Mason Greenwood

[Nexus_Canary 1,024]

9 minutes ago, TheDarkKnight said:

According to new reports Manchester United's initial intention was to ease Mason Greenwood into the squad but they sensed that there would be a civil war inside the club.

The plot thickens.

Best Man Utd can do is transfer him.

Im sure he will fit in great into some Russian or Saudi teams, welcomed in fact.

[South Sider 114]

13 minutes ago, Nexus_Canary said:

Best Man Utd can do is transfer him.

Im sure he will fit in great into some Russian or Saudi teams, welcomed in fact.

think I read somewhere that they have already terminated his contract?

[Terminally Yellow 2,471]

Just now, TheDarkKnight said:

Is it fine when it's against men and boys?

Haha there's the next excuse. Yet more enablist ****. 

[South Sider 114]

1 minute ago, TheDarkKnight said:

I'm pretty sure there's still two years on the contract.

erm, right?

does not stop it being terminated though does it?

found the link

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/mason-greenwood-statement-man-utd-contract-b1102013.html

[South Sider 114]

2 minutes ago, TheDarkKnight said:

What's with the snark?

It's relatively new news. I'm not tethered to my phone.

the snark is related to devaluing my post by insinuating that you knew better, that he had a 2 year contract, which was irrelevant to the point

if you are going to be a but of a cnt about it, at least expect it back

something that would srve you well with a lot of your postings

Edited August 21, 2023 by South Sider

[PurpleCanary 5,573]

33 minutes ago, Indy said:

Indeed a strange probably legally well worded statement. 

I don’t know about legally well-worded, Indy, because it is getting close to saying it has proved the evidence on which Greenwood charged was false. Which has tricky implications. But I assume it will never reveal the basis for that claim. 

[Nexus_Canary 1,024]

13 minutes ago, South Sider said:

think I read somewhere that they have already terminated his contract?

Nah Im sure hes still under contract.

I know he was deleted from the FIfa and FM databases though.

[Indy 3,307]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don’t know about legally well-worded, Indy, because it is getting close to saying it has proved the evidence on which Greenwood charged was false. Which has tricky implications. But I assume it will never reveal the basis for that claim. 

True yet as a massive football club I’m sure they had a legal team look at how to word this! I’m sure there’s more behind the scenes which will never be disclosed, but to sever the ties without any recourse is what has been done! But agree as said about the wording being strange!

[PurpleCanary 5,573]

Just now, Indy said:

True yet as a massive football club I’m sure they had a legal team look at how to word this! I’m sure there’s more behind the scenes which will never be disclosed, but to sever the ties without any recourse is what has been done! But agree as said about the wording being strange!

The other oddity is that it says Greenwood ‘…did not commit the offenses in respect of which he was originally charged.’

The oddity being that there were two sets of charges. One set originally followed by others some months later. Is Man Utd  saying he might have been guilty of the second set?! Or is it clumsily worded and means all charges?!

I don’t care, because as said this weird claim has zero legal standing, and the bottom line is they are getting rid of the player anyway.

[KiwiScot 1,459]

He will always have a home at Clyde.

[Fen Canary 849]

2 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Do you want to trot out any of the other usual excuses for domestic violence? We have a real problem in this country for offences against women and girls - and it's because (in part) of enablers with attitudes like this. Sickening.

So you know he’s definitely guilty of what he was accused of? In that case I’m sure the police would love to hear your evidence, as they couldn’t say for sure either way what actually happened

[Fen Canary 849]

1 hour ago, South Sider said:

erm, right?

does not stop it being terminated though does it?

found the link

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/mason-greenwood-statement-man-utd-contract-b1102013.html

I’d imagine they’d have to pay him out the duration of his contract, as he hasn’t been charged with any offence 

[Nexus_Canary 1,024]

1 hour ago, South Sider said:

erm, right?

does not stop it being terminated though does it?

found the link

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/mason-greenwood-statement-man-utd-contract-b1102013.html

To play devils advocate here ( and by no means do I support what Greenwood has allegedly done)

There is no reason Man Utd should terminate his contract, in the eyes of the law he is an innocent man, so terminating his contract is the same as your or my boss turning to us tomorrow and saying "hi yeh sorry, your fired" 

The best thing the club could do is to look for a resolution via Greenwood's consent. They could get him for taking the club into disrepute but again, he is technically an innocent man so he could argue this is slander and the club should stick by him.
Man Utd have an obligation to his contract in the same way that he does.
I very much doubt Greenwood would accept termination of his contract as this might end his footballing career and Man Utd are a business they will want to cash in on a potential world class talent.

Tbh, the best thing Greenwood could do is get a move to the Middle East or China, this allegation will have ruined his career in the United Kingdom, USA and the majority of Europe. Unless he has been informed by the police that he is not to leave the country the best hing he could possibly do is move to a country which would ignore the allegations.

Edited August 21, 2023 by Nexus_Canary

[Duncan Edwards 2,245]

6 minutes ago, Nexus_Canary said:

To play devils advocate here ( and by no means do I support what Greenwood has allegedly done)

There is no reason Man Utd should terminate his contract, in the eyes of the law he is an innocent man, so terminating his contract is the same as your or my boss turning to us tomorrow and saying "hi yeh sorry, your fired" 

The best thing the club could do is to look for a resolution via Greenwood's consent. They could get him for taking the club into disrepute but again, he is technically an innocent man so he could argue this is slander and the club should stick by him.
Man Utd have an obligation to his contract in the same way that he does.
I very much doubt Greenwood would accept termination of his contract as this might end his footballing career and Man Utd are a business they will want to cash in on a potential world class talent.

Tbh, the best thing Greenwood could do is get a move to the Middle East or China, this allegation will have ruined his career in the United Kingdom, USA and the majority of Europe. Unless he has been informed by the police that he is not to leave the country the best hing he could possibly do is move to a country which would ignore the allegations.

Sorry, but you can’t honestly believe that. From the club’s point of view there is more than adequate supporting evidence that he has brought the name of the club into disrepute. Whether they choose to follow that through and actually dismiss him or whether they look upon him as a saleable asset is the dilemma they have now. If I was Manchester United, I think I’d choose to ditch him. If they’re seen to profit from this it could, and likely will be, a PR disaster. Of course, they’ll be taking legal advice but letting him go and letting somebody else pick up the Greenwood baton I would think is best for them.

However, he does retain a value - nothing like it would have been prior to this, but is there a responsibility to maximise that? Is that worth more than reputation moving forwards? I suspect not.

It will be interesting from here, for sure.

I’m not comfortable with the whole “in the eyes of the law” stance. Al Capone was never convicted of murder, the Krays got away with plenty, there are a number of suspicious baby deaths that they couldn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt were at the hands of Lucy Letby. I’m not sure I’d be happy that Capone never killed anyone, the Krays didn’t demand money with menaces or that those poor kids weren’t further victims of that nurse. At the very best, Greenwood was and is guilty of reprehensible behaviour, it’s in the public eye and is at a direct detriment to his and Manchester United’s reputation. I’d take the hit and terminate his contract whatever the cost. 

[Fen Canary 849]

4 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Sorry, but you can’t honestly believe that. From the club’s point of view there is more than adequate supporting evidence that he has brought the name of the club into disrepute. Whether they choose to follow that through and actually dismiss him or whether they look upon him as a saleable asset is the dilemma they have now. If I was Manchester United, I think I’d choose to ditch him. If they’re seen to profit from this it could, and likely will be, a PR disaster. Of course, they’ll be taking legal advice but letting him go and letting somebody else pick up the Greenwood baton I would think is best for them.

However, he does retain a value - nothing like it would have been prior to this, but is there a responsibility to maximise that? Is that worth more than reputation moving forwards? I suspect not.

It will be interesting from here, for sure.

I’m not comfortable with the whole “in the eyes of the law” stance. Al Capone was never convicted of murder, the Krays got away with plenty, there are a number of suspicious baby deaths that they couldn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt were at the hands of Lucy Letby. I’m not sure I’d be happy that Capone never killed anyone, the Krays didn’t demand money with menaces or that those poor kids weren’t further victims of that nurse. At the very best, Greenwood was and is guilty of reprehensible behaviour, it’s in the public eye and is at a direct detriment to his and Manchester United’s reputation. I’d take the hit and terminate his contract whatever the cost. 

There’s no crime against being a w***er, and nor should there be as it’s simply too subjective as a basis for punishment. Having known 3 blokes who have been falsely accused of rape I’m very uncomfortable with blindly believing the woman involved and condemning the man on just an allegation. As far as I can see he’s made no comment on the allegation that could be construed as bringing the club into disrepute, and you can’t sack people on hearsay. He may well be guilty I don’t know, but until that day he’s convicted (and even then the recent release of Andrew Malkinson proves the system isn’t foolproof) we’re all just guessing.

If he has been charged with no crime then he shouldn’t be prevented from doing his job, United either have to either play him, sell him or pay him out of his contract so he can find a new club. Whilst I admit a lot of clubs will probably decide his talent isn’t worth the media circus his signing would bring, that’s a different argument 

[Terminally Yellow 2,471]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

So you know he’s definitely guilty of what he was accused of? In that case I’m sure the police would love to hear your evidence, as they couldn’t say for sure either way what actually happened

It's not about Mason Greenwood. It's about coming out with **** like, "She was cranky that day", and "it might have been consensual". And then when someone gets challenged on it "Well what about violence against men?". 

Domestic violence against anyone in any circumstance is not justifiable. I don't know what happened - but we can do better on this forum (even with our low standards) than trying to excuse domestic violence. 

For what it's worth, I don't think @TheDarkKnight was intentionally trying to excuse DV and maybe was just a bit clumsy in his language hence why I dropped the point. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Terminally Yellow

[Fen Canary 849]

4 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

It's not about Mason Greenwood. It's about coming out with **** like, "She was cranky that day", and "it might have been consensual". And then when someone gets challenged on it "Well what about violence against men?". 

Domestic violence against anyone in any circumstance is not justifiable. I don't know what happened - but we can do better on this forum (even with our low standards) than trying to excuse domestic violence. 

For what it's worth, I don't think @TheDarkKnight was intentionally trying to excuse DV and maybe was just a bit clumsy in his language hence why I dropped the point. 

Nobody is trying to excuse domestic violence, saying that they don’t automatically believe the woman’s accusations without evidence is very different from saying she deserved it or any other trope. It’s a discussion on a very specific subject in that should Greenwood be allowed to continue playing football seeing as the charges against him have seemingly been dropped.

If you think he shouldn’t be allowed to earn a living as a footballer due to the allegations then that’s you’re opinion, however I believe allowing for people to be sacked on unproven allegations is an extremely dangerous precedent and not one I’d like to see allowed in society.

I’ve no idea what happened in regards to the case, but now he’s been effectively cleared by the police in my eyes he should be allowed to pick up where he left off with his career as should anybody else in that situation. He may well be a horrible person but thankfully there’s no law against that, as everybody on here will be disliked by somebody they’ve met in their lives. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,245]

I’ll make the point again. Over 98% of rape reports do not result in a conviction; especially when the parties are known to each other. “Reasonable doubt” can be called into question so easily when the accused and the accuser have been intimate in the past.

”have you ever said no and then consented in the past?”

”have you ever enjoyed spontaneous and ‘rough’ sex?”

”Have you liked ‘x’ being dominant in the past?”

”Have you ever fantasised about xyz?”

If you truly believe that 49/50 people accused of rape are innocent because it can’t reach the threshold for conviction beyond reasonable doubt, I don’t know what to tell you. But you live in a fantasy world.

There is no easy answer, malicious accusations cannot be allowed to pass because we just “take the word” of the accuser. However, put the boot on the other foot and wonder how you’d feel if it was your wife, daughter, sister, mother that had been sexually assaulted and then had their sexual history called out in front of a jury of your peers to discredit your account. It’s so easy to place the factor of doubt.

Ive seen the pictures, I’ve heard the audio, if I was Manchester United, that would be plenty for ME to decide that I didn’t want Mason Greenwood playing for my club.

I understand that you’re happy to defend him and all the other ****ing *** that walk free on the basis that he wasn’t convicted but I also have three packets of magic beans, two bridges and a flock of unicorns to sell you. 

[Fen Canary 849]

1 hour ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I’ll make the point again. Over 98% of rape reports do not result in a conviction; especially when the parties are known to each other. “Reasonable doubt” can be called into question so easily when the accused and the accuser have been intimate in the past.

”have you ever said no and then consented in the past?”

”have you ever enjoyed spontaneous and ‘rough’ sex?”

”Have you liked ‘x’ being dominant in the past?”

”Have you ever fantasised about xyz?”

If you truly believe that 49/50 people accused of rape are innocent because it can’t reach the threshold for conviction beyond reasonable doubt, I don’t know what to tell you. But you live in a fantasy world.

There is no easy answer, malicious accusations cannot be allowed to pass because we just “take the word” of the accuser. However, put the boot on the other foot and wonder how you’d feel if it was your wife, daughter, sister, mother that had been sexually assaulted and then had their sexual history called out in front of a jury of your peers to discredit your account. It’s so easy to place the factor of doubt.

Ive seen the pictures, I’ve heard the audio, if I was Manchester United, that would be plenty for ME to decide that I didn’t want Mason Greenwood playing for my club.

I understand that you’re happy to defend him and all the other ****ing *** that walk free on the basis that he wasn’t convicted but I also have three packets of magic beans, two bridges and a flock of unicorns to sell you. 

I’m well aware that rape is an incredibly hard crime to prove, however it seems that your way of improving the conviction rates is to deem anybody accused of the crime to be guilty whether the evidence is there or not? Should we use this as the basis for convicting people of other crimes? “You seem to be a horrible person, and there’s no smoke without fire therefore I find you guilty of murder, have 25 years in the slammer!”

If you’re happy to see potentially innocent people locked up on hearsay in order to imprison a few more guilty ones then that’s your choice, personally I think it would be a disgusting system open to incredible amounts of abuse.

I have no opinion on Greenwoods guilt or innocence, I know as much about the case as anybody else however if there are no charges then in my eyes he can’t be punished, whether you think that’s unfair or otherwise.

Maybe the fact I’ve known three men falsely accused in the past means I have a stronger opinion on people being innocent until proven guilty than others on here, and makes me more sceptical of taking any accusations at face value. I’ve great sympathy for the women who see genuine rapists get away with their crime, but until you can propose a system that improves conviction rates without increasing the risk of prosecuting innocent men falsely accused then we’re stuck with the current model.

I’ve also no idea what you’re referencing in regards to unicorns or magic beans

[Renskay 36]

This story reminds me that once upon a time Norwich tried to sign a Belgian named Ilombe Mboyo who was convicted of gang raping 14 year old.

Seems like abuse scandals happen a lot more than fans realise and they're swept under the rug, as was highlighted by French journalist Romain Molina

Arsenal, West Ham and Chelsea were trying to sign Elye Wahi only this summer who was kicked out of a youth academy for physically intimidating school friends to masturbate in front of him.

Less excuses should be made who players who commit crimes of this nature.

[dylanisabaddog 4,953]

9 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Do you want to trot out any of the other usual excuses for domestic violence? We have a real problem in this country for offences against women and girls - and it's because (in part) of enablers with attitudes like this. Sickening.

I think you need to be a little more careful. He's clearly not the brightest and it's entirely possible he was set up in a bizarre verbal game. We certainly shouldn't be making judgement unless we know what was said before the recording started. Did she ask him to say disgusting things to her?  Perhaps she egged him on with the promise of 'something special'? 

The girlfriend is back in a relationship with Greenwood but apparently no longer has contact with the other woman involved. 

And why were the charges dropped?  Did the girlfriend make financial promises to the girl who made the recording?

People seem to be making judgements based on incomplete evidence and without a trial. 

Having said that, United have obviously made the correct decision. It would have been a huge distraction if he'd stayed. 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[Indy 3,307]

7 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Sorry, but you can’t honestly believe that. From the club’s point of view there is more than adequate supporting evidence that he has brought the name of the club into disrepute. Whether they choose to follow that through and actually dismiss him or whether they look upon him as a saleable asset is the dilemma they have now. If I was Manchester United, I think I’d choose to ditch him. If they’re seen to profit from this it could, and likely will be, a PR disaster. Of course, they’ll be taking legal advice but letting him go and letting somebody else pick up the Greenwood baton I would think is best for them.

However, he does retain a value - nothing like it would have been prior to this, but is there a responsibility to maximise that? Is that worth more than reputation moving forwards? I suspect not.

It will be interesting from here, for sure.

I’m not comfortable with the whole “in the eyes of the law” stance. Al Capone was never convicted of murder, the Krays got away with plenty, there are a number of suspicious baby deaths that they couldn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt were at the hands of Lucy Letby. I’m not sure I’d be happy that Capone never killed anyone, the Krays didn’t demand money with menaces or that those poor kids weren’t further victims of that nurse. At the very best, Greenwood was and is guilty of reprehensible behaviour, it’s in the public eye and is at a direct detriment to his and Manchester United’s reputation. I’d take the hit and terminate his contract whatever the cost. 

Absolutely and he’s admitted to making mistakes, as a high profile player and potential role model for thousands of youngsters, needs to be more careful in his actions! A sour and horrible event, captured on media and complaint bought against him. As you correctly pointed out although technically not going to be taken to court by the CPS, as it appears the key witness has withdrawn, doesn’t mean he’s innocent in his behaviour.

It’s tough as I said he’s a young lad who’s done a very stupid thing, but how many on here over the past Fifty years can honestly say they haven’t joined in, in some very tasteless and inappropriate chanting in the past or shouted a comment which now would see you kicked out of the ground and possibly taken to court too! Times have indeed changed and stupid mistakes should be used to learn and reform allowed! Continual offenders on the other hand should be treated with far more harshness.

Difficult one this as I don’t know of Greenwood’s character and if this his attitude towards women or if it was a one off with other circumstances effecting his actions!

Edited August 22, 2023 by Indy

[Fen Canary 849]

2 hours ago, Renskay said:

This story reminds me that once upon a time Norwich tried to sign a Belgian named Ilombe Mboyo who was convicted of gang raping 14 year old.

Seems like abuse scandals happen a lot more than fans realise and they're swept under the rug, as was highlighted by French journalist Romain Molina

Arsenal, West Ham and Chelsea were trying to sign Elye Wahi only this summer who was kicked out of a youth academy for physically intimidating school friends to masturbate in front of him.

Less excuses should be made who players who commit crimes of this nature.

That’s different though in that in both of those cases the perpetrators were found guilty of the crime, Greenwood hasn’t 

[KiwiScot 1,459]

Another danger for clubs taking him on is a private prosecutation or more likely a civil lawsuit against him. Look at the David Goodwillie example which while under Scots Law might have similar possibilites in England. There was not enough evidence to take him to a criminal court, but enough to side against him in a civil court so he's now known as a rapist even though he was never convicted of being one. She is still trying to get into a criminal court.

Edited August 22, 2023 by KiwiScot

[Nexus_Canary 1,024]

19 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Sorry, but you can’t honestly believe that. From the club’s point of view there is more than adequate supporting evidence that he has brought the name of the club into disrepute. Whether they choose to follow that through and actually dismiss him or whether they look upon him as a saleable asset is the dilemma they have now. If I was Manchester United, I think I’d choose to ditch him. If they’re seen to profit from this it could, and likely will be, a PR disaster. Of course, they’ll be taking legal advice but letting him go and letting somebody else pick up the Greenwood baton I would think is best for them.

However, he does retain a value - nothing like it would have been prior to this, but is there a responsibility to maximise that? Is that worth more than reputation moving forwards? I suspect not.

It will be interesting from here, for sure.

I’m not comfortable with the whole “in the eyes of the law” stance. Al Capone was never convicted of murder, the Krays got away with plenty, there are a number of suspicious baby deaths that they couldn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt were at the hands of Lucy Letby. I’m not sure I’d be happy that Capone never killed anyone, the Krays didn’t demand money with menaces or that those poor kids weren’t further victims of that nurse. At the very best, Greenwood was and is guilty of reprehensible behaviour, it’s in the public eye and is at a direct detriment to his and Manchester United’s reputation. I’d take the hit and terminate his contract whatever the cost. 

I said in the first line that I was playing devil's advocate.

My opinion on the matter is that he should be at his majesty's pleasure but hey, his Mrs for whatever reason had a change of heart.

[Nexus_Canary 1,024]

Called it,

Media reports suggest he's going to play for Stevie G in Saudi.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Nexus_Canary

[Greavsy 2,417]

10 minutes ago, Nexus_Canary said:

Called it,

Media reports suggest he's going to play for Stevie G in Saudi.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66574759

Or maybe not.

"Meanwhile, Al-Ettifaq manager Steven Gerrard has said on Instagram reports his side are looking to sign Greenwood as "fake news"."

[Nexus_Canary 1,024]

3 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66574759

Or maybe not.

"Meanwhile, Al-Ettifaq manager Steven Gerrard has said on Instagram reports his side are looking to sign Greenwood as "fake news"."

Ooooo, I mean Stevie G has sold his soul but I doubt he would want Greenwood there, presumably he will want to return to the UK after making his wedge and face the British media?!

[Greavsy 2,417]

1 minute ago, Nexus_Canary said:

Ooooo, I mean Stevie G has sold his soul but I doubt he would want Greenwood there, presumably he will want to return to the UK after making his wedge and face the British media?!

Ronaldo doesn't want him their either. (Apols for the red top!!)

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/23605312/mason-greenwood-career-ronaldo-saudi-arabia-feud/

 

[The Raptor 1,223]

Kevin muscat is a manager now. He should sign him so they can have weekly debates about who's the bigger ****

Edited August 22, 2023 by The Raptor