It's the classic nature of humans though isn't it? Because there's no visual/audio evidence of Ronaldo and his accuser that people can experience, it's much easier for them to push that incident from their memories and move on even if logic in doing so is often conflicting with the stance towards Greenwood (Ronaldo was never charged: didn't happen::Greenwood wasn't charged: Rapist scumbag that people are covering for) When you have the disgusting audio recording we all heard with MG, it becomes impossible to forget and therefore will never allow people to "move on" past a certain point.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
How many people have you seen here claiming that the Ronaldo incident didn't happen, or are you just inventing positions to argue against?
Because they don't have any guarantee that accusations wouldn't be brought back later? Because if she came out in 5 years and said "United covered it up and knew" heads would roll across the club? Because if they got better evidence than the police that Greenwood explicitly raped her etc., kicking him out wouldn't be any different than what we've effectively done now? People already think he's guilty anyways, if anything banning him from the club would have come off far more positive for United than attempting to bring him back/then shipping him out etc.
Insulting another member
I'm quite clearly speaking about the broader population not a few people populating the Greenwood thread on Redcafe. Majority of football/Ronaldo fans that SIU with him and cheer on his goals mostly don't care/have forgotten/don't even know about the accusations from his incident in the US. I would think that's quite obvious without needing to take a world poll of football fans. But if you want to be an obtuse cnut about it go ahead.
Eh? Are you asking how kicking greenwood out of the club would be different from what's happened now? I mean, now he's still officially a Manchester United asset which we can either feasibly sell for a significant amount or, God forbid, bring back. Whereas if we kicked him out we, um, couldn't?
Also, in what insane hypothetical would the club have better evidence than the police? If they had better evidence of his guilt and didn't disclose then yes, they'd be in all sorts of problems. But the most likely scenario for me is that they spoke to the survivor, she withdrew her statement and told them a different story, which they gratefully grabbed with both hands and which gave them what they needed to say that they were confident he wasn't guilty of the crimes he was charged with. If she retracted her retraction, realistically I imagine it would be trickier to charge than before as she'd be seen as unreliable. And even if they did re-charge, united could say that all the evidence that they saw had previously convinced them that he wasn't guilty.
Last edited:
Your posting style can be thoroughly unpleasant. I suggest you take a time out as you're clearly getting wound up. I'm going to step out for a bit myself.
The post I quoted earlier was you literally saying it's in the club's best interests to lie? Which I assumed meant lie about what their investigation uncovered (I'm not sure what else they'd be lying about, if they don't have physical evidence and ******* told them nothing happened/allegations aren't true they can't just stick her on a polygraph to really get the absolute truth).
I agree that the scenario you laid out is the most probable, but I'm not sure what the club is supposed to do statement wise as they can't make a public statement still accusing him or even hinting at it when the actual charges were dropped. The mistake came in the shitstorm of the briefings that the club was going to bring him into the squad/ETH was expecting him etc. before doing a 180 and sending him to Spain.
My question, that you quoted, was: 'why would it be in the club's best interests to do anything other than say that?', as in why would it be in the club's best interests to do anything other than say their investigation found that he wasn't guilty of the things that he was charged with? Did you misunderstand that or do you think saying he was guilty or heavily implying his guilt could in some scenarios have been in the club's best interests?
Burt at The Telegraphs’s take on MG 
.
I remember a time when we had loads of good journalists who actually spent time researching articles rather than just make “holier than thou” clickbait posts repeatedly. He’s turned off replies option on this one.
Hated, adored, etc…
.I remember a time when we had loads of good journalists who actually spent time researching articles rather than just make “holier than thou” clickbait posts repeatedly. He’s turned off replies option on this one.
Hated, adored, etc…
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yes by all means let him continue his life, let us not execute poor Mason. On the other hand, allow him the privilege of representing the club that I love and all that it stands for? Not a f###ing chance.
Another hack that’s losing relevancy so has to resort to shitty click bait pieces to gain a bit of attention.Burt at The Telegraphs’s take on MG
I remember a time when we had loads of good journalists who actually spent time researching articles rather than just make “holier than thou” clickbait posts repeatedly. He’s turned off replies option on this one.
Hated, adored, etc…
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How exactly do you think the club could be confident that the “survivor” won’t release anything public again? That would be some stretch given how this came to light in the first place. What if Greenwood was to do something similar again? What if a whistleblower revealed damaging internal documents showing that the club didn’t have grounds to believe he was innocent?
The reality is that, if it’s a lie, there would be a significant risk, with little benefit. As such, I’m completely confident the club believes it has a solid basis to state that he is innocent of the charges. Whether they are correct or not is of course another issue.
There would be no need to lie about the investigation. A very standard HR way of dealing with situations like this when someone valuable to the company is involved is to not really do a serious investigation, but to ask around so you can say that you did, and then rely on the absence of a criminal conviction and the fact that the accused is denying it. Those two things are enough for plenty of people in this thread, as we've seen, so why wouldn't it be enough for people who have millions of pounds riding on it?
So you were "absolutely against" Ronaldo coming back, but you would welcome Greenwood back?
Because your question implied that the club would just say that about their investigation no matter what, even if they were lying, since it's your belief that it's in their best interests. Which is what I pushed back on.
Yeah exactly my point, which @Pickle85 doesn't seem to understand or just doesn't believe and instead seems to think it's nefarious all around.
Words fail me
That's just desperate for clicks. What an idiot.Burt at The Telegraphs’s take on MG
I remember a time when we had loads of good journalists who actually spent time researching articles rather than just make “holier than thou” clickbait posts repeatedly. He’s turned off replies option on this one.
Hated, adored, etc…
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Pebble brained Burt.
United MUST give all money they manage to recoup (set against a huge outlay training and looking after Greenwood from first days in the academy to now) to charities because, and this is the only justification his feeble mind could cobble together, "it's doing the right thing".
Firstly that picture doesn't speak to anything. Think of the worst people throughout history and all of them have held their kids hands.
Re your list of maybe's. Maybe he also saved 22 orphans from a burning building. Who knows. What we do know is that we have heard him threatening to rape a woman with our own ears, we know there are horrific images of her his partner bloodied which she claimed he did and we know he breached bail conditions.
Based on what we know he has done some truly terrible things. If some magic new information came to light that explained them then with the changing information opinions would change also.
I don't for a moment think that the club believes that greenwood is innocent, but I do believe that the way that they've conducted the investigation was leading to an outcome that was essentially predetermined. I also don't for a minute think that the club could turn up evidence that irrefutably proved Greenwood's guilt, whether they wanted to or not, because the witness testimony on which the case hinged was retracted. So there was no realistic prospect of anything other than a 'not guilty' from them, regardless of what they actually thought happened given the evidence. My original question implies nothing, though maybe you inferred something from it.
There really isn't one. Absolute bullshit all the way
There was, as Ratcliffe alluded to, a ‘duty of care’ and responsibility towards Greenwood, who had been in United’s system since the age of seven. The club could not turn their back on him and so a loan to restart his career, away from Old Trafford, away from England, was the right thing to do. For now he remains a United employee and so they are overseeing his return and fulfilling their responsibility. He has the right to be a footballer.
But that is where it should end. When he joined Getafe it was clear from United that he had no future at the club. “All those involved, including Mason, recognise the difficulties with him recommencing his career at Manchester United,” the club said in a statement last August. “It has therefore been mutually agreed that it would be most appropriate for him to do so away from Old Trafford, and we will now work with Mason to achieve that outcome.”
Greenwood himself added: “The best decision for us all, is for me to continue my football career away from Old Trafford, where my presence will not be a distraction for the club.”
So, although that does not explicitly rule out an eventual return, the expectation – after the six-month internal investigation and in the knowledge of the outcry taking him back would cause – is without doubt. Greenwood cannot play for United again. If not, then we have been misled.
What has changed? Nothing except Ratcliffe coming in.
“There is no decision that’s been made,” he said. But that is not actually the case, is it? No one was left in any doubt. Now claiming that there has not been a “decision” is an exercise in semantics that Ratcliffe should certainly be avoiding.
“Is he the right type of footballer? Is he a good person or not?” Ratcliffe asked, but while he is perfectly entitled to conduct reviews of how United operate – and it would be remiss of him not to – does he really want to give the impression that he is questioning the club’s internal investigation?
If he does so then he needs to pay for an independent investigation and it is unlikely he, the club or Greenwood will want that.
The apparently heavily lawyered statements from United, Greenwood and the then chief executive Richard Arnold – in an open letter to supporters – mentioned the player’s “mistakes” without explaining what those mistakes had been. Greenwood was accused of being the male voice in the leaked audio that prompted the case.
Neither, actually, should United profit from his sale even if it would significantly improve a bottom line in their finances that is being severely stretched, if they fail to qualify for Champions League football.
Legally, logically, commercially, financially United are entitled to keep the fee if Greenwood is sold.
But morally? No, they should not if Greenwood signs for Atletico Madrid, who are targeting him. Greenwood has a contract with United for one more full season – with an option for a further 12 months – and although his value in the transfer market is difficult to determine, a fee of around €40 million (£34 million) has been mooted.
Given he is an academy product then, in accountancy terms, that money could be banked as pure profit by United – and would offset a large amount of what they would miss out on if they do not qualify for the Champions League.
So, it must be tempting. And especially for a new co-owner who has set himself the challenge of quickly turning around the team’s fortunes and is inheriting a tricky balance sheet.
Ratcliffe needs to resist that urge. United cannot be seen to profit from this whole episode with Greenwood. Instead they should accept the biggest fee they can realise and use that money in a variety of other ways.
The club have already been urged to donate it to domestic abuse charities and this would be a good move. As would using the money to further support women’s football. It is the kind of money that can make a real, lasting and positive difference. It should not be spent on the men’s first team.
Ratcliffe needs to think again about his approach. Yes, Greenwood is innocent in law and, yes, he deserves to rehabilitate himself – his life and his career – but that must take place away from United. If the club lose out in football and finance then it is a small price to pay for doing the right thing.
But that is where it should end. When he joined Getafe it was clear from United that he had no future at the club. “All those involved, including Mason, recognise the difficulties with him recommencing his career at Manchester United,” the club said in a statement last August. “It has therefore been mutually agreed that it would be most appropriate for him to do so away from Old Trafford, and we will now work with Mason to achieve that outcome.”
Greenwood himself added: “The best decision for us all, is for me to continue my football career away from Old Trafford, where my presence will not be a distraction for the club.”
So, although that does not explicitly rule out an eventual return, the expectation – after the six-month internal investigation and in the knowledge of the outcry taking him back would cause – is without doubt. Greenwood cannot play for United again. If not, then we have been misled.
What has changed? Nothing except Ratcliffe coming in.
“There is no decision that’s been made,” he said. But that is not actually the case, is it? No one was left in any doubt. Now claiming that there has not been a “decision” is an exercise in semantics that Ratcliffe should certainly be avoiding.
“Is he the right type of footballer? Is he a good person or not?” Ratcliffe asked, but while he is perfectly entitled to conduct reviews of how United operate – and it would be remiss of him not to – does he really want to give the impression that he is questioning the club’s internal investigation?
If he does so then he needs to pay for an independent investigation and it is unlikely he, the club or Greenwood will want that.
The apparently heavily lawyered statements from United, Greenwood and the then chief executive Richard Arnold – in an open letter to supporters – mentioned the player’s “mistakes” without explaining what those mistakes had been. Greenwood was accused of being the male voice in the leaked audio that prompted the case.
Neither, actually, should United profit from his sale even if it would significantly improve a bottom line in their finances that is being severely stretched, if they fail to qualify for Champions League football.
Legally, logically, commercially, financially United are entitled to keep the fee if Greenwood is sold.
But morally? No, they should not if Greenwood signs for Atletico Madrid, who are targeting him. Greenwood has a contract with United for one more full season – with an option for a further 12 months – and although his value in the transfer market is difficult to determine, a fee of around €40 million (£34 million) has been mooted.
Given he is an academy product then, in accountancy terms, that money could be banked as pure profit by United – and would offset a large amount of what they would miss out on if they do not qualify for the Champions League.
So, it must be tempting. And especially for a new co-owner who has set himself the challenge of quickly turning around the team’s fortunes and is inheriting a tricky balance sheet.
Ratcliffe needs to resist that urge. United cannot be seen to profit from this whole episode with Greenwood. Instead they should accept the biggest fee they can realise and use that money in a variety of other ways.
The club have already been urged to donate it to domestic abuse charities and this would be a good move. As would using the money to further support women’s football. It is the kind of money that can make a real, lasting and positive difference. It should not be spent on the men’s first team.
Ratcliffe needs to think again about his approach. Yes, Greenwood is innocent in law and, yes, he deserves to rehabilitate himself – his life and his career – but that must take place away from United. If the club lose out in football and finance then it is a small price to pay for doing the right thing.
Just came to comment after reading the Telegraph article. Caught myself wondering how much of the £60m Suarez fee they called for Liverpool to give to racism charities...
No, go on, tell me more about how the internet provides a reasonable representation of the views of United supporters.
I think more and more he’ll be playing for us next season.
As a lawyer can I just say yes that is correct.
It is an utterly false equivalence. Ronaldo has never been criminally charged and the vast majority of us didn't know much or anything about it when he signed again.
I was against his return for footballing reasons but I'd have been utterly opposed if I knew what we now now.
And justifying doing the wrong thing on the basis thst the wrong thing has been done before only works in a moral vacuum.
Agreed but of course even acquital doesn't actually prove innocence to be pedantic.
Far from being obtuse, it is a statement of fact. The club said he hadn't commited the crime, and he hasn't as he wasn't convicted.
Which is of PR double speak to avoid commenting on what he actually did. If they though that he was innocent in the sense that he didn't do it/anything wrong he wouldn't be in Spain now.
Obviously the solution is to make up fantasy excuses that even Greenwood won't try, because they are ludicrous? Or pretend not being convicted in a court of law is the same thing as "it never happened"?
Yes, indeed. Only it can’t be simply because he “kicks a ball well” since Ronaldo is an all-time football phenomenon while Greenwood is just a regular talented young player with absolutely no certainty about whether he will fulfill his potential.
And I’ve given my reasons (in this thread) why I would not mind having him back, just wanted to point out that it’s not as simplistic as “because he’s a good player” and that doesn’t make me a vile human being either as I’m not defending nor even waving off any disgusting behaviour on his part.
I read this thread every once in a while to see if any news about Greenwood, have never posted on it. I feel he should never play for the club again. But this tripe kills me. If this is an actual national sports writer, it is just stunning how stupid this is....One of the most ABU things I have seen in ages.
There is no defending necessary here, for all i care he did everything you imagined him doing. That doesn’t condemn anyone for the rest of their damn lives. I’ve seen people do much worse and end up
Just think about this for a second, if he were to live out the rest of his life and career as a decent human being, would that be enough to say he redeemed himself? If the answer is yes, and honestly it should be yes, then there is no reason not to give him a chance. I am almost sure this kind of abusive behaviour, feeling of superiority or unconditional acceptance stems deeply from our club culture of the past 10 years. The moment we started giving 18-19 year olds north of 100k a week we fecked up everything.
People just have that absolutist line of reasoning, it’s either or… In their eyes this isn’t a conversation, when clearly it is. This has zero do do with the shite he did and more to do with our responsibility as a club who nurtured him. I’m all for second chances at redemption, if he truly turned a corner and the players don’t mind, he can redeem himself playing here.
Just think about this for a second, if he were to live out the rest of his life and career as a decent human being, would that be enough to say he redeemed himself? If the answer is yes, and honestly it should be yes, then there is no reason not to give him a chance. I am almost sure this kind of abusive behaviour, feeling of superiority or unconditional acceptance stems deeply from our club culture of the past 10 years. The moment we started giving 18-19 year olds north of 100k a week we fecked up everything.
Greenwood might have been charged but the charges have been dropped (not saying he’s innocent before anyone chimes in), Ronaldo on the other hand had his case dismissed because of mistakes by the victims lawyer yet he still arrived at a financial settlement with her to shut her up (sounds worse to me).The equivalence here is to show that it’s way too simplistic to think one would be open to having Greenwood back at United just because of his footballing talent since Ronaldo is stratospherically more talented.
Fair enough for the bolded part.
And for the last paragraph, it seems you didn’t get the point I was trying to make, I do hope you’re not doing it deliberately (there is a lot of that in this thread). I explained why I think MG would deserve tolerance and acceptance if it’s been concluded that he’s allowed to continue his life normally, just like the celebrity footballer who has been accepted after something similar, yet no one thinks those who fawn over him are despicable people.
It was a civil case whereas Greenwood was a criminal case. And despite the recent Ronaldo case being dismissed due to the only new evidence being leaked material that was subject to lawyer client priveledge I wouldn't want him within a million miles of United again. This should be the default position. No sexual predators.
He is continuing his extremely priveledge and well paid life. I have no control over that but I just hope that this is nowhere near United. He is a scumbag and an unrepentant one at that. And I do think people are acting despicably if they fawn over scumbags, DV/sexual predator type scumbags in particular. Hardly a controversial position.
You have? And you are OK with that?
This is an issue about nationality, or better say a cultural thing due to the arrogant English or British culture... He is living happy with his girlfriend, trying to restart their lifes. In Spain, he is loved by Getafe's fans and enjoying his football again. However you can't accept that, and keep judging him as a person, as if any of you were moral judges.
His girlfriend forgive him but you can't. Sorry but it's ridiculous.
(Sorry for my english)
Sir Jim's comments can be read both ways. Either he's opening the door to bring him back, or he's preserving sale value for the summer.
Personally, I think it's the latter. Jim knows what's gonna happen if we bring him back, an absolute media shit-storm not to mention the clubs brand being tarnished for being associated with this feck-wit again.
I reckon Jim's played it well and he'll be sold to the highest bidder this summer, for probably around 40m.
Personally, I think it's the latter. Jim knows what's gonna happen if we bring him back, an absolute media shit-storm not to mention the clubs brand being tarnished for being associated with this feck-wit again.
I reckon Jim's played it well and he'll be sold to the highest bidder this summer, for probably around 40m.
I can accept that, because I must, and because it's away from the club I support. It's the best compromise on the table. I'll continue to judge him as a person, because of the information that I know. What do you mean 'as if any of you were moral judges'? Do you not think it's fair or justifiable to judge him when you've heard a recording of him threatening rape or sexual violence?
His girlfriend forgave him, yes. It's pretty well trodden ground in this thread that victims of domestic violence often stay with or return to their attackers. Her doing so is her business, and doesn't mean everyone has to forgive what they've seen or heard. I'm not willing to forgive what I've seen and heard.
Last edited:
Yeah you do get that impression and don't think he will want to rock the boat with fans by bringing him back so will play it sensibly