Mason Greenwood

I'm totally ambivalent on this one.* Can't help feel there has to be compromise one way or the other. Does the lad deserve to never play again? No. Does he deserve to be welcomed back into the team? Also no.

Problem is that any compromise would need him to accept some responsibility for his actions, and that doesn't seem to be happening.

I don't £#%&!ing know

* I've also never listened to the audio

Originally Posted by BigJim

Another empty response that says absolutely nothing. Or maybe I just misunderstood it.

clearly, you did, because it wasn't saying nothing.

I am not "trying to be clever"; I am trying to discuss a complex and delicate subject in a meaningful way.

on a subject like the death penalty, I'm quite the hanger and flogger - some behaviour puts people outside normal society and I don't see why we should waste time and money on the vague possibility of forgiveness or redemption. a lot of people on here think we measure own level of civilisation by how we treat the worst criminals and aren't quite as keen to be such devils themselves. it's a bit of a contrast to the take by many on this subject.

my instinct, as a father of three daughters, would be to cause severe physical pain and mental trauma, resulting in a horrible death. I am aware that this would be viewed as wrong to do in practice.... and maybe it is. at the very least, I would not want them seeing each other again. but I am aware that this might be unenforceable and, indeed, might not even be a good thing.

in this case, there is a real, not hypothetical, victim. she appears to have forgiven him, pursued the relationship and they have a child together. who are we to judge? the women and defenders of women (well-intentioned, for sure) are taking a stand on principle, but they are denying the wishes of the person directly affected. she may be stupid or scared and maybe her father and her partner are coercing or whatever. but you'd have to make assumptions that deny her choice.

if she can forgive him and, more than that, actually want to be with him still... who are we to judge? and who are we to impose sanctions that undermine her choice?

I said before that I would need to be far closer to the people involved to understand the dynamic here, including his level of contrition, willingness to change and commitment to her. that is not to excuse what he did, which is clearly very wrong. or to suggest there might be some innocent explanation. nor does it have anything to do with his ability as a player.

if you think this just trying to be clever, maybe don't read my posts. because reading them would appear to be a waste of your time.

Originally Posted by Knockers

Good for her. A couple more high-profile reds stating the obvious might put this ridiculous idea to bed.

or, at least, bend it over the back of a sofa, right?

Originally Posted by jem

clearly, you did, because it wasn't saying nothing.

I am not "trying to be clever"; I am trying to discuss a complex and delicate subject in a meaningful way.

on a subject like the death penalty, I'm quite the hanger and flogger - some behaviour puts people outside normal society and I don't see why we should waste time and money on the vague possibility of forgiveness or redemption. a lot of people on here think we measure own level of civilisation by how we treat the worst criminals and aren't quite as keen to be such devils themselves. it's a bit of a contrast to the take by many on this subject.

my instinct, as a father of three daughters, would be to cause severe physical pain and mental trauma, resulting in a horrible death. I am aware that this would be viewed as wrong to do in practice.... and maybe it is. at the very least, I would not want them seeing each other again. but I am aware that this might be unenforceable and, indeed, might not even be a good thing.

in this case, there is a real, not hypothetical, victim. she appears to have forgiven him, pursued the relationship and they have a child together. who are we to judge? the women and defenders of women (well-intentioned, for sure) are taking a stand on principle, but they are denying the wishes of the person directly affected. she may be stupid or scared and maybe her father and her partner are coercing or whatever. but you'd have to make assumptions that deny her choice.

if she can forgive him and, more than that, actually want to be with him still... who are we to judge? and who are we to impose sanctions that undermine her choice?

I said before that I would need to be far closer to the people involved to understand the dynamic here, including his level of contrition, willingness to change and commitment to her. that is not to excuse what he did, which is clearly very wrong. or to suggest there might be some innocent explanation. nor does it have anything to do with his ability as a player.

if you think this just trying to be clever, maybe don't read my posts. because reading them would appear to be a waste of your time.

or, at least, bend it over the back of a sofa, right?

Your problem is - you’re a professional smart arse

If you’d have made that post a few pages back instead of being up your own arse as usual i’d have more time for your opinions.

Of course he should be allowed back. The amount of hypocrisy on this episode has been astounding.

Rachel Riley can STFU. Who gives a jot what she thinks ffs.

Originally Posted by jem

in this case, there is a real, not hypothetical, victim. she appears to have forgiven him, pursued the relationship and they have a child together. who are we to judge? the women and defenders of women (well-intentioned, for sure) are taking a stand on principle, but they are denying the wishes of the person directly affected. she may be stupid or scared and maybe her father and her partner are coercing or whatever. but you'd have to make assumptions that deny her choice.

Maybe decades of misogyny and battered wives being swept under the carpet while the perpertrator goes unpunished has led her to feel shes not worthy of standing up for herself. Perhaps if a club like MUFC did the right thing and showed they did not accept violence against women other girls wouldn't feel like they had to suffer.

Another thought - imagine being at the ground and seeing a primary school aged girl (or boy, TBF) wearing a Greenwood shirt...

Good on Rachel Riley, she'll get the usual 'just trying to get attention' bullshit but I think she's a pretty genuine supporter and she's going to get dogs abuse now, very brave IYAM. More need to do the same.

Originally Posted by Offerington

Of course he should be allowed back. The amount of hypocrisy on this episode has been astounding.

Where? The only thing that comes close is Ronaldo, and I have some sympathy with that view - but there was always only one persons word against another.

Yes, the payoff does not look good but I've been involved in plenty of actions (corporate, not personal, I should add) where settlements are done depsite strong cases or 'moral righteousness' to save legal costs and the always ever present level of uncertainty at trial.

Originally Posted by RedNick80

Where? The only thing that comes close is Ronaldo, and I have some sympathy with that view - but there was always only one persons word against another.

.

How about our former player getting arrested for breaking his partners arm and cutting off all her hair going on to have an international airport named after him

Originally Posted by jem

clearly, you did, because it wasn't saying nothing.

I am not "trying to be clever"; I am trying to discuss a complex and delicate subject in a meaningful way.

on a subject like the death penalty, I'm quite the hanger and flogger - some behaviour puts people outside normal society and I don't see why we should waste time and money on the vague possibility of forgiveness or redemption. a lot of people on here think we measure own level of civilisation by how we treat the worst criminals and aren't quite as keen to be such devils themselves. it's a bit of a contrast to the take by many on this subject.

my instinct, as a father of three daughters, would be to cause severe physical pain and mental trauma, resulting in a horrible death. I am aware that this would be viewed as wrong to do in practice.... and maybe it is. at the very least, I would not want them seeing each other again. but I am aware that this might be unenforceable and, indeed, might not even be a good thing.

in this case, there is a real, not hypothetical, victim. she appears to have forgiven him, pursued the relationship and they have a child together. who are we to judge? the women and defenders of women (well-intentioned, for sure) are taking a stand on principle, but they are denying the wishes of the person directly affected. she may be stupid or scared and maybe her father and her partner are coercing or whatever. but you'd have to make assumptions that deny her choice.

if she can forgive him and, more than that, actually want to be with him still... who are we to judge? and who are we to impose sanctions that undermine her choice?

I said before that I would need to be far closer to the people involved to understand the dynamic here, including his level of contrition, willingness to change and commitment to her. that is not to excuse what he did, which is clearly very wrong. or to suggest there might be some innocent explanation. nor does it have anything to do with his ability as a player.

if you think this just trying to be clever, maybe don't read my posts. because reading them would appear to be a waste of your time.

or, at least, bend it over the back of a sofa, right?

This is a fair viewpoint.

Originally Posted by RedNick80

Maybe decades of misogyny and battered wives being swept under the carpet while the perpertrator goes unpunished has led her to feel shes not worthy of standing up for herself. Perhaps if a club like MUFC did the right thing and showed they did not accept violence against women other girls wouldn't feel like they had to suffer.

Another thought - imagine being at the ground and seeing a primary school aged girl (or boy, TBF) wearing a Greenwood shirt...

Good on Rachel Riley, she'll get the usual 'just trying to get attention' bullshit but I think she's a pretty genuine supporter and she's going to get dogs abuse now, very brave IYAM. More need to do the same.



Where? The only thing that comes close is Ronaldo, and I have some sympathy with that view - but there was always only one persons word against another.

Yes, the payoff does not look good but I've been involved in plenty of actions (corporate, not personal, I should add) where settlements are done depsite strong cases or 'moral righteousness' to save legal costs and the always ever present level of uncertainty at trial.

As is this.

Originally Posted by est.1878

How about our former player getting arrested for breaking his partners arm and cutting off all her hair going on to have an international airport named after him

Probably fair, I'm not as aware of the details, evidence or any nuance though so I've taken it at face value.

It was also 50+ years ago - I'm glad we've moved on, thankfully.

The main issue I have with Jem’s post is that the victims viewpoint is relevant but it isn’t the only viewpoint that is relevant. In fact, in the case of a global football club with billions of fans of both genders, it’s actually not that relevant.

No one is party to the making up bit but the clear inference is that a vulnerable woman is likely to be persuaded to make up with an aggressive, predatory, domineering, wealthy and famous partner. There is a long history of abused women remaining attached to their abusers and I think the argument that ‘she’s forgiven him so everyone else should’ is a very poor take in this case.

United should make an example - they can do that in a positive way - they could say he will never play for the club again but we recognise he’s an academy player and we’re therefore going to offer him and his partner the counselling they both need to try and deal with this so Greenwood doesn’t do it again. He could be free to continue his career whilst that was on going.

Anything other than that leaves the club open to the accusation that their asset value is more important than their ethics. I realise it sounds stupid even saying that as we know they do but you can but live in hope.

exactly how many of the forum were on the naming committee for Belfast airport?

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

The main issue I have with Jem’s post is that the victims viewpoint is relevant but it isn’t the only viewpoint that is relevant. In fact, in the case of a global football club with billions of fans of both genders, it’s actually not that relevant.

No one is party to the making up bit but the clear inference is that a vulnerable woman is likely to be persuaded to make up with an aggressive, predatory, domineering, wealthy and famous partner. There is a long history of abused women remaining attached to their abusers and I think the argument that ‘she’s forgiven him so everyone else should’ is a very poor take in this case.

United should make an example - they can do that in a positive way - they could say he will never play for the club again but we recognise he’s an academy player and we’re therefore going to offer him and his partner the counselling they both need to try and deal with this so Greenwood doesn’t do it again. He could be free to continue his career whilst that was on going.

Anything other than that leaves the club open to the accusation that their asset value is more important than their ethics. I realise it sounds stupid even saying that as we know they do but you can but live in hope.

The club won’t be saying anything that can undermine a legal case, and in this case, he hasn’t done anything.

Any notion that ethics are of more concern than a 100 million asset is comical. Some people think they know the value of everything but know the price of nothing.

We’ve said many times on this thread that best wouldn’t be playing for us if he pulled that shit today. It was from a very different era. Obvs.

Or is esters simply suggesting ringway should be re-branded Greenwood International?

Originally Posted by pedr0

exactly how many of the forum were on the naming committee for Belfast airport?

I was wondering along the lines of this. We have the statue of a known abuser and philanderer outside of the ground.

So if Greenwood goes to AC Milan, Juventus or Newcastle say, it's not a problem anymore? Then why is it such an issue for him to play again at United. It's embarrassing. He deserves a second chance. There wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed to prosecution. Do people understand what that means ffs?

I don’t get the reasoning behind keeping him. Say he’s now a £20M asset, we’re supposed to be an institution worth nearly £7B. you’d spend £20m on PR to protect from the shitstorm this will cause surely

Originally Posted by elhombre

Your problem is - you’re a professional smart arse

If you’d have made that post a few pages back instead of being up your own arse as usual i’d have more time for your opinions.

I have made all of these points already.

Originally Posted by RedNick80

Maybe decades of misogyny and battered wives being swept under the carpet while the perpertrator goes unpunished has led her to feel shes not worthy of standing up for herself.

maybe.

Originally Posted by Tory Dave

The club won’t be saying anything that can undermine a legal case, and in this case, he hasn’t done anything.

Any notion that ethics are of more concern than a 100 million asset is comical. Some people think they know the value of everything but know the price of nothing.

Listen pal, you’re one of the stupidest people on this forum and your attempt at wumming is pitiful so I’m really only answering you to point out how stupid you are.

The club has sponsors and seeks to attract fans of all genders from around the world that will buy merchandise from the club. The club will have spent well over a £100m promoting its inclusive non rapey non abusive brand and it could do without one of its stars being rapey and abusive.

Ethics = cash pal.

I agree in this case the asset value probably wins through but the deliberation they’re going through is all about the brand value.

For all those who care about ethics. One of the most hateful individuals has said they'll stop supporting us if we keep Greenwood.

I think we need to get him signed up so that Rachel Riley no longer supports the club. That's a pretty good trade off if you ask me.

Team Carol Vorderman FTW

Originally Posted by Offerington

So if Greenwood goes to AC Milan, Juventus or Newcastle say, it's not a problem anymore? Then why is it such an issue for him to play again at United. It's embarrassing. He deserves a second chance. There wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed to prosecution. Do people understand what that means ffs?

Its a problem for them, not us is the point. If you want me to say it then I will: we have better standards - or so we should believe, as a supporter base if not by the heirachy at the club. We all know if he leaves it will only because its commercially unviable.

Interseting you've picked two Italian clubs and one funded by a state where women have half the rights of men though!

Originally Posted by Tory Dave

I was wondering along the lines of this. We have the statue of a known abuser and philanderer outside of the ground.

Off with his head!

I'm an ITK and I can tell you all that Mason and his partner are big into BDSM and role-playing. The reason this didn't go further is because this was a recording of a fantasy they were both living out.

You can choose not to believe me if you wish. But that's the truth. Take a Break have secured a huge reveal all interview with his MRS next week which will say all of this.

How do I know? My granny has won 37 crosswords on take a break over the last 5 years and knows the editorial team quite well and they leaked it to her.