Antony under investigation by Brazilian authorities for domestic abuse | Back in the squad

[moses]

Its insane numbers.
Actually insane.

How can anyone be aware of those stats and come up with the l "it's such a dangerous time to be a man" nonsense. Parents apparently scared for their poor sons. Lunatics.

 

[SilentWitness]

Sigurdsson

Were they?

 

[Sunny Jim]

Were they?

?
I thought he was cleared, wasnt he?

 

[antk]

?
I thought he was cleared, wasnt he?

Charges were dropped after two years.

 

[SilentWitness]

?
I thought he was cleared, wasnt he?

"The 33-year-old man who was arrested in connection with an investigation opened in June 2021 will face no further action. The investigation team and Crown Prosecution Service have been working together and reached the decision that the evidence available at this time does not reach the threshold set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Greater Manchester Police is committed to investigating allegations to secure the best possible outcomes for all involved and will continue to work with partner agencies to ensure individuals are supported throughout investigations and beyond.”

That's not being proven innocent.

 

[moses]

This is the most annoying part.

When we talk about double standards, this is the thing that stands out. It seems the press have just decided to pile on United because we're an easy target at the moment.

But revitalised FC after 3 non-CL finishes in a row were off the table for some reason last year.

Let the due process take course and if he's charged and arrested, then there's a precedent that's been set and the club would then look suspicious if we don't follow it.

Doing the right thing shouldn't be relative to what Arsenal do. It's ridiculous that Party is out on bail playing football.

Regarding the media, United are always a bigger story, that's part of the club.

 

[Beachryan]

I think all of these things are pendulums that swing one way, then too far in the other, than hopefully come towards a more sensible end point. I think we can all agree it's likely that some of our favourite players in the 80s/90s did worse than what Antony is accused of, and nothing was said, reported or done. And the victims had to suffer because of that silence.

Now we seem to have swung to the point where the twitter mob are the judge, jury and executioner, rather than the legal systems setup with certian processes to protect both sides. I personally find the Antony case so problematic because one party is going to the media and one party is going through the proper channels. This assymetry is a 'clever' tactic to win the battle of public opinion, regardless of the actual judicial process that should follow.

We may never know what happened between Antony and the alleged victim, but by taking this public she has foregone his right to the proper channels of justice, and given today's environment, unilaterally condemned him.

As a society we have to wary of cures that are potentially as damaging as the disease. At a macro level sure, throw a few rich folk under the bus as examples if it means we reduce the staggering number of abuse victims. But doesn't mean that we should feel good about it.

Antony may end up being a creep who deservedly gets justice. But I'd much rather see that come from the courts and police, rather than twitter and the media.

 

[BootsyCollins]

How can anyone be aware of those stats and come up with the l "it's such a dangerous time to be a man" nonsense. Parents apparently scared for their poor sons. Lunatics.

To be fair, when you live in a tatetopian echo-chamber i guess you never will be aware of those stats.

You will be very aware of every time a man is unfairly treated thought.

 

[Rightnr]

Doing the right thing shouldn't be relative to what Arsenal do. It's ridiculous that Party is out on bail playing football.

Regarding the media, United are always a bigger story, that's part of the club.

You're showing your bias here. Doing the right thing is not suspending someone because there's been an accusation that's less than clear-cut.

Greenwood case was different but come on, let's at least pretend there's some sanity left in how decisions are made.

 

[Revan]

Again it's amazing how Arsenal got away with it.

Fecking 3 alleged victims and out on bail.

Because no sane club suspends players without them being charged, or get rid of them when the case is dropped.

United could have easily kept Greenwood and in 2 weeks people would have moved on. Now that the spineless cowards budged there, the mob will pressure even more to do the same for Antony.

Of course, if he is charged, he should be suspended. If the case is then dropped, or he is found not guilty, he should come back. And if he is found guilty, his contract should be terminated and he should be sued by the club for monetary and reputation damage.

 

[Plastic Evra]

You know I find something poetic in football fans reflecting on mob rule.
Imagine tens of thousands congregating in a stadium to insult someone in the most colourful ways because he be pushing balls.

 

[Eric_the_Red99]

He’s such a hot tempered player that I can see him getting red carded from the added abuse and jeering he’d get from rival fans. Him getting clattered to a round of applause and then him kicking out.

I’m not sure where I am in regard to suspending him. I think the allegations are vile and if there’s a sprinkle of truth, then he needs to go. But I appreciate there’s a difference between this and the Greenwood case and so it needs to be treated differently - as I was a staunch Greenwood out advocate.

Whether we suspend him or not based on what’s known, he just seems like the type of player who’d get affected by it.

Strictly from a footballing perspective, I think it would be a much easier decision to bench Antony, compared to MG. While not our worst player, he’s hardly impressed and there are other options. And like you suggest, he’s a bit of a liability at the best of times.

The sensible thing would be to keep him away from the spotlight (ie on the bench) until there’s more clarity on the situation. If he’s charged that should obviously mean a formal suspension, but it might not come to that.

 

[adexkola]

It does piss me off what Arsenal have been able to get away with, will there ever be consequences for how they've just carried on? I know its a bit what about them etc. but whatever.

Don't be mad at Arsenal or the media, be mad at United for being spineless cnuts/moral flowers. Because they had/have every opportunity to go the Arsenal route.

 

[cyberman]

Were they?

Insufficient evidence wasn’t it? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence in itself. Hard to say he hasn’t been proven innocent when there isn’t enough to charge him in. That’s a wildly slippery slope

 

[moses]

You're showing your bias here. Doing the right thing is not suspending someone because there's been an accusation that's less than clear-cut.

Greenwood case was different but come on, let's at least pretend there's some sanity left in how decisions are made.

Bias towards what exactly?

You're showing your inability to read. I have said numerous times he shouldnt be suspended on an accusation. These accusations came out on June 6th and literally nobody called for suspension.

 

[moses]

Don't be mad at Arsenal or the media, be mad at United for being spineless cnuts/moral flowers. Because they had/have every opportunity to go the Arsenal route.

So Arsenal are brave and moral pillars?

Interesting take.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Don't be mad at Arsenal or the media, be mad at United for being spineless cnuts/moral flowers. Because they had/have every opportunity to go the Arsenal route.

You think Partey's case has had the same focus from the media as Greenwood and Antony?

 

[SilentWitness]

Insufficient evidence wasn’t it? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence in itself. Hard to say he hasn’t been proven innocent when there isn’t enough to charge him in. That’s a wildly slippery slope

It isn't hard at all and nor is it a wildly slippery slope.

 

[adexkola]

So Arsenal are brave and moral pillars?

Interesting take.

They aren't. They are a football club that made a football decision uninfluenced by outsiders. Not every club can afford to be moral pillars.

You think Partey's case has had the same focus from the media as Greenwood and Antony?

I don't think it has, but it was significant for a while. But Arsenal dug in, and the media lost interest.

West Ham were under pressure to can Zouma for a bit, but they made a decision and stuck by it through the flack.

 

[sullydnl]

How can anyone be aware of those stats and come up with the l "it's such a dangerous time to be a man" nonsense. Parents apparently scared for their poor sons. Lunatics.

Well, one obvious reason is that some of them are themselves people who have/will at some point in their lives commit some form of violence/harassment against women. Not everyone is a disinterested commentator on these topics.

And due to the demographics of this forum, they will be overrepresented here relative to the rest of the population. If we conservatively say even 5% of the posters here are in that position, that would be approx. 20 of the posters so far in this thread. Which can be enough to create a certain tone, even before you get to the people who are just ignorant in a more honest way.

 

[In Rainbows]

They aren't. They are a football club that made a football decision uninfluenced by outsiders. Not every club can afford to be moral pillars.



I don't think it has, but it was significant for a while. But Arsenal dug in, and the media lost interest.

West Ham were under pressure to can Zouma for a bit, but they made a decision and stuck by it through the flack.

Well part of it is that United fans have more of a protest culture than Arsenal fans, due to the Glazer protests. So there is more pressure on social media and on the ground.

 

[moses]

They aren't. They are a football club that made a football decision uninfluenced by outsiders. Not every club can afford to be moral pillars.

Is it a decision you agree with?

You think up to a guilty verdict it's just a football decision?

Afford? What do you mean afford? Are morals left left to accountants in your world view?

 

[moses]

Well, one obvious reason is that some of them are themselves people who have/will at some point in their lives commit some form of violence/harassment against women. Not everyone is a disinterested commentator on these topics.

And due to the demographics of this forum, they will be overrepresented here relative to the rest of the population. If we conservatively say even 5% of the posters here are in that position, that would be approx. 20 of the posters so far in this thread. Which can be enough to create a certain tone, even before you get to the people who are just ignorant in a more honest way.

I agree.

And how I long for the simplicity of dealing with honest ignorance.

 

[saivet]

You think Partey's case has had the same focus from the media as Greenwood and Antony?

There were complexities with that case, specifically regarding the NDA which was broken by the victim. Legally the media simply couldn't focus on his case unlike the Greenwood and Antony one. His case was big on twitter, and while everyone was aware, established outlets were unable to report on it otherwise they'd be subject to legal challenge. The police also issued a statement indicating that there was no case to proceed with due to a legal technicality.

I think Arsenal were just a bit fortunate that they were able to sweep this one away under legal technicalities.

 

[cyberman]

It isn't hard at all and nor is it a wildly slippery slope.

Can you explain your reasoning? The logic of there not being enough damning evidence to prove your innocence doesn’t sit right nor make sense to me

 

[Kostov]

How can anyone be aware of those stats and come up with the l "it's such a dangerous time to be a man" nonsense. Parents apparently scared for their poor sons. Lunatics.

This forum if anything should tell you that numbers do not tell the whole picture. Most often men do not even report abuse, and then you have the Amber Heards of this world, so not sure sarcasm proves any relevant fact here.

 

[Kostov]

"The 33-year-old man who was arrested in connection with an investigation opened in June 2021 will face no further action. The investigation team and Crown Prosecution Service have been working together and reached the decision that the evidence available at this time does not reach the threshold set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Greater Manchester Police is committed to investigating allegations to secure the best possible outcomes for all involved and will continue to work with partner agencies to ensure individuals are supported throughout investigations and beyond.”

That's not being proven innocent.

Isn't it the other way around?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

There were complexities with that case, specifically regarding the NDA which was broken by the victim. Legally the media simply couldn't focus on his case unlike the Greenwood and Antony one. His case was big on twitter, and while everyone was aware, established outlets were unable to report on it otherwise they'd be subject to legal challenge. The police also issued a statement indicating that there was no case to proceed with due to a legal technicality.

I think Arsenal were just a bit fortunate that they were able to sweep this one away under legal technicalities.

Ah. Ok. Didn’t know any of that. Thanks. Still annoying as feck, obviously.

 

[SilentWitness]

Can you explain your reasoning? The logic of there not being enough damning evidence to prove your innocence doesn’t sit right nor make sense to me

Evidence not reaching a threshold for prosecution is not a proof of innocence.

 

[NotThatSoph]

We live in ridiculous times.

It used to be innocent until proven guilty , now its guilty until proven innocent.

These type of things should not be made public until a verdict has been reached in court.

The social media witch hunt on these things is out of control.

Actually in most cases now it's guilty even if proven innocent in public eye.

Issue is most countries/people, rightly or wrongly, have the attitude now that if you are rich you will get away with it. So whenever someone who is considered privileged is accused by someone less privileged, in eyes of most people they are pronounced guilty and it's very hard for them to change their outlook.

It's still innocent until proven guilty, that's why he isn't in jail. It's why Jimmy Savile was never punished: he was never proven guilty, so he's treated as innocent in the eyes of the law. Nothing has changed.

 

[SilentWitness]

Isn't it the other way around?

it's both. They weren't proven to be guilty or proven to be innocent. Innocent until proven guilty is not the same as proof of innocence.

Same as Greenwood. Neither were proven innocent.

 

[wr8_utd]

There were complexities with that case, specifically regarding the NDA which was broken by the victim. Legally the media simply couldn't focus on his case unlike the Greenwood and Antony one. His case was big on twitter, and while everyone was aware, established outlets were unable to report on it otherwise they'd be subject to legal challenge. The police also issued a statement indicating that there was no case to proceed with due to a legal technicality.

I think Arsenal were just a bit fortunate that they were able to sweep this one away under legal technicalities.

Do you have some additional links and details about the Partey case?

 

[calypso]

this problem is. really nothing new....im in. my 60s and my grandad used to speak of similar things when he was in his late teens. or early 20s.
of course, the gap between footballers and the rest of us has grown immensely, and society has changed.
what we have to. do is to decide how to deal with it before. the point where we know whether the claims are genuine.

I cant believe this is just a problem at Man Utd

 

[moses]

This forum if anything should tell you that numbers do not tell the whole picture. Most often men do not even report abuse, and then you have the Amber Heards of this world, so not sure sarcasm proves any relevant fact here.

Men and women don't report abuse.

What's your point?

 

[adexkola]

Well part of it is that United fans have more of a protest culture than Arsenal fans, due to the Glazer protests. So there is more pressure on social media and on the ground.

That is plausible, but it's not pressure that is insurmountable. Case in point: the Glazers are still owners of the club.

Is it a decision you agree with?

You think up to a guilty verdict it's just a football decision?

Afford? What do you mean afford? Are morals left left to accountants in your world view?

I don't have any strong opinion on the decision given that his suspension (in the absence of a criminal indictment) serves no practical purpose. I think that is my issue with all of this. He left Manchester United. He's at Getafe now. Antony may be suspended. Who or what positively benefits from this? No one. So what's the fecking point?

I think that up to a guilty verdict (where someone loses their liberty/funds in a civil case), it is a football decision. A club has a financial asset in the case of a player, and utilizing that asset brings rewards (money, trophies). There should be a tangible reason or benefit (to the club or society) for not using that asset or otherwise tanking the value of the asset. And if it is so important to society that footballers be held to a higher standard then enact uniform standards so that less "moral" clubs don't benefit.

I don't think clubs are completely soulless entities, but I don't think they should be successfully pressured into meaningless gestures that have no positive impact at the end of the day.

If someone (an example) was to do an analysis that showed that suspensions and dismissals in these situations would certainly lead to a measurable drop in domestic assault over the next 5 years it would be worth it and I'd be all for it.

 

[moses]

That is plausible, but it's not pressure that is insurmountable. Case in point: the Glazers are still owners of the club.



I don't have any strong opinion on the decision given that his suspension (in the absence of a criminal indictment) serves no practical purpose. I think that is my issue with all of this. He left Manchester United. He's at Getafe now. Antony may be suspended. Who or what positively benefits from this? No one. So what's the fecking point?

I think that up to a guilty verdict (where someone loses their liberty/funds in a civil case), it is a football decision. A club has a financial asset in the case of a player, and utilizing that asset brings rewards (money, trophies). There should be a tangible reason or benefit (to the club or society) for not using that asset or otherwise tanking the value of the asset. And if it is so important to society that footballers be held to a higher standard then enact uniform standards so that less "moral" clubs don't benefit.

I don't think clubs are completely soulless entities, but I don't think they should be successfully pressured into meaningless gestures that have no positive impact at the end of the day.

If someone (an example) was to do an analysis that showed that suspensions and dismissals in these situations would certainly lead to a measurable drop in domestic assault over the next 5 years it would be worth it and I'd be all for it.

I was talking about Partey.


But anyway so you really feel not playing MG is meaningless gesture or that suspensing Partey while under investigation for rape is a meaningless gesture?


I disagree on it being a football decision up to the verdict. That's not even in keeping with the club's mission statement.

Most companies will suspend people on bail pending a trial.

I disagree with you obviously, and see you as a moral vacuum, but your honesty is refreshing.

 

[Maticmaker]

Is this club a god send to the Press or what?

Back pages, front pages, opinion pieces, etc. just like old times then.

Glazer's will never sell, no such thing as 'bad publicity'

 

[Smores]

That is plausible, but it's not pressure that is insurmountable. Case in point: the Glazers are still owners of the club.



I don't have any strong opinion on the decision given that his suspension (in the absence of a criminal indictment) serves no practical purpose. I think that is my issue with all of this. He left Manchester United. He's at Getafe now. Antony may be suspended. Who or what positively benefits from this? No one. So what's the fecking point?

I think that up to a guilty verdict (where someone loses their liberty/funds in a civil case), it is a football decision. A club has a financial asset in the case of a player, and utilizing that asset brings rewards (money, trophies). There should be a tangible reason or benefit (to the club or society) for not using that asset or otherwise tanking the value of the asset. And if it is so important to society that footballers be held to a higher standard then enact uniform standards so that less "moral" clubs don't benefit.

I don't think clubs are completely soulless entities, but I don't think they should be successfully pressured into meaningless gestures that have no positive impact at the end of the day.

If someone (an example) was to do an analysis that showed that suspensions and dismissals in these situations would certainly lead to a measurable drop in domestic assault over the next 5 years it would be worth it and I'd be all for it.

Suspension is a protective measure whether that's to protect other employees, the employees mental health or the reputation/operations of the club.

Allegations of violence or sexual assault usually fall into the first category. Given the club is a global brand with global sponsors it's not hard to understand why it could fit into the third and we simply don't know on the mental health protection

It's also a costly and risky process so you might ponder why 99% of corporations follow these steps. It's okay for you to self assess and realise you don't understand the value but there's obviously valid reasons you've yet to grasp. Move beyond 'footballer good, football play'

 

[Jeffthered]

I wouldn't be surprised if we now see a few of these 'footballer is abusive' type stories. These players need to take advice on how to conduct their private lives.

 

[Rightnr]

Bias towards what exactly?

You're showing your inability to read. I have said numerous times he shouldnt be suspended on an accusation. These accusations came out on June 6th and literally nobody called for suspension.

I also never said that we shouldn't suspend him because Arsenal didn't with their player, so not sure why you started going on about the right thing in the first place.

And Arsenal are not some minnows, they get plenty of attention when it suits them, so it's still very much a big topic they've been let off the hook here.