All proper journalists are critical of their sources’ possible interests, especially when they’re anonymous.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
Can you show me one example where Athletic have a source close to the horses mouth and caveat that with "however we believe this is because xyz"? They rarely ever overlay it if at all.
You wouldn’t openly question your source on paper, you do it when deciding whether you trust something enough to print it, by challenging your sources and by trying to corroborate information.
Couple of interesting bits from The Athletic article.
They would still publish a source from INEOS, they have articles to write
He was welll above being a promising player - he was one of the biggest talents I have seen in my time as a United-fan.
Can’t argue with your expertise.They would still publish a source from INEOS, they have articles to write
You dont need expertise to know they have an allocation of articles to write. They even talk about it on Talk of the Devils, needing to get articles out.
Which is why they write about absolute thin air sometimes.
Sure. But you don’t just run around printing everything an anonymous source is willing to tell you. That’s simply not how it works at a respected outlet. Journalism 101.
You print if its a good source. And I don't doubt it was a good source, straight from INEOS.
I'm saying what INEOS brief is not always the same as their actual intentions. For obvious reasons, that I didn't know needed this level of explaining.
Yep, I have Athletic for free but whenever I give their articles a read I swear 8/10 times its absolute shite.
Good source = one you trust to tell you the truth.
No, good source = one you know has the direct line to the party in question and is a direct brief from them (in this case, the owners).
I really don’t see what point you’re trying to make here. If they wish to sell the player, then INEOS will portray a certain outlook to whoever will ask. It’s not rocket science.
It is not clear at all - you are right that he would never say that Greenwood is leaving, but actually there is no need for him to say much at all on this subject at this point and the fact that he has says a lot in my opinion. But again that is just my opinion and none of us actually know.
But the big thing that you and many others seem to forget is that the club have a lot more information about all this than is publicly available, there was a detailed internal inquiry and I have no doubt that INEOS will now have a look at all the facts from that inquiry, speak to Greenwood himself and make an appropriate decision.
That decision may well be to sell, but I doubt the decision has already been made.
I guess we will need to wait and find out for ourselves in that case.
If I'm not mistaken he was answering the question put to him re. Greenwood, rather than jumping on the topic himself. Him answering with "we will conduct our own review" was the best line he could give to signal to the market that we are happy to keep him if the bids aren't good enough.
VP89 has convinced himself that The Athletic’s sources are lying through their teeth, and that he knows their true motivation. My point is simply that he has no way of knowing that, and certainly no better chance than the journalists who know said sources’ identities and track record. Just countering his arrogance, basically.
But that isn’t what he’s saying.
Uh, yes. He’s saying INEOS are intent on Greenwood leaving and are simply protecting his value by being vague. Which is possible, likely even, but it’s also possible that, as Athletic’s sources say, they haven’t yet made up their minds and may arrive at a different decision.
I don’t understand how you’ve interpreted his posts as suggesting The Athletic are lying. From what I can see, he’s just saying they’re reporting what they’ve been told, I.e., that no decision has been made.
I haven’t.
Ye but he said quite a bit more than that like:
"You are dealing with young people who have not always been brought up in the best circumstances, who have a lot of money and who don’t always have the guidance they should have."
Anyway yes - we wait and see, absolutely pointless for anyone to claim they know what the club will do.
Wonder how the conversation with his dad went after saying that
Come on Jev, unless the source is Dave or Jim, how 100% reliable can it be?
I can’t imagine anyone as shrewd as them telling the full truth to anyone not in their closest circle, they know the club is full of leaks, not least after the previous Greenwood/Athletic debacle.
I’m sure Jim is telling everyone the same, that no door is closed, he doesn’t want one of these leaky bastards telling the media that Greenwood is available for 20 quid and a packet of peanuts. Or do you think he’s that stupid and after witnessing what happened last summer with Greenwood, he’s just within weeks of working with this lot, decided to reveal his full cards to everyone in a club known to be full of leaks?
You guys have to remember that this is highly successful businessman billionaire. Then ask yourself the question of what makes sense financially regarding this matter, and it becomes very quickly clear that the best financial decision is to tell everybody that no door is closed and to keep the players value as high as possible.
Any other stance to the media or to colleagues in a club known to be as leaky as a sieve would be outstandingly stupid Business.
Any other stance to the media or to colleagues in a club known to be as leaky as a sieve would be outstandingly stupid Business.
It's Murtough who reportedly met with Greenwood Sr to discuss Mason's future and it was before these quotes apparently
I doubt Sir Jim will ever get directly involved in such things anyway
Decent article. At the end of the day only two people can realistically decide this. Ratcliffe and Greenwood. If SJR is amenable but Greenwood isn't then the club and player will part ways. Likewise the other way around.
If on the other hand SJR is amenable and Greenwood expresses a strong interest in returning, then he will return. The club will be well aware that its not a money issue (ie "how can we get a slightly higher fee if we pretend we want him back") since we could easily sell any combination of Antony, Pellistri, Amad, and Sancho and make 3-4 times more. ETH is a busted flush at this point so his opinion won't be a factor imo.
If on the other hand SJR is amenable and Greenwood expresses a strong interest in returning, then he will return. The club will be well aware that its not a money issue (ie "how can we get a slightly higher fee if we pretend we want him back") since we could easily sell any combination of Antony, Pellistri, Amad, and Sancho and make 3-4 times more. ETH is a busted flush at this point so his opinion won't be a factor imo.
Last edited:
If ETH opinion isn't a factor - by accounts previously he was fine with him returning, SJR would have to be sure a potential new managers opinion is amenable to his return.
Exactly
I don't think a hypothetical new manager's opinion would factor into it since the player has already proven he can be effective at United and there are obvious equities to the club involved in a Greenwood return that transcend just the football. ETH was probably given more latitude because we lacked a coherent management structure such as what SJR is putting in place.
Last edited:
Surely reluctant to go back says that Greenwood's mind is already made up,irrespective of whether INEOS are interested in meeting with him
How come you want Amad sold? He’s one of our most talented players.
Never said I want him sold, but that he could be one of the four I listed who is considered to be sold to raise funds for the inevitable inbound transfers the new manager (or even ETH) wants.
This whole thread is pointless as the same things are constantly regurgitated.
Sell for £50m and buy well. I’m okay with this. He might win Ballon D’or for all I care. But United will be with and without. We will birth another megastar. Only a matter of time.
I saw you recently mention us getting rid of Amad in a swap deal for Neves as well, along with the quote comment, which made me think you did. Hopefully we do go all out for Neves, the potential likes of him along with players like Mainoo and Amad could go very far imo.
Likewise, he would be an option there as well. I'm not advocating getting rid of him, but all things said, he is completely unproven and would likely be an attractive player for other clubs given his age. If he suddenly starts performing at the levels of Garnacho and Mainoo, then we could just as well keep him.
It blows my mind how this thread is always in the top three on the caf. I keep going to FotMob to check if Getafe are playing cause I don’t know how people are still talking about it nonstop every day.
I don't think the thread has much to do with Getafe.