pocco
loco
You're being incredibly naive here.There is no other way to read “While I am satisfied that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with”.
United want money for him now. That's the sole aim of that statement.
You're being incredibly naive here.There is no other way to read “While I am satisfied that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with”.
What about those other words written around that part, for context.How can you read it any differently? The literally say the words he didn't do what he was accused it. Its a black and white as it can get.
Are you literally insane?I do wonder what the media narrative will be now when another club signs him.
No doubt it will then be "ah he's been punished enough he deserves a second chance" if someone like Arsenal take him as opposed to would be disgusting for United to play him again
How do you read that wording then? The only ambiguity is whether he did something else. On the point of whether he committed the original offences, it is stated with absolute certainty that he did not do them.I appreciate your certainty, but I don’t share it. As had been said before, I think it unlikely that we will see too many minds changed though.
I think there is zero chance the British press adopt that attitude if it’s another English club. And I’d be amazed if any club in this country even explored the idea. What I can’t even guess at is how that stance changes over time. It would be naive to think it won’t change as emotions fade.I do wonder what the media narrative will be now when another club signs him.
No doubt it will then be "ah he's been punished enough he deserves a second chance" if someone like Arsenal take him as opposed to would be disgusting for United to play him again
I am not going to lie. Him coming back to the Premier League for someone else and scoring loads of goals would seriously piss me off.I do wonder what the media narrative will be now when another club signs him.
No doubt it will then be "ah he's been punished enough he deserves a second chance" if someone like Arsenal take him as opposed to would be disgusting for United to play him again
You think the clubs legal council would let them make that statement without being fully convinced they could stand by it if forced to?Fair one
Sorry
i imagine it’s so greenwood can say to future clubs, “they didn’t release me because I tried to force my gf to have sex”
Makes it easier for him to move on
And legally if we Utd said yer he’s guilty, surely we’d be in hot water
Horrible mess
Let’s just be happy it’s over
The other words are secondary to that statement.What about those other words written around that part, for context.
Depends on which club it is, if abroad they'll say virtually nothing, another PL club is a different matterI do wonder what the media narrative will be now when another club signs him.
No doubt it will then be "ah he's been punished enough he deserves a second chance" if someone like Arsenal take him as opposed to would be disgusting for United to play him again
What bothers me about the whole thing is her father. If some punk did that to my daughter when she was young, I would have given him a kicking he'd never forget unless her brother got there first.He needs to be in fans cross hairs next. What he's done is disgusting and it's very obvious what has happened. Yet we've still got people drinking the kool aid.
But they havent really made any decision have they? They have just kicked it into the long grass until possible new owners take over and then they can relook at it. If they wanted to make a statement they would have paid up his contract and let him go free. They havent done that - so they will be looking to a) make some money back on him b) bring him back once something changes. Public opinion, new owners, the fanbase asking for him etc. I just think it could have been spun in a different way - there should always be the prospect of rehabilitation. We are not talking about a repeat offender here - hes a kid. Kids make stupid decisions and act incredibly inappropriately at times. I work with a youth rugby team - some kids need as much help as they can possibly get. I dont agree with cutting him loose in this fashion.Well that's what I mean. It was the only decision they could and should have made imo. They've bungled the process and look like idiots but they got there in the end.
If it is one thing they've shown themselves to be masters off through all this, it's shifting blame.Yeah but they preempted all of that by saying they didn't have access to all the evidence or statements.
I think we all know what the "alternative explanations" could be. The problem with that, is that it doesn't explain the rest of the alleged victims social media posts at the time and shortly after the arrest.Read this earlier, the bullet points at the end really got to me and to be honest Arnold needs sacking for the statement alone.
"We were provided with alternative explanations" WTF does that even mean, you can't cover this shit up as misunderstanding.
I don’t really want to get into a to and fro about this, any more than we have done. I see it as a carefully worded statement which stops short of the certainty you see.How do you read that wording then? The only ambiguity is whether he did something else. On the point of whether he committed the original offences, it is stated with absolute certainty that he did not do them.
Fine, you may not believe the club but that is clearly what they are saying.
I think it stems from the thought of, someone who has demonstrated beliefs and behaviour that are deemed harmful to society, shouldn't continue to receive accolades/be in the public spotlight.I don't really understand how the whole "so he can play elsewhere but not for United?!" thing is somehow controversial. There are plenty of players and people who I don't wish to see associated with United for moral/ethical reasons. This doesn't mean I wish they'd all die or be sent to a gulag. How does this make me a hypocrite?
That makes sense. I was really thrown off by how that statement developed as it went on.There are a whole load of stock phrases in that statement that any organisation will be told to used by lawyers but I can't believe how tone deaf the club is to try and use the statement as some sort of exoneration of MG and the repeated use of the phrase "alleged victim" is totally appaling.
Why get involved in giving YOUR opinion of his actions....it's totally unnecessary.
It reads like they had 90% of the statement written from the perspective of letting him back, then just changed the outcome at the last minute and forgot about the tone of the whole statement.
They didn't have all the evidence. They were given an alternative explanation... well no shit, they're back together so I doubt they're going to tell the truth if it's incriminating. Plus United want to sell this guy for a much money as possible.How do you read that wording then? The only ambiguity is whether he did something else. On the point of whether he committed the original offences, it is stated with absolute certainty that he did not do them.
Fine, you may not believe the club but that is clearly what they are saying.
I imagine it's more than likely an excert from a some kind of weird role play. Which would explain why it was recorded inthe first place."We were provided with alternative explanations" WTF does that even mean, you can't cover this shit up as misunderstanding.
He won't but his talent for football willHe left the football team a very long time ago so won't be missed.
You stuck on repeat? Shall we try again?"Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged"
Wanting money for him is most definitely not worth making a categoric public statement of his innocence if they aren’t entirely satisfied it’s correct. Can you imagine the fallout if it transpired that they were lying and (worst case) something similar happened in the future? They have left no caveat in the wording or ambiguity which would be there if there was any uncertainty - he is (so far as the club is concerned) definitely innocent of the original charges.You're being incredibly naive here.
United want money for him now. That's the sole aim of that statement.
Due to the rules of this forum I cannot answer that question.So you are categorically stating she falsified that evidence. Correct?
It’s basically “He can still play Football, would you rather him score goals for City, Liverpool or for us” rephrased.I don't really understand how the whole "so he can play elsewhere but not for United?!" thing is somehow controversial. There are plenty of players and people who I don't wish to see associated with United for moral/ethical reasons. This doesn't mean I wish they'd all die or be sent to a gulag. How does this make me a hypocrite?
It would be better to loan him and hopefully he does good. If he does his value will increase.I’m guessing we’re selling him outright? We’re probably going to get shit if we just loan him. When would he even be match fit to play for his hypothetical new team considering he’s had the most rudimentary pre season training (probably not much far off from typical Sunday League) and has not played professionally for two and a half years?
And is there a guarantee he even returns to that trajectory he was on with us?
Exactly this, and who are the club to say they think he’s innocent. They are not court of law and if they have evidence where is it?Thats not true.
There is a third option, charges being dropped is not a declaration of innocence, its a declaration that there is not enough evidence to convict.
In some cases that may mean innocence and in some cases it may not
I'm not saying Greenwood is guilty by the way, just pointing out what you're saying is incorrect
You can't use the phrase victim then at the same time say your investigation found he committed no offence.There are a whole load of stock phrases in that statement that any organisation will be told to used by lawyers but I can't believe how tone deaf the club is to try and use the statement as some sort of exoneration of MG and the repeated use of the phrase "alleged victim" is totally appaling.
Why get involved in giving YOUR opinion of his actions....it's totally unnecessary.
It reads like they had 90% of the statement written from the perspective of letting him back, then just changed the outcome at the last minute and forgot about the tone of the whole statement.
They've known each other since they were young teens, this is just a toxic co-dependency relationship.Such a odd state of affairs all around. If I didn't do what I was accused of and it ruined my career. I'd have jumped ship. Can't connect the dots on this at all. From all parties POV
They could loan him for 2 years, then his contract has expired and he's not our player anymore, I can't see anyone buying him given how long he's been outI’m guessing we’re selling him outright? We’re probably going to get shit if we just loan him. When would he even be match fit to play for his hypothetical new team considering he’s had the most rudimentary pre season training (probably not much far off from typical Sunday League) and has not played professionally for two and a half years?
And is there a guarantee he even returns to that trajectory he was on with us?
If the allegations are completely false, i see no logical reason why he would stick with her.Such a odd state of affairs all around. If I didn't do what I was accused of and it ruined my career. I'd have jumped ship. Can't connect the dots on this at all. From all parties POV
Your tagline is very incorrect if that's what ya thinkI do wonder what the media narrative will be now when another club signs him.
No doubt it will then be "ah he's been punished enough he deserves a second chance" if someone like Arsenal take him as opposed to would be disgusting for United to play him again
So far as the club are concerned... with the caveat that they didn't have all the info and relied on statements that aren't made under oath.Wanting money for him is most definitely not worth making a categoric public statement of his innocence if they aren’t entirely satisfied it’s correct. Can you imagine the fallout if it transpired that they were lying and (worst case) something similar happened in the future? They have left no caveat in the wording or ambiguity which would be there if there was any uncertainty - he is (so far as the club is concerned) definitely innocent of the original charges.
Due to the rules of this forum I cannot answer that question.
When it comes to terminating and employee you do need legal ground. Additionally if you’re opinion doesn’t need proof or backing, then you’re just a muppet.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.