Why is Richard Arnold getting a free pass from the fans?
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
I’m massively pissed off we’ve let Greenwood go because we were scared of Rachel Riley, The News Agents, and Adam Crafton, all of whom know pretty much feck all about football or Manchester United’s interests. There of course, would have been the outrage without Crafton et al, but it would have died down in time and if some fans couldn’t accept letting Mason back then we should have let them do whatever they needed to because the majority of United fans would have Greenwood back.
Most supporters can, and do, compartmentalise the football from what players or managers do outside of football. It’s just that the other approach, of blurring the lines between everything, has a much bigger voice in the media nowadays, so much so that “innocent until proven guilty” can seem to be an outdated notion when it’s actually something most people still believe in. Greenwood likely did something very bad in his personal life, but he’s innocent under the law and now that he has a young family, the best thing for him and them would have been to stay at United and for him to be supported in developing as a footballer and person.
Now we’ve lost a massive talent and we’re still being shat on, all because of our pathetic, spineless upper-management.
Most supporters can, and do, compartmentalise the football from what players or managers do outside of football. It’s just that the other approach, of blurring the lines between everything, has a much bigger voice in the media nowadays, so much so that “innocent until proven guilty” can seem to be an outdated notion when it’s actually something most people still believe in. Greenwood likely did something very bad in his personal life, but he’s innocent under the law and now that he has a young family, the best thing for him and them would have been to stay at United and for him to be supported in developing as a footballer and person.
Now we’ve lost a massive talent and we’re still being shat on, all because of our pathetic, spineless upper-management.
I totally agree with that post I think sir Alex would have demanded the club kept him. I know the circumstances was different but when the media was demanding the club to get rid of eric he totally ignored them at one stage he moved hell earth and Parisienne motorbikes to keep him
He's never got this form me - called him a jester/clown from day one - branded him and Murtough as our own Laurel & Hardy
Have you had a Insufficient privileges to reply yet? Because the post is spot on. I had one on the other threads.. I probably get another one from agreeing with this post, I also got a warning for a post on this thread which they removed.
It's not free speech , you can break there rules.. so be careful. Nice post
No one is getting a free pass in my book but the head needs to go first before we can expect real change......so GLAZERS OUT FIRST!
What makes you say this? The responses on the Caf don't seem to indicate this.
Because he’s one of the game’s premier pinstmen. A pint handler par excellence. A chap of the tap.A male of the ale.
Just listened to the News agents interview with Rachel Riley. She thinks that Richard Arnold should consider his position and I agree with her.
I think Erik Ten Hag has questions to answer too. This whole thing has been handle shambolically.
I think Erik Ten Hag has questions to answer too. This whole thing has been handle shambolically.
Genuinely intrigued as to why you feel Arnold should go?
I haven't listened to what Riley has had to say, as far as I am concerned her opinion holds no more weight that yours or mine, so I am intrigued as to why people feel Arnold should go based on what he has done?
I'm not clear what some posters expect the job of the CEO to be?
- Arnold is primarily handing the commercial side and he has done well in us recovering from COVID slump and posting record revenues even without CL football.
- He's left the footballing side to ETH & Murtough who he has backed right through except for the limitations that come with us spending a billion on crap players last decade and getting into a FFP mess which he had nothing to do with.
- There was never going to be a clear winner in the Greenwood saga and some sections of the fans will always be pissed off whatever he does. Decisions had to be made keeping in mind the club's image as well as the player and his family himself which is not an easy task and as expected there are no clear winners.
Woodward was a Kenyon type CEO - flashy, marketing guy who talked through his hat while Arnold is quite clearly more of a Gill type CEO who means what he says and focuses on things he's good at without interfering on areas he has no idea about.
I think he's done an exceptional job given the difficulties surrounding us and I'm happy he's at the top.
- Arnold is primarily handing the commercial side and he has done well in us recovering from COVID slump and posting record revenues even without CL football.
- He's left the footballing side to ETH & Murtough who he has backed right through except for the limitations that come with us spending a billion on crap players last decade and getting into a FFP mess which he had nothing to do with.
- There was never going to be a clear winner in the Greenwood saga and some sections of the fans will always be pissed off whatever he does. Decisions had to be made keeping in mind the club's image as well as the player and his family himself which is not an easy task and as expected there are no clear winners.
Woodward was a Kenyon type CEO - flashy, marketing guy who talked through his hat while Arnold is quite clearly more of a Gill type CEO who means what he says and focuses on things he's good at without interfering on areas he has no idea about.
I think he's done an exceptional job given the difficulties surrounding us and I'm happy he's at the top.
There is a ton of things that could have been done better. Hiring an external investigation, better managing of moods inside the club and probably most importantly if they didn't expect the backlash to be this size he massively misread the situation and if he did, then all of this could have been avoided and he could have made a statement of: "we believe him to be innocent, but it will be healthier for all sides if he plays elsewhere" literally the day that CPS investigation got dropped. Greenwood situation is a big clusterfeck largely of his own doing and I don't think he's anywhere near as bad as most people on the forum make him out to be and I recognise that the situation Woodward left for him is a minefield where some mistakes were going to happen just by the sheer number of mines that he has to avoid.
This can't be right because a minor celebrity fan said otherwise apparently.
In all seriousness, I think he has been brilliant for the club so far.
The Greenwood situation, whilst mistakes were made, reached the right amicable outcome and generally he seems to have steered the club in the right direction post Woodward.
Anybody that thought it was a good idea to bring Greenwood back in to the fold has a clear lack of judgement and understanding. It makes him seem completely incompetent.
I agree that Riley doesn't hold any more weight than you or me, but she does speak for a lot of fans on this issue.
Where's the facepalm emoji when you need it.
This is not true.
The poll on here had 788 votes with No getting 58.1% Yes getting 21.6% and not sure getting 20.3% so essentially only one in five fans definitely wanted him back.
Even if he came to the right call?
Personally I feel the club/Arnold changing their minds due to the potential public backlash shows they are competent and are listening to the fans, which should be heralded as a hark back to days when the fans meant something to the club.
I think it shows a bit of humility and the fact we haven't left Greenwood high and dry also shows a touch of sympathy for all concerned, both alleged victim and perpetrator, whether that's agreed with or not.
Whatever the outcome of the investigation, Arnold was always going to be criticised because people will always read corporate motives into the decision reached.
If his investigative panel were convinced of Greenwoods innocence then, in fact, he must be applauded for putting the child and it's family ahead of monetary interests.
If his investigative panel were convinced of Greenwoods innocence then, in fact, he must be applauded for putting the child and it's family ahead of monetary interests.
He didn't come to the right call though. He bowed to fan/social media pressure!
The right call would have been that Greenwood shouldn't have been allowed to play for the club again and it should have been made a long time ago. The fact that they even tried to bring him back in to the team is what people are so angry about.
Nonsense.
Greenwood would have been binned off 6 months earlier under Fergie.
A lot of extremely well-informed man-babies in this thread 
We're all exceedingly proud and in awe of you.
I don’t spout nonsense fella it’s my opinion he backed sunbed 100 per cent when he had rape allegations hanging over him and that’s what they was allegations
Last edited:
I think the issue is some fans in general being pissed about everything and misdirecting their frustration on random club staff. I remember both McKenna and Carrick were at the receiving end of terrible treatment when Ole left saying they were terrible coaches who will fail elsewhere and Rangnick was our saviour who will take us back to glory. We know how that narrative panned out with McKenna & Carrick doing exceptionally well as managers themselves and Rangnick...well less discussed about that snake oil salesman, the better.
How would he be able to legally say that the club believes Greenwood innocent the day the CPS investigation dropped with nothing except the audio and pictures? Does that sound sensible to you?
Fergie himself was not immune from allegations of this nature. This thread from 2002:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sir-alex-accused-of-indecent-assault.2838/
Everything he did seems to indicate the opposite, this is the same individual who binned off Pogba basically because he thought he was asking too much at such a young age and because he couldn't stand his agent and sold an icon like Becks because he was getting too much media spotlight yet we're supposed to believe he was going to stand behind someone who more than likely did what Greenwood's accused of on top of the other issues that had been reported before this particular incident.
Sir Alex put a lot of emphasis of building a team with the right personalities, even if some bad eggs did play for him guys like Giggs and Ronaldo were still individuals who when it came to football matters were as disciplined as it gets, Greenwood had already been kicked off the England team and was having issues with teammates and with managers due to immaturity and lack of discipline before beating on his girlfriend.
Were the Tories competent because Rashford forced their hand on school lunches?
I swear some of you must be either family or paid by these people.
Was there any evidence other than allegations? The whataboutism involving this case is laughable.
Most posters have absolutely no idea what the position of any CEO, let alone that of a football club, actually involves.
What the feck do the Tories have to do with this?
They have also made several hundred high profile errors which compound their ineptitude, the fact that they relented on the school dinners does not change a thing about them due to the other catastrophic errors they have made.
The same cannot be said of Arnold, as much as people on here might want too.
So your point is moot, null and void really.
It really isn't. Making the right decision based on idiotic logic is not good governance, no matter how much you might try to twist the reality of the situation.What the feck do the Tories have to do with this?
They have also made several hundred high profile errors which compound their ineptitude, the fact that they relented on the school dinners does not change a thing about them due to the other catastrophic errors they have made.
The same cannot be said of Arnold, as much as people on here might want too.
So your point is moot, null and void really.
Arnold didn't make the decision on idiotic logic though, so not quite sure what you are getting at now?!
The only way anyone here can honestly say it was the 'right decision' from an ethical perspective would be if they were privy to exactly what the new material or contextualizing information relating to the initial (yes, shocking, we've all seen/heard it and we all supported his suspension at the time) evidence shows. We know the witness wanted to drop the case long before the CPS dropped it, and it was only (CPS themselves state this) by 'new evidence' coming to light that it was deemed not in the public interest to pursue. That is, unless you want to exclude every footballer whose behaviour corresponds to what has actually been corroborated in different statements, i.e. formally unfaithful and some level of verbally abusive. If that is indeed the standard, then how stringent are those codes of practice to be? It isn't even the worst idea in principle but it would need to be properly codified with the PFA and independent tribunals re. bringing the sport into disrepute (i.,e. does clear evidence of using strongly misogynistic language entail an automatic suspension; how does this fit into privacy laws if it happens in private without consent for recording and is shared etc?).
In terms of that 'some degree', I'm not referring to the tape, which is obviously worse than that, simply because the club investigation and the CPS decision require us to (potentially) reframe how we see this tape. The context could have a negligible impact, in which case I would be more supportive of this decision (as would a number of other people on the board and on social media), but due to a range of factors we- and i mean all of us, except for those closest t the investigation or to MG/ the young woman - can only speculate on, that evidence hasn't been made public. It's as unhelpful to presume that this is because 'their story would fall apart', as it is 'because it makes her look bad'. Without full background on the case, rather than the dribs and gossips, this isn't clear, and therefore shouldn't be used against either party.
The 'independent investigation' call for in certain quarters seemingly wouldn't have persuaded many people if it had come to the same conclusions, because, as a number of statements here admit -in some show of honesty at least- they would have supported removing MG before any investigation was launched, i..e no matter how comprehensive the report or removed from any 'self-interest' those considering the evidence. That's unfortunate, since a n even fuller review (without details having to be made open and potentially exposing salacious details harmful to either or their family) might have reassured a few external parties or, of course made the decision to let him go clearer early on... At the moment, without full facts, it's largely been a court of pressure groups and creating outrage. This isn't how we should deal with employment, nor public reputation nor, and I'm not being disingenuous, with alleged sexual assault/ These things should be investigated more often, as rigorously as possible, and justice that satisfies the 'law', the 'public' and, where allegations are proven, the victims in a less equivocal way provided.
In terms of that 'some degree', I'm not referring to the tape, which is obviously worse than that, simply because the club investigation and the CPS decision require us to (potentially) reframe how we see this tape. The context could have a negligible impact, in which case I would be more supportive of this decision (as would a number of other people on the board and on social media), but due to a range of factors we- and i mean all of us, except for those closest t the investigation or to MG/ the young woman - can only speculate on, that evidence hasn't been made public. It's as unhelpful to presume that this is because 'their story would fall apart', as it is 'because it makes her look bad'. Without full background on the case, rather than the dribs and gossips, this isn't clear, and therefore shouldn't be used against either party.
The 'independent investigation' call for in certain quarters seemingly wouldn't have persuaded many people if it had come to the same conclusions, because, as a number of statements here admit -in some show of honesty at least- they would have supported removing MG before any investigation was launched, i..e no matter how comprehensive the report or removed from any 'self-interest' those considering the evidence. That's unfortunate, since a n even fuller review (without details having to be made open and potentially exposing salacious details harmful to either or their family) might have reassured a few external parties or, of course made the decision to let him go clearer early on... At the moment, without full facts, it's largely been a court of pressure groups and creating outrage. This isn't how we should deal with employment, nor public reputation nor, and I'm not being disingenuous, with alleged sexual assault/ These things should be investigated more often, as rigorously as possible, and justice that satisfies the 'law', the 'public' and, where allegations are proven, the victims in a less equivocal way provided.
i reckon united’s pr team are getting desperate enough to send him to the pub with his pockets loaded with the petty cash money again.
Who cares right now. The guy is irrelevant if we get new owners. That might not happen, but until that's clear, there's no point in discussing Arnold. He just won't be around long term.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Another useless Glazer puppet unfortunately. Was always going to be.
What? It's just a picture of them 2 looking off camera? What's the context?