Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic

[Rood]

I do agree it does make a difference in terms of fair discussion of what he is accused of. So if we are going to be discussing it in legal terms yes the distinction should be made.

I disagree that it should absolve him from being criticised for rapist like behaviour and also being branded as one. If someone speaks in the way he did I would 100% assume his full intent was to perform the act and therefore while their is a legal distinction between attempt and actually carrying out of an act trying to rape someone or threatening it for me makes you morally as corrupt and undeserving of sympathy, respect and such like and shows you to be a real threat worthy of branding with an unpleasant societal label.

So while there is no smoking gun to evidence it there is enough in the public domain to enable people to have that opinion of him. Hand on heart would anyone who heard that from a colleague at work be comfortable around them again with no other context being explained to you? Would you think the worst or be naturally inclined to give them another chance?

The only natural reaction to hearing the audio and seeing the pics is utter disgust.

But since initially hearing the audio in Jan '22, a lot of info has come out that casts doubt about what exactly the content released on Instagram actually shows so my feeling about that audio today is not the same as when I first heard it.

The new info (back with her, CPS case closed, club find not guilty, her family support) certainly doesn't absolve him so I can understand some criticism, but given the big unknowns I don't think it's correct to brand someone as a rapist because that's obviously one of the worst tags anyone could have and you should be absolutely sure before using it.

 

[Rood]

I meant in terms of the "jokes" about it mate.

Ah ok, I think we can probably agree that jokes about such a serious subject only belong in the General and not in a thread like this.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

The only natural reaction to hearing the audio and seeing the pics is utter disgust.

But since initially hearing the audio in Jan '22, a lot of info has come out that casts doubt about what exactly the content released on Instagram actually shows so my feeling about that audio today is not the same as when I first heard it.

The new info (back with her, CPS case closed, club find not guilty, her family support) certainly doesn't absolve him so I can understand some criticism, but given the big unknowns I don't think it's correct to brand someone as a rapist because that's obviously one of the worst tags anyone could have and you should be absolutely sure before using it.

There is no new information that is publicly available that counters the initial interpretation of the audio.

The apology for mistakes made in the relationship, the fathers statement to the papers about their relationship however.

You say your feeling has changed so listening to it now what do you think?

 

[BenitoSTARR]

In so much as there isn’t to my knowledge a comment specifically stating that the audio is not real. Or that the audio does not accurately reflect the situation.

It would be an easy one to clear up.

 

[Rood]

In so much as there isn’t to my knowledge a comment specifically stating that the audio is not real. Or that the audio does not accurately reflect the situation.

It would be an easy one to clear up.

- We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording, and for the images posted online.
- The alleged victim's family participated in the process and were given the opportunity to review and correct our factual findings.

https://www.manutd.com/en/news/deta...orters-after-club-decision-on-mason-greenwood

 

[Gandalf]

- We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording, and for the images posted online.
- The alleged victim's family participated in the process and were given the opportunity to review and correct our factual findings.

https://www.manutd.com/en/news/deta...orters-after-club-decision-on-mason-greenwood

The only alternative explanation provided was that it was an excerpt from a longer recording, all other alternative explanations you may have seen are speculative attempts at fiction by his defenders. No actual explanation has ever been offered and as has been pointed out on many occasions if there is an alternative explanation that casts the audio in a different light why on earth has it never been provided? The only obvious conclusion that can be reached is that there is no alternative explanation and what you hear is exactly what it sounds like.

The participation of the victims family boiled down to the girls mother speaking to that paragon of virtue Richard Arnold and declining to dispute the explanations offered to the club by Mason.

 

[Lash]

The only alternative explanation provided was that it was an excerpt from a longer recording, all other alternative explanations you may have seen are speculative attempts at fiction by his defenders. No actual explanation has ever been offered and as has been pointed out on many occasions if there is an alternative explanation that casts the audio in a different light why on earth has it never been provided? The only obvious conclusion that can be reached is that there is no alternative explanation and what you hear is exactly what it sounds like.

The participation of the victims family boiled down to the girls mother speaking to that paragon of virtue Richard Arnold and declining to dispute the explanations offered to the club by Mason.

I always find it strange that people point to the clubs statement as if it's irrefutable, when they bare face lied to everyone that they hadn't made a decision he was coming back.

 

[Rood]

The only alternative explanation provided was that it was an excerpt from a longer recording, all other alternative explanations you may have seen are speculative attempts at fiction by his defenders. No actual explanation has ever been offered and as has been pointed out on many occasions if there is an alternative explanation that casts the audio in a different light why on earth has it never been provided? The only obvious conclusion that can be reached is that there is no alternative explanation and what you hear is exactly what it sounds like.

The participation of the victims family boiled down to the girls mother speaking to that paragon of virtue Richard Arnold and declining to dispute the explanations offered to the club by Mason.

That might be your conclusion but it's completely baseless and there are certainly other possibilities.

It's also speculation and not fact that the explanation came from Mason.

I find it pretty strange that you are so dismissive of the girl's mother supporting the club findings - it's the single biggest area of doubt for me.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

That might be your conclusion but it's completely baseless and there are certainly other possibilities.

It's also speculation and not fact that the explanation came from Mason.

I find it pretty strange that you are so dismissive of the girl's mother supporting the club findings - it's the single biggest area of doubt for me.

Supporting is a strong word and not her own.

“The alleged victim's family participated in the process and were given the opportunity to review and correct our factual findings.”

Where does it say the mother participated and supported the version of events presented?

It just says the family had the opportunity to review and correct “factual findings”.

 

[redcucumber]

Supporting is a strong word and not her own.



Where does it say the mother participated and supported the version of events presented?

It just says the family had the opportunity to review and correct “factual findings”.

The family were directly involved in United's internal investigation - the investigation found alternative explanations for the audio and images. We aren't privy to what these alternatives are, but it's fairly cut and dry that the family support whatever it was that United uncovered.

 

[Sir Erik ten Hag]

What I want from our new board is ruthlessness and decisiveness.

The way Arnold was totally ready to bring him back, then did a complete U-turn because of the media pressure was dreadful.

It’s like our “private investigation” was a joke and totally didn’t matter.

 

[sebsheep]

The family were directly involved in United's internal investigation - the investigation found alternative explanations for the audio and images. We aren't privy to what these alternatives are, but it's fairly cut and dry that the family support whatever it was that United uncovered.

Well I'm glad they found alternative explanations for all the stuff people had issues with so that he could continue to play for United rather than having to go out on loan to somewhere like Spain.

 

[Lash]

What I want from our new board is ruthlessness and decisiveness.

The way Arnold was totally ready to bring him back, then did a complete U-turn because of the media pressure was dreadful.

It’s like our “private investigation” was a joke and totally didn’t matter.

it's because it wasn't interested in being objective, it was more interested in finding a way to bring him back.

They said they made no decision but were planning for all eventualities, which was clearly bullshit. A PR strategy and re-integration plan was formed, but they didn't sound out any potential buyers or loans if he had to move on? They wanted the outcome of the investigation to clear him, so they never planned for it to go the other way.

 

[redcucumber]

Well I'm glad they found alternative explanations for all the stuff people had issues with so that he could continue to play for United rather than having to go out on loan to somewhere like Spain.

That was literally the plan until it got leaked and some members of the public got up in arms about it. It was well reported at the time.

 

[Rood]

Supporting is a strong word and not her own.



Where does it say the mother participated and supported the version of events presented?

It just says the family had the opportunity to review and correct “factual findings”.

Sounds like we are just getting into semantics here - the statements are pretty clear to me, whether you believe them or not is up to you.

And in any case, if her family didn't agree with the club's findings then surely this would have come out by now.

 

[sebsheep]

That was literally the plan until it got leaked and some members of the public got up in arms about it. It was well reported at the time.

Does that make you wonder about those alternative explanations?
The club deemed them good enough to plan on bringing him back but also not actually good enough to bring him back. If the audio/pictures are explainable then there really is no controversy.

 

[TheReligion]

it's because it wasn't interested in being objective, it was more interested in finding a way to bring him back.

In your opinion I assume?

We have no way of knowing the details of the police investigation or what the club did as part of theirs. We only have what’s in the public domain in terms of the images/audio, and statements from the police, CPS and United.

 

[Widow]

Does that make you wonder about those alternative explanations?
The club deemed them good enough to plan on bringing him back but also not actually good enough to bring him back. If the audio/pictures are explainable then there really is no controversy.

There will always be controversy as all the information will never become public knowledge. The tape is bad, very bad but there's enough to suggest it's not as clean cut as some will have you believe.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

The family were directly involved in United's internal investigation - the investigation found alternative explanations for the audio and images. We aren't privy to what these alternatives are, but it's fairly cut and dry that the family support whatever it was that United uncovered.

Again this idea of support though?

If the family were none the wiser up to the point of the audio and images being made public and their daughter decides to drop charges and they haven’t since publicly come out in support then I don’t think it’s the same thing.

I think United were put in a shit situation that they shouldn’t have to have dealt with. But it’s a very different thing United having their own investigation (in which we know the plan was for them to get Greenwood back into the squad) and a family being given a version of events from which source exactly?

United are hiding behind the vagueness of their statements because of the legal implications of doing anything else.

Sounds like we are just getting into semantics here - the statements are pretty clear to me, whether you believe them or not is up to you.

And in any case, if her family didn't agree with the club's findings then surely this would have come out by now.

The choice of words we use to describe things surrounding this case are very important. Support implies active positive alignment with a version of events. Accepting a version of events isn’t the same.

It’s also not really in the family’s interests to then go against their daughter deciding to drop charges with a baby on the way.

Maybe rood I'm just never going to change my mind on this unless there is further proof of him not doing this.

I’d love to live in a world where this wasn’t a thing but I can’t currently separate the available context prior to the charges being dropped from the behaviour of a coercive and controlling individual which then leads me to a certain line of thought regarding other matters.

United by their own admission did not have access to all information available to CPS and so neither did the family unless that information or versions of that were shared via the victim or Greenwood.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

In your opinion I assume?

We have no way of knowing the details of the police investigation or what the club did as part of theirs. We only have what’s in the public domain in terms of the images/audio, and statements from the police, CPS and United.

We know that United intended to bring him back. That is public knowledge.

It’s also unrealistic to assume that United are an unbiased arbiter in any judgement of Greenwood.

 

[flameinthesun]

Anyway, if we include goals against semi pro players for Greenwood, he’s currently scored one more goal than Bebe this season. I see no reason to bring him back from a footballing point of view either.

And Julian Alvarez and Evan Ferguson have less goals than Nicolas Jackson in the prem. I see no reason to buy them over Jackson...

 

[gajender]

We know that United intended to bring him back. That is public knowledge.

It’s also unrealistic to assume that United are an unbiased arbiter in any judgement of Greenwood.

No they are not but they are the only party who seem to be talking financial hit but thats anyway nothing new and if you think about it they could have easily hidden behind CPS decision to drop the case rather than doing internal investigation and doing flip flopping all summer if they just wanted to bring him back .

 

[TheReligion]

We know that United intended to bring him back. That is public knowledge.

It’s also unrealistic to assume that United are an unbiased arbiter in any judgement of Greenwood.

They intended to bring him back following their investigation?

Again it may be unrealistic in your opinion but without knowing the details we can’t say definitively. Its all subjective which makes these arguments go around in circles.

 

[Lash]

No they are not but they are the only party who seem to be talking financial hit but thats anyway nothing new and if you think about it they could have easily hidden behind CPS decision to drop the case rather than doing internal investigation and doing flip flopping all summer if they just wanted to bring him back .

They didn't flip flop all summer though, they wanted to bring him back until it got leaked they were planning to and U-turned based off reaction within from their own organisation. The financial hit is only because of incompetence, rather than a decision to take a financial hit on moral grounds.

 

[Lash]

In your opinion I assume?

We have no way of knowing the details of the police investigation or what the club did as part of theirs. We only have what’s in the public domain in terms of the images/audio, and statements from the police, CPS and United.

Of course it's opinion because I don't know everything, but I struggle to see how they even thought about the possibility of the investigation leading to him not coming back.

Firstly the investigation took far too long if all they needed was a longer excerpt of the clip for context and the family backing the version of the events from Greenwood's side to deem he's not guilty of what he was charged of. Secondly by the reports, they spent significant resources on a plan to re-integrate him, but absolutely zero resources on an exit strategy for him.

It may be an opinion, but is there anything to support they were at all prepared of the eventuality the proceedings would lead him to not playing for the club again?

 

[MrParker]

Again this idea of support though?

If the family were none the wiser up to the point of the audio and images being made public and their daughter decides to drop charges and they haven’t since publicly come out in support then I don’t think it’s the same thing.

I think United were put in a shit situation that they shouldn’t have to have dealt with. But it’s a very different thing United having their own investigation (in which we know the plan was for them to get Greenwood back into the squad) and a family being given a version of events from which source exactly?

Did the father not come out the morning after the content was released online to make a public statement in support of Greenwood? Unless their position changed, I'm not sure why they would do another statement to support the player.

As for Man Utd's investigation, I think it's unfair to suggest it was carried out with the intention of finding Greenwood not guilty.

Both the CPS and Man Utd reference additional evidence which isn't in the public domain as part of their reasoning for dropping charges/believing the alleged offence(s) wasn't committed. I think it's very rash for anyone to jump to conclusions or speculate when key material which has influenced both the CPS and Man Utds stance isn't available.

Of course people are entitled to make their own judgement on the players character and whether they would like him to return. But to label the individual as XYZ without having access to key evidence isn't diligent in my opinion and I also think it's poor form from some to label other members who haven't jumped to conclusions as domestic abuse/rape/greenwood apologists too. The opinions, verdicts and conclusions drawn up by the club, CPS, accuser and friends/family of the accused whom all will have likely had access to more evidence supersedes that of anyone on here.

 

[TheReligion]

Of course it's opinion because I don't know everything, but I struggle to see how they even thought about the possibility of the investigation leading to him not coming back.

Firstly the investigation took far too long if all they needed was a longer excerpt of the clip for context and the family backing the version of the events from Greenwood's side to deem he's not guilty of what he was charged of. Secondly by the reports, they spent significant resources on a plan to re-integrate him, but absolutely zero resources on an exit strategy for him.

It may be an opinion, but is there anything to support they were at all prepared of the eventuality the proceedings would lead him to not playing for the club again?

There’s perhaps nothing to support that to your knowledge but that doesn’t mean there isn’t.

Again the point I’m making is everyone is guessing here so it’s all a bit pointless.

 

[Rood]

Again this idea of support though?

If the family were none the wiser up to the point of the audio and images being made public and their daughter decides to drop charges and they haven’t since publicly come out in support then I don’t think it’s the same thing.

I think United were put in a shit situation that they shouldn’t have to have dealt with. But it’s a very different thing United having their own investigation (in which we know the plan was for them to get Greenwood back into the squad) and a family being given a version of events from which source exactly?

United are hiding behind the vagueness of their statements because of the legal implications of doing anything else.

The choice of words we use to describe things surrounding this case are very important. Support implies active positive alignment with a version of events. Accepting a version of events isn’t the same.

It’s also not really in the family’s interests to then go against their daughter deciding to drop charges with a baby on the way.

Maybe rood I'm just never going to change my mind on this unless there is further proof of him not doing this.

I’d love to live in a world where this wasn’t a thing but I can’t currently separate the available context prior to the charges being dropped from the behaviour of a coercive and controlling individual which then leads me to a certain line of thought regarding other matters.

United by their own admission did not have access to all information available to CPS and so neither did the family unless that information or versions of that were shared via the victim or Greenwood.

Well if the mother thought her daughter was in any kind of danger then I would fully expect her do whatever to keep her away. There is also a father, elder sister and a brother around.

As far as I understand it, both the Greenwood and Robson families have been integrally involved in the entire process and continue to be.

I don't expect anyone to change their opinion, but just make sure you are fully aware of all the facts before making serious judgements.
We are now almost 2 years on from the day that the content was initially released on Instagram and it seems to me that many have not taken the time to look at the fine details of all the statements, timelines etc that have recently become publicly available.

 

[Lash]

There’s perhaps nothing to support that to your knowledge but that doesn’t mean there isn’t.

Again the point I’m making is everyone is guessing here so it’s all a bit pointless.

I'm open to changing my opinion if I'm presented with something that does support that. I see massive inconsistencies with the statements put out and their actions.

I'm discussing, I am taking everything available to me and coming to an opinion. I'm not even talking about Greenwood's guilt or innocence here, just United's statement and their actions.

 

[Fridge chutney]

We are now almost 2 years on from the day that the content was initially released on Instagram and it seems to me that many have not taken the time to look at the fine details of all the statements, timelines etc that have recently become publicly available.

Or... perhaps many of us have looked at the "fine details" and come to the conclusion that the "fine details" do not explain the abhorrent audio and images that depict domestic violence and attempted rape.

 

[rimaldo]

Or... perhaps many of us have looked at the "fine details" and come to the conclusion that the "fine details" do not explain the abhorrent audio and images that depict domestic violence and attempted rape.

nonsense. we praise greenwood’s mental fortitude and absolve him of all his sins. even though they were only alleged sins. and if anything he should be rewarded for his behaviour.

 

[TheReligion]

I'm open to changing my opinion if I'm presented with something that does support that. I see massive inconsistencies with the statements put out and their actions.

I'm discussing, I am taking everything available to me and coming to an opinion. I'm not even talking about Greenwood's guilt or innocence here, just United's statement and their actions.

Of course. I totally understand that view.

I think some, either side, are trying to portray their subjective take as fact though which isn’t correct. I’m not saying you are by the way, just pointing out that everyone is in the dark and at this point its not clear if we’ll ever see any more light shed on anything.

 

[Lash]

Of course. I totally understand that view.

I think some, either side, are trying to portray their subjective take as fact though which isn’t correct. I’m not saying you are by the way, just pointing out that everyone is in the dark and at this point its not clear if we’ll ever see any more light shed on anything.

That's true. I am trying to be careful not to do that, but as I don't want him back, I probably stray sometimes into that area on occasion. Your post did make me really think about what I'm posting and try my hardest to not do that, so thanks.

Just back to the point I was making though, even if we take a fraction of Crafton's report here as true (this was the shortest clip I could find covering the point I'm trying to make), those are not the actions of an organisation who's not made a decision - which United tried to claim.

https://www.tiktok.com/@thenewsagents/video/7270169694995320096

 

[TheReligion]

That's true. I am trying to be careful not to do that, but as I don't want him back, I probably stray sometimes into that area on occasion. Your post did make me really think about what I'm posting and try my hardest to not do that, so thanks.

Just back to the point I was making though, even if we take a fraction of Crafton's report here as true (this was the shortest clip I could find covering the point I'm trying to make), those are not the actions of an organisation who's not made a decision - which United tried to claim.

https://www.tiktok.com/@thenewsagents/video/7270169694995320096

Again, perfectly understandable. We are human after all and given what’s been seen and heard publicly It’s only natural. Especially when it’s something so emotive.

I’ve tried to stay neutral throughout and be open minded to either side. I think that’s perhaps easier for me though. Even still you often find when you stick down the middle others will try and trip you up to make you appear to fall on one side or the other.

Again it’s really difficult when there are such strong views each way.

 

[sebsheep]

There will always be controversy as all the information will never become public knowledge. The tape is bad, very bad but there's enough to suggest it's not as clean cut as some will have you believe.

If there was a legitimate way of explaining it then would there be much? You might get some yeah because things were out in the open but if you can explain that stuff then you do and try to move forward.
All we got was a "we know what you've heard and seen, but we have heard a different explanation that has changed our minds but you can't hear it"
Considering the impact this whole thing could have on his career why are the behaving like that if he did nothing wrong here?

 

[golden_blunder]

What I want from our new board is ruthlessness and decisiveness.

The way Arnold was totally ready to bring him back, then did a complete U-turn because of the media pressure was dreadful.

It’s like our “private investigation” was a joke and totally didn’t matter.

It suggests to be that United were unsure that they were doing the right thing anyway. Had they been 100% sure I have no doubt he’d be part of the squad now.

I said at the time, they should have employed an external investigator

 

[Widow]

If there was a legitimate way of explaining it then would there be much? You might get some yeah because things were out in the open but if you can explain that stuff then you do and try to move forward.
All we got was a "we know what you've heard and seen, but we have heard a different explanation that has changed our minds but you can't hear it"
Considering the impact this whole thing could have on his career why are the behaving like that if he did nothing wrong here?

It's not for us to hear though that's absolutely his and her choice.

I don't think he did 'nothing wrong' but I don't believe he actually raped her and so I won't be labeling him with that tag.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

Of course. I totally understand that view.

I think some, either side, are trying to portray their subjective take as fact though which isn’t correct. I’m not saying you are by the way, just pointing out that everyone is in the dark and at this point its not clear if we’ll ever see any more light shed on anything.

Exactly, biggest takeaway I've had as well which is why I roll my eyes at everyone making definitive statements or wanting him burned at the stake etc. without any real clue as to what actually happened aside from a single social media post and the knowledge that an investigation occurred, and then the subsequent knowledge that they had a kid and are still together.

 

[TheReligion]

I said at the time, they should have employed an external investigator

That would have been a really good idea. I wonder if they could revisit that in the summer or if INEOS will as a ‘fresh pair of eyes’ even if they wouldn’t be fully independent.

I suspect they will already be privy to the details of the investigation anyway at this point but they could choose to do some more work with it before he returns from the loan.

 

[Camilo]

Genuine thought - is this the worst (football-related) thread in Caf history?

To say it is tough reading is an understatement really.

I think it's a great thread. Too much time online is spent in echo chambers. I understand why Greenwood threads were closed for so long, but I also think it's a real shame people couldn't discuss and argue in whatever disgusting language they wanted from minute one of his suspension.

I fecking love an argument. That's how society works.