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.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.
You're miss guided the fact he isn't involved in transfers.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
Well, 1% of rape cases end in convictions. That's not justice either.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Yeah man. I mean Arnold must have been on it with the cops and Greenwood just to piss everybody off like.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.
If you say so.Yeah man. I mean Arnold must have been on it with the cops and Greenwood just to piss everybody off like.
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.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.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Did you read the article? Be honest.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.
Anyone believe it really is? Or more PR from the club/Glazers.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.
He'll be gone.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
difficult to see any other outcomeHe'll be gone.
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.He'll be gone.
It will blow over in a couple of weeks and fans will be on to the next shiny objectLike 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.
I think he would've been gone anyway. New owners would want their own guy.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).
This. Think he'll stick around until the sale (if it happens) and get his golden parachute from the new owners.I think he would've been gone anyway. New owners would want their own guy.
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.Why would they sack him over this, they never sacked Woodward. They have no inclination whatsoever to trust anyone not in the established clique
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?Did you read the article? Be honest.
Its referring to Rachel fecking Riley. And you were talking about writing less shite were you?
Preferably the latter.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?
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.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.
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.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).
Isn't Rachel Riley a fan? Is she not allowed an opinion like everyone else here and eslewhere online?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?
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 herThe 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.
The way the process has been (mis)handled does not give the impression he's a competent CEO, now does it?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.
And what is this mishandling based on?The way the process has been (mis)handled does not give the impression he's a competent CEO, now does it?
It's been a shit-show. Are you serious?And what is this mishandling based on?
Adam Crafton?
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.And what is this mishandling based on?
Adam Crafton?
