Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic | Factual updates only
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It's a perfect example in the context of Rhyme Animal's absurd argument.
Are you questioning the quality of my control?
I would just like some clarification on my recent posts and action that was taken
You seem to be arguing against a position that nobody has taken here...
It does not seem that way.
Yeah, I'm only joking. I've sent you a PM.
It's fine, in future just PM me, or any member of staff, preferably @Solius.
Have to say that I feel this is flawed logic even though I can appreciate how you’ve arrived to this.
No one records something like that for the first time and assuming it will happen. As the lead witness dropped the accusations and stayed with MG, which unfortunately is a common theme seen in abuse of some kind, we can go by probabilities. Just because she has seemingly forgiven him due to her psyche/love for him, doesn’t mean we can just literally sweep the allegations/audio/images under the carpet.
She’s recorded an event which made MG sound as if he was trying to rape her. The fact she recorded it implies it’s happened before and she decided to record it due to previous experiences.
Whether he successfully or unsuccessfully raped her, his intentions were all the same. You don’t compare things like this to whether they successfully or unsuccessfully murdered someone. I can throw a counter example back at you in the sense that if someone enters a property illegally and begins putting valuables in their bag with the intention to steal, should he be called a thief if he never makes it out of the house with the goods? Of course he should. The intention was there.
Would I call MG a “rapist” to his face? No probably not. Do I think he is? Yes. Not sure what made Bellingham feel the need to call him that on the pitch - maybe he knows someone who has gone through something similar and felt passionate about his dislike for people that did what MG did.
No, can you explain what you mean and maybe give examples? You can message me privately if you have genuine concerns. To save derailing the thread.
Moderators are allowed to have an opinion and voice it.
Only if you value that more than pissing off your employees and supporters. That's why they sent him to Getafe in the first place. I think the moral argument only really occurs when you decide to sell him. After that it's purely business and getting the best deal possible for the clubs. Who cares what Rachel Riley thinks about what transfer fee we get?
If that is the best deal for the club, sure, but I highly doubt no one will not pay anything for him. I don't think we particularly need to think about his career considering how we've been paying him to not pay for a year and by all accounts paying him to play at Getafe.
Must admit that I haven't fully followed this argument but OJ is officially guilty of murder and went through an entire court case (twice) with all details publicly available so what relevance does it have here exactly ?
Objection, conjecture
You can't compare the two as Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 states that the bar is set at intention alone and thus the defendant would be charged for burglary not attempted burglary.
This could be the case. I doubt we'll ever truly know.
It was an argument in defence of Mason making a fuss out of attempted murder (or rape) v actual murder (rape) and the like. Convicted v unconvicted. And if you would call an attempted murderer or an unconvicted person a murderer. The usual attempt at legalese and semantic gymnastics. It was essentially a call for Mason to be referred to according to his original charge sheet and no more. I think. For the record if I was defending Mason I wouldn't be using murder analogies.
Going to need a legitimate explanation for the audio and pictures. How well he plays has zero bearing on my opinion.
What this thread has shown is that no matter what, Greenwood will be an unnecessary, divisive and controversial player if he continues at the club and Ineos should get rid of him immediately on July 1st 2024. This summer needs a massive deadwood clean out. Sancho, Greenwood, Martial, Antony, Onana, Maguire, McTominay, Eriksen, AWB, Lindelof. Oh how I'd love for all of them to be gone and upgraded on.
Not everyone is, that's pretty much the dividing line. And also why the thread is so relentless.
Those who need that media explained can't understand those who will let it slide with no explanation.
I guess after 6 months of this thread the one thing we can all agree on is that even the United fan base won't agree on whatever happens in the summer.
Given that, I think we simply have to sell. Doesn't matter if he scores in every match for the rest of the season, the last thing ETH needs is the circus that would come with a Greenwood return.
The bottom line is United are treated differently from other clubs. It would be the understatement of the century to say almost every major club has had similar incidents, and none would garner the media attention a Greenwood return would. We'd have an entire host of charities, NGOs and others hosting each sky match. I'm expecting a change to the lineup images to be 'Accused r*pist Mason Greenwood'.
Whereas, of course, the lovable scamp Ivan Toney got practically paraded around after overcoming his hardships, while the sponsors on his shirt sleeves, hafltime and in the stands pushed his dangerous addiction.
Given that, I think we simply have to sell. Doesn't matter if he scores in every match for the rest of the season, the last thing ETH needs is the circus that would come with a Greenwood return.
The bottom line is United are treated differently from other clubs. It would be the understatement of the century to say almost every major club has had similar incidents, and none would garner the media attention a Greenwood return would. We'd have an entire host of charities, NGOs and others hosting each sky match. I'm expecting a change to the lineup images to be 'Accused r*pist Mason Greenwood'.
Whereas, of course, the lovable scamp Ivan Toney got practically paraded around after overcoming his hardships, while the sponsors on his shirt sleeves, hafltime and in the stands pushed his dangerous addiction.
Ok but I don't see how OJ is of any relevance here for the reasons I explained.
And I think the distinction is important, it's not just semantics.
I've actually said many times that he can't return without some kind of explanation or at least an interview
We he was acquited and is still called a murderer because people believe he did it.
People will call Mason a rapist because they believe he did it.
The commonality is that people believe he did it and that's why they call him a rapist.
This started it.
Mason needs better advocates.
Yes, sorry if that seemed definitive, but it's largely the case from what I read here.
Have you asked yourself why this hasn't happened. The answer might be key.
Exactly. Imagine the disruption to his teammates never mind himself. Opposing players, fans will all want a go. Refs may have an unconscious bias. Imagine the extra security the club have to hire to stop run ons to the pitch to have a go at him. The logical thing is to get rid
Was agreeing with you until this bit. It’s completely irrelevant. Toney hurt nobody but himself. It’s completely different
I think it’s quite different tbh.
In the OJ case people were actually murdered. In the MG case it would seem there was never actually a rape committed, hence the charges which do seem to fit the audio that is in circulation.
It’s all pretty horrible either way so I’m not sure of the need for people to need to stray from what we know. That’s grim enough.
"It would seem". There's the grey area, combined with no statement or explanation that causes people to believe he did it. If not that time, then previously.
I agree. Grim.
But by excusing (or even glorifying) his behaviour - which let's be honest the commentators basically snickered away about the whole thing - it validates and gives permission for sports gambling. And while I suppose it technically isn't physically hitting anyone, it ruins plenty of lives.
You "suppose technically"? Huh?
The heroes welcome Toney got was insane though, I mentioned it in that particular match day thread in fact.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/premier-league-gameweek-21.481011/post-31560661
Why are you comparing gambling to Domestic Violence?
Have you ever thought that maybe the moderators (who have been hand-picked to look after the forum after showing years and years of sensible, logical and fair posts) might just all have reached the same, quite normal conclusion and are free to voice their opinion about it?
yes. and they’re paid handsomely to do so. and guess who fund it all? that’s right. the woke anti domestic violence and rape lobbyists. disgusting really. especially when perfectly normal people like us just want to see our boys smash the teams they’re up against, as well as any females they encounter.
Exactly, like all unelected death squads.
Again OJ was found guilty by civil court, he is officially a murderer plus all evidence is publicly available so people have all the info required to make a fair judgement themselves
Clearly this is completely different to the Greenwood case and it really shouldn't be used as some kind of comparison
The point was that years we all knew he was guilty as sin of a crime he wasn't convicted for. Surely that is the parallel that is being drawn?
Haven't seen that same opinion about Cristiano coming back to United, who is also alleged rapist, or you have some kind of double standards when it comes to certain players?
Because this is a thread about a footballer accused of domestic violence, who may well return to British football, and recently another footballer who was found guilty of gambling came back to British football, and was given a certain reception by the media. A contrast can be struck between the media treatment of one versus the other, which can be enriching for this discussion? Especially when considering how Mason might be treated by hte same media upon a hypothetical return.
The difference between that (and basically any other similar case) is that those are genuinely the ones where we do not know anything concrete about the cases. The audio and photographs in this instance are the smoking gun for a lot of people who don’t feel the need to tie themselves into pretzels to come up with alternative scenarios for what they’ve seen and heard.
Can't you see why the reception for coming off a ban for gambling (which is not only legal, but also heavily advertised in football) would be wildly different to the reception for someone who beat his girlfriend bloody?
Sorry should've made it clearer I was replying with a personal stance to the idea we should change our minds if he comes back.
He paid her to be quiet, and those leaked emails in which he testifies about continuing with sexual act although she says no multiple times aren't enough?
Hypocrisy at it finest.