Yep, totally their choice to make and I'm sure they've put plenty thought into it. Its a brave call trying to have a very public job where public opinion has already judged and executed you for a very serious crime, but good luck to them.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
Legal consequences of what, by whom?
He's being a twat now and needs to leave it.
This is becoming less and less about the matter at hand, and more about Crafton vs. United and how much he can embarrass them and inflate his own status. He's had his fifteen minutes of fame and everyone calling him a hero he needs to stop milking it.
What else are the club meant to do? Say they've seen evidence and share it? Obviously not going to happen. Or not say they've seen evidence at all and not be able to justify their approach?
Incorrect.
If he was to continue his United career, then I certainly think the explanation at least needed to be made public. It was highly unreasonable to expect the public, fans and club staff to be okay with him returning without any explanation for the audio they heard.
However, Greenwood is cleary unwilling to make that explanation public. Just as he is clearly unwilling to be specific in terms of what he is apologising for.
Occam's Razor would suggest that's because whatever the evidence that he didn't commit the very specific crimes of which he was accused, that evidence/explanation/context is nonetheless damaging enough to Greenwood that rather than confirm it publicly he would prefer to insist on his innocence without providing any details whatsoever.
Quality control
I am a lawyer and I know how these things are written. If there was any doubt at all, it would not have been written in that way.
You are not allowed to name victims/complainants.
That you know who it is doesn't allow you to publically name them.
I’ve said this before. People keep asking “show us!” - but we don’t even know if w/e the club can publish their findings without violating the victim’s right for anonymity or even if the parties involved would want them to as it could put her in a vulnerable position/harm’s way. I mean the social media pages of the players in the women’s team were flooded with “we’re watching you” type messages when there was that leak stating the decision was postponed pending consultation with them. There are a lot of unhinged people out there.
It seems like the new information does open up more avenues to what actually happened:
- The CCP did not drop the case after the alleged victim withdrew. That means the 'new material' mentioned by the CCP--something that has been ignored in a lot of reports--is likely a major reason why they dropped the charges. It looks like they were going to proceed even with the alleged victim dropping out.
- The recording was supposedly released by a hacker, so why would they only cut out a very small part of it? Did the rest of it bring another context to the situation? The release from Manchester United seems to indicate that it does.
I think this does show that it can be dangerous to believe something posted on the internet. We will never have the full facts to this situation.
Probably better to move on, but I don't see there being any reason for him not to be allowed to play football elsewhere.
- The CCP did not drop the case after the alleged victim withdrew. That means the 'new material' mentioned by the CCP--something that has been ignored in a lot of reports--is likely a major reason why they dropped the charges. It looks like they were going to proceed even with the alleged victim dropping out.
- The recording was supposedly released by a hacker, so why would they only cut out a very small part of it? Did the rest of it bring another context to the situation? The release from Manchester United seems to indicate that it does.
I think this does show that it can be dangerous to believe something posted on the internet. We will never have the full facts to this situation.
Probably better to move on, but I don't see there being any reason for him not to be allowed to play football elsewhere.
Unless you know what the new evidence is it doesn't really matter. But i do know the CPS would not drop the charges unless it was fairly compelling. The audio clip alone saw to that.
Agree.
I wish the fans would stop giving this guy clicks. Ignore him. We don't need anymore toxicity.
I don't see why the club is getting blamed for this. It's a complicated situation and the fact remains that we do not have all the information. For whatever reason, that's been withheld and we just need to accept that and let the principals sort it out. Why didn't he ask the police to provide information when they said they have new evidence?
Stop giving him attention.
Did she actually accuse him? Directly? If not, then there is an obvious loophole.
If she did accuse him, then this could be why they don’t want to explain an alternative version of events.
Bingo.
For the ghouls desperate for the gossip, I'm sure if you wait long enough at some point down the line more will come out. But in the meantime, we are owed nothing.
They could have seen the evidence, understood they couldn't share it, realised absolutely nobody had any reason to just take their word for it, accepted that meant Greenwood could not return to the club and made that call.
As opposed to, as Crafton says, apparently thinking it would be viable to bring Greenwood back without making any evidence or explanation public. As if the public, staff or fans have any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt and trust the results of their investigation with zero proof backing it up.
I still find it fascinating that United investigation does not include an interview with the victim, but instead with the victim mother.
Whatever they found it's from everyone apart from the victim herself. Any information therefore either come from Mason and third party account.
So yeah forgive me if I don't find this internal investigation credible at all
Whatever they found it's from everyone apart from the victim herself. Any information therefore either come from Mason and third party account.
So yeah forgive me if I don't find this internal investigation credible at all
Can you explain why Greenwood would have stayed with his partner if she'd misled the public on what he did and led the world to think he'd assaulted/raped her, potentially bringing down his entire career? That's why I don't think he is innocent, even if he technically is in the eyes of the law.
Assuming my premise above is a sound one, I therefore wouldn't want him representing my business either even if he hasn't been technically convicted of anything.
Of course. We can all base our opinions based on our instinct and experience. Luckily for me, my instinct and experience are not related to beating up my girlfriend.
Any doubt about what? Nobody doubts that the criminal charges were dropped. The statement is a classic lawyer negotiated non-statement statement that avoids either side having to get litigious but the parting of ways still happens.
And you should make better use of your mind-opening abilities, assuming you have any
Now being urged to donate any money we get from a sale, alright feck off now 
A small token amount, sure, whatever. People being ridiculous though. He's leaving. The matter is done. Any money we get would be a fraction of the 100m talent that the club lost and was forced to spend trying to replace him with Antony and Hojlund and Amad and whoever else, and the club should and will keep it to themselves like literally any other club would. People going over the top with the outrage now.
A small token amount, sure, whatever. People being ridiculous though. He's leaving. The matter is done. Any money we get would be a fraction of the 100m talent that the club lost and was forced to spend trying to replace him with Antony and Hojlund and Amad and whoever else, and the club should and will keep it to themselves like literally any other club would. People going over the top with the outrage now.
I must not have seen the really damning messages. I see lots of people referring to that case as something obvious, that's why I asked, because what I've seen is not obvious at all. I can't find them, if you see them, please dm me.
The only explanation I can gather from that would be sex games?, role playing that's too embarrassing to let the public know about?.
Mason would have had a lawyer negotiate those terms and if he wanted assurances he was back in the squad and the club were not willing to put that in writing, talks could have broke down.
The way this club has been run, I would not be surprised if the door is not totally closed. I think any potential suitors will want a buy now with a sell on clause or a loan with obligation to buy rather than a loan with option to buy.
You never know. SJ could buy the club, fire Arnold and next thing you know a new Qatari CEO has a different plan. A lot can happen in a year.
Without any bitterness whatsoever towards him, this definitely is his fifteen minutes right there and he's milking it for all it's worth.
Is it possible if we can have another thread for Greenwood but in the transfer forum ?
For people that want to talk about rumours and links to clubs abroad and tired of all this innocent/guilty talk....
For people that want to talk about rumours and links to clubs abroad and tired of all this innocent/guilty talk....
She likely just didn't want to be directly involved but let the father of her child/her boyfriend and her mother deal with the club directly. Which is fine from her perspective and entirely fair?
Because he wasn’t charged. The victim dropped the charges. That’s why Manchester United phrased their statement how they did. Nothing to do with them sitting on some sort of goldmine of evidence that us woke mob mortals are missing out on.
The club says it has evidence that made them believe he didn't do it but are unwilling/unable to share with the public, though.
No, it is not. It goes way way further than the club needed to go. Arnold specifically says that he is satisfied that Greenwood did not commit the offences for which he was charged. That wording is highly inconsistent with “lawyer speak”. It directly opens Arnold up to severe criticism if it were to turn out to be untrue. I didn’t expect them to go that far even if they were retaining him. It’s remarkable they’ve done so in these circumstances.
You don’t appear to want to accept it, which is fine, but it is clear from that statement that the club has sufficient evidence to be satisfied that he was guilty neither of attempted rape or assault. I don’t know what that could be but, in my view, it is impossible for the club to have made that statement without it. The wording otherwise wouldn’t have made its way past the first lawyer, let alone the army of them they will have had scrutinising that statement.
Last edited by a moderator:
Can people please control their emotions. Whatever you think of Greenwood and his behaviour he was not convicted of the offence of rape. Therefore calling him, as an example,a rapist is defamatory. Defamation opens the site (and even more so the poster saying defamatory things) up to the risk of legal action so please stop it. We don't want to warn people but we will.
Mods don’t need 2 threads to manage, and the transfer one would end up the same.
Edit: just seen reaper create a transfer thread. Let’s see what happens.
She gave a video statement to the police and that was part of the case taken to the CPS. After that this "hacking" shite came out, but we all know the amount of times we've heard that one when things get serious. It's one thing to hack an instagram or that (which would have been confirmed), but an entirely new thing to actually crack into someone's phone...at 2 in the morning...whilst she still had it. Also in Greenwood's statement, he directly says he mad "mistakes" that caused the release of those pictures which pretty much rules out a hack.
So in the early days at least, she definitely went with it. IIRC her father initially did too, then did a rather quick bizarre u-turn.
The statements just don't make sense to me. The club are basically saying they have evidence to show he was innocent, yet Greenwood himself has said he has made mistakes and intends to me a better person. Whatever way you look at it, the club have made a mess of this. They were bringing him back until they saw the backlash that was coming. They could have made the morally right decision and got rid of him ages ago. Instead they release feelers showing they intend to bring him back, only backtracking after seeing the reaction. It shows that money was the real reasoning behind the decision making.
You've some neck to say that after what you wrote, you weirdo.
Unless we hear in the same longer recording where both of the laughing : HAHA it's just a prank!!!!! Role Play!!!!
I think we can safely asume it is what it is.
Go ahead, try to imagine anything else that could make the recordings ok. I'd take a mental gymnastic to even think about possibilities.
We will never have full facts? I don't care, the facts out there are enough to brand him guilty in my eyes. If there are no recordings, people would probably give him more benefit of doubts, but it's up to him to prove otherwise with such a damning evidence
It is 100% a negotiated statement agreed between United and Greenwood's lawyers. Arnold isn't at risk as there is almost zero (or possibly zero) chance of the previous charges being reinstated. So Greenwood is obviously innocent in the eyes of criminal law already since the charges were dropped. The statement was a negotiated divorce statement. Happens all the time in corporate severance negotiations to avoid lengthy legal proceedings being instigated by either party.
Last edited:
I think this is a bit over the top
https://x.com/telefootball/status/1693953577083932864?s=46&t=Hap1n7LFSNzDoQ9PKvrMhA
https://x.com/telefootball/status/1693953577083932864?s=46&t=Hap1n7LFSNzDoQ9PKvrMhA
Fair play