You're being incredibly naive here.
United want money for him now. That's the sole aim of that statement.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
United want money for him now. That's the sole aim of that statement.
What about those other words written around that part, for context.
Are you literally insane?
How do you read that wording then? The only ambiguity is whether he did something else. On the point of whether he committed the original offences, it is stated with absolute certainty that he did not do them.
Fine, you may not believe the club but that is clearly what they are saying.
I think there is zero chance the British press adopt that attitude if it’s another English club. And I’d be amazed if any club in this country even explored the idea. What I can’t even guess at is how that stance changes over time. It would be naive to think it won’t change as emotions fade.
I am not going to lie. Him coming back to the Premier League for someone else and scoring loads of goals would seriously piss me off.
You think the clubs legal council would let them make that statement without being fully convinced they could stand by it if forced to?
They would simply have said they could not ascertain his guilt or that it remained inconclusive, they would not make such a statement to say they are "satisfied he did not commit the offense he's was charged with" that's a matter of fact statement
I don't really understand how the whole "so he can play elsewhere but not for United?!" thing is somehow controversial. There are plenty of players and people who I don't wish to see associated with United for moral/ethical reasons. This doesn't mean I wish they'd all die or be sent to a gulag. How does this make me a hypocrite?
The other words are secondary to that statement.
Just for clarity I wanted him gone by the way.
Depends on which club it is, if abroad they'll say virtually nothing, another PL club is a different matter
He left the football team a very long time ago so won't be missed.
What bothers me about the whole thing is her father. If some punk did that to my daughter when she was young, I would have given him a kicking he'd never forget unless her brother got there first.
But they havent really made any decision have they? They have just kicked it into the long grass until possible new owners take over and then they can relook at it. If they wanted to make a statement they would have paid up his contract and let him go free. They havent done that - so they will be looking to a) make some money back on him b) bring him back once something changes. Public opinion, new owners, the fanbase asking for him etc. I just think it could have been spun in a different way - there should always be the prospect of rehabilitation. We are not talking about a repeat offender here - hes a kid. Kids make stupid decisions and act incredibly inappropriately at times. I work with a youth rugby team - some kids need as much help as they can possibly get. I dont agree with cutting him loose in this fashion.
There are a whole load of stock phrases in that statement that any organisation will be told to used by lawyers but I can't believe how tone deaf the club is to try and use the statement as some sort of exoneration of MG and the repeated use of the phrase "alleged victim" is totally appaling.
Why get involved in giving YOUR opinion of his actions....it's totally unnecessary.
It reads like they had 90% of the statement written from the perspective of letting him back, then just changed the outcome at the last minute and forgot about the tone of the whole statement.
Why get involved in giving YOUR opinion of his actions....it's totally unnecessary.
It reads like they had 90% of the statement written from the perspective of letting him back, then just changed the outcome at the last minute and forgot about the tone of the whole statement.
I’m guessing we’re selling him outright? We’re probably going to get shit if we just loan him. When would he even be match fit to play for his hypothetical new team considering he’s had the most rudimentary pre season training (probably not much far off from typical Sunday League) and has not played professionally for two and a half years?
And is there a guarantee he even returns to that trajectory he was on with us?
And is there a guarantee he even returns to that trajectory he was on with us?
If it is one thing they've shown themselves to be masters off through all this, it's shifting blame.
I think we all know what the "alternative explanations" could be. The problem with that, is that it doesn't explain the rest of the alleged victims social media posts at the time and shortly after the arrest.
I don’t really want to get into a to and fro about this, any more than we have done. I see it as a carefully worded statement which stops short of the certainty you see.
I think it stems from the thought of, someone who has demonstrated beliefs and behaviour that are deemed harmful to society, shouldn't continue to receive accolades/be in the public spotlight.
Another way of saying it is, Mason's gotten his second chance, but his second chance should come in the form of not going to prison rather than getting to play professional football for profit.
That makes sense. I was really thrown off by how that statement developed as it went on.
They didn't have all the evidence. They were given an alternative explanation... well no shit, they're back together so I doubt they're going to tell the truth if it's incriminating. Plus United want to sell this guy for a much money as possible.
I imagine it's more than likely an excert from a some kind of weird role play. Which would explain why it was recorded inthe first place.
He won't but his talent for football will
You stuck on repeat? Shall we try again?
That's the judgment you take from a HR investigation that they called out as limited and reliant on third party statements? Strange disclaimers for 100% certainty
Wanting money for him is most definitely not worth making a categoric public statement of his innocence if they aren’t entirely satisfied it’s correct. Can you imagine the fallout if it transpired that they were lying and (worst case) something similar happened in the future? They have left no caveat in the wording or ambiguity which would be there if there was any uncertainty - he is (so far as the club is concerned) definitely innocent of the original charges.
Due to the rules of this forum I cannot answer that question.
It’s basically “He can still play Football, would you rather him score goals for City, Liverpool or for us” rephrased.
I’ve not seen one take on this that doesn’t agree that this was the best course of action that isn’t trying to justify his reintegration and excuse his action.
It would be better to loan him and hopefully he does good. If he does his value will increase.
Exactly this, and who are the club to say they think he’s innocent. They are not court of law and if they have evidence where is it?
You can't use the phrase victim then at the same time say your investigation found he committed no offence.
Especially when said victim is also saying they are not a victim.
I agree the statement is a bit odd, but they cannot say victim, is not appaling its just how it is, otherwise they are opening themselves up for litigation
All this furore just makes the situation at arsenal all the more farcical. Power of injunctions and no moral standards eh
They've known each other since they were young teens, this is just a toxic co-dependency relationship.
from a football perspective its very sad that a talent like him will never play again for us. morally i am very happy with the decision
What’s baffling to me is how the club thought a player of Greenwood’s age, missing 18 months of Football at a pivotal stage of his career, could somehow slot into a team, under a new manager and STILL be worth the hassle they had to have known bringing him back would have/has brought on the club.
They could loan him for 2 years, then his contract has expired and he's not our player anymore, I can't see anyone buying him given how long he's been out
If the allegations are completely false, i see no logical reason why he would stick with her.
If he is guilty, getting her back onside would be the best way to a) have the case dropped and b) curry favor with United.
From her perspective, she may think she is better off with him, than without him. She may have victims guilt because she thinks she is the one to blame for ruining his career. There are some people that stick with partners though all sorts of shit. Probably even more so when their partner happens to be a multi millionaire footballer.
Some of you want to give your head a wobble with all this talk of 'innocence'. All the evidence needed to see what type of individual Greenwood is is out in the public domain.
Just for reference, David Goodwillie was cleared in his criminal case.
Some stinking hot takes in here.
Just for reference, David Goodwillie was cleared in his criminal case.
Some stinking hot takes in here.
Your tagline is very incorrect if that's what ya think
So far as the club are concerned... with the caveat that they didn't have all the info and relied on statements that aren't made under oath.
You don't think that's the perfect excuse should anything happen in the future? Come on...
When it comes to terminating and employee you do need legal ground. Additionally if you’re opinion doesn’t need proof or backing, then you’re just a muppet.