Out of interest, how do you think the Everton fans would welcome talks of his signing?
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
Everton had a similar issue if I recall which was resolved by default due to a contract expiring.
Jumping in here, but there is a thread on the main Ipswich board about signing him, I can only guess due to him knowing Kieran McKenna. The general consensus is a hard no. It’s also laughably unrealistic.
Fair play mate, I haven't posted on the subject prior to today - online debates tend to funnel the mind pretty quickly when you're involved in them and responding to multiple people.
I do agree that it's weird the club didn't have him doing a bunch of charity work, attending DV seminars, etc. The lack of integration as you say was decidedly odd if the intent was to bring him back.
The same guy who was recently in court testifying to vouch for Giggs’ good character? And had him in the dressing room through is entire Utd career? Same guy who adores Ronaldo? I very much doubt it mate.It might not be what you want to be the case, but everything suggests SAF would’ve supported the player once charges were dropped - or in Giggs’ case when they wide open.
Exactly.
SAF was from a different time and had different ideals - and I’m not saying I agree with them, but to suggest he would’ve gone along with the ‘moral decision’ is deluded.
I think he would have nipped this is the bud early. And by early I mean, the first sign of trouble from Greenwood and he would have been let know right away where he stood.
He either would have got rid or put him straight, but I don't think he would have been let anywhere near the first team. There's just no way it would have got to be the long drawn out mess this has become.
Whether Greenwood redeems himself or not has nothing to do with a football pitch. He is not accused of missing a penalty.
I don't think any clubs fans in england/Scotland would not kick up a huge fuss. That well has been poisoned. I do suspect that a plethora of clubs from abroad would welcome him, though.
Maybe, if he keeps his head down for a couple of seasons in Europe then a English club might feel that the heat has died down enough for them to chance it. For my liking, I would have liked to have seen some genuine contrition out of him. Maybe, that will come in time but I doubt it.
I mean, I wouldn't even say that old, because I think ETH would deal with it the same way today.
The accusation was withdrawn. A missed pen is a fact.
Doesn't sound like the Fergie I knew.
None of us know much about the details of this case and whilst you can have your own opinions they, like mine, and everyone else's, are just supposition and personal interpretation
Yet he didn't do this with Giggs. Even a master of man management like SAF. Just shows how hard domestic abuse is to deal with behind the curtain of privacy.
Oh mate, you've missed some corkers including, and I'm not kidding:
Maybe he was sleeping and she woke him up hence the attitude, calling the whole of England racist, suggesting the actual rape is from the public on the woman, and perhaps most bizarrely...blaming Simon Cowell
Shout out to the mods and admin who must be pulling their hair out going over this thread. It is brain damage just posting in it. But I will point out people should take note of the lack of bannings and how they've allowed people to have plenty of speech, even the god awful takes. It is outstanding restraint, as there's especially two posters who could easily be booted out for their abhorrent posts.
After the last few days, after lengthy discussions, my group have decided we’re not having season tickets next year.
We’d have kept them if the club kept him or got rid of him because it felt it was the right thing to do and acted accordingly. They know more than we do.
But essentially, we’re now left with two outcomes.
The club has either sacked a young father who has been on the books since 7, who after a full review believe him to be innocent of crimes no one is even charging him with, because of a reactionary mob without the whole story.
Or they were lying to keep someone they genuinely believe to be a woman-beating attempted rapist on the team and are too afraid/ think so little of us to give their actual opinion.
We’d have kept them if the club kept him or got rid of him because it felt it was the right thing to do and acted accordingly. They know more than we do.
But essentially, we’re now left with two outcomes.
The club has either sacked a young father who has been on the books since 7, who after a full review believe him to be innocent of crimes no one is even charging him with, because of a reactionary mob without the whole story.
Or they were lying to keep someone they genuinely believe to be a woman-beating attempted rapist on the team and are too afraid/ think so little of us to give their actual opinion.
Perhaps, but it's more likely that Mason Greenwood will be forgotten or at least will only be remembered for this incident more than anything he might have ever accomplished on the pitch. I doubt he has a professional footballer ahead of him, but whether or not that is the case hopefully he has saved enough of the roughly (guessing now) $7-8 million he has been paid by United, which really is more than enough to get along for the rest of one's life without drawing another paycheck.
Sad all the way around.
That's you and your groups interpretation and that's fine, but your conclusions are pure speculation
Firstly Greenwood has not been sacked, they have determined that he wasn't guilty of the crimes he was charged with originally, that is all, both parties have agreed it's best he leaves United, but for all we know that could have been Greenwood's preferred option, he must know that if he ever pulled on a United shirt again he'd be hounded
Secondly, lying makes no sense, what would they gain, the player is leaving, they're unlikely to get much if any fee for him
When I think about how this would have been handled under Fergies United... I miss that man and I miss that club.
It might not be what you want to be the case, but everything suggests SAF would’ve supported the player once charges were dropped - or in Giggs’ case when they wide open.
Exactly.
SAF was from a different time and had different ideals - and I’m not saying I agree with them, but to suggest he would’ve gone along with the ‘moral decision’ is deluded.
You're lucky I'm being civil tonight.
The point surrounding the extra evidence the Club has seen does bring up the question…would it not of been better for Greenwood and his family to have a court case and present the full evidence.
The aftermath might have made his life going forward easier.
The aftermath might have made his life going forward easier.
Or, she made a horrible mistake and they are all protecting her so perhaps the family can move on.
The latter two are far more likely than the club simply listened to the fans...when have they ever done that?
Found the keyboard warrior
Or more likely is they’re releasing him because he’s done some bad shit but they can’t legally say that he’s guilty of anything.
Not a chance he is “innocent” since if his partner released all that content under false pretences and nearly destroyed his career he would have left her.
Granted they supposedly nearly came close to bringing back a wrong un but they made the right decision in the end.
I’ll take your season ticket though if it’s up for grabs.
He will have club offers, and , if he plays well, he will have a professional career - dependent upon how well, potentially a really successful one. If he doesn't, its more likely to be that the period out of the game at a formative early career stage has set his skillset back. Of course there could be further scandals but if anything this experience -and the fact he's settled down makes this less likely than for the average player. Anyone claiming otherwise, I'm sorry, is just accidentally or wilfully ignorant to precedents (of high-profile players committing acts of racism, dubious consent, hiring underaged sex workers, assault, blackmail etc) around previous sporting scandals and has no modern historical lens: they're either naïve or disingenuous .
Barring a violent incident or the accuser deciding to retract their retraction and provide new evidence to back the original claims, the only people who will be talking about this in 2-3 years will be, honestly, those somehow trying to make reputational/status/financial coin off it in some way for themselves or their pressure group/org... or people so chimp-brained that they're not able to alter their conclusions in response to new evidence.
People are so fixated on the materials made public as somehow incontrovertible, despite the case being dismissed . Personally, I don't think the images are deep-faked, and he probably had a lot of 'making up' to do in his relationship and his attitude in general to women above and beyond the admitted infidelities... but hypothetically, as a thought experiment etc, what if they were deep-faked and that were made open. Would people still take the same line? All we know is that the evidence has been fundamentally called into question.
It speaks worse of people that they're so set on passing judgment as if the images and sounds that led to those initial conclusions hadn't bene called into question, as well as their obtuseness regarding basic processes whereby they expect this new evidence to be made open to the public, despite the fact that it might potentially impact the reputation and safety of the witness, and MG himself would be opposed to this, given the erstwhile accuser is his wife-to-be and mother of his child.. .
Barring a violent incident or the accuser deciding to retract their retraction and provide new evidence to back the original claims, the only people who will be talking about this in 2-3 years will be, honestly, those somehow trying to make reputational/status/financial coin off it in some way for themselves or their pressure group/org... or people so chimp-brained that they're not able to alter their conclusions in response to new evidence.
People are so fixated on the materials made public as somehow incontrovertible, despite the case being dismissed . Personally, I don't think the images are deep-faked, and he probably had a lot of 'making up' to do in his relationship and his attitude in general to women above and beyond the admitted infidelities... but hypothetically, as a thought experiment etc, what if they were deep-faked and that were made open. Would people still take the same line? All we know is that the evidence has been fundamentally called into question.
It speaks worse of people that they're so set on passing judgment as if the images and sounds that led to those initial conclusions hadn't bene called into question, as well as their obtuseness regarding basic processes whereby they expect this new evidence to be made open to the public, despite the fact that it might potentially impact the reputation and safety of the witness, and MG himself would be opposed to this, given the erstwhile accuser is his wife-to-be and mother of his child.. .
I think Greenwood should seriously consider the merits of releasing the full details to which United have concluded he didn't commit the original charges, however invasive that might be. The reality is that the weight of public evidence has not changed from since the original stuff came out on social media, so how can you expect a change in public position. Nobody is going to trust United due process.
I know he's under no obligation to publicly bare all to help reduce the criticism on what will become his former club, but the selfish incentive for him doing so, if he really is not guilty of those original charges, is that he might have better future prospects if he publishes evidence*.
* assuming all parties are 'happy' with that.
I know he's under no obligation to publicly bare all to help reduce the criticism on what will become his former club, but the selfish incentive for him doing so, if he really is not guilty of those original charges, is that he might have better future prospects if he publishes evidence*.
* assuming all parties are 'happy' with that.
Last edited:
So you know him then?
It all conjecture. But, if he knew about all the parties etc long before this came out. He would have tried to put a stop to it early. If he thought MG had the talent he would have protected him to a certain extent, like they did with Ravel Morrison and tried to give him a chance to mature and prove he could do better.
But like Ravel if he continued to dick about, eventually he would have been shown the door without ever getting anywhere near the first team. He certainly wouldn't have been relying on him to play and be a game changer and ignoring all his minor transgressions to the point where it all ended up in this sorry mess.
Fuxking hell, people making out SAF wouldn’t have accepted it
He’d have used it as the biggest “us against them” imaginable, no chance in the World he’d have allowed the press and pressure to lose him a top player and goalscorer, he’d have got 99% of fans onside with a everyone versus us mentality.
He’d have used it as the biggest “us against them” imaginable, no chance in the World he’d have allowed the press and pressure to lose him a top player and goalscorer, he’d have got 99% of fans onside with a everyone versus us mentality.
And potentially throw the mother of his child and future wife under the bus?
He most certainly should not do that.
I don't understand this thought experiment.
Are you asking us "if the images were revealed to be false would you continue to believe they were true"?
He'd have been more upset at the internal leaker using the press to influence the decision process than anything else.Fuxking hell, people making out SAF wouldn’t have accepted it
He’d have used it as the biggest “us against them” imaginable, no chance in the World he’d have allowed the press and pressure to lose him a top player and goalscorer, he’d have got 99% of fans onside with a everyone versus us mentality.
I've seen a few people refer to Greenwood's partner as his future wife. Obviously they had a child but I've not seen anything about them getting engaged. Where was this said?
The parents of the "alleged victim " did not dispute the findings of the internal inquiry and they have allowed their daughter to stay with Mason. Surely they know more about what story that any of us. That probably shows there is more to the story than what us the public know.
The media and social media have played a significant role in fuelling outrage in.this case. When Mandy was accused of rape non of this happened. Ronaldo admitted in court to some troubling allegations but people sing his name today
The media and social media have played a significant role in fuelling outrage in.this case. When Mandy was accused of rape non of this happened. Ronaldo admitted in court to some troubling allegations but people sing his name today
Maybe when we learn the full story, and have all the facts that Arnold has at his fingertips, we will realize it was better for Greenwood to depart rather than have it be known they were smoking crack in a Satanic orgy while gambling on a dogfight. Guess that's Arnold doing us a solid, cheers Arnold!
SAF wouldn't be able to do anything differently. It's got nothing to do with how the club handled it. Prior to about 2007 it would have been more difficult for the evidence to get out and be viewed by so many people, so these things were easy to cover up. It either wouldn't have gotten out or the player/club would have just paid the victim to keep quiet.Fuxking hell, people making out SAF wouldn’t have accepted it
He’d have used it as the biggest “us against them” imaginable, no chance in the World he’d have allowed the press and pressure to lose him a top player and goalscorer, he’d have got 99% of fans onside with a everyone versus us mentality.
It's still easy to ignore this type of thing, we've seen Arsenal do it with their "unnamed player" for over a year. The difference for Arsenal is the evidence is out of sight, out of mind, and people are more agnostic and accepting as a result.
The dad who, on the day a recording in which Greenwood tried coercing his daughter to have sex under threats of violence wad released, came out in support of him? You think him letting his daughter stay with Mason somehow proves he's a sound lad?
In today's world, there are certain crimes that once accused of, it's impossible to return to a point where nobody thinks you are guilty.
There are examples of this everywhere. For famous people and just your average member of the public.
So he might be able to provide an explanation that satisfies most people by releasing all of the details but he will never be able to convince everyone.
He nipped Giggs party lifestyle in the bud early, by showing up a Sharpe's house to put a stop to a night out.
Aside from being there when he was poling his brothers wife, SAF was long gone when all that other shit with Giggs happened.
Last edited:
I think most people in the thread agree that there is more to the story than what the public knows. That's not really in dispute.
But you don't really need to accept other people's conclusions because they have more information than you, especially when they don't reveal that information. People can be wrong.
Mendy was in jail for four months. He was in a much worse situation than Greenwood.
As far as I am aware, Ronaldo did not admit any troubling allegations in court.
Crafton and The Athletic have been brilliant throughout this story. He has held their feet to the fire when they've done everything in their power to squirm their way out of their social responsibilities.
They've tried to treat the public as idiots, for the sake of money essentially. And to be fair they did reach some idiots.
For those desperately trying to swallow down the phone-hacked role-play angle, I presume they think that Greenwood's "mistakes" that he admitted to but never detailed, was not using 2 factor authentication.
It wasn’t in court. He allegedly answered questionnaires and provided evidence to his own legal team. This was later hacked and leaked alongside corroborating sources, where he admitted that the woman didn’t want to and repeatedly said no, he did it anyway and that he bruised her, alongside other bits of seemingly vile testimony.
He then gave her a large sum of money and she signed an NDA.
It's just such an absurd idea to me. It doesn't sound remotely like role-play - Greenwood sounds like a violent weirdo but also a bizarrely petulant child in it - and if it WAS role-play why on earth would he not have said anything. It's not like roleplaying like that is more embarrassing/harmful to his public image then being labelled a violent sexual offender (not saying he is, just that this is what many, including me, will be thinking).