Or it may exonerate him of the very specific things he was charged for but still make clear he's the sort of horrible, violent bully nobody should want at their football club.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
What the actual feck
This is about whether he should play for Man United again though. It's about our opinion. We aren't making a legal ruling. I was drawing a parallel as on the balance of probabilities I've made a decision on what I believe happened. My opinion is never going be legally binding so the burden of proof required in a court of law doesn't come into it.
That's your opinion but why not?
He's trying to build a new life with his partner and baby and she forgave him too.
So I have been thinking about this and my best guess is that this is the situation:
The internal investigation established that his girlfriend, the alleged victim, has since withdrawn her allegations and together they are clear in their version of events - Greenwood did nothing wrong.
As far as the club is concerned, from an HR perspective they can do nothing more than take that at face value. To disagree with that version of events would be calling their employee a liar with no evidence otherwise and would be calling the alleged victim a liar with no evidence to support it.
In any normal situation that would result in Greenwood returning to work. This isn’t a normal situation though and unfortunately for Greenwood, the advice and opinions of other parties matter as it’s about setting the right example.
Charities that support domestic abuse victims and public figures who are knowledgeable on the subject have already made it clear that Greenwood getting back with his girlfriend is not evidence enough and can in fact be a continuation of his controlling and coercive behaviour. The evidence we have seen and heard is much stronger than Greenwood persuading his partner that everything will be better this time.
So the bar is set much much higher. If there was irrefutable evidence which cleared Greenwood then the club would have been quick to release it but they haven’t. So it’s likely it’s just verbal testimony which while United themselves know they cannot contest, they also know that it will not pass public scrutiny. So here we are.
The internal investigation established that his girlfriend, the alleged victim, has since withdrawn her allegations and together they are clear in their version of events - Greenwood did nothing wrong.
As far as the club is concerned, from an HR perspective they can do nothing more than take that at face value. To disagree with that version of events would be calling their employee a liar with no evidence otherwise and would be calling the alleged victim a liar with no evidence to support it.
In any normal situation that would result in Greenwood returning to work. This isn’t a normal situation though and unfortunately for Greenwood, the advice and opinions of other parties matter as it’s about setting the right example.
Charities that support domestic abuse victims and public figures who are knowledgeable on the subject have already made it clear that Greenwood getting back with his girlfriend is not evidence enough and can in fact be a continuation of his controlling and coercive behaviour. The evidence we have seen and heard is much stronger than Greenwood persuading his partner that everything will be better this time.
So the bar is set much much higher. If there was irrefutable evidence which cleared Greenwood then the club would have been quick to release it but they haven’t. So it’s likely it’s just verbal testimony which while United themselves know they cannot contest, they also know that it will not pass public scrutiny. So here we are.
What the actual feck is this?
Pointing that out without the full context of how rare it is in domestic abuse and intimate partner violence cases to proceed without the victims support feels disingenuous to me.
The recording is morally wrong yet without further evidence it is not a crime. As such it's absolutely irrelevant that the CPS didn't decide that alone was enough to prosocute. The only way they could without the alleged victim providing their witness statement and supporting the investigation would be if a crime was taking place in that recording which is not the case.
Do you not believe that Richard Arnold who has had huge negative press for the rumours of reinstating MG wouldn't benifit for stating things that made that decision appear more moral?
Whilst Greenwood and Utd's reputation was torn down for 18 months and so much was leaked do you not find it strange that nothing compelling was leaked that remotely indicated what the public had being untrue or there being context that made it palatable?
I wouldn't call it love.
So people can get a second chance but United are above that?
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/mason-greenwood-cps-discontinuance-charges
New material is being interpreted by his defenders as something it's not. People claiming it's a longer recording, it doesn't say anything of the sort, just new material.
So the detailed claims of a woman claiming he did xyz abroad isn’t evidence?
The thing is that this case is not 'mere suspicion.'
Greenwood is on tape saying incredibly terrible things. The tape is damning in itself. Neither United nor Greenwood have denied that he said those things, and they have not offered an alternative explanation of the tape. They have merely asserted that the alternative explanation exists, and is good.
Imagine if the tape wasn't of Greenwood saying those things. Instead, it was a tape of Mason Mount saying that all foreigners should be kicked out of England. That England should be white. Down with [insert racial expletive here].
Would you accept the club saying "Mount has offered us an alternative explanation of the contents of the tape and we are satisfied with it. But it's all very complicated"? Would you start thinking "well maybe Mason Mount is a big Eric Clapton fan and he was just doing an impression of a little known mid-concert rant from a 1976 bootleg?"
"Ah, but one is a crime and the other isn't." Well no one's prosecuting Greenwood were, this is a thread about him transferring out of Manchester United, his life isn't "ruined."
Last edited:
He will do that and that will happen soon.....i would bet a lot of money on that.
Sorry, he will still have a career in football. I personally don't want people like him associated with the club.
Second chance doesn't mean, I get a hard reset as if nothing happened
Talk about not being a morning person.
A mistake? It's not like he ran a red light or forgot to show up on time....
And he's getting another chance - second chances does not mean no consequences though.
Correct decision and happy were getting rid.
He f*cked up and has paid the price.
He f*cked up and has paid the price.
Tis grand. I can see how you could have misinterpreted me as backing up the other person.
Couldn't give a shit tbh. I hold my club to a higher standard.
I was responding to an opinion which was given as “lawyer opinion”. He tried to give his legal opinion on this. His exoneration also was meant to be in front of law. Calling him innocent is not misleading in legal terms.
Personal opinion might be different on this but legal opinion is that he is innocent. That “lawyer” made it sound like his innocence in front of law is also debatable
So basically you think she lied and he is protecting her.
I mean, it's the only other option than him being guilty. But then he does speak to have done things wrong in this relationship, and that means she did it out of anger.
#Jazmodoout
What do you mean?
As much as I was leaning towards not wanting him to leave, after the charges were dropped etc.. And the difference in narrative between him and Ronaldo, I'm actually glad he has been forced out because of all his feckwit top G style cultists losing their minds.
So you think he's guilty and still want him at the club?
Anyone trying to say Greenwood is innocent needs to go listen to those recordings, would you let him date your daughter? If the answer is no, then stop defending him.
You just knew there'd be some absolutely mental takes from newbies once this topic was put back on the United forum and they're not disappointing.
No it is not until it is corroborated.
You can't just not play someone because someone said they did xzy, anyone can come and said you did xyz.
In the case of Greenwood there was actual evidence in the form of a recording, that's the difference here.
Now its unlear whats actually happened in this case because of what both the CPS and United have said, but its in no way comparable to the situation with the Arsenal player as far I can see
Off you pop then.
Still, the whole situation was mishandled by the top echelon at United.
First they said one thing and when some people came out protesting they bowed their head -weaklings!
Her father would.
Wording of the statement makes it sound like we will be sending him out on loan and doors are not completely closed on this.
Totally agree. It would be almost impossible to proceed without the victims input into the case. The tape and images are not enough to convict.
Richard Arnold is playing both sides. He is trying to justify that the fact he was a rizla paper away from reinstating Greenwood last week.
The club is so leaky, especially on things they want out there. Had there been "extenuating circumstances" they would be out there by now.
Same as plenty of other careers. You can't be banned from the profession and you can earn back your career but your company doesn't have to keep you and suffer the flak for your actions. Shame that he turned out to be such a scumbag but lets be honest at this point, the whole club is rotten at its core. Theres something deeply wrong at every level right now.
The fact that domestic abuse victims frequently struggle to completely leave and often rekindle relationships with their abusers does not make abuse morally acceptable.
I am not sure how many more times this needs to be said.
Going by the statement, we clearly wanted to bring him back and I remember there was talk of him doing a live interview on opening week.
Knowing our club and the love for keeping the "value of our assets", a loan seems likely.
Even if they wanted to sell, our incompetency probably wouldn't allow us to do so in less than two weeks.
Entire club is filled with dithering cnuts for decision makers.
As others have stated, if he was a shit player in the reserves, it would be simple for the club to fire him and the supporters to turn their backs on him. When it comes to online arguments between people, the truth is that football doesn't really mirror normal day to day standards. At the end of the day, you're talking about people for whom supporting United means weekends ruined when we lose 2-0 to Spurs and want United to sign Mbappe etc, get bought by Qatar. Ultimately, it bears as much semblance to Football Manager as real life, so it becomes difficult to accept the fact that a player who many believed would be United's greatest of his generation has had his career ended because he is a total scumbag.
It's less to do with hating women per se and more to do with being unable to look beyond a football team that people have invested hours upon hours in arguing over, no matter the charges.
I think people who look at the pictures, understand the history of Greenwood prior to this offence - e.g. that weird video he did in his car and then being sent home early from the England camp in Iceland - know full well that he could never play football in UK again, yet alone for Manchester United. But that doesn't mean that an unbelievable talent hasn't been extinguished and that has clearly resulted in quite a lot of people lashing out with hyperbolic statements.
Correct decision.
I’m not misunderstanding the CPS’ statement at all.
I’m just not going to pretend that the fact the CPS dropped the entire matter, on such a high profile case, counts for nothing when they are a professional body that exists to make prosecutions.
And I’m not going to deny to myself that they know more about the case they dropped than anyone else.
DV / SA (he was charged with BOTH) cases do get to court with the main witness pulled out of them - it does happen. And this was a very high profile case that the CPS wouldn’t want to be seen to be dropping.
It doesn’t mean ‘he’s innocent’, but it certainly shouldn’t just be tossed aside because it goes against current public feeling.
The club is just so badly run. To release such a statement is a real indictment. Not a lot to like about the club at the moment.