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

[Someone]

Good decision by the club and Antony. This was always going to be a massive distraction, and he was never going to be able to play properly with this hanging over his shoulders. And while he wasn't suspended, the club has every right to suspend any employee under criminal investigation.

Unlike the Greenwood case, I believe if he isn't charged he'll return to the club normally. So if he is innocent he'll be able to resume his playing career normally.

 

[arnie_ni]

Did the media ever name greenwood or did we only know because *someone* went public with the images and video? Ie if she didn't do that would greenwood have been arrested bailed and still playing like partey without the media ever being able to reveal his name, but everyone "knowing" who it was?

 

[redcucumber]

It is likely that three independent persons making accusations against him increases theprobability of his guilt..........

However, likelihood isn't a justification for premature vilification. If even one person was found innocent in an occasion of seemingly overwhelming presumption of guilt, then that should set the precedent for everyone outside of the legal process to withhold their tongue.

It's not enough to cite likelihood and probability as a pretext for presumption. Every single case is unique. Jurisprudence cannot afford to colour its collective lense with notions of what is usually the outcome of such things.

Just fecking wait.

Yeh well said. It's blowing my mind that people want him sacked, tarred and feathered, shot into space etc at this extremely early juncture of the process. A lot of people wetting their pants when it's really not necessary.

 

[NotThatSoph]

That might be.

Part of the reason undoubtedly is that Arsenal aren't as newsworthy (this is pretty obvious).

Personally, I find it a bit odd - not too say a bit uncomfortable - that people focus on this: in what way is it relevant that a certain other club has not been targeted to the same extent as United? Unless they actually believe in an "ABU conspiracy" perpetrated by media outlets in multiple countries, what possible relevance does it have? Isn't the obvious explanation enough? United are more newsworthy than most other clubs because we have more fans across the world.

ETA And, again, at least for the UK media, the fact that they can't name the player - or the club - is another obvious explanation for why there has been less noise about the case.

UK media drives all media on UK football, it's not like foreign journalists are doing original research. They write about what the British papers write about, often just by translating, so when Partey isn't a story in the UK he's not going to be a story in Poland, either. Also, at least in Norway, there really hasn't been that much writing about United and this, either. I'm checking the biggest tabloid on Antony, and they had one article when the allegations first surfaced, one when Brazil dropped him, one when United released their statement, and one when the training break was announced.

 

[Mickeza]

I think it was the Big Brother woman but my point is that the UK press didn't say a peep until they legally could, despite it being a huge Man United star being involved.

There's no free pass because it's a smaller club.

I mean the Giggs thing was precisely because of who he was and who he played for. Why is it in the public interest who a footballer is shagging? So much so that it gets named in parliament? It was ridiculous.

 

[TheReligion]

Well that's kind of the root of my question, what legally precludes the media from naming someone who's been arrested but not charged?

@TheReligion can you help me out here?

I know you’re not allowed to name anyone until they are actually charged as the same applies to the police. I’m not sure what legislation exactly but I imagine it’s a breach of the human rights act and the right to a private life etc.

I’m curious so I’ll have a look.

Did the media ever name greenwood or did we only know because *someone* went public with the images and video? Ie if she didn't do that would greenwood have been arrested bailed and still playing like partey without the media ever being able to reveal his name, but everyone "knowing" who it was?

Yeah pretty much.

Greenwood was charged at some point though so he could have been named at that point but not before.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I know you’re not allowed to name anyone until they are actually charged as the same applies to the police. I’m not sure what legislation exactly but I imagine it’s a breach of the human rights act and the right to a private life etc.

I’m curious so I’ll have a look.

Thanks, brother.

 

[acnumber9]

Yes trying to figure that out. Arsenal would probably argue that suspending him would be defacto naming him but the cnuts could just say he's injured.

Everton were able to suspend Sigurdsson without him ever officially being named. Arsenal have made a conscious choice not to do the same.

 

[MattyLT]

If there's anything the #metoo campaign taught me, it's that women will lie and exaggerate for the attention and power that comes with the coveted "victimhood status".

We live in a time where anytime a man sticks his head out, and does something spectacular with his life, there's always some toxic ex (or current) girlfriend/encounter ready to take him down under the banner of #BelieveAllWomen.

I'm not buying it, and I'm not buying the Greenwood ordeal either. And as for the Giggs case, that's entirely between him, his wife, and his brother. For all we know, his wife didn't feck him, and his brother didn't feck his wife.

Go ahead and ban me. Had it with this emasculated, woke shit show of a football forum anyways.

 

[TheReligion]

Thanks, brother.

Yeah it’s along the lines of a breach of human rights (right to private life/privacy).

The shift when charged is that it’s believed at this point there’s a reasonable expectation you relinquish that right.

 

[redcucumber]

If there's anything the #metoo campaign taught me, it's that women will lie and exaggerate for the attention and power that comes with the coveted "victimhood status".

We live in a time where anytime a man sticks his head out, and does something spectacular with his life, there's always some toxic ex (or current) girlfriend/encounter ready to take him down under the banner of #BelieveAllWomen.

Not buying it this time either!

Oh Matty. Where did it all go so wrong?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

UK media drives all media on UK football, it's not like foreign journalists are doing original research. They write about what the British papers write about, often just by translating, so when Partey isn't a story in the UK he's not going to be a story in Poland, either.

True, fair point.

 

[Holocene]

If there's anything the #metoo campaign taught me, it's that women will lie and exaggerate for the attention and power that comes with the coveted "victimhood status".

We live in a time where anytime a man sticks his head out, and does something spectacular with his life, there's always some toxic ex (or current) girlfriend/encounter ready to take him down under the banner of #BelieveAllWomen.

Not buying it this time either!

That's your main takeaway from the MeToo movement? Jesus wept

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Everton were able to suspend Sigurdsson without him ever officially being named. Arsenal have made a conscious choice not to do the same.

Interesting if true.

Yeah it’s along the lines of a breach of human rights (right to private life/privacy).

The shift when charged is that it’s believed at this point there’s a reasonable expectation you relinquish that right.

Cheers TR.

 

[MattyLT]

Oh Matty. Where did it all go so wrong?

Nothing wrong with me or my life. And one of the main reasons for that, is that I'm not some mentally castrated **** who thinks women are sugar and spice, and all things nice.

That's your main takeaway from the MeToo movement? Jesus wept

Yes, that is my main takeaway.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Greenwood was charged at some point though so he could have been named at that point but not before.

He wasn't technically named by the major outlets when the story first broke, to the point of it being comical: they reported that United had suspended Mason Greenwood and that "a man in his 20s" had been arrested following the suspension.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Yes, Rachel and her social media torch and pitchfork mob are on the case!

I can’t help feeling that if this was another club, say Liverpool, they’d be adopting a siege mentality - us against the World (see Suarez racism incident) rather than caving into social media pressure yet again, regardless of the supposed presumption of innocence.

 

[phenry]

If there's anything the #metoo campaign taught me, it's that women will lie and exaggerate for the attention and power that comes with the coveted "victimhood status".

We live in a time where anytime a man sticks his head out, and does something spectacular with his life, there's always some toxic ex (or current) girlfriend/encounter ready to take him down under the banner of #BelieveAllWomen.

I'm not buying it, and I'm not buying the Greenwood ordeal either. And as for the Giggs case, that's entirely between him, his wife, and his brother. For all we know, his wife didn't feck him, and his brother didn't feck his wife.

Go ahead and ban me. Had it with this emasculated, woke shit show of a football forum anyways.

Amen brother. Not so much with the criticism of this forum cause I think its better than some other places but yea the woke outcry and cancell culture crap is getting very tiresome

 

[neon_badger]

If there's anything the #metoo campaign taught me, it's that women will lie and exaggerate for the attention and power that comes with the coveted "victimhood status".

We live in a time where anytime a man sticks his head out, and does something spectacular with his life, there's always some toxic ex (or current) girlfriend/encounter ready to take him down under the banner of #BelieveAllWomen.

I'm not buying it, and I'm not buying the Greenwood ordeal either. And as for the Giggs case, that's entirely between him, his wife, and his brother. For all we know, his wife didn't feck him, and his brother didn't feck his wife.

Go ahead and ban me. Had it with this emasculated, woke shit show of a football forum anyways.

I suspect everything you were "tought" from the #metoo campaign came via an Andrew Tate fanboy chatroom. Grim.

 

[Andycoleno9]

I can’t help feeling that if this was another club, say Liverpool, they’d be adopting a siege mentality - us against the World (see Suarez racism incident) rather than caving into social media pressure yet again, regardless of the supposed presumption of innocence.

United's obsession with public opinion is over the top. That is not the way how business should be run.

 

[klsv]

If there's anything the #metoo campaign taught me, it's that women will lie and exaggerate for the attention and power that comes with the coveted "victimhood status".

We live in a time where anytime a man sticks his head out, and does something spectacular with his life, there's always some toxic ex (or current) girlfriend/encounter ready to take him down under the banner of #BelieveAllWomen.

I'm not buying it, and I'm not buying the Greenwood ordeal either. And as for the Giggs case, that's entirely between him, his wife, and his brother. For all we know, his wife didn't feck him, and his brother didn't feck his wife.

Go ahead and ban me. Had it with this emasculated, woke shit show of a football forum anyways.

I can’t help feeling that if this was another club, say Liverpool, they’d be adopting a siege mentality - us against the World (see Suarez racism incident) rather than caving into social media pressure yet again, regardless of the supposed presumption of innocence.

Sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but I can't help feeling that it's super weird how, when any of our managers dare to hint that we should aspire to be like City, Liverpool or Arsenal ON the pitch, they get yelled abuse at. Then, suddenly, when it comes to handling our problematic players OFF the pitch, they are somehow prime examples that we should follow.

 

[cyberman]

That might be.

Part of the reason undoubtedly is that Arsenal aren't as newsworthy (this is pretty obvious).

Personally, I find it a bit odd - not too say a bit uncomfortable - that people focus on this: in what way is it relevant that a certain other club has not been targeted to the same extent as United? Unless they actually believe in an "ABU conspiracy" perpetrated by media outlets in multiple countries, what possible relevance does it have? Isn't the obvious explanation enough? United are more newsworthy than most other clubs because we have more fans across the world.

ETA And, again, at least for the UK media, the fact that they can't name the player - or the club - is another obvious explanation for why there has been less noise about the case.

I don’t think this at all but if you do then suspending players because we are higher profile is an idiotic thing to do.
The example is right there when fans tells us we will lose support of female players. Hasn’t stopped them hoovering up our best talent. Lose female support? Where has that happened? Sky even mutes the boos he gets. They aren’t tainted, they’re not viewed as morally bankrupt.
Doomsday scenarios of not suspending players etc just aren’t set in reality.

 

[Wilt]

If there's anything the #metoo campaign taught me, it's that women will lie and exaggerate for the attention and power that comes with the coveted "victimhood status".

We live in a time where anytime a man sticks his head out, and does something spectacular with his life, there's always some toxic ex (or current) girlfriend/encounter ready to take him down under the banner of #BelieveAllWomen.

I'm not buying it, and I'm not buying the Greenwood ordeal either. And as for the Giggs case, that's entirely between him, his wife, and his brother. For all we know, his wife didn't feck him, and his brother didn't feck his wife.

Go ahead and ban me. Had it with this emasculated, woke shit show of a football forum anyways.

@MattyLT
Do you hate all women or just those with an opinion?

 

[Nogho]

Well, if they'd plain accused him of something criminal on social media, they'd risk being sued too.

True!

 

[Andersonson]

Should we do a poll on who's next?

Either way, good decision by the club.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I can’t help feeling that if this was another club, say Liverpool, they’d be adopting a siege mentality - us against the World (see Suarez racism incident) rather than caving into social media pressure yet again, regardless of the supposed presumption of innocence.

Do you think "adopting a siege mentality - us against the world" over a player accused of domestic violence against multiple women would be a good idea?

 

[Greyfog]

What a shame. A somewhat promising 2nd season for 10 Hag is going down the drain 4 games in. Sad to see it

 

[NotThatSoph]

Sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but I can't help feeling that it's super weird how, when any of our managers dare to hint that we should aspire to be like City, Liverpool or Arsenal ON the pitch, they get yelled abuse at. Then, suddenly, when it comes to handling our problematic players OFF the pitch, they are somehow prime examples that we should follow.

I remember when Liverpool's handling of the Suarez-Evra racism conflict was a point of ridicule, now it's an inspiration.

 

[Berbasbullet]

I remember when Liverpool's handling of the Suarez-Evra racism conflict was a point of ridicule, now it's an inspiration.

This! I still don't look at Liverpool the same after that, and good Liverpool fans were deeply uncomfortable about the whole situation.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Do you think "adopting a siege mentality - us against the world" over a player accused of domestic violence against multiple women would be a good idea?

Again, the presumption of innocence is an important concept of law in the UK and should be preserved rather than eroded.

 

[JediSith]

If there's anything the #metoo campaign taught me, it's that women will lie and exaggerate for the attention and power that comes with the coveted "victimhood status".

We live in a time where anytime a man sticks his head out, and does something spectacular with his life, there's always some toxic ex (or current) girlfriend/encounter ready to take him down under the banner of #BelieveAllWomen.

I'm not buying it, and I'm not buying the Greenwood ordeal either. And as for the Giggs case, that's entirely between him, his wife, and his brother. For all we know, his wife didn't feck him, and his brother didn't feck his wife.

Go ahead and ban me. Had it with this emasculated, woke shit show of a football forum anyways.

Did R Kelly ask you to type that or is it your own thoughts?

 

[Andycoleno9]

This! I still don't look at Liverpool the same after that, and good Liverpool fans were deeply uncomfortable about the whole situation.

Never go in extremes. Liverpool sticked with Suarez even after that shitshow ended. Which was awful move by them.
On the other hand, we are dropping players as soon as they are charged for something. Imo, both ways are wrong.

 

[Berbasbullet]

Again, the presumption of innocence is an important concept of law in the UK and should be preserved rather than eroded.

The club aren't assuming he's guilty though?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I don’t think this at all but if you do then suspending players because we are higher profile is an idiotic thing to do.

He's not suspended.

But - no, I don't agree that it's idiotic to take the club's profile into consideration. To keep on keeping on in this particular case would have been idiotic. The club would have attracted even more negative attention and the player would have been under immense pressure and scrutiny. If he had played for Oldham, the attention, pressure and scrutiny would've been negligible by comparison - but he isn't: of course United's high profile must be part of the consideration for all involved (from sponsors to the player himself, this is just the nature of the beast regardless of how one feels about other aspects of the case).

 

[NotThatSoph]

Never go in extremes. Liverpool sticked with Suarez even after that shitshow ended. Which was awful move by them.
On the other hand, we are dropping players as soon as they are charged for something. Imo, both ways are wrong.

The Suarez case never "ended" if we're using the same criteria. Racial abuse is a crime in the UK, and Suarez was never charged. He is innocent until proven guilty, as we've heard so often.

 

[MexicanCowboy]

Man, I have no idea if he Is guilty or not but how unlucky do we have to be to have this again 2 years later.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Again, the presumption of innocence is an important concept of law in the UK and should be preserved rather than eroded.

United haven't done anything to undermine that principle - it would be hyperbolic in the extreme to even suggest this.

 

[ScholesyTheWise]

I can’t help feeling that if this was another club, say Liverpool, they’d be adopting a siege mentality - us against the World (see Suarez racism incident) rather than caving into social media pressure yet again, regardless of the supposed presumption of innocence.

Do we want to adopt a siege mentality in a case where our player might be found guilty in a court of law of having done some horrible stuff?
I really don't think so.

If the courts cleared him of wrongdoing and everyone would still give us shit for playing him or even standing by him, it's a different matter.

Liverpool were pretty stupid to do what they did, if you ask me. Sure it brought a lot of their fans together, and made Suarez feel loved. but he was found to have used s racist slur repeatedly, and also left them a short while afterwards...

I actually wonder how many of them are happy with how their club acted in retrospect.

 

[Wumminator]

If there's anything the #metoo campaign taught me, it's that women will lie and exaggerate for the attention and power that comes with the coveted "victimhood status".

We live in a time where anytime a man sticks his head out, and does something spectacular with his life, there's always some toxic ex (or current) girlfriend/encounter ready to take him down under the banner of #BelieveAllWomen.

I'm not buying it, and I'm not buying the Greenwood ordeal either. And as for the Giggs case, that's entirely between him, his wife, and his brother. For all we know, his wife didn't feck him, and his brother didn't feck his wife.

Go ahead and ban me. Had it with this emasculated, woke shit show of a football forum anyways.

Imagine that being what you take from MeToo.

 

[cyberman]

He's not suspended.

But - no, I don't agree that it's idiotic to take the club's profile into consideration. To keep on keeping on in this particular case would have been idiotic. The club would have attracted even more negative attention and the player would have been under immense pressure and scrutiny. If he had played for Oldham, the attention, pressure and scrutiny would've been negligible by comparison - but he isn't: of course United's high profile must be part of the consideration for all involved (from sponsors to the player himself, this is just the nature of the beast regardless of how one feels about other aspects of the case).

As a fanbase we are more aware than if it were another player at another club imo. Everything is relative to your fanbase.