First off, I’m not saying it’s the case, I’m saying alternative explanations do exist however many people want to deny it.If that is the case, and that's a big IF, seems like Mason is giving up a hell of a lot to protect someone that would try and ruin him like that.
Doesn't make any sense at all.
Don't need to make up random scenarios or cover old ground. Just disagree that any alternative explanation throws her under the bus. The only one that does is that she made everything up, which we have absolutely 0 inclination of and is pointless to speculate or bring up as I think we can all agree on both sides that is probably not the case.Ok, give me an alternative explanation that doesn’t.
Mason obviously gave an alternative explanation to Arnold including an excuse that the recording was part of a longer tape, what excuse (cooked up, or truthful) do you think he said the longer tape included?
I couldn’t disagree more, any alternative explanation absolutely throws her under the bus. He’s either a wife beating, rape threatening scumbag, or she made a lot of stuff up in a rage to ruin him.Don't need to make up random scenarios or cover old ground. Just disagree that any alternative explanation throws her under the bus. The only one that does is that she made everything up, which we have absolutely 0 inclination of and is pointless to speculate or bring up as I think we can all agree on both sides that is probably not the case.
But why, of the two of them, would they want Greenwood to assume blame if he's innocent? Of the two of them he's best equipped, financially at least, to be the 'provider' and has the potential for enormous future riches. Why on earth would they both jeopardize that given that they're seemingly intent on staying together if there's exculpatory evidence, simply to preserve her public image? Surely of the two of them, his public image would be most important to their combined future. It doesn't make any sense and I think you know it.Exactly, the only other explanation makes it her fault, that’s what I’m getting at.
So they either leave it as it is currently, or place massive blame on her. Hence why you’ll never get a public explanation.
Get it now?
To many people it simply isn't believable that he was stitched up completely (the audio is misleading, the pictures were either posted out of context or plain fake,) and that his reaction to this (being utterly stitched up) was to break bail and do his utmost to get back together with her. Your explanation above (that his case was weak) doesn't seem particularly likely.I couldn’t disagree more, any alternative explanation absolutely throws her under the bus. He’s either a wife beating, rape threatening scumbag, or she made a lot of stuff up in a rage to ruin him.
Can anyone explain or give any idea as to how Mason excused the audio to Arnold and the internal investigation by saying it was part of a longer recording? I can only think of twos excuses that “work”.
Public image, harassment from fans, the dogs abuse she’d get for impacting negatively on the movement against DV, and possible legal proceedings.But why, of the two of them, would they want Greenwood to assume blame if he's innocent? Of the two of them he's best equipped, financially at least, to be the 'provider' and has the potential for enormous future riches. Why on earth would they both jeopardize that given that they're seemingly intent on staying together if there's exculpatory evidence, simply to preserve her public image? Surely of the two of them, his public image would be most important to their combined future. It doesn't make any sense and I think you know it.
If nothing untoward happened, you would think that the best thing would be for her to go public. Yes it will be embarrassing but any more embarrassing than what they have now? If there is truly nothing and she comes out to give her side I would imagine that they could move on from this episode. The fact that they are saying nothing just feeds the doubts and the idea that they are hiding somethingIt's a valid question and in fact the biggest question mark on the club/Greenwood's statements but Arnold said:
" I am restricted as to what I can say for legal reasons, including the alleged victim's ongoing right to anonymity..."
That 'right to anonymity' is a bit strange since everyone knows who she is, but this is the law of the land and obviously her wishes have to be respected.
That’s debatable, he’s one of the best talents I’ve ever seen at the club and players like that do not come around often. Yes we will have other top talents (Mainoo, Garnacho etc) but few have quite as much ability as Greenwood. You’re right though I don’t expect to see him at Utd again so will have to follow him from afar and hope he still fulfils his initial promise.I don't understand why we can't just move on from him? Yes he was a talentbut with all the shit that happened just let him go. He is in our past and should stay there. There will always be more talents like him.
Why wouldn’t she/they just do that anyway? It’s best for her family after all? Just say that much was out of context, the pics were from an accident and that the longer tape explains away the rest as some role play. They wouldn’t even have to release the tape.If nothing untoward happened, you would think that the best thing would be for her to go public. Yes it will be embarrassing but any more embarrassing than what they have now?
You know as well as I do that they'd wiggle out of any sort of 'filing a false report' charges if they had to. You mention public image but, again, she didn't have a public image to begin with and any damage to hers would fade far quicker than it would for Greenwood, given he continues to be in the public eye. Same goes for dogs abuse from fans.Public image, harassment from fans, the dogs abuse she’d get for impacting negatively on the movement against DV, and possible legal proceedings.
And any alternative explanation would have a huge number of people calling BS on it, a stunt because he’s the breadwinner etc.
Or, they go to Spain, say nothing and continue their lives refusing to say anything more in the public domain as he rebuilds first his fitness and then finds a top club.
I think it’s probably too late to go back on it nowWhy wouldn’t she/they just do that anyway? It’s best for her family after all? Just say that much was out of context, the pics were from an accident and that the longer tape explains away the rest as some role play. They wouldn’t even have to release the tape.
Why haven’t they cooked up a simple story as that would certainly have made everything easier for everyone.?
I think tge way it is now is much better for her than her taking the responsibility of trying to railroad her fella, land in legal difficulties and be seen as some kind of bunny boiler.
A cooked up story to aid the family or the truth, if she says “I was an angry loon” she comes out of this horrendously.
From how I see it, they're only able to speak about it all in general terms, or else the mentioning of what has specifically happened could be used in court. I could be wrong, but I'd assume that's one of the reasons.If nothing untoward happened, you would think that the best thing would be for her to go public. Yes it will be embarrassing but any more embarrassing than what they have now? If there is truly nothing and she comes out to give her side I would imagine that they could move on from this episode. The fact that they are saying nothing just feeds the doubts and the idea that they are hiding something
My whole point isn’t to guess at anything. The evidence looks bad, but I’m also aware that even evidence that appears extremely damning can be explained away in court.Also, re the bolded, do you think that the risk of being called a BSer is a reason not to declare your guilt? Even if they have proof (which you seem to imply by the longer recordings point).
Do you really think she made it up? Just your opinion, not 'there is a possibility that...' etc.
Whatever happened. Lets get one thing clear. Arnold is not in any way qualified to judge what did or didnt happen, especially in such a complex area. Whether the club involved lawyers and ex police to review the evidence and possibly speak to the victim and her family I don't know. But unless that's what they did whatever Arnold thinks is irrelevantMy whole point isn’t to guess at anything. The evidence looks bad, but I’m also aware that even evidence that appears extremely damning can be explained away in court.
The only issue I have in this thread is with people believing there is no possible explanation that makes him not guilty. Explanations obviously exist and he obviously gave one to Arnold/the internal investigation that they were “happy” with. That means absolutely nothing though, other than that most things can be explained away.
I literally wrote in the post you quoted, that his explanation to Arnold means nothing other than that most things, even this, can be explained away to sound much milder.Whatever happened. Lets get one thing clear. Arnold is not in any way qualified to judge what did or didnt happen, especially in such a complex area.
Hm. Can't say I'm convinced.I’d imagine they said “you’re fecked mate, unless you can discover some counter evidence else convince HR to either recant her statement or provide further evidence that supports your innocence”.
The prevailing opinion is that they did not speak to the (alleged) victim, but that she basically - via a representative - said that she had nothing to add to whatever Greenwood himself told the club.Whether the club involved lawyers and ex police to review the evidence and possibly speak to the victim and her family I don't know.
Are you also undecided on the OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown case?My whole point isn’t to guess at anything. The evidence looks bad, but I’m also aware that even evidence that appears extremely damning can be explained away in court.
The only issue I have in this thread is with people believing there is no possible explanation that makes him not guilty. Explanations obviously exist and he obviously gave one to Arnold/the internal investigation that they were “happy” with. That means absolutely nothing though, other than that most things can be explained away.
Not necessarily as this may put his partner and mother of his child (and/or her family) at risk of being prosecuted and going to prison (perverting the course of justice or similar)If the "alternative explanations" are actually satisfactory in any way, I don't know why they wouldn't be made public. It would seemingly be in the interests of both Greenwood and United to do so.
Maybe something untoward did happen, but it wasn't as bad as the crimes he was charged with.If nothing untoward happened, you would think that the best thing would be for her to go public. Yes it will be embarrassing but any more embarrassing than what they have now? If there is truly nothing and she comes out to give her side I would imagine that they could move on from this episode. The fact that they are saying nothing just feeds the doubts and the idea that they are hiding something
Completely differentI wonder what some of these individuals opinions would look like if this story involved a Liverpool player, rather than MG…
Glove didn't fit, plus he was acquitted*Are you also undecided on the OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown case?
This, no question.Completely different
As a striker for me, his qualities are best suited for that role. With either Garnacho or Rashford on the left, the right winger has to be a creative player. Garnacho Greenwood Amad has potential to become the best front 3 in the league if they develop in line with their talent.If/when he comes back, where and how would he play?
The most obvious position would be where Antony is currently playing. But if we want to take advantage of his best attribute (finishing) then he'd have to be given a more advanced role closer to goal. Not sure if we can afford that given the state of our midfield.
You mean the case that went to criminal court where all the evidence was subject to cross-examination?Are you also undecided on the OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown case?
Eh?Hm. Can't say I'm convinced.
She's an ordinary girl, he's a millionaire footballer. There is a longer version of the audio (and in this scenario it actually provides context, i.e. pretty much clears him). I find it hard to believe that the millionaire footballer's legal counsel would say: "You're fecked, mate. Your best bet is to get her pregnant and hope for the best."
That actually went to court and I’ve seen all the evidence. I personally would have voted to convict based on all the evidence presented and the cross examinations.Are you also undecided on the OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown case?
In today's game you need work rate from all members of the team unless their attacking output justifies otherwise.As a striker for me, his qualities are best suited for that role. With either Garnacho or Rashford on the left, the right winger has to be a creative player. Garnacho Greenwood Amad has potential to become the best front 3 in the league if they develop in line with their talent.
I’d still think the player likely a scumbag but would also argue there is a possibility of an alternative explanation.I wonder what some of these individuals opinions would look like if this story involved a Liverpool player, rather than MG…
The odds are low indeed. I think Garnacho and Amad can put the work in off the ball, Garnacho has grown massively this season in regards to that, and Amad is a dark horse in that department too. Greenwood is the only doubt but I’d like to think playing deeper for Getafe might help drill those off the ball requirements into him.In today's game you need work rate from all members of the team unless their attacking output justifies otherwise.
The potential is there, would be great if it becomes reality. The odds are low though
It’s a strange situation he’s seen as being more guilty because the evidence doesn’t meet the quality threshold to go to court.That actually went to court and I’ve seen all the evidence. I personally would have voted to convict based on all the evidence presented and the cross examinations.
Yes, I get that.I meant their council before his reconciliation, in the event he himself had no concrete evidence.
They withdrew the case because of key witnesses dropping out as well as new evidence (which is what I assume they mean by ‘new material’).Weren't the CPS more than willing to prosecute this case? People making up fantasies about the audio recording would have to believe that they were negligent enough not to check the audio file in full before publicly stating that Greenwood was going to be charged.
Unless I am missing something here.
Exactly, that same case that went to court, where all the evidence was presented and he was found not guilty. I ask again - do you think he was actually guilty?! Many are claiming we can't decide with Greenwood because the case never went to court, yet are happy to claim OJ was guilty when the case went to court and he was found not guilty. Weird that.You mean the case that went to criminal court where all the evidence was subject to cross-examination?
That went to court and a jury of his peers in a court of law that will have paid more attention to the evidence than you did declared him not guilty. Yet you reserve judgment on a player for whom the only evidence in the public domain is damning, that has never provided any evidence as to why he's innocent? Just admit it, if he played for any other side you'd be quick to condemn.That actually went to court and I’ve seen all the evidence. I personally would have voted to convict based on all the evidence presented and the cross examinations.
All you can do is hypothesise about what may have happened. His legal team may well have done what you said but it wouldn't have been released into the public domain due to the risk of prejudicing a trial.Yes, I get that.
What I'm suggesting is that it makes no sense that his legal people would capitulate there and then upon being informed that he, personally, doesn't possess any concrete evidence that she is just plain lying. How could he be expected to have that? The evidence is an audio recording and pictures made/taken by her, this is evident.
But if there is a longer version of the audio (and there is, we know this), surely the first and very obvious step by his legal people would be to demand that the accuser produces this so that it can be submitted as evidence, no?
I mean, the premise here is that the longer version provides context that at the very least mitigates what we hear in the short version (and possibly even places him in the clear altogether), no?
Unless his legal people are extremely incompetent, then, their initial advice to him (before the reconciliation, as you put it) can't have been to just give up and try his best to get back in her good graces. That would be insane: there is an audio (a full audio) out there which potentially clears him, or at the very least goes a long way towards doing so.
