I admire your persistence but you're dealing with someone who has firstly looked at what they want, and then retrospectively applied the 'logic' that leads them to that outcome. There will always, always be a justification because its the outcome that matters, not the facts.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
I know this wil cause a backlash but there is not a hope in hell that Greenwood will ever be in position to come out and talk about it publicly. Just like his girlfriend won’t be able to either because of the off-chance that someone might want to start legal proceedings again, which believe can and does happen once earlier legal proceedings have ceased.
People who think that he is going to come and and make any reference to what is/was in the public domain, are being stupid and/or don’t understand one bit how the legal system works in this country
While I get what you're saying, you do realise you're implying that anything he comes out with will incriminate her or him? Is that necessarily the case?
He's more than entitled to be vague and not specifically address what was in the public domain, but I don't think it should be a shock to anyone if you don't, people are going to say something.
That’s exactly what might happen, hence why it won’t. Nobody, bar the investigation team, lawyers and family members (to a lesser extent) know the ins and outs of the allegations and arguably nobody bar Greenwood and his missus know the complete truth. The case was closed/thrown out due to lack of evidence, which is currently being, probably correctly, put down to the victim not being supportive of an investigation any longer.
As a result of this, the investigation could easily be reopened at any point in time, arguably even if the victim decides that she’s supportive of the investigation again. Anything said by either party could then be drawn in as evidential and could either support or undermine and allegations. Or defence.
I’m not sure how being vague helps anything, especially not Greenwood. The immediate response would be complaints about him being vague and how he hasn’t covered the bits that people have heard. He will never be in a position to talk about the clips or pictures, IMO, and certainly not until he is completely exonerated from any allegations
I don't think we're in disagreement. I personally don't think he should be back and I don't expect him to ever go into detail on the matter. The only explanations for them either implicate her as being dishonest or implicate him as being violent. Neither of which are beneficial if they do want to move on (which by all accounts we have access to, they do).
But if he wants to play in the Premier League again, he will have to say something. When I say that, I mean any top flight English side, let alone United.
I agree, but I don't think he can say any more than he has, which won't be good enough for any club in the prem.
So what does he do then? (I am not saying that in an aggressive way to you at all) it is rhetorical question.
....But someone, whether it is himself/ partner or someone at United will have to or both parties have got to come up with something logical, (resembling some degree of intellect ) to break this court of public opinion/ socail media deadlock.
Obviously, the Arnold vow of silence, take your time route did not work?
It just came across as dithering and half arsed.
Yeah, completely agree.
I just don’t get the point of this thread with the backwards and forwards between both sides of the argument who are clearly never going to change their minds or their stance, and currently, it does not appear that there is likely to be any change in the situation in terms of information coming out about or either party talking about it publicly, which for the record, I think is a good thing.
I am still firmly on the fence in terms what I think should happen with his future and United in particular
Probably not a lot to be honest, as I say.
It's been terrible management from Arnold, who's tried to play both sides and ended up pleasing absolutely no one. His only options were to back him or sack him and he's just left him in limbo, which is not fair on anyone.
He couldn’t sack him.
he’s moved him on from the club and he’ll never play here again.
That’s good.
Don't be so sure.
We would have had to pay off his entire contract to sack him. It was by far the least likely of the four options.
a) Bring him straight back into the team.
b) Loan him out, with the idea of bringing him back in 12 months.
c) Loan him out and put him in the shop window, planning to sell him in 12 months for hopefully decent money if we get multiple clubs interested.
d) Pay out his entire contract and sack him.
The middle two options were always the most likely, and we won't really know for sure what the plan is until next season. Hell, the club may not be sure yet themselves.
There's no way they can just bring him back in 12 months time and expect the reaction to be any different.
I can't see how he can play for United again without it massively damaging the club's standing.
United’s standing is already in the pits.
I think it’s worth keeping open otherwise it will spill into other threads
I also feel that this story is far from finished. There have been stories about this couple for a few years, they are unstable. Personally I think it’s going to spill over again if they stay together
Will be starting today as winger.
I think that's pretty critical. If they bring him back and he can start showing some of the same contributions he had before than a lot of people will forget about the off the pitch. Not saying that would be right or wrong, but it certainly (imho) would make the prospect of a return less controversial than if they d reintroduce him to a team firing on all cylinders.
Him banging in goals isn't going to make many most supporters feel more comfortable getting behind a team containing someone who should never wear the United shirt again.
Last edited:
Well you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out why none of the witnesses came forward in the case against the multi-millionaire.
Please elaborate
Its wrong to state it as a fact, but its undeniable that money, fame and status is likely to have played a role in a number of ways. Not necessarily a "pay off". Having access to high quality legal representation is hugely significant. Not just through defence, but potential mediation with victims and witnesses. Then there's the potential guilt tripping - does the victim want to pursue and ruin someone's career in which they can earn multi-millions and provide for their friends and family? The victim would have been close with his friends and family, how many lives would it affect? And then there's the temptation of getting back together with a multimillionaire, a life of financial comfort. And even if the victim does want to support prosecution, they face the prospect of being questioned in court by some of the best legal representation who will apply enormous pressure, twist their words, undermine them, attack their character, reveal embarrassing personal details to gain an advantage. And then there's the CPS. They have budget constraints and conviction targets - they're more likely to pursue a trial if the defendant is being represented by your average legal representation. If they have to go against someone with a hugely successful track record, they risk an expensive and fruitless trial.
We can't say for certain whether money did talk in this instance, but probability wise, it increases the odds significantly. The legal system is expensive, and you're essentially fecked if you're poor or middle class. Whilst the rich are more likely to get away with things, one way or the other.
Arguing with another member
No offence intended, but you’re clearly unaware of the wealth of his partner’s family and of her own fierce intelligence and wilfulness.
I’m not holding that against you specifically - it’s been a constant theme throughout that a bunch of males who know utterly nothing about his partner or the situation have been speaking for her and as though they hold greater intelligence and decision making skills than her, while simultaneously shouting anyone down who disagrees with them as ‘misogynistic’… seemingly unaware of the jaw-dropping irony.
Beyond that, I do find it wildly offensive that his partner be spoken of as some kind of needy, gold-digger, because it is absolutely not true.
The majority of people who are the victims of domestic abuse try to leave their partners several times but often never do in the end.
It doesn't make them gold diggers because they think they are better off with the devil they know.
Let's be honest, everybody was let down by the fact the recording was made public and no court case ensued.
Greenwood could have either cleared his name by now and be back playing for us or the facts of the case would have become clear and the club could have let him go if he was found in the wrong.
Usually when a high profile figure is in court though and witnesses withdraw statements it's because pressure is being applied to them or they have an incentive not to go ahead with it.
Occam's razor and so on.
I still think this situation would be easily resolved if he was innocent - if that recording wasn't exactly what most of us thought it was then any legal counsel would be all over it getting the actual explanation out there as to what it really was to clear his name.
The fact that hasn't happened really doesn't look good for him.
I’m responding directly in a conversation where it was suggested his partner was paid off.
Sorry I might have went off on a straw man argument there!
I would like to think the club is in a better state than it currently is, in order to make better decisions with a strong and clear mind, Not to be influenced by outside factors such as social/ online reports.
There may come circumstances in which the incident has further light shed upon it. That may make the situation of coming back to England easier. I think this needs to happen if he wants to play on these shores again.
There may come circumstances in which the incident has further light shed upon it. That may make the situation of coming back to England easier. I think this needs to happen if he wants to play on these shores again.
What the actual feck are you talking about?
Re-read my post. And maybe read my previous posts in this thread, before making assumptions about what you think I think.
Re-read mine, and stop talking for autonomous, adult women as though they’re children and as though you have some kind of divine right to do so.
It’s insulting and disrespectful.
Not to mention the outrageous suggestion that his partner stayed with him for the money - in your own words…
This is a bang out of order angle to take. Aiming words like this at a young mother who is financially secure btw is as ludicrous as it is offensive.
Last edited:
Literally mate. Re-read my post. You are projecting. And embarrassing yourself.
No, I’m disagreeing with you and I find your language offensive.
I’m sorry if you’re not able to accept or understand that.
No personal offensive meant for you and I wish you well.
Listen, I've given you two opportunities to re-read my post and you clearly haven't because you replied emotively each time within like 30 seconds.
3rd and final opportunity. Re-read my post. Highlight exactly what I said, and how you think it relates to things you have accused me saying.
Don't reply in 30 seconds. Re-read my post. Take a moment to think about it. Take a moment to think if your immediate impression is based on what I'm actually saying, or what you think I'm saying.
Because what you're doing is throwing around wild accusations without substance.
For the record, I actually would agree with your general point/opinion, and other people have certainly said what you're accusing me of saying. It's just...not what I said. Is it?
Let me explain this for you as simply as I can…
You’ve waded into a conversation where someone has claimed that his partner stayed with him for the money.
You’ve then taken a sympathetic view of that opinion, and tried to justify it by waffling on around the point while saying nothing of any substance or worth in my opinion.
I’ve quoted for you your own words that I find deeply offensive and also know to be completely untrue, but it appears you’re not able of the self reflection or self critique needed to just stop for a moment and meditate upon what you’ve said - if you did so, you might achieve a degree of clarity that enablers you to grasp how offensive your quoted words were.
I’m not interested in an endless, mean spirited back and forth on a day like this when Sir Bobby has passed away and while Utd is playing - that might interest you, but it doesn’t interest me.
We’ll agree to disagree and I wish you well mate.
Arguing with another member
I wasn't justifying that opinion.
I wasn't sympathetic to that opinion.
I wasn't 'waffling around the point', I was discussing other points (the link being OTHER ways in which money influences events). But, given I did quote into your existing conversation, I do recognise the source of your confusion. I hadn't realised that was what made you think I was saying something different to what I actually said.
To explain then. I listed 5 or 6 possible ways money influences these kind of cases. Obviously, one of those ways is that there is a temptation to stay with a partner for financial reasons. It'd be silly to ignore that. I made no comment about HOW likely it is in this case. If you want me to estimate a probability, I'd say somewhere between 1% and 99%, but that it's more likely a victim would stay with an abuser if the abuser is wealthy than if they weren't wealthy. How much more likely? Well, if I had to estimate a probability, I'd say somewhere between 1% and 99%.
You've spouted off insults repeatedly because you WANT to think I'm speaking in definitive terms or making direct accusations or judgements.
You've accused me of being misogynistic, when gender has nothing to do with anything I've said.
You've accused me other ridiculous things I can't even begin to fathom how you've reached that conclusion.
I'm happy to keep explaining your misunderstandings to you, but by no means is this a debate. If you throw stupid insults at people because you have misinterpreted their posts due to your own emotional volatility and prejudice, then that person is obviously going to defend themselves. Be grateful I'm in a chilled mood, otherwise your spiteful and misguided insults would have prompted a more forthright response, rather than a calm explanation of how you're wrong.
Take back the petty, misguided, unfounded insults you have been throwing around. I know it's the internet and all, but you could admit you were wrong when you so evidently are. And you know you have made a mistake really. Its OK. Assumptions make an ass out of you and me, as they say. Except in this case, your assumptions only made as ass out of you.
I haven’t insulted you, not once. I’ve explained that I find part of your post offensive and that it isn’t true.
I also haven’t called you a misogynist - I’ve calmly explained that men talking for women and presuming they know better is rooted in misogyny, on a societal level.
At the end of your post however, you’ve personally insulted me.
You’re also coming across as pushy and overly aggressive which aren’t qualities I value in an exchange.
I’ve explained that on this day, with the context of Sir Bobby passing away and while Utd are literally playing, I’m not interested in an endless, aggro back and forth.
What you’ve written here comes across as an actual threat…
What are you suggesting you’d do…?
Again, I wish you well and it’s totally cool to disagree with me. No hard feelings from my end.
Accusing someone of being misogynistic is an insult (especially when that person has made no reference to gender).
None of my comments about wealth and the role it plays in the legal system has anything to do with gender. Literally nothing.
I made several attempts to ask you to re-read my post because it was obvious you misinterpreted it, yet were still making accusations based off that interpretation. I was not the aggressor in this exchange. Still, after what 5 attempts of me defending myself you keep going? Quite audacious to do so whilst simultaneously claiming I'm the aggressive one?
And *sigh* at you suggesting what I said was a threat. How extremely underhanded. I was suggesting, that if I was in a worse mood and someone called me misogynistic without merit I might have reacted with stronger language rather than patiently explain to them, repeatedly, that they are making unfounded accusations. I was in a chilled mood, therefore wanted to help you understand that I wasn't saying the things you were accusing me of saying.
How hard would it be for you to just apologise and admit you misinterpreted my post and made unfair accusations?
It's clear what you meant, good post.
Normally I don't care about mod stuff, but this is one of the most insane warnings I've ever seen.
Yeah - why'd he get one and not the other fella?