Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic

[NotThatSoph]

After a lengthy internal investigation, which included testimony from the victim and her family, the club were positioning to bring MG back into the team.

Not true.

 

[JeffFromHK]

i can draw you a moral line for quick and easy reference;

probably not ok to play football for your club: unprovoked criminal acts that harm others; rape, domestic violence
————————————————————————
probably ok to play football: adultery, hitting a racist/xenophobe

you can then move the line based on factors, such as mental health or personal demons. had greenwood come out and apologised, owned the video and photos, promised to do better, said he would get help, maybe explain how trauma may have effected him or his judgement; literally anything close to resembling taking responsibility, many of us may think he deserved as second chance.

all he has actually done since the recording emerged is prove what a childish, petulant little shitbag he is. his kind of character is exactly what has caused the club to be in decline for over a decade. we’ve spent too long accepting that kicking a ball well is enough. that it’s ok not train hard enough, it’s ok to think rules and standards don’t apply to you. the quicker he disappears off the face of the earth, the better.

i can’t imagine brailsford will stomach the likes of him around the training ground. he supposedly cultivates elite squads with elite mentalities. if that’s the case, then greenwood returning is even more of a pipe dream than ever. and then all you’re doing to sticking up for a rapist who will never play for united again. in which case, i’m sure i’ll see you in the trump thread, doing the same thing soon.

I guess if he "apologised", it means he admitted domestic violence and could trigger new investigations against him?

If it is "I don't like Greenwood's character and he epitomizes post-2013 United so I want him gone" then I am totally fine with that.

 

[RedRonaldo]

No, there's no implication of him being not guilty. It's been explained ad nauseum in this thread, a case being dropped doesn't make someone not guilty.

You are just over complicating things on definitions. He is not found guilty from police investigation, for whatever reasons, it’s all part of legal system.

 

[rimaldo]

I guess if he "apologised", it means he admitted domestic violence and could trigger new investigations against him?

so he is running away from consequences of his actions. which makes him a rapey man-child, which should be nowhere near anyone or anything you care about.

 

[Lash]

You are just over complicating things on definitions. He is not found guilty from police investigation, for whatever reasons, it’s all part of legal system.

You're the one who started talking about facts, I'm telling you the facts. You're not found guilty from a police investigation, you are charged and then the courts decide if you are guilty of the charge. Those are the facts.

Funnily enough in your world, he's guilty, because the police actually charged him. Thankfully that's not our legal system.

 

[JeffFromHK]

Mr Reason, can you expand a bit on the Partey part?

it cringes to think that an adult person considers this childish name call a good sarcasm.

A premier league footballer has been arrested for rape, the case is ongoing and the player is on bail, playing football as usual, and it is rumoured that the footballer is Partey.

 

[NotThatSoph]

it cringes to think that an adult person considers this childish name call a good sarcasm.

A premier league footballer has been arrested for rape, the case is ongoing and the player is on bail, playing football as usual, and it is rumoured that the footballer is Partey.

I know. How do you connect that to rimaldo, using reason?

 

[Lynty]

I'm not sure how you put Cantona in the example then. He publicly assaulted audience in the stadium and could be seen as a symbol of violence. Would you cut tie with Cantona then ?

We also don't have to categorize keeping Greenwood as "stain of morale identity and club culture", but as "the club uphold the responsibilities to correct the wrong of our home grown youth" .

lastly, we trying to pick a competent MP to serve the community, not a saint but not knowing a dime of the work he supposed to do. There is some trade off we could make if we would like to put football first.

Cantona got a proportionate ban in my eyes. Using the example I gave earlier: if I worked for a Doctor/MP who punched a heckler in a random act of retaliation, I'd be disappointed and they'd likely receive some form of suspension from duties, but yes i'd feel ok to continue working for them - unless it became a pattern of violent assualts. I'm not naïve, I don't expect saints - but behavior that indicates a pattern of physical and sexual abuse is not the same as a one off outburst of anger.

End of the day, everyone's moral compass is very personal and every case will be very unique.

 

[RedRocket08]

then we would not have our best players in history:

George Best - perpetual wife beater and cheater
Eric Cantona - kung fu kicked a boy in front of the world
Ryan Giggs - (we all know what he did)
Cristiano Ronaldo - allegedly raped a girl in the USA (case not dropped and money paid so there is some chance the accusation is valid, unlike those van persie/evans false rape claims), an arrogant and selfish guy anyway
Wayne Rooney - cheated on his wife multiple times
David Beckham - cheated on his wife at least once

Pele was also a wife cheater and Maradona was a criminal

I brought up this exact point on Reddit as well, didn’t stop me getting slated for it. George Best, Cantona, Keane, Giggs etc. - all are listed under the ‘Legends’ page of the official Manchester United website.

One poster had said at least we are taking a stand on this sort of thing with Greenwood now: should we also then stop idolising all of these players and remove them from our Legends section? That would be the most PC thing do in this world we live in today wouldn’t it? Cantona literally came on that No7 shirt promo with Ronaldo last year.

For me, MG is an idiot and a scumbag (maybe a criminal too, but not in the eyes of the law at this moment) - But we don’t know the full story and the context behind the leaks. A more detailed statement from the club or a joint statement from MG and his partner would probably clear the air a bit more - and then fans can put this to a vote after being aware of all the facts in this.

 

[Scottynaldinho]

Giggs is a club legend. That should end this debate.

If the manager wants him back he should be treated like any other player on loan.

 

[DJ_21]

What price would be acceptable to sell him? We shouldn’t sell him on the cheap by no means. He’s a quality player and any team would benefit by having him. Sir Jim might have other plans though… he may want to keep him. All depends on the backlash of our fans and players. On the other hand though he might not want to stay, he might be happy in Spain and move to Getafe permanently or one of the bigger Spanish clubs. When things like this happens the player will always appreciate and respect the only team that showed trust in him which is Getafe so I wouldn’t be surprised if he stayed loyal to them and stayed with them and reject bigger offers.

 

[Pickle85]

Giggs is a club legend. That should end this debate.

If the manager wants him back he should be treated like any other player on loan.

Why? Ever since giggs' domestic assault trial he's been persona non grata from what I can tell as far as the media and club are concerned.

 

[neon_badger]

"

I brought up this exact point on Reddit as well, didn’t stop me getting slated for it. George Best, Cantona, Keane, Giggs etc. - all are listed under the ‘Legends’ page of the official Manchester United website.

One poster had said at least we are taking a stand on this sort of thing with Greenwood now: should we also then stop idolising all of these players and remove them from our Legends section? That would be the most PC thing do in this world we live in today wouldn’t it?"

Nobody is claiming we should retrospectively cancel former players, you're projecting something there, my point was simply just because it happened periodically through Footballs history doesn't mean we should tolerate it now. The world is changing, football is changing, why should footballers (or politicians, or celebrities) be allowed to live a grey area of moral conduct protected by wealth and influence. He did something wrong and got exposed, the thing he did is a problem across all corners of society and unfortunately he's a role model and is rightly being held to account, turning a blind eye to this or slapping his wrist merely continues the cycle both at the club and beyond.

 

[neon_badger]

I brought up this exact point on Reddit as well, didn’t stop me getting slated for it. George Best, Cantona, Keane, Giggs etc. - all are listed under the ‘Legends’ page of the official Manchester United website.

One poster had said at least we are taking a stand on this sort of thing with Greenwood now: should we also then stop idolising all of these players and remove them from our Legends section? That would be the most PC thing do in this world we live in today wouldn’t it? Cantona literally came on that No7 shirt promo with Ronaldo last year.

For me, MG is an idiot and a scumbag (maybe a criminal too, but not in the eyes of the law at this moment) - But we don’t know the full story and the context behind the leaks. A more detailed statement from the club or a joint statement from MG and his partner would probably clear the air a bit more - and then fans can put this to a vote after being aware of all the facts in this.

Nobody is claiming we should retrospectively cancel former players, you're projecting something there, my point was simply just because it happened periodically through Footballs history doesn't mean we should tolerate it now. The world is changing, football is changing, why should footballers (or politicians, or celebrities) be allowed to live a grey area of moral conduct protected by wealth and influence. He did something wrong and got exposed, the thing he did is a problem across all corners of society and unfortunately he's a role model and is rightly being held to account, turning a blind eye to this or slapping his wrist merely continues the cycle both at the club and beyond.

 

[Pickle85]

Nobody is claiming we should retrospectively cancel former players, you're projecting something there, my point was simply just because it happened periodically through Footballs history doesn't mean we should tolerate it now. The world is changing, football is changing, why should footballers (or politicians, or celebrities) be allowed to live a grey area of moral conduct protected by wealth and influence. He did something wrong and got exposed, the thing he did is a problem across all corners of society and unfortunately he's a role model and is rightly being held to account, turning a blind eye to this or slapping his wrist merely continues the cycle both at the club and beyond.

Well said.

 

[golden_blunder]

the club doesn't need (and of course has no right) to fire those staff. Just make the decision, let the staff protest and resign if they want.

no offence but I wonder if the posters here (and the ABU social media) had the same outrage when Nicky Butt was alleged beating his wife up in 2019? We kept him in his job until 2021 maybe?

What Greenwood has done is morally and socially despicable, absolutely. But I can't see how he has been worse than Nicky Butt (beating up his wife as well), Giggs (cheating on his wife and sleeping with his brother's wife - unveiled in 2011 and we kept him in the job and we planned to make him the future manager for a while), Cantona (physically assaulting another person in front of millions of live audience), Maguire (beating up Greek cop) that deserves a different treatment (and there was some chance that Ronaldo had even raped a woman as well). He is also not worse than [Irrelevant point] who killed a girl driving drunk or Benzema who blackmailed his teammate with sex tape - both convicted.

I think millions of fans are just asking "why is Greenwood has got a different treatment from the above players?" - Is it just another media generated witch hunt like Beckham in 1998 or Ronaldo in 2006?

If you can’t see the difference between sexual assault and what most of the others did then your line of thought is wrong

personally I didn’t know about butt until it came out but I wouldn’t want that type of character associated with the club either

let me give you a direct comparison - mendy from city. Accused of multiple rapes. City suspended him, went to court, found not guilty. Did city bring him back?

 

[golden_blunder]

Just apply that in real life. You are in a big company and hear over that one colleague of yours from other department beat his wife. Would you resign just because you don't want to stay in the same company with him or has the remote chance to stay in the same room or work with him ?

If your priority is football , here is the trade off you have to make. Yes it's not ideal and there could be concerns among some staff, but that's not something the management could not work with to remedy.

So you’re doubling down on that illegal train of thought. Wow

 

[adexkola]

Wow. That’s quite something that train of thought. Let’s get rid of the female staff who objected (including ripping up the WS team) quite a look for the company and I daresay illegal.

Sacking would (probably) be illegal.

Allowing disgruntled employees to resign would not be illegal.

 

[golden_blunder]

Sacking would (probably) be illegal.

Allowing disgruntled employees to resign would not be illegal.

The original suggestion was putting those disgruntled employees forward for redundancy and forcing them to leave. Which is illegal. Regardless of opinions they have to be judged the same way as any other employee against the judging criteria.

and the 2nd point is, is he going to get rid of those members of the WS team as well?

it’s not a thought out argument and is not worthy of your backing

 

[adexkola]

let me give you a direct comparison - mendy from city. Accused of multiple rapes. City suspended him, went to court, found not guilty. Did city bring him back?

No, because he was a very injury prone shit player for City, so the benefit was nil to a team purring enroute to a Treble. Plus his contract was running out.

Hakimi and Partey are counterexamples by the way that prove if you're good enough you'll play, pending more concrete events happening.

The original suggestion was putting those disgruntled employees forward for redundancy and forcing them to leave. Which is illegal. Regardless of opinions they have to be judged the same way as any other employee against the judging criteria.

and the 2nd point is, is he going to get rid of those members of the WS team as well?

it’s not a thought out argument and is not worthy of your backing

The original suggestion is illegal, yes. Which is what I said.

The way I view the second point is: if you have a club willing to stick through a decision, some employees or players threatening to resign wouldn't impact that. Plus I'm not sure of what recourse players have for that, given their contracts.

It depends on how heinous you see Greenwood coming back. To someone like me who doesn't see it as a big deal, short of Bruno Fernandes threatening to commit hari-kiri on the OT pitch, non-contract employees would be free to leave, and contract employees would be allowed to let their contracts run out. To someone like you who sees Greenwood coming back as this huge travesty and disgrace, then the tea lady protesting would be enough.

 

[cyberman]

Reads as if we’re willing to give him another chance if this is being rejected

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[golden_blunder]

No, because he was a very injury prone shit player for City, so the benefit was nil to a team purring enroute to a Treble. Plus his contract was running out.

Hakimi and Partey are counterexamples by the way that prove if you're good enough you'll play, pending more concrete events happening.



The original suggestion is illegal, yes. Which is what I said.

The way I view the second point is: if you have a club willing to stick through a decision, some employees or players threatening to resign wouldn't impact that. Plus I'm not sure of what recourse players have for that, given their contracts.

It depends on how heinous you see Greenwood coming back. To someone like me who doesn't see it as a big deal, short of Bruno Fernandes threatening to commit hari-kiri on the OT pitch, non-contract employees would be free to leave, and contract employees would be allowed to let their contracts run out. To someone like you who sees Greenwood coming back as this huge travesty and disgrace, then the tea lady protesting would be enough.

I never said anyone was threatening to resign. I was responding to the guys line of thought on making people who disagree with greenwood coming back to be put in the redundant list. Completely and utterly illegal.
that’s all

 

[golden_blunder]

Reads as if we’re willing to give him another chance if this is being rejected

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Or we want more

 

[cyberman]

Or we want more

I can’t se show much more we can get when the EPL clubs are not in play for a player everyone seems to think we want to sell.

 

[JustAGuest]

Reads as if we’re willing to give him another chance if this is being rejected

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Questionable source but if true then that seems to be more than people here were expecting.

 

[golden_blunder]

I can’t se show much more we can get when the EPL clubs are not in play for a player everyone seems to think we want to sell.

Well considering we supposedly have to pay Getafe 20% back for taking him in the first place perhaps we want more from them to cover it. Maybe 50m sees the deal done

 

[Remember the geese]

We should be looking at closer to £100m. Not that we should be selling him at all. Obviously.

 

[Pickle85]

We should be looking at closer to £100m. Not that we should be selling him at all. Obviously.

Nobody will pay 100 million for him. Anything 50 and up we should jump at imo. Good riddance.

 

[Cassidy]

Nobody will pay 100 million for him.

Sure they wont. If he keeps performing his price tag is going to keep going up

 

[Judas]

No rush to sell him. Let him keep showing how talented he is. Might as well get maximum value.

I still think there’s a chance he’ll be reintroduced.

 

[Pickle85]

Sure they wont. If he keeps performing his price tag is going to keep going up

But the world knows that we want rid. Couple that with the fact that he's far from the finished article and has had disciplinary issues and he's not exactly a safe bet. No chance he goes for 100 million.

 

[Remember the geese]

Nobody will pay 100 million for him. Anything 50 and up we should jump at imo. Good riddance.

£100m is conservative. I'd consider it a hefty loss from where he might have been at this point in time.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

The only reason Mason continuing to do his job is a problem is because it’s Manchester United - other fans hate us and the media loves a negative story about us. He’s gone to La Liga, in a country where football is an even bigger cultural phenomenon than the UK, and there’s barely been a fuss.

 

[GledTheRed]

Grelaish got pissed during a lockdown party then pranged his car and did one.

He's a lad though so it's all shitz and gigglez.

 

[redcucumber]

The club moved him on so they plainly weren't happy to keep him. And if they were so what? They feck up most things so why not this as well?

And rehab? Are you having a laugh. He doesn't even accept he did anything wrong.

The simple fact is that under such circumstances, keeping him in any way is condoning domestic violence.

Eh? The club were priming him to be reintroduced until the media backlash and subsequent pressure which made them do a U-turn. They feck up things to do with transfers and player contracts, off the field stuff like PR, image and sponsorship issues they are better than most.

We don't know a whole lot because the club and its legal teams obviously told Greenwood (and his partner) to keep completely shtum, kept the details of their internal investigation and psychological interviews with Greenwood private, and did not disclose the rest of the tape nor the 'new' evidence that came to light as per the CPS. We really don't know all that much, despite a fair few on here liking to think they do as is usual.

 

[Judas]

Grelaish got pissed during a lockdown party then pranged his car and did one.

He's a lad though so it's all shitz and gigglez.

I mean comparing that behavior to Greenwood is scarily bonkers.

 

[RedRocket08]

"

OK so your point is our society now condemns this kind of behaviour, I agree and I would say this was the case even in the 60s - DV is not right.

However, we still celebrate the likes of George Best as a legend of this club to the current day and even have a statue of him in front of OT. So we reject one wife beater who is currently employed at the club and have a statue for another, but that's OK because he's a former player and a heck of a player at that - I just personally think that's a bit hypocritical if we are trying to present ourselves as a champion of women's rights?

I think everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves. The player in question spent two years away from football, if we want to pursue financial penalties as well sure we can give his entire two years of earnings to a DV charity, make him apologise for his behaviour in public and issue a joint statement with his partner - serve additional time away from football as well if he wants to play in the premier league, or even make him contribute half of his future earnings at Manchester United to a DV charity if he wants to play for United. Other than that, there is nothing else Manchester United can demand from him (If they want to keep him, or of course they can get rid of him) given his partner doesn't want to press charges, and if they are also not willing provide an explanation for what happened should we not let the club execs decide whether he plays or not (Based on what the internal investigation revealed), and also respect whatever decision they make, and also not pressure them towards making a certain type of decision that sits favourably with a certain side of the fanbase (Based on evidence for which the fanbase does not have full context)?

I'm not trying to be a contrarian for the sake of it and I will respect whatever decision the club makes in the end - just saying that this is not a black and white issue as is the case with many things in this world.

 

[Jippy]

Well considering we supposedly have to pay Getafe 20% back for taking him in the first place perhaps we want more from them to cover it. Maybe 50m sees the deal done

Do Getafe still get that 20% cut if we sell to them, so basically a discount?

 

[Pickle85]

Grelaish got pissed during a lockdown party then pranged his car and did one.

He's a lad though so it's all shitz and gigglez.

What possible relevance does this have to Greenwood allegedly beating and attempting to rape his partner?

 

[Matson]

Grelaish got pissed during a lockdown party then pranged his car and did one.

He's a lad though so it's all shitz and gigglez.

Not exactly a great comparison is it.