Morning Reds
Wanted to ask a question as this was discussed at work yesterday and was surprised by some of the arguments that were made. We were discussing his situation as we had an incident on one of our sites some years ago. Guy was summarily dismissed but has turned his life around and has admitted his antics and is actually building his life back somewhere else.
The debate was whether the same could be done with Greenwood. So I was wondering;
If Mason Greenwood came out and confirmed he was abusive and SAd his partner and owned up to it, has sought help and is working to be a better person with tangible evidence proving it, what would you like the club to do?
Option 1. Do not care what he is doing to remedy the situation, get rid of him.
Option 2. Acknowledge he is taking responsibility for his behaviour and is getting help, but still want him gone.
Option 3. Acknowledge he is taking responsibility for his behaviour and is getting help, and willing to give him a chance at redemption.
Just keen to hear your thoughts, so if you could reply with the Option and reasoning behind it, that would be appreciated.
I am in Option 2, as a father of girls I cannot forget what he has done and whilst I will acknowledge steps he is taking to remedy it, he needs to leave the club. Also I think if he was a useless football player, people would not advocate for him.
What about you?
Mason Greenwood
posted on 23/6/23
comment by Pierre Reedy (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anfield RAP (U22951)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Boy F7-0m The South (U3979)
posted 25 minutes ago
Should be sacked but that should have happened long ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Suarez should've been sacked when he was racist to Evra...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you a Liverpool fan?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a human rights fan.
posted on 23/6/23
comment by Anfield RAP (U22951)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Boy F7-0m The South (U3979)
posted 25 minutes ago
Should be sacked but that should have happened long ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Suarez should've been sacked when he was racist to Evra...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And biting two players. Let's not forget that.
posted on 23/6/23
comment by Anfield RAP (U22951)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Pierre Reedy (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anfield RAP (U22951)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Boy F7-0m The South (U3979)
posted 25 minutes ago
Should be sacked but that should have happened long ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Suarez should've been sacked when he was racist to Evra...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you a Liverpool fan?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a human rights fan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Someone needs to explain to you the rules of football. If a player has done something wrong, the first things you need to consider are:
1. What team do they play for?
2. Are they any good?
3. Can it be bundled into "PC gone mad?" so you can look hard on the internet?
.
.
.
.
.
.1,000,000. What the player actually did
posted on 23/6/23
comment by Boy F7-0m The South (U3979)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
Should be sacked but that should have happened long ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacked on what grounds?
posted on 23/6/23
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Boy F7-0m The South (U3979)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
Should be sacked but that should have happened long ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacked on what grounds?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contracts of employment for public-facing brands usually include clauses that insist on behavioural standards corresponding with the company's values and not undermining its reputation. So it's very possible that a player could be sacked for behaviour that isn't found beyond reasonable doubt to constitute criminality in a court of law. It doesn't even have to be illegal.
That said, whether in this case it applies to Greenwood depends on precisely what's in his contract and how confident United's lawyers are that dismissal would stand up to challenge. I wouldn't be surprised if the fact we haven't sacked him is as much to do with a financial assessment of his value as an asset.
posted on 23/6/23
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Boy F7-0m The South (U3979)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
Should be sacked but that should have happened long ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacked on what grounds?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OT or carrington presumably, but fratton park would be fine too for all I care.
posted on 23/6/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Boy F7-0m The South (U3979)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
Should be sacked but that should have happened long ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacked on what grounds?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contracts of employment for public-facing brands usually include clauses that insist on behavioural standards corresponding with the company's values and not undermining its reputation. So it's very possible that a player could be sacked for behaviour that isn't found beyond reasonable doubt to constitute crimin
ality in a court of law. It doesn't even have to be illegal.
That said, whether in this case it applies to Greenwood depends on precisely what's in his contract and how confident United's lawyers are that dismissal would stand up to challenge. I wouldn't be surprised if the fact we haven't sacked him is as much to do with a financial assessment of his value as an asset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Docherty
posted on 24/6/23
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 20 hours, 42 minutes ago
I imagine United are in a very difficult position while Greenwood although clearly guilty of abusing someone hasn't actually been convicted of anything due to how the legal system works.
If United were to sack him he'd likely be able to sue and win.
If Greenwood did come out and admit everything, say he was wrong blah blah he'd then legally feck himself, contract wise, also conviction wise should his partner have a change of heart on the matter.
So basically whatever anyone wants to do, whether they want to try to make things a bit more palatable or in United's case act more firmly, they probably can't without risking unwanted consequences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be shocked and disappointed if the law sided with Greenwood on that. After bringing Utds reputation into disrepute, even if not found guilt in court theres no denying this happened. Potentially costing them millions in sponsorship deals etc. Imo Utd have more grounds for sacking him and suing him than he them.
posted on 24/6/23
I think it’s looking increasingly obvious he’s going to stay, it would have been settled by now if the club had the balls to do the right thing.
posted on 24/6/23
comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 20 hours, 42 minutes ago
I imagine United are in a very difficult position while Greenwood although clearly guilty of abusing someone hasn't actually been convicted of anything due to how the legal system works.
If United were to sack him he'd likely be able to sue and win.
If Greenwood did come out and admit everything, say he was wrong blah blah he'd then legally feck himself, contract wise, also conviction wise should his partner have a change of heart on the matter.
So basically whatever anyone wants to do, whether they want to try to make things a bit more palatable or in United's case act more firmly, they probably can't without risking unwanted consequences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be shocked and disappointed if the law sided with Greenwood on that. After bringing Utds reputation into disrepute, even if not found guilt in court theres no denying this happened. Potentially costing them millions in sponsorship deals etc. Imo Utd have more grounds for sacking him and suing him than he them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think sadly the law isn't always fair even in the most seemingly obvious of ways. Particularly when high wealth individuals and top lawyer's get involved (obviously United would have top lawyer's too but the law may be the problem)