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

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
14,117
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
The club can't just stay quiet about this, they're going to have to make a statement at least in advance of our next game. They don't necessarily have to suspend him at this point, just say something along the lines of "we note the allegations against Antony and that the player has denied all of them, the matter is currently being investigated by the police and the club will make no further comment until there is any update".

That's better than just hoping it goes away without having to do anything. And Ten Hag is the one who'll be bombarded with questions at his next press conference so at least he can just refer to the club's statement.
As if by magic they’ve released a statement saying nothing.

https://www.manutd.com/en/news/detail/man-utd-issue-statement-on-antony
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,265
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
What I find most remarkable is people actually expect football clubs and authorities to be moral or legal barometers now.

If Greenwood or Antony or whoever is guilty, the law should deal with it. Similarly, if they are found not guilty, it is not a footballing body's prerogative to make a decision on whether it is morally correct to play them or not. Yet the fact that people expect football clubs to do it is crazy.

I see people having a go at Arsenal regarding Partey but I don't get it. It's not their job to judge his guilt. If he's found guilty he'll be removed by the law from his current employment status. If not, why should they stop playing him?
You can’t lump the Greenwood and Antony cases in together. Greenwood’s case was one of a kind because of the evidence that went public. Evidence neither the club nor the player have been able to explain away ever since. So the club is entitled to respond to the reputational damage that they would incur if Greenwood turned out to play for them every weekend.

Obviously, the Antony situation is different. And I’m sure he’d have been given the same protection that any other of the many other footballers who’ve faced similar accusations over the years. If it wasn’t for the Greenwood case creating a precedent. So it’s all a bit of a mess.
 

DevilRed

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
13,003
Location
Stretford End
So keeping Mason Greenwood despite the video and audio and no attempt to clarify them would send a message to the media thar we can't he messed with.

I think you'll find if we played Mason Greenwood you couldn't be more wrong. There would be an avalanche of negative media.

I'm only a white knight relative to the sociopaths in the thread.
All I said is the Brazilian FA have put pressure on United to at least make a statement.
That was the point I was trying to make. Our CEO bends to negative media. The media now dictates who we can select/keep in our team.

This was never the case in the past. We've had plenty of negative media and dealt with it swiftly and decisively under SAF.

And yes, I agree there are sociopaths on here. But I will stay away from all the morality discussions and await the final verdict from the courts/law enforcement.
 

Zebs

Clare Baldings Daughter plays too much Wordscapes
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
17,078
what a nothing statement..
What exactly do you want them to say without prejudicing an investigation and potential legal case? He hasn't been charged with anything so they can't say anything other than that they are aware of the allegations.
 

Bwuk

Full Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
17,412
You can’t lump the Greenwood and Antony cases in together. Greenwood’s case was one of a kind because of the evidence that went public. Evidence neither the club nor the player have been able to explain away ever since. So the club is entitled to respond to the reputational damage that they would incur if Greenwood turned out to play for them every weekend.

Obviously, the Antony situation is different. And I’m sure he’d have been given the same protection that any other of the many other footballers who’ve faced similar accusations over the years. If it wasn’t for the Greenwood case creating a precedent. So it’s all a bit of a mess.
From the official club statement "Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged. "
 

moses

Can't We Just Be Nice?
Staff
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
43,708
Location
I have no idea either, yet.
That was the point I was trying to make. Our CEO bends to negative media. The media now dictates who we can select/keep in our team.

This was never the case in the past. We've had plenty of negative media and dealt with it swiftly and decisively under SAF.

And yes, I agree there are sociopaths on here. But I will stay away from all the morality discussions and await the final verdict from the courts/law enforcement.
If you are talking about Greenwood, then I'm glad the media brought the club to the right decision.
 

Atheist

Full Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
680
Location
CA
Adds nothing to the discussion
Maybe we can find a Spanish club to loan Antony to. Seems like there’s not much of a problem having very controversial players play for a club there.
 

Cascarino

Magnum Poopus
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
7,616
Location
Wales
Supports
Swansea
From the official club statement "Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged. "
That’s not explaining away
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,265
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
From the official club statement "Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged. "
Yeah, we’ve all read the statement. As I said, evidence neither the club nor the player have been able to explain away ever since.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
58,154
Location
Canada
Nothing statement but there's also nothing they can say. As I've said before .. Greenwood situation was different due to the audio released. This is about the same as any other case. You can't make a decision based on just allegation, he said she said or whatever. If he gets charged, then he'll be suspended. If not, life goes on.
 

saivet

Full Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
25,421
Good statement. The final line was interesting as I don't recall seeing anything similar with Greenwood "...with consideration of the impact of these allegations and subsequent reporting will have on survivors of abuse."
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,454
There is no right thing here.

And as you have said United completely bungled it, they didn't act out of righteous indignation, because they did a u-turn after they faced the possibility of some uproar. If they had immediately terminated MG after the stuff came out then I would be more understanding of the decision, and applauding their lack of dithering, even if I disagreed with us taking such a loss. There's no right way on this, but there's credit in making a stern decision and standing behind it.

But United don't get any credit for this. They were bullied into a decision here (and the statement is so vacuous there are arguments on what it actually means). I'd use the word spineless but I got quality points for using it earlier :lol:
And not a single comment on Arsenal who have been even more spineless than United. For what it’s worth, United absolutely did the correct thing, and didn’t bungle it, by suspending him with pay while the police were investigating and he was subsequently charged.

Once the charges were dropped, and United didn’t have access to the evidence in those original charges, it became very difficult for United - whatever their decision was, it was handled badly. But that doesn’t override the fact that they did the right thing initially.

There no credit for making the wrong decision and standing by it, like Arsenal have done.
 

Cascarino

Magnum Poopus
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
7,616
Location
Wales
Supports
Swansea
Evidence neither the club nor the player have been able to explain away ever since.
From the official club statement "Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged. "
I don't understand why people think the club are under any sort of obligation to provide an explanation to us.
You responded to a post saying that the Greenwood evidence was never explained away, with a quote from the club where they explicitly didn’t explain the evidence away. If you’d replied with the second post originally I wouldn’t have quoted you
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,566
I'm only a white knight relative to the sociopaths in the thread.
:lol:

(Sorry, shouldn't laugh - but it genuinely made me laugh, and there is no emoji for "nodding in approval whilst laughing but also looking somewhat concerned").
 

fallengt

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
5,613
Were people this concerned during Partey's rapey investigation? Or Arsenal is beyond criticism?
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
12,889
Realistically that’s about as much as the club can say and do at this point
 

ForeverRed1

Full Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
5,535
Location
England UK!
Well atleast we’re experts in dealing with this now, I guess.

united really feels on a low right now, I really feel for ETH. It’s just one thing after another.