What’s that?
Why is Richard Arnold getting a free pass from the fans?
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
What’s that?
I'm not too tough on him for this decision because it's one that's not easy to make. Yes, I understand the moral applications and implications, but the guy's in charge of running a business and writing off an asset valued at £100M is not easy to do - and then there's Antony - we paid like £80M for him a year ago - and is reportedly in a similar situation. He'll likely have to follow through with whatever precedent's set. It's the stuff of nightmares for any CEO.
This situation is a PR nightmare and United are well aware. The decision is somewhat black or white; let him leave or let him stay.
Let him leave would be the least difficult path to take. Some fans, well probably many, would be unhappy, but most would understand. From a football and economical perspective that would mean to lose an asset and money.
Let him stay will provide the club with the footballer and the money he is worth. That can turn out to be a good long term move. The drawback though is the PR nightmare. It will be huge.
So let’s say they go for the latter. How can they do best damage control in a situation that will be bad however you spin it? Just blurt out that he is staying is obviously a bad move.
So you will use a lot of time to gain as much information as possible without giving anyone information.
When the time is right, leak bits and parts. Even information that is false or not completely accurate.
Now you get reactions and more information. You can even go out and deny it. It’s not official. It’s a bad source. Etc.
So what you are doing now is controlling the narrative because information is key when it comes to making actual moves and better decisions. With new information you can make adjustments and do the best moves who hurts less based on what you have learned.
I think United are doing this strategy tbh.
Don't really care if he comes back or goes tbh but if that was how they were going then you bite the bullet and announce it straight away then go media silent letting MG take the flack personally perhaps even during preseason, that's the thing people are fickle and it would have blown over eventually it always does. Certainly no different to having Ronaldo on the team.
Now leaving it so long, putting it on to the womens team, having all this nonsense leak... Sheer incompetency.
Now leaving it so long, putting it on to the womens team, having all this nonsense leak... Sheer incompetency.
Last edited:
There was an athletic article a couple of months ago which made him seem like a proper twat in his youth days e.g. constantly threatening to go to city, calling other players shit. Sounded like no at the club really put their foot down over that behaviour
Think it’s pretty obvious United have dipped their toe into the water to see what the media reaction was. There was always going to be a backlash no matter what decision was made. Arnold is between a rock and hard place, I certainly wouldn’t want to make the decision.
Except he isn't, it's very easy to justify getting rid of mg and much harder to justify keeping him
At the rate things are going, the decision is going to be made for him.
Morally yes but commercially/contractually no.
We can’t pretend that contracts and money aren’t an issue. I doubt there are grounds for cancelling the contract and walking away, the club would be sued and would essentially be paying to lose a £50m academy asset. Under any other owner this might be an option but not under the Glazers and not when we aren’t cash rich and already have FFP issues.
They have obviously not been able to find someone to loan or buy (even for a low fee or maybe free) after 18 months out of the game.
To me the only option is to bring him back to training get him up to speed and then let him leave on loan or transfer in January.
What should the club do?
That's seems to be something people were happy to give a pass to (Ronaldo).
The man straight up admitted he had sex with a woman against her will yet nothing?
Where was the outrage in regard to CR7 playing for United?
Either way, both individuals are abhorrent.
Bunch of fecking amateurs 
That’s because it’s your opinion. What about the fact legally he hasn’t done anything wrong? What about giving people a second chance? What about the fact Greenwood is still with the woman in question? This is before you consider his transfer value.
You got a link to that or are you going on the he paid her to go away so must be guilty route?
What part of no MG talk do you not understand ?
Brains like peanuts on here at times
Brains like peanuts on here at times
I admit that I can be quite naive at times, he probably hasn't changed, most people don't but even then I like to belive in second chance and hope that somehow being left in the limbo for a year with his career on the verge of ruin has elicited a change of heart and introspection.
After all most young footballer don't ever really get the proper social training they need to to not grow into entitled brats and sometimes much worse, but he's still young, maybe he could change.
We'll see i suppose.
The best and easy result would have been a 12 month loan, even if Utd had have paid 50% of his wage. They have paid 100% for no football anyway since Jan last year. Im sure someone abroad would have taken him on that deal. Of course this only kicks the problem down the road for 12 months, but lets some dust settle and there will be some other footballing drama in the news by then.
Yes they can. pay the remainder of his contract and be done with him.
He was interviewed twice by police at the time of the incident, the first interview he admitted the woman had said no multiple times. Second time he responded no comment to everything. This was from an Athletic podcast on United where they spoke of how damning some of the evidence was and suggested listeners seek out the documents. Can't for the life of me remember which twitter link the details were on though but they are in the public domain somewhere.
Unfortunately don't think this will be the last poster to prove the point I made on the Antony thread before it was locked:
Some people are so thick they need a jury to tell them what to think unfortunately.
That may be the case but did they really need to dip their toe in the water over this. It’s always been blatantly obvious what the reaction was going to be, whether intended or not it’s just terrible leadership once again from people completely out of touch.
Richard Arnold was happy to knife Woodward in the back, to say nothing that took place prior to him being CEO was his fault and happy to circulate his PR puff pieces about being an ‘alpha male’ and building himself up.
This isn’t an easy decision but tough decisions are his job, it was time to put his money where his mouth is and he’s failed miserably. He won’t be held accountable because none of these people in senior positions are but hopefully he’s straight out the door if new owners come in.
How have this level of incompetent people got in such positions at the club I will never understand. Absolute shambles.
If they had evidence of him admitting anything they wouldn’t have thrown the case out.
Some people are so thick they need doctors and scientists to tell them what to think too, but we know better!
I find it unacceptable they want to wait till September to make a decision. They could have done this the first 3 weeks of the window and they'd have made a clean break.
This isn't something that needs a doctor or scientist to break down a complicated subject, just a semblance of a moral backbone.
SAF was their manager, not their dad. Do you expect him to raise them or something?
You could have easily just looked it up yourself rather than being pedantic.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....-no-multiple-times-apologised-sex.html?espv=1
He admitted she said No to his advances and was aggressive physically during intercourse.
He also paid her hush money.
He's not exactly a role model.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...000-accused-juventus-footballer-a9071296.html
Sent the link so you don't claim that's also a lie.
The post I was responding to from @pocco was suggesting that a lack of authority AT THE CLUB is the problem with some of these players behaviours…
I was countering that, in fact, when we had the ultimate authority at the club, such behaviour and characters were still present.
Indeed, SAF even aided Giggs in his court case very recently.
Read properly before wading in, slugger
My apologies. You are correct.The post I was responding to from @pocco was suggesting that a lack of authority AT THE CLUB is the problem with some of these players behaviours…
I was countering that, in fact, when we had the ultimate authority at the club, such behaviour and characters were still present.
Indeed, SAF even aided Giggs in his court case very recently.
Read properly before wading in, slugger
The athletic had an article where they spoke to a solicitor who said the club would have a decent case for cancelling his contract for bringing the club into disrepute
Is it possible that people see things differently to each other despite having the same moral compass?
Some people can see the requirement for rehabilitation whilst seeing the wrong that was done.
Whereas some others see different.
For me this is an incredibly complex situation, one that not many if any other clubs have been in before, so it's not quite as easy as you seem to think it is.
So I need to look everything up that someone on the internet states? I can’t just ask them to provide evidence? Pot and kettle there!
This must be the only place on earth that cannot even mention Voldemort's name. Absolutely pathetic!
If you're going to claim someone is lying, then yes.
The least you can do is check if they are rather than insinuate they have some ulterior motive like a weirdo.
They wouldn’t have to cancel it. They could pay him as normal with him being told to stay away until the contract is over. There is a few ways to get rid of him.
And cancelling it would mean them getting a case where they dont want to pay him which i didnt say. If they want they can pay someones contract up and tell them to leave at anytime, the article i havent read, i imagine is saying cancelling would be a problem which they wouldnt be doing.
The biggest problem for me is that he has cocked up the handling of it. It's not really to do with the "hostile list." I don't really expect that our executives are good guys with keen morals. I do expect them to at the very least handle the workings of Man United with efficiency and to its benefit as ultimately that is their primary job. That means if you are going to be a bit of a bellend then make sure it is behind the curtain.
But the way he has let things leak into the public domain suggests a lack of authority and control over the situation that is shockingly poor for an exec at this level of business. If he leaked some stuff deliberately to "test the waters" then that was also a miscalculation. So whichever way you look at it, it's a major, major balls up and if decent ownership were in place you'd expect it to be a sackable offence.
But the way he has let things leak into the public domain suggests a lack of authority and control over the situation that is shockingly poor for an exec at this level of business. If he leaked some stuff deliberately to "test the waters" then that was also a miscalculation. So whichever way you look at it, it's a major, major balls up and if decent ownership were in place you'd expect it to be a sackable offence.
So he is hated by those that think he's responsible for the Mason issue, hated by those who think he fecked up the handling of the Mason issue - so hated by both sides there, and then also hated for being linked to the previous hierarchy and unspecified transfer business.... He's fecked?
Regardless of what you think of him, he's gone when the club is sold (if not before). Nobody is spending billions on the club without putting their own guy in charge.
Thing is… the club’s not being sold.