Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic

[Borussia Teeth]

I am a rape survivor. Convince me that I should support him playing for MY club.

I'm sorry that you have gone through such a thing.

Personally, I would like him back for footballing reasons but I completely understand if others don't.

The evidence available to the public makes him appear guilty. Based on the images/audio, I THINK he's guilty. However, I have done jury duty before (can't go into details for legal reasons) and things are not always what they seem. He hasn't been convicted of anything and he MAY not have done it.

Regarding your post: nobody should be convincing anyone to support any player or club. Individuals should make their own decisions based on their personal preferences and maybe in this case, morality. If I thought he was 100% guilty then I wouldn't want anything to do with him. I THINK he's guilty, I don't KNOW he's guilty so I would have him back. I wouldn't try and convince anyone to share my opinion though.

 

[BD]

He was never charged or accuser of rape, let’s at least get that clear.

Is that so important? He was charged with attempted rape, right?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Are you saying that you were aware of the details of the internal investigation in The Athletic article?

Yes?

This was published last summer, it's not new information.

I'm aware of the panel led by Arnold and I understand that they carried out some kind of "investigation", sure - yes.

What's your point?

To reiterate, my point was that United never had access to all the evidence in the case, and that it is therefore questionable/problematic (I originally said "ridiculous", to be clear) for Arnold to say that the club is satisfied that he isn't guilty of the original charge(s).

So, the article you quote - does what? Invalidate my point? Clearly not. So why post the quote?
Because I didn't clarify that "United" in this case means a "panel" of five persons (including a lawyer)?

Fine, let me be clear then: A panel of five persons (including a lawyer) led by Richard Arnold carried out an "investigation" that means feck all. The panel didn't have access to all the evidence, and as far as we know they didn't even interview the alleged victim.

Is that better?

ETA And can you now tell us what you think happened?

I told you what I think happened.

If you don't feel comfortable speculating, I understand. Fine. Just say so. But I would think someone so - seemingly - interested in this case would have an opinion. It's something United fans discuss, after all - as United fans (it's not frivolous interest in sordid details, it pertains to a United player in a very particular set of circumstances).

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Greenwood's was accused of DV of a sexual nature and his partner returning to him has been one of the primary arguments used by his apologists to say everything is either now fine or that there was never anything to be concerned about.

Everything else notwithstanding, this argument has absolutely been used - blatantly so - in this thread.

If we can't agree on anything else, we should at least be able to agree that this argument is horribly flawed and should be considered a red flag whenever it appears.

It's very common for DV victims to get back together with their abusers. I mean - how can people not know this by now? But if they don't, for fecks' sake, do some research - and stop using this argument.

 

[Lash]

This isn't intended to be a gotcha for anyone who said it, so won't reply directly, but I'm trying understand the point of view. Seen a couple of people respond to to Peter's post saying they understand why they wouldn't want him back, but you want him back (for footballing reasons, or other). Does that mean you don't particularly value their opinion on the matter, or believe it doesn't really matter? Or something else?

 

[flameinthesun]

This isn't intended to be a gotcha for anyone who said it, so won't reply directly, but I'm trying understand the point of view. Seen a couple of people respond to to Peter's post saying they understand why they wouldn't want him back, but you want him back (for footballing reasons, or other). Does that mean you don't particularly value their opinion on the matter, or believe it doesn't really matter? Or something else?

I can't speak for others but for myself.

The poster's personal experience will have a direct impact on how they view this situation. Any person should be able to be empathetic to the posters response to this case and their decision to not want the player back. I understand that as many on here have already stated.

Whilst being empathetic to the poster's stance, on the other side there is a player who has not been charged and is innocent until proven guilty (and people can discuss the semantics of "innocent"), we also have a club who have categorically stated that they believe the player did not do what he was originally charged for. Whilst I have to hope that they have taken that stance in good faith, I also believe it to be far fetched that the United CEO lied, United as a club were comfortable with him lying, the CPS would have to remain silent whilst knowing the United statement was inaccurate, the alleged victim and her family would have to be quiet as well. For me I believe that the likelihood of that occurring to be small. If it did happen, then we may as well all stop supporting United as a club.

So you have a player who has had all charges dropped, a club who have said he did not do what he was originally charged for, a partner and supporting family who have appeared to have moved on past the incident. To me the player has the right to resume his career at United and be judged on his performances. The issue with the incident is its not as simple as he did it, he didn't do it, yet a lot of posters want everyone to come down on one side or the other. Its never going to happen by the very nature of the incident. Can I say he 100% didn't do it? No. Just as I believe I can't say 100% he did do it. Hence, putting my trust in the club, for good or for bad who, regardless of the logical leaps people want to make, they have clearly got more information and context on what occurred and therefore are in a better position than myself to make a decision. My only issue is how United presented their statement. They concluded he did not do what he was charged for, therefore they should have allowed him back instead of leaving things in limbo as they did. Alternatively, if they believe it likely he did do it they should have cut ties with him (although there is an argument about whether they could legally do so).

 

[Borussia Teeth]

This isn't intended to be a gotcha for anyone who said it, so won't reply directly, but I'm trying understand the point of view. Seen a couple of people respond to to Peter's post saying they understand why they wouldn't want him back, but you want him back (for footballing reasons, or other). Does that mean you don't particularly value their opinion on the matter, or believe it doesn't really matter? Or something else?

I responded to Peter van der Gea's post. I stated that I would have Greenwood back for footballing reasons. I am not devaluing anyone else's opinion on the matter; I'm merely presenting my opinion: if there isn't conclusive evidence of guilt, then I would have him back.

 

[moses]

I don’t watch it and never posted on it as I posted on the player performance thread but since they got rid of that it’s a shitshow .

It is a shitshow and the thread represents it well. The thread with everyone fawning over him was pretty revolting and misrepresentative.

 

[flameinthesun]

It is a shitshow and the thread represents it well. The thread with everyone fawning over him was pretty revolting and misrepresentative.

Misrepresentative of what?

 

[Wibble]

I'm merely presenting my opinion: if there isn't conclusive evidence of guilt, then I would have him back.

There is. Just probably not to a criminal standard now that his partner has withdrawn her cooperation.

There would be no debate if he wasn't good at kicking a ball.

 

[Overhaul FC]

He wasn't? He was Getafe's.

I very much doubt he'd be unreal, he's had some good games, he's had some ineffective games. There's nothing about what we've seen of him to suggest he's back to the quality he was prior, it's all been fits and spurts - which is expected.

I'd rather him than Antony. As far as morality goes they could both be sausages. Purely talking about football, I'd much rather Greenwood than any of our other right wingers or striker options other than Hojlund.

 

[BristolMick]

This isn't intended to be a gotcha for anyone who said it, so won't reply directly, but I'm trying understand the point of view. Seen a couple of people respond to to Peter's post saying they understand why they wouldn't want him back, but you want him back (for footballing reasons, or other). Does that mean you don't particularly value their opinion on the matter, or believe it doesn't really matter? Or something else?

It's simply recognising and acknowledging that our personal experiences will affect and influence our judgement. Respecting an opinion which is different from your own doesn't mean you have to agree with it? And not changing your opinion based on someone's personal experience doesn't invalidate that experience or mean that their opinion doesn't matter or isn't valued.

Flameinthesun has summed it up very well in his response.

It's possible to both value and respect someone's opinion which is different from your own while not agreeing with it.

Also what happened to the poll? Surely that's a fair democratic way to get peoples general opinions on the case without the toxic back and forths? It's not as if anybody was using the poll results as leverage in their arguments from what I could see. It was just running in the background.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

It is a shitshow and the thread represents it well. The thread with everyone fawning over him was pretty revolting and misrepresentative.

People are not fawning over him as an individual though? They are simply praising his football ability and performances which should be par for the course on the forum. Some people can’t separate the man from the footballer, but others can so I don’t really understand why those that can weren’t allowed to continue footballing discussion. It’s similar to other entertainment mediums, some won’t listen to Kanye or MJ, others won’t watch a Harry Potter movie because of JKR. Personally I can think those artists are scum but separate their art. I feel the same about Greenwood, just because he’s likely a scumbag doesn’t mean I can’t objectify see the quality of his footballing performances.

 

[Onerealunited]

Rather have Greenwood in the team than Antony and also rather have Greenwood back and fight with Amad for the RW position than trying to go out and use another minimum +50m to see if we can find a proper RW... Greenwood, Amad, Rashford and Garnacho should be more than enough. Add to that you can play Bruno and Mount if needed

 

[Infra-red]

There is. Just probably not to a criminal standard now that his partner has withdrawn her cooperation.

There would be no debate if he wasn't good at kicking a ball.

He's got 3 goals in 17 games (14 starts) for Getafe. I'm not even sure he's particularly good at kicking a ball (or at least not good enough to worry about getting rid, anyway).

 

[hobbers]

I am a rape survivor. Convince me that I should support him playing for MY club.

If he played for the club again you wouldnt be obligated to support him.

We all supported Giggs for two decades and probably all feel mugged off that he turned out to be a scumbag in similar vein to Greenwood. Still, doesn't affect support/nostalgia for the club or the team or its achievements while he was playing for us.

 

[Red00012]

Misrepresentative of what?

There wasn’t fawning , 90% of the posts were actually about how he was doing for Getafe and him playing well isn’t fawning. It was a player performance thread and a few posters used to come in and derail the whole thing even though there was a separate thread to do that.


Edit
Sorry I replied to the wrong post
@moses

 

[lex talionis]

I haven’t followed the news on Greenwood for a while so I ask in advance for forgiveness if the answer is common knowledge. Have Greenwood and the girlfriend he verbally abused reconciled?

 

[Wibble]

He's got 3 goals in 17 games (14 starts) for Getafe. I'm not even sure he's particularly good at kicking a ball (or at least not good enough to worry about getting rid, anyway).

Agreed but many can't stop talking about him as a generational talent.

 

[flameinthesun]

There wasn’t fawning , 90% of the posts were actually about how he was doing for Getafe and him playing well isn’t fawning. It was a player performance thread and a few posters used to come in and derail the whole thing even though there was a separate thread to do that.


Edit
Sorry I replied to the wrong post
@moses

Yup, I agree with you.

 

[Wibble]

If he played for the club again you wouldnt be obligated to support him.

Or the club.

We all supported Giggs for two decades and probably all feel mugged off that he turned out to be a scumbag in similar vein to Greenwood. Still, doesn't affect support/nostalgia for the club or the team or its achievements while he was playing for us.

Supporting a player before finding out he is a scumbag (even though not on the same scale as Greenwood) is totally different. I don't see anyone campaigning to have Giggs back at the club.

 

[flameinthesun]

I haven’t followed the news on Greenwood for a while so I ask in advance for forgiveness if the answer is common knowledge. Have Greenwood and the girlfriend he verbally abused reconciled?

They have reconciled, I believe are engaged and have since had a child together.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

It's possible to both value and respect someone's opinion which is different from your own while not agreeing with it.

Absolutely, yes.

That's at the very core of what you could call my belief system. And I say this as a deeply flawed bastard who has lost faith in most things. But I still believe in that.

 

[cafecillos]

Please, please, I implore you to stop using the argument they are back together. Let's at the very least agree on that. Please.

 

[Kostov]

This isn't intended to be a gotcha for anyone who said it, so won't reply directly, but I'm trying understand the point of view. Seen a couple of people respond to to Peter's post saying they understand why they wouldn't want him back, but you want him back (for footballing reasons, or other). Does that mean you don't particularly value their opinion on the matter, or believe it doesn't really matter? Or something else?

I don't really value his opinion on the matter in this case. Should I value Peter's opinion on the Greenwood case more than let's say Greenwood's wife and mother of his child, together with her family for instance? After all she came back to him, had a baby with him and is now living abroad with him. Peter is talking about supporting a football club.

 

[Kostov]

Please, please, I implore you to stop using the argument they are back together. Let's at the very least agree on that. Please.

Why? She is living in Spain with him, having a kid with him, how is that irrelevant?

 

[hobbers]

Or the club.



Supporting a player before finding out he is a scumbag (even though not on the same scale as Greenwood) is totally different. I don't see anyone campaigning to have Giggs back at the club.

Or the club.

But not on the same scale? They were both charged with DV and coercive control but Giggs actually passed the evidence barrier for bringing it to prosecution.

It's not that different but I guess it depends on what you mean by support. Giggs contributed massively to winning us trophies. Are those trophies or moments worth less because he played a part in them? Not for me.

 

[Wibble]

Or the club.

But not on the same scale? They were both charged with DV and coercive control but Giggs actually passed the evidence barrier for bringing it to prosecution.

It's not that different but I guess it depends on what you mean by support. Giggs contributed massively to winning us trophies. Are those trophies or moments worth less because he played a part in them? Not for me.

I won't support the club again if he plays for us again. I'd be out. The last straw after the shitshow of the Glazer era.

And I mean I don't now support Giggs or want him anywhere near the club. Past support when we didn't know he was a scumbag is irrelevant.

Abdcun terms of scale his scumbaggery was bad but not even in the same universe as threatening rape.

 

[Gavinb33]

Regardless of anything he can never play in this country again he'd melt under the scrutiny of it all anyone would, the fans week in week out would have his life being unbearable and then the press coverage he'd get would be relentless too not just for him but for all his family too it's just better for him to play abroad and get on with his life and for us to get on with being a football club I'd argue if Antony and Sancho were playing well no one would care all that much about whT happened to Greenwood

 

[Pickle85]

I haven’t followed the news on Greenwood for a while so I ask in advance for forgiveness if the answer is common knowledge. Have Greenwood and the girlfriend he verbally abused reconciled?

*and allegedly both physically and sexually abused.

 

[RedNome]

Or the club.

But not on the same scale? They were both charged with DV and coercive control but Giggs actually passed the evidence barrier for bringing it to prosecution.

It's not that different but I guess it depends on what you mean by support. Giggs contributed massively to winning us trophies. Are those trophies or moments worth less because he played a part in them? Not for me.

Certainly takes the shine off all his accomplishments (not trophies as they were earned as a team), definitely for me, can't 'hero worship him' (for want of a better phrase) like I would with other legends of the club.

 

[moses]

There wasn’t fawning , 90% of the posts were actually about how he was doing for Getafe and him playing well isn’t fawning. It was a player performance thread and a few posters used to come in and derail the whole thing even though there was a separate thread to do that.


Edit
Sorry I replied to the wrong post
@moses

A football only thread, which was almost wholly positive, that proactively allowed no room for context could have been seen at a glance as hugely misrepresentative of how a lot of caf users feel.

It would look the same as all the other loanees, which again doesn't represent the truth.

Why should the caf ignore the complications surrounded the alleged rape when the club didn't?

 

[cafecillos]

Why? She is living in Spain with him, having a kid with him, how is that irrelevant?

I'm sorry but I don't have the energy to calmly explain it to you, I hope someone else does. It's been explained in this thread dozens and dozens of times though.

 

[moses]

Why? She is living in Spain with him, having a kid with him, how is that irrelevant?

Crikey, this shouldn't be this complicated.

Nobody is saying it's irrelevant, just that because of the studies and resulting statistics, it's not conclusive.

 

[flameinthesun]

I won't support the club again if he plays for us again. I'd be out. The last straw after the shitshow of the Glazer era.

And I mean I don't now support Giggs or want him anywhere near the club. Past support when we didn't know he was a scumbag is irrelevant.

His scumbaggery was bad but not even in the same universe as threatening rape.

I respect your stance. However, whether he is brought back or not, the club has already set out it's stance that he did not do what he was initially charged for. Do you believe their statement or do you not believe it? If you believe their statement then surely he should be allowed to play for the club again. If you don't believe their statement then regardless of whether he returns or not the club has already lied and covered up in your case attempted rape and DV. I say that because I think if you feel that strongly about Greenwood not returning to the point where you are prepared to stop supporting the club then the point of no return for you should probably have been United/CEO's statement.

If I was being cynical I would have said that point likely should have been on Ronaldo's return.

 

[moses]

It's not that different but I guess it depends on what you mean by support. Giggs contributed massively to winning us trophies. Are those trophies or moments worth less because he played a part in them? Not for me.

Giggs was my favourite player. But had I known what a weird and coercive prick he was, then that would not have been the case.

Giggs has been removed from the hagiography of the club in lots of quarters and rightfully so.

I don't get the comparison. We didn't know when we supported Giggs.

 

[SilentWitness]

Giggs was my favourite player. But had I known what a weird and coercive prick he was, then that would not have been the case.

Giggs has been removed from the hagiography of the club in lots of quarters and rightfully so.

I don't get the comparison. We didn't know when we supported Giggs.

Not just the club, he should probably have been one of the first players in the PL Hall of Fame yet has been repeatedly snubbed from it and I haven't seen him around on interviews/punditry/the football scene in ages.

 

[Infra-red]

Agreed but many can't stop talking about him as a generational talent.

He's no doubt talented, but an enforced period of that length away from the game at such a crucial stage of development, will surely have irrevocably altered his career trajectory. Whatever player he would have gone on to become had these events not transpired, is now lost. I don't want to go too far into a discussion of his ability, because I don't think it is (or should be) relevant in these circumstances. Regardless of his ability (or lack thereof), there are enough decent players in the world for United not to feel compelled to hang on to someone with Greenwood's 'baggage'.

 

[Wibble]

I respect your stance. However, whether he is brought back or not, the club has already set out it's stance that he did not do what he was initially charged for. Do you believe their statement or do you not believe it?

I believe he wasn't criminally convicted. So the club were just stating the bleeding obvious.

But do I believe he didn't threaten to rape his partner? Of course not. The recording has no explanation or justification (not even a feeble unbelievable one) and he hasn't even tried to explain it. Pure and simple he is a scumbag I want nowhere near the club.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Why? She is living in Spain with him, having a kid with him, how is that irrelevant?

Really?

Use that logic on a random DV case - does it work?

He probably didn't do it - or at the very least it wasn't that serious. 'Cause they're back together. And they even have a kid now!

Would that be a compelling argument?

Look, we don't know anything about Mason Greenwood's family life. But we do know something about domestic violence in general. And it is feckin' infuriating to see this idiotic "argument" being posted over and over again in this thread.

No offence to you personally, but do some research.

It is very common for DV victims to get back together with their abuser, including having a kid with said abuser.

That doesn't mean we should assume anything in this particular case. But it means we should stop using this utterly illogical, stupid feckin' "argument".

Because it isn't a valid argument. So, stop using it. Simple - yeah? Just stop using bullshit arguments, it's not hard.