And found guilty in civil court
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
It's very rare for domestic abusers to admit they did anything wrong let alone do the work to rehabilitate themselves.
From the club's perspective they've realised the media circus would be far too much for him to have any prospect of getting his career back on track. If you think he deserves a second chance and can rehabilitate himself then moving somewhere else, possiblity abroad, out of the media spotlight is the place to do it.
I and many others couldn't cheer him in on in a United shirt after hearing that audio so for me it's right decision.
More pertanent to me is they were unable to access certain evidence.
Why would that be?
Assuming the evidence came from Mason and his gf, who were working to get Mason back playing for United, then im sure the evidence presented would have suited their narrative.
It also gives United some wiggle room incase more comes out.
He can get help and rehab, sure. But not here. United has a reputation to consider too.
There is plenty of ass-covering in that statement to prevent that.
I didn't think about that, this works even for a loan. Though not addressing it in a statement was in my opinion better. You state that all parties decided that Greenwood moving away from Manchester was ideal and that's it.
Because then your moral/ethical reasons are not actually moral/ethical, they're more convenient to self. Morals and ethics transcend club fandom.
If you felt Greenwood's presence at your club would be a blight to football, and be a detriment to progress on sexual assault (it's not but bear with me for a second), then why would you be ok with him starring for Liverpool, unless you'd derive pleasure in playing the moral champion card (we're so much better than them)?
If you want to be logically consistent, it's either you
1. Ignore all moral/ethical considerations (that's where I am)
2. Don't want him at United for selfish reasons (don't want the negative attention, losing the moral high ground, not wanting to have difficult conversations with your daughters or something) but don't mind another club taking the hit
3. Don't want him at United for moral/ethical reasons (he should not be a footballer, bad example for kids) in which case, you also don't want him playing football at any top level club, or profession that has people cheering for him. He's free to be a plumber though.
If you don't want him at United but wouldn't care about him at another club, and you're claiming morals/ethics, your morals are low-grade
it was a roller coaster of a statement. I'd heard on the radio that he was being let go, but when I read their email I was starting to think I'd misheard.Not at all, I genuinely cannot I've been given a warning today already.
Feck me, the tripe people come out with to hide their true thoughts
And why has this claim not made it to court? Because the key witness has resumed her relationship with the accused.
To be fair, you got your answer.
Feck me, the tripe people come out with to hide their true thoughts
Thanks and apologies to the site, edited.
Well they're not terminating him are they?
I've made my decision based on the information available. There's no explaining away the audio and none of the actions, statements or lack thereof of on anyone involved since the story broke has given me any reason to change my mind. It all fits so why you do think I don't need proof or backing?
Also nice way to try and call me a muppet with calling me one... Pretty pathetic by you.
Whether I do or do not I cannot answer I have been told, so it is what it is. Feel free to confer with @moses on the matter.To be fair, you got your answer.
I wanted did of him from the start and I'm glad he's gone.
However I'm not naive enough to think that a lot of people on the outside urging United to get rid were doing so mostly because they hate everything United and not out of any great moral standing they have
I didn't ask because you are not subtle.
They're not. They start of the premise of the whole email/ statement by saying that they don't have all the evidence. I pretty big caveat that shouldn't have resulted in the claiming they think he's innocent. There should have been a better way to navigate that part because they can't prove he is innocent, nor be 100% sure based on what they know and the nature of these types of cases.
But United need every part cent from this deal, so of course they're going to try to control the narrative.
I view it the other way ‘round.
I think the situation at Arsenal shows how farcical the handling of this has been by Utd.
If you think about it none of REALLY know anything, it's all just guesswork and opinions.
So its obvious what he did and he is guilty from limited social media and its also proven he is innocent due to the clubs statement.
These seem to be tha main arguments seither side of the fence, both of which are being totally judgemental based on very little and pretty naive.
These seem to be tha main arguments seither side of the fence, both of which are being totally judgemental based on very little and pretty naive.
except innocent until proven guilty is a human right under the right to a fair trial.
so one opinion technically is wrong according to most of the free world
If you state your opinion without nonsense you won't get warned.
You are allowed to say you think the evidence was falsified and she lied. I mean, it is the only other explanation right?
But may I ask you about the audio then, you think that was falsified? Or do you think the longer version explains it away? If so, what do you think happened (and you are allowed to say that too).
Fair enough but I do wish we had a player not named Mason Greenwood that could score some fecking goals!
Why believe Arnold at all? He's covering himself so he can say "he's innocent"
To be fair I bet if the tape had never gone into the public domain the club would have done the same as Arsenal
And you made your opinion known fairly clearly.
Would have the backlash still occurred had they announced his "reintegration" during or prior to the tour?
What I am really asking is, if the hierarchy had just shown strong leadership and not delayed allowing a frenzy to whip up online.
I am not on any social media platforms so I do not have the knowledge that others will in regards to how these patterns of news formulate.
But it does always seem to me that story is leaked, it allows people to think and voice opinions that gain traction and then results in the "backlash" by accumulation.
Yep.
Plenty of people are forgetting the initial circumstances around this one. There's been no case like it, at least not in recent memory.
Good news
The first paragraph is literal an answer to you but you want to do the age old thing of throwing back what you perceived an insult. So let’s bury term for now & stay on topic.
Asking me what I’d do as a non-footballing institution when I disassociate with someone isn't exactly comparing Apples to Apples. I work with people I don’t ‘like’. I wouldn’t disassociate myself with them over something I say in a statement I don’t think they’re guilty of.
Now if in my personal life an associate were to defame me, I’d walk away from them but an intelligent poster like yourself knows the difference. Manchester United football club walking away from Mason Greenwood is not in anyway shape or form comparable to the question you pose but you know that.
I’ve seen your name on here a lot & didn’t take you as disingenuous but now I’ve answered your question, how about you answer mine? No need for jabs, just answers. . .
Do you legislate the relationship decisions of people that have nothing to do with you?
You can say that you're not accusing her, and you can say that you don't know what happened. The only thing you're not allowed to do, is to accuse her of making a false allegation. This means that you do believe that she is guilty, you're just not saying it (even though you are saying it), and your reason for not saying it has nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty", or any legal principle, it's because you don't want to get banned.
This is how it is in almost all cases, people saying the things you do are full of shit. You have no qualms about accusing people of crimes they've not been convicted of. You say do you, but you lie.
Good riddance.
I'm not making a judgement. My judgement was made long ago. He shouldn't be anywhere near the team and the only reason they even started an investigation was because he was a good footballer which it should not have come down to. Let me make that perfectly clear.
The United statement says we have concluded did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged.
I'm questioning how they can even make that statement.
That's genuinely a bit nuts, mate.
Absolutely. Agreed 100%
Not read the thread but my reaction from the club statement is that his girlfriend must have lied?
The club could clear this up but have chosen not to. If he’s guilty he’d be gone for gross misconduct. The fact he’s still on the payroll suggest there is strong evidence he didn’t commit the crime, the same evidence the police came across and promptly dropped all charges??
of course once she gets pregnant there is no way the lie can be revealed.
So badly handled.
The club could clear this up but have chosen not to. If he’s guilty he’d be gone for gross misconduct. The fact he’s still on the payroll suggest there is strong evidence he didn’t commit the crime, the same evidence the police came across and promptly dropped all charges??
of course once she gets pregnant there is no way the lie can be revealed.
So badly handled.
He didn't say that though did he?
He said he wasn't guilty of what Greenwood was charged with, that suggests that there are things that he wasn't charged with that he was guilty of, Greenwood essentially acknowledges there was some thing other than that what he was charged with
I think there was no getting away from it. Had they announced it in July, the press would have covered it in detail at the time with a similar outcome. Utd have handled this badly, but I’m not sure there was an ideal time that would have fundamentally changed the result.