nothing to do with Mason Greenwood. That is the responsibility of the Police and the CPS to make sure that victims feel safe to be able to testify against the alleged assailant.

If they need more support in ensuring that happens, then the Govenment need to provide more funding for resources so convictions increase ( support workers, case workers, liaison officers etc).
Click to expand...

The point here is that the British justice system clearly is not delivering justice in this area. Which means it's hardly unreasonable when people don't think " ok, that's all that sorted" when charges are dropped.
 
Ahmer Baig said:
Will Rachel Riley now decide what the club should be doing or who they should hire? Can she not just shut up and feck off?
Click to expand...
Isn't Rachel Riley a fan? Is she not allowed an opinion like everyone else here and eslewhere online?

She's hardly influential in the upper echelons of the club.
 
justsomebloke said:
The point here is that the British justice system clearly is not delivering justice in this area. Which means it's hardly unreasonable when people don't think " ok, that's all that sorted" when charges are dropped.
Click to expand...

I'm sure she's happy her husband and soon to be father of her kid is getting sacked from his job. Now that is real justice for her
 
VP89 said:
Serious question but what the feck is wrong with this?
Any competent CEO would exhaust all of the avenues in complete detail.

Crafton is a fecking bellend and hasn't put any context into anything.
Click to expand...

The way the process has been (mis)handled does not give the impression he's a competent CEO, now does it?
 
VP89 said:
And what is this mishandling based on?
Adam Crafton?
Click to expand...
The amount of time it took the club to come out with a decision is not in line with competence. On the balance of likelihood, with FFP and cash flow constraints, the plan was to bring MG back into the fold. It seems that this top down decision was made and then they tried to get all their ducks in a row to pass it through. In the end it backfired, which is a clear mishandling of the situation. Ultimately they should've done a bottom up assessment instead of letting the accounts dictate the decision.
 
Withnail said:
It's been a shit-show. Are you serious?
Click to expand...
Yes. Explain what exactly was the shit show. Try to look beyond the headlines and tell me what was a shit show in the investigation.

Traub said:
The amount of time it took the club to come out with a decision is not in line with competence. On the balance of likelihood, with FFP and cash flow constraints, the plan was to bring MG back into the fold. It seems that this top down decision was made and then they tried to get all their ducks in a row to pass it through. In the end it backfired, which is a clear mishandling of the situation. Ultimately they should've done a bottom up assessment instead of letting the accounts dictate the decision.
Click to expand...
The first sentence is bullshit. There is no objective timeline for this because the detail involved is unknown to most people and so is the ramifications. Outside of ethics and sponsors there is also financial and legal considerations.

Youre also basing the supposed plan off mosiac pieces of information Crafton received which have no context whatsoever. All you know is that there was a detailed plan with the avenue of bringing him in. You are not aware of all the other iterations.
 
Traub said:
The amount of time it took the club to come out with a decision is not in line with competence. On the balance of likelihood, with FFP and cash flow constraints, the plan was to bring MG back into the fold. It seems that this top down decision was made and then they tried to get all their ducks in a row to pass it through. In the end it backfired, which is a clear mishandling of the situation. Ultimately they should've done a bottom up assessment instead of letting the accounts dictate the decision.
Click to expand...
You are right. He should ask the internet mob, vigilante journalists and politicians what he should do about a person who has not been found guilty of any crime.
Some of you really think that there are no consequences of any decision.

Arnold handled it the best way possible, gave enough time possible to find all possible details and kept the relevant parties in loop. Redcafe members werent sadly part of that. Conclusion also was taken to protect the interest of family. People with their agenda forget that there are real families involved in this decision
 
You must log in or register to reply here.