Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic

[Marcus]

I am glad he is doing well. We should get a decent fee for him. More than Sancho that's for sure.

 

[Marcus]

The fans didn’t destroy his career based on a “2 min audio clip”. He destroyed his own career if his girlfriend decided that she had to record what was happening (would suggest it wasn’t the first time) and publish it on social media for all to see Mason greenwood warts and all.
don’t try and pass the blame off to others

I wondered at that time why she didn't just go to the police directly. Anyway, I guess people deal with trauma in their own way.

 

[golden_blunder]

I wondered at that time why she didn't just go to the police directly. Anyway, I guess people deal with trauma in their own way.

Trauma as you say,, just a guess that she may have had the thought I’ll show everyone what you’re like

 

[Wibble]

What is real innocence?

In the context of him returning to play for United it should mean that the recording is a figment of the imagination. As that is impossible lets just hope we can get him off our books as fast as possible.

 

[Wibble]

I wondered at that time why she didn't just go to the police directly. Anyway, I guess people deal with trauma in their own way.

For the same reason that 80-95% of cases are never reported to police I'd say.

 

[Strelok]

In the context of him returning to play for United it should mean that the recording is a figment of the imagination. As that is impossible lets just hope we can get him off our books as fast as possible.

This didn't answer my question.

 

[Pes6Monster]

Other posters have perhaps insinuated that those original posts were staged or perhaps some kind of role play gone wrong. How do we know that the "happy family" posts are also heavily edited to portray something that is far more positive than it actually is.

An excellent counterpoint which will be promptly glossed over.

What is real innocence?

The fact you are asking this question shows how dangerously unqualified the pro-Greenwood is.

Of course, you may be doing it deliberately, to subvert set definition with doubt or worse, and I actually hope you are because if you genuinely don't know what 'real innocence' is in this case, you seriously should stop contributing.

It means he didn't do it and can prove it. All MG has done is create doubt regarding empirical evidence. But doubt is not proof and nor is their reconciliation.

Fair enough, he cannot get sent down, but until United can irrefutably prove innocence, which they actually haven't, he simply cannot play for United again.

In the context of him returning to play for United it should mean that the recording is a figment of the imagination. As that is impossible lets just hope we can get him off our books as fast as possible.

Quite.

 

[Lyng]

An excellent counterpoint which will be promptly glossed over.

In fact it goes both ways.
None of us where there and know what happened and we never will most likely.

 

[MancunianAngels]

In fact it goes both ways.
None of us where there and know what happened and we never will most likely.

It does but ultimately, we can only have an opinion on what we know or what we have seen.

Those images were fuc**ng grim. Based on those alone, he should never play for the club again.

 

[Lyng]

It does but ultimately, we can only have an opinion on what we know or what we have seen.

Those images were fuc**ng grim. Based on those alone, he should never play for the club again.

Well if the whole Amber Heard v Johny Depp thing has taught me one thing, its that what we think we see and now, doesnt always equate the truth.
Ultimately only Mason and his wife know what really happened, and given the ramifications for either one we will never know the full truth.

I wouldnt want him back either, but then again I dont want to see Giggs anywhere near the club either.

 

[Lash]

An excellent counterpoint which will be promptly glossed over.



The fact you are asking this question shows how dangerously unqualified the pro-Greenwood is.

Of course, you may be doing it deliberately, to subvert set definition with doubt or worse, and I actually hope you are because if you genuinely don't know what 'real innocence' is in this case, you seriously should stop contributing.

It means he didn't do it and can prove it. All MG has done is create doubt regarding empirical evidence. But doubt is not proof and nor is their reconciliation.

Fair enough, he cannot get sent down, but until United can irrefutably prove innocence, which they actually haven't, he simply cannot play for United again.

The whole "who is truly innocent anyway?" kind of argument tracks with a lot of staunch Greenwood defenders.

I think I'm in the same boat, I personally need more if I'm going to support him coming back. I don't see that happening either.

 

[Strelok]

The fact you are asking this question shows how dangerously unqualified the pro-Greenwood is.

Of course, you may be doing it deliberately, to subvert set definition with doubt or worse, and I actually hope you are because if you genuinely don't know what 'real innocence' is in this case, you seriously should stop contributing.

It means he didn't do it and can prove it. All MG has done is create doubt regarding empirical evidence. But doubt is not proof and nor is their reconciliation.

Fair enough, he cannot get sent down, but until United can irrefutably prove innocence, which they actually haven't, he simply cannot play for United again.

You still haven't answered my question. Again, what is 'real innocence'?

 

[Mike Smalling]

I get depressed every time I wander into this thread. Probably the most gifted player to come out of the academy for decades, and he plays a position where we are sorely lacking in quality. Watching that highlights video just reminded me how complete he actually is. Contrast that to what we usually have to put up with on the right wing. I'm certain he would take our attacking threat up a level or two almost immediately if he returned. That doesn't mean that he should.

I am also quite convinced that a lot of people advocating his return is doing it based on those arguments. If he was an average player, a lot of people would sing a different tune or just don't care.

 

[Pickle85]

You still haven't answered my question. Again, what is 'real innocence'?

The poster defined it in the post, didn't they?

An excellent counterpoint which will be promptly glossed over.



The fact you are asking this question shows how dangerously unqualified the pro-Greenwood is.

Of course, you may be doing it deliberately, to subvert set definition with doubt or worse, and I actually hope you are because if you genuinely don't know what 'real innocence' is in this case, you seriously should stop contributing.

It means he didn't do it and can prove it. All MG has done is create doubt regarding empirical evidence. But doubt is not proof and nor is their reconciliation.

Fair enough, he cannot get sent down, but until United can irrefutably prove innocence, which they actually haven't, he simply cannot play for United again.



Quite.

 

[MadDogg]

Suarez had the incident which while it wasn't good, doesn't mean he is a racist, especially as Cavani had his thing in a different context. They just use that word over there. It was dumb more than anything. Doesn't mean he is a scum human just because he said 1 thing which is very offensive in our culture but not in his.

Without getting into the Greenwood thing, Suarez and Cavani situations were nothing alike and it's amazing how much Liverpool muddied the waters there.

Suarez literally told Evra that he was kicking him because he was negro, then when Evra got upset Suarez told him he doesn't talk to negros. Then called him a negro a few more times as well (for a total of seven times). All while in an obviously hostile situation, with Suarez also pinching Evra's arm and patting him on the back of the head after Evra had told the ref he didn't want Suarez touching him. There's not a doubt in the world it was racist.

 

[Strelok]

The poster defined it in the post, didn't they?

No he didn't.

 

[Pickle85]

No he didn't.

I literally bolded the part where they did.

 

[Strelok]

I literally bolded the part where they did.

I see my bad I didn't see that.

But does that also mean he's already 'real innocent'?

He didn't do it and has proved that with the police so they closed the case?

 

[Pickle85]

I see my bad I didn't see that.

But does that also mean he's already 'real innocent'?

He didn't do it and has proved that with the police so they closed the case?

No, they aren't following up because they don't feel they have a realistic chance of securing a conviction. He hasn't proved his innocence.

 

[goalscholes]

Few things here.

Giggs had never done anything (or at least been accused of) illegal until long after he retired.

Regarding Suarez, 99% of Liverpool fans wanted him back after the racism and biting. Clearly a difference given the split in United fans over Greenwood.

We all saw those images. We have yet to hear an alternative explanation for them. A point I keep making on here is that even if United were sure of innocence, there was clearly something else that made them hesitate for so long. What that was, we'll never know.

Why should he just walk into the team? Why should he represent Manchester United? We're not talking slightly risqué social media posts here. We're talking domestic violence, a crime that is very rarely punished correctly. A crime where the victims usually go back to their abuser because they have such an almighty psychological hold over them.
Other posters have perhaps insinuated that those original posts were staged or perhaps some kind of role play gone wrong. How do we know that the "happy family" posts are also heavily edited to portray something that is far more positive than it actually is.

Firstly a clarification question. What do you mean by “victims usually go back to their abuser because they have such an almighty psychological hold over them?” From research I’ve seen, the rate is often between 10% to a third, which is far too many but not as endemic as you appear to state. Has the research been updated?

Secondly as many others have said, the argument that we should judge him worse than any other player is hypocrisy (we don’t even know if the court would accept the evidence as a passable quality for court).

As an example, the below is the reported leaked questionnaire, when C Ronaldo’s law firm was hacked.

Spoiler: Warning: reprehensible wording

the Juventus star, 33, confessed that American Kathryn Mayorga, 35, 'said no and stop several times' when the pair had sex in the Hotel Palms Place in June 2009.

The Portguese footballer admitted that 'it was rough', 'she didn't want to give it to him' and that he apologised after he'd finished. There was no natural or artificial lubricant and there could have been bruising.

No self respecting person could cheer for a player accused of that if morale fibre is deemed more important to fans than footballing ability.

The truth is we support the club and it doing well will always trump all else. We should be happy to give a second chance to a troubled young and extremely talented player who’s been with the club since he could walk, who looks like he’s turned a page and is now a dad and to-be husband. Especially when others far less deserving have been given a second chance.

 

[Strelok]

No, they aren't following up because they don't feel they have a realistic chance of securing a conviction. He hasn't proved his innocence.

Which mean the new material has cancelled the audio clip and convinced the police to close the case.

And let me ask you in your honest opinion what exactly he'd need to do to prove his 'real innocence' to you?

 

[Rood]

Bit strange that many don't seem to grasp the fundamental principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

It is correct that the CPS dropping the case is not any proof of innocence.

However, the club internal investigation (overseen by a 5 person committee including 2 women) which had access to more info than anyone on this forum concluded that:

"...Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with."

Details provided by the club included:

"- The alleged victim requested the police to drop their investigation in April 2022.
- 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."

While the natural reaction to the audio and pics posted online is utter disgust and contempt for Mason, there is a lot of info that has come out since then which suggests that things are not as they initially seemed.

 

[Pickle85]

Which mean the new material has cancelled the audio clip and convinced the police to close the case.

And let me ask you in your honest opinion what exactly he'd need to do to prove his 'real innocence' to you?

It doesn't mean the new material has cancelled the audio clip though (and I'm still not sure what that would even look like). We have no idea what the new material is.

We would need to hear the full audio and get her side as to what actually happened, as well as to find out what the additional information that came to light was.

 

[golden_blunder]

I get depressed every time I wander into this thread. Probably the most gifted player to come out of the academy for decades, and he plays a position where we are sorely lacking in quality. Watching that highlights video just reminded me how complete he actually is. Contrast that to what we usually have to put up with on the right wing. I'm certain he would take our attacking threat up a level or two almost immediately if he returned. That doesn't mean that he should.

I am also quite convinced that a lot of people advocating his return is doing it based on those arguments. If he was an average player, a lot of people would sing a different tune or just don't care.

Correct.

imagine it happened to Maguire or Antony.

or a Liverpool player. Those same people would be screaming at the Liverpool fans for doing the same

football eh

 

[romufc]

I agree. At some point we really need to draw the line between who did what in their personal lives (assuming they are cleared legally) and between who has the proper work ethic and talent to contribute to our club. I’m pretty sure if Fergie was concerned with what is morally right, Giggs would have never played for us again. Would that have been better for the club? Fast forward to now and Giggs is regarded as one of the best in epl history. There are plenty more examples. Suarez, terry, ronaldo, benzema are just a few off the top of my head. All brilliant footballers who were accused of pretty awful things. Yet here we are wanting to change “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent” all for a teenager (back then) in Mason Greenwood. If we are going to set the precedent to convict players on social media, then good luck fielding a proper 11 in a few years time.

This being said, just like nobody really knows what exactly happened apart from him and her, they are also the two who know what’s best for them and their newly born. Perhaps they now have a strong preference to stay in Spain and escape all the commotion. Who would blame them. But we would be utter fools if as a club we don’t at least try to bring him back.

Unfortunately, we live in a time where trial over social media is greater than what the judicial system thinks. There are many cases where players are looked into.. Bissouma, Partey etc.. but because nothing was published on social media, its fine for them to play.

 

[Redlambs]

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term, not a moral one. People commit crimes and get away with them all the time, both in court and out, they are not automatically innocent.

It amazes me how so many suddenly think the law and how it is carried out is flawless. Especially in the current climate and how many blatant examples of those who are supposed to uphold it are failing to say the least.

 

[Pickle85]

Bit strange that many don't seem to grasp the fundamental principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

It is correct that the CPS dropping the case is not any proof of innocence.

However, the club internal investigation (overseen by a 5 person committee including 2 women) which had access to more info than anyone on this forum concluded that:

"...Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with."

Details provided by the club included:

"- The alleged victim requested the police to drop their investigation in April 2022.
- 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."

While the natural reaction to the audio and pics posted online is utter disgust and contempt for Mason, there is a lot of info that has come out since then which suggests that things are not as they initially seemed.

Or it suggests that Greenwood got to the alleged victim (having seen her in breach of his bail terms) and she changed her story. I have no doubt that alternative explanations were offered as a result, given that the only other explanation (that Greenwood is a woman beater) puts him bang in trouble. If him, the girlfriend and the family have agreed for them to give it another go then of course they'll offer another explanation that the club would be only too pleased to accept.

All of this glosses over the murky, undefined 'mistakes' that Greenwood admits to. What do you think they were? And what context do you think makes what we saw and heard acceptable? I've also still not heard a single credible explanation as to why on earth he wouldn't seek to fully clear his name by giving his side. It seems he's happy just to move on, with many that know about the situation assuming he's a violent attempted rapist.

 

[romufc]

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term, not a moral one. People commit crimes and get away with them all the time, both in court and out, they are not automatically innocent.

It amazes me how so many suddenly think the law and how it is carried out is flawless. Especially in the current climate and how many blatant examples of those who are supposed to uphold it are failing to say the least.

If people were tried on moral compasses, alot of footballers would not be playing football. Everyone has different moral scales, where do you draw the line?

 

[Lash]

Bit strange that many don't seem to grasp the fundamental principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

It is correct that the CPS dropping the case is not any proof of innocence.

However, the club internal investigation (overseen by a 5 person committee including 2 women) which had access to more info than anyone on this forum concluded that:

"...Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with."

Details provided by the club included:

"- The alleged victim requested the police to drop their investigation in April 2022.
- 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."

While the natural reaction to the audio and pics posted online is utter disgust and contempt for Mason, there is a lot of info that has come out since then which suggests that things are not as they initially seemed.

The principle of innocent until proven guilty means you can't be thrown in jail without trial, it doesn't mean if you're not guilty in a court of law - you didn't do it.

It's hard to take a lot of stock with the internal investigation. Whilst it certainly throws up questions of things we didn't know, there were loads of details, they also provided that make it not exactly thorough:

"Also, we have limited powers of investigation which meant we were reliant on third party cooperation"
"While we were unable to access certain evidence for reasons we respect"
I'm fairly sure the victim wasn't involved in the investigation either.
Also, they bare faced told everyone they hadn't made a decision on re-integrating him, but quite clearly had.

I think the investigation findings do raise questions, but they certainly don't make me any more confident he is innocent.

 

[Redlambs]

If people were tried on moral compasses, alot of footballers would not be playing football. Everyone has different moral scales, where do you draw the line?

Nothing in my posts suggests I think that. I'm just pointing out even people who think they have the concept of innocent until proven guilty correct, they often don't.

And as for your question, lines have to be started somewhere don't they? Surely the best place is at home.

 

[cafecillos]

Bit strange that many don't seem to grasp the fundamental principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

It is correct that the CPS dropping the case is not any proof of innocence.

However, the club internal investigation (overseen by a 5 person committee including 2 women) which had access to more info than anyone on this forum concluded that:

"...Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with."

Details provided by the club included:

"- The alleged victim requested the police to drop their investigation in April 2022.
- 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."

While the natural reaction to the audio and pics posted online is utter disgust and contempt for Mason, there is a lot of info that has come out since then which suggests that things are not as they initially seemed.

You don't seem to grasp it any better than any of them though.

 

[romufc]

Nothing in my posts suggests I think that. I'm just pointing out even people who think they have the concept of innocent until proven guilty correct, they often don't.

And as for your question, lines have to be started somewhere don't they? Surely the best place is at home.

Yeah the lines do have to be started somewhere, my point was your starting line may be different to another?

On Greenwood, I cannot see him playing for us, I personally think he will get a move to Spain.

 

[adexkola]

I get depressed every time I wander into this thread. Probably the most gifted player to come out of the academy for decades, and he plays a position where we are sorely lacking in quality. Watching that highlights video just reminded me how complete he actually is. Contrast that to what we usually have to put up with on the right wing. I'm certain he would take our attacking threat up a level or two almost immediately if he returned. That doesn't mean that he should.

I am also quite convinced that a lot of people advocating his return is doing it based on those arguments. If he was an average player, a lot of people would sing a different tune or just don't care.

Um, no shit?

They may not admit it, but very few people give a feck about Greenwood's rehabilitation. I know I don't. I just see a huge gaping hole in our squad and our finances his return could solve.

That outweighs any moral considerations. I use considerations very lightly, because as someone else has confirmed, no damage has been done by him continuing to play football.

 

[Strelok]

We would need to hear the full audio and get her side as to what actually happened, as well as to find out what the additional information that came to light was.

The level of entitlement here.

First who gave you the right to ask him to have to prove anything to you people? All he has to do is to prove his innocence to the police. Not to the entitled mob who think they have the god given right to judge him and demand him to prove his innocence to them. Oh I'm so powerful, he has to prove it to ME, to the almighty ME so he might have a chance to play football again. Right?

Second that new material would very well be a video clip of the couple fully naked having sex where the audio clip was extracted from that. Now he has to show that to you, to the public too? Or she has to come up and speak to the public as well? Which she probably doesn't want to at all. Do you people even understand wtf you might be asking them to do? When you don't even have that fecking right in the very first place.

 

[Redlambs]

Yeah the lines do have to be started somewhere, my point was your starting line may be different to another?

Indeed, but we do need lines all the same. It's how we grow as a species and learn from mistakes.

On Greenwood, I cannot see him playing for us, I personally think he will get a move to Spain.

I agree. And I don't wish him ill will or failure either, but the fact is he simply can't play for United again as there's no way they will ever explain what actually happened because there's no way all parties can be innocent of something horrible and most likely illegal. People can argue all they like about what they want and feel, who's to blame, social media and all the rest of it...ultimately the moment that evidence hit the public eye this was never going to end well one way or another.

 

[Marcus]

For the same reason that 80-95% of cases are never reported to police I'd say.

Point taken Wibble. But those may usually be victims too ashamed of what happened and they suffer in silence and don't report. I think it is a bit different when you tell the whole world without reporting to the police though.

 

[Redlambs]

Point taken Wibble. But those may usually be victims too ashamed of what happened and they suffer in silence and don't report. I think it is a bit different when you tell the whole world without reporting to the police though.

As other's keep saying, we don't know if she did tell the whole world.

We do know she and others made statements to the police which lead to the CPS case though.

 

[Pickle85]

The level of entitlement here.

First who gave you the right to ask him to have to prove anything to you people? All he has to do is to prove his innocence to the police. Not to the entitled mob who think they have the god given right to judge him and demand him to prove his innocence to them. Oh I'm so powerful, he has to prove it to ME, to the almighty ME so he might have a chance to play football again. Right?

Second that new material would very well be a video clip of the couple fully naked having sex where the audio clip was extracted from that. Now he has to show that to you, to the public too? Or she has to come up and speak to the public as well? Which she probably doesn't want to at all. Do you people even understand wtf you might be asking them to do? When you don't even have that fecking right in the very first place.

Are you feeling alright? You asked me what he'd need to do to prove his innocence to me and I told you. Then you start blathering on about how he only needs to prove his innocence to the police (which you keep saying but which you keep being reminded he's not confirmed to have done) and how I have no right to ask him to prove his innocence to me (which I've not done). I suggest you have a lie down, because your semi-incoherent rant is certainly not helping anything.

 

[Redlambs]

Are you feeling alright? You asked me what he'd need to do to prove his innocence to me and I told you. Then you start blathering on about how he only needs to prove his innocence to the police (which you keep saying but which you keep being reminded he's not confirmed to have done) and how I have no right to ask him to prove his innocence to me (which I've not done). I suggest you have a lie down, because your semi-incoherent rant is certainly not helping anything.

I wouldn't bother with this guy. How he hasn't at very least been thread banned for what had to be wiped from the thread yesterday is beyond me.

His true colours aren't nice at all.

 

[Strelok]

Are you feeling alright? You asked me what he'd need to do to prove his innocence to me and I told you. Then you start blathering on about how he only needs to prove his innocence to the police (which you keep saying but which you keep being reminded he's not confirmed to have done) and how I have no right to ask him to prove his innocence to me (which I've not done). I suggest you have a lie down, because your semi-incoherent rant is certainly not helping anything.

Oh I'm perfectly fine. But sadly tbh I don't really think you and your people are.