Fenerbache rumoured to be looking at signing him. Sounds about right.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 18 seconds ago
Why WOULDNT the club be aware of what's gone on?
Yes. A process. To determine the potential fallout from him being reinstated.
I wouldnt be surprised if we don't have a decision until May when things have died down and we potentially have some positive news to allow for a '5hit sandwich' announcement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A criminal investigation isn't the same as an internal investigation in a workplace. Plenty of examples where the FA have waited until a police investigation is complete before undertaking their own investigation. Your lack of common sense astounds me sometimes, it really does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club haven't said they are investigating.
What makes you think the club wouldn't have been upto speed re what happened, why, and why it was dropped?
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 7 minutes ago
It is funny that you are talking about how the club will be taking to sponsors, when in one of your previous posts you said that the sponsors won't be a concern to the club. You are so hellbent on disagreeing with people that you disagree with what your have previously said. You are an oddball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iv never said they wouldn't consider the sponsors feelings on the matter.
Big fibber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you did. I said that unless there was some evidence the completely exonerated Mason, that he likely wouldn't play for United again due to impact on sponsors. You said that the club wouldn't care about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy enough for you to quote me, but you won't, because we both know that's a big dirty fib.
Thought I'm you were better than making up stuff. Clealry not.
hought you were better than that.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
Fenerbache rumoured to be looking at signing him. Sounds about right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Dailt Star exclusive? 🤣
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 18 seconds ago
Why WOULDNT the club be aware of what's gone on?
Yes. A process. To determine the potential fallout from him being reinstated.
I wouldnt be surprised if we don't have a decision until May when things have died down and we potentially have some positive news to allow for a '5hit sandwich' announcement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A criminal investigation isn't the same as an internal investigation in a workplace. Plenty of examples where the FA have waited until a police investigation is complete before undertaking their own investigation. Your lack of common sense astounds me sometimes, it really does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club haven't said they are investigating.
What makes you think the club wouldn't have been upto speed re what happened, why, and why it was dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to speed when? You have previously suggested that the club knew what was happening during the investigation.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 18 seconds ago
Why WOULDNT the club be aware of what's gone on?
Yes. A process. To determine the potential fallout from him being reinstated.
I wouldnt be surprised if we don't have a decision until May when things have died down and we potentially have some positive news to allow for a '5hit sandwich' announcement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A criminal investigation isn't the same as an internal investigation in a workplace. Plenty of examples where the FA have waited until a police investigation is complete before undertaking their own investigation. Your lack of common sense astounds me sometimes, it really does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club haven't said they are investigating.
What makes you think the club wouldn't have been upto speed re what happened, why, and why it was dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to speed when? You have previously suggested that the club knew what was happening during the investigation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe they would have known a such as Greenwood and his lawyers will have known.
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 7 minutes ago
It is funny that you are talking about how the club will be taking to sponsors, when in one of your previous posts you said that the sponsors won't be a concern to the club. You are so hellbent on disagreeing with people that you disagree with what your have previously said. You are an oddball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iv never said they wouldn't consider the sponsors feelings on the matter.
Big fibber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you did. I said that unless there was some evidence the completely exonerated Mason, that he likely wouldn't play for United again due to impact on sponsors. You said that the club wouldn't care about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy enough for you to quote me, but you won't, because we both know that's a big dirty fib.
Thought I'm you were better than making up stuff. Clealry not.
hought you were better than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you said it. Even worse, you said that reputational damage only happens is it he is found guilty.
And now you are saying that the process isn't an investigation, but is only taking place to see if the various stakeholders will have him back. Why wouldn't they have him back if reputational damage is only an issue if he is found guilty?
If there isn't any investigation and no-one needs to worry about reputable damage, what exactly is the process happening for you absolute gimp? Might as well just get him back in the team eh? Nothing to worry about.
You are so full of sh!t is amazing.
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 18 seconds ago
Why WOULDNT the club be aware of what's gone on?
Yes. A process. To determine the potential fallout from him being reinstated.
I wouldnt be surprised if we don't have a decision until May when things have died down and we potentially have some positive news to allow for a '5hit sandwich' announcement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A criminal investigation isn't the same as an internal investigation in a workplace. Plenty of examples where the FA have waited until a police investigation is complete before undertaking their own investigation. Your lack of common sense astounds me sometimes, it really does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club haven't said they are investigating.
What makes you think the club wouldn't have been upto speed re what happened, why, and why it was dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to speed when? You have previously suggested that the club knew what was happening during the investigation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe they would have known a such as Greenwood and his lawyers will have known.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what is this process for then?
You have stated that there is no reputational damage to worry about unless he is found guilty. Might as well sack it off and get him back in the team ey?
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 7 minutes ago
It is funny that you are talking about how the club will be taking to sponsors, when in one of your previous posts you said that the sponsors won't be a concern to the club. You are so hellbent on disagreeing with people that you disagree with what your have previously said. You are an oddball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iv never said they wouldn't consider the sponsors feelings on the matter.
Big fibber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you did. I said that unless there was some evidence the completely exonerated Mason, that he likely wouldn't play for United again due to impact on sponsors. You said that the club wouldn't care about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy enough for you to quote me, but you won't, because we both know that's a big dirty fib.
Thought I'm you were better than making up stuff. Clealry not.
hought you were better than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you said it. Even worse, you said that reputational damage only happens is it he is found guilty.
And now you are saying that the process isn't an investigation, but is only taking place to see if the various stakeholders will have him back. Why wouldn't they have him back if reputational damage is only an issue if he is found guilty?
If there isn't any investigation and no-one needs to worry about reputable damage, what exactly is the process happening for you absolute gimp? Might as well just get him back in the team eh? Nothing to worry about.
You are so full of sh!t is amazing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One claim at a time please.
Show.me where I said the club wouldn't consider the sponsors opinions.
And no, I don't think it'd an investigation. The club didn't call it that, and they already know what happened, why, and why thr charges were dropped.
The Process is to determine the potential fallout from reinstating him.
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 7 minutes ago
It is funny that you are talking about how the club will be taking to sponsors, when in one of your previous posts you said that the sponsors won't be a concern to the club. You are so hellbent on disagreeing with people that you disagree with what your have previously said. You are an oddball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iv never said they wouldn't consider the sponsors feelings on the matter.
Big fibber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you did. I said that unless there was some evidence the completely exonerated Mason, that he likely wouldn't play for United again due to impact on sponsors. You said that the club wouldn't care about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy enough for you to quote me, but you won't, because we both know that's a big dirty fib.
Thought I'm you were better than making up stuff. Clealry not.
hought you were better than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you said it. Even worse, you said that reputational damage only happens is it he is found guilty.
And now you are saying that the process isn't an investigation, but is only taking place to see if the various stakeholders will have him back. Why wouldn't they have him back if reputational damage is only an issue if he is found guilty?
If there isn't any investigation and no-one needs to worry about reputable damage, what exactly is the process happening for you absolute gimp? Might as well just get him back in the team eh? Nothing to worry about.
You are so full of sh!t is amazing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One claim at a time please.
Show.me where I said the club wouldn't consider the sponsors opinions.
And no, I don't think it'd an investigation. The club didn't call it that, and they already know what happened, why, and why thr charges were dropped.
The Process is to determine the potential fallout from reinstating him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you agree that the club wouldn't need to determine potential fallout if they only need to consider reputational damage if he was found guilty?
Here, this stupid post of yours covers both 'claims' really:
===========================
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 1 week, 5 days ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Rdd is back (U22942)
posted 15 minutes ago
If they were to terminate now, it would be on the strength of the audio alone, which wasn’t considered grounds to terminate 14 months ago, and has seen us pay him £5-10m in wages while suspended.
The case being dropped is the absolute best outcome he could have hoped for, so if it wasn’t enough 14 months ago, I don’t believe it will be now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you going on about? This is all about reputational damage and whether they believe it is salvageable or not, not whether he is a criminal or not.
That’s not a decision they needed to or would have ever wanted to take while the court case was ongoing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The damage only comes if he is proven to be guilty.
The only people who will have issue with Greenwood playing for us again are those that think they know better than the CPS.
So, again, where do I say that the club won't consider the opinions of the club?
Cmon, you big fibber.
BTW, I can show you a post where I explicitly say the club will be consulting with key stakeholders, including sponsors. 👍🏻
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 5 minutes ago
BTW, I can show you a post where I explicitly say the club will be consulting with key stakeholders, including sponsors. 👍🏻
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure you can. Because as usual, you changed your story a few days later to be contrary.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 5 minutes ago
BTW, I can show you a post where I explicitly say the club will be consulting with key stakeholders, including sponsors. 👍🏻
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure you can. Because as usual, you changed your story a few days later to be contrary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide evidence of me saying what you claimed I said then.
OR you are fibbing again.
The Process is to determine the potential fallout from reinstating him.
—
Crickey, the club must have been following his posts on ja606!
RDD, if the club aren't carrying out an investigation, and no-one needs to worry about reputational damage (as Mason hasn't been found guilty), what exactly is this ongoing process?
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 46 seconds ago
RDD, if the club aren't carrying out an investigation, and no-one needs to worry about reputational damage (as Mason hasn't been found guilty), what exactly is this ongoing process?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club are speaking with all key stakeholders to determine what they should do with the lad.
Now. Il ask again. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that I said the club would not consider then opinions of sponsors.
Or admit you were wrong / finning.
comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 8 minutes ago
The Process is to determine the potential fallout from reinstating him.
—
Crickey, the club must have been following his posts on ja606!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 46 seconds ago
RDD, if the club aren't carrying out an investigation, and no-one needs to worry about reputational damage (as Mason hasn't been found guilty), what exactly is this ongoing process?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club are speaking with all key stakeholders to determine what they should do with the lad.
Now. Il ask again. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that I said the club would not consider then opinions of sponsors.
Or admit you were wrong / finning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a no from me.
Why would they need to speak to stakeholders to determine what to do with the lad if there is no reputational damage?
Unsurprisingly there have been reports that some of the UTD women's team have expressed concerns about Greenwood remaining at the club.
Th
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 2 minutes ago
Why would they need to speak to stakeholders to determine what to do with the lad if there is no reputational damage?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be happy to answer your questions, but it shouldn't be one sided. Iv asked for evidence of what you claim i said, and tou uave refused because we both know I didn't say it.
Now you're either fibbing, or incapable of such a discussion.
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 4 minutes ago
Unsurprisingly there have been reports that some of the UTD women's team have expressed concerns about Greenwood remaining at the club.
Th
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. I'm not surprised that 'story' is out there. Its too good a story for the tabloids to let die.
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 7 minutes ago
Unsurprisingly there have been reports that some of the UTD women's team have expressed concerns about Greenwood remaining at the club.
Th
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently half of the men's team too.
Sign in if you want to comment
CF
Page 5 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 15/2/23
Fenerbache rumoured to be looking at signing him. Sounds about right.
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 18 seconds ago
Why WOULDNT the club be aware of what's gone on?
Yes. A process. To determine the potential fallout from him being reinstated.
I wouldnt be surprised if we don't have a decision until May when things have died down and we potentially have some positive news to allow for a '5hit sandwich' announcement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A criminal investigation isn't the same as an internal investigation in a workplace. Plenty of examples where the FA have waited until a police investigation is complete before undertaking their own investigation. Your lack of common sense astounds me sometimes, it really does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club haven't said they are investigating.
What makes you think the club wouldn't have been upto speed re what happened, why, and why it was dropped?
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 7 minutes ago
It is funny that you are talking about how the club will be taking to sponsors, when in one of your previous posts you said that the sponsors won't be a concern to the club. You are so hellbent on disagreeing with people that you disagree with what your have previously said. You are an oddball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iv never said they wouldn't consider the sponsors feelings on the matter.
Big fibber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you did. I said that unless there was some evidence the completely exonerated Mason, that he likely wouldn't play for United again due to impact on sponsors. You said that the club wouldn't care about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy enough for you to quote me, but you won't, because we both know that's a big dirty fib.
Thought I'm you were better than making up stuff. Clealry not.
hought you were better than that.
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
Fenerbache rumoured to be looking at signing him. Sounds about right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Dailt Star exclusive? 🤣
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 18 seconds ago
Why WOULDNT the club be aware of what's gone on?
Yes. A process. To determine the potential fallout from him being reinstated.
I wouldnt be surprised if we don't have a decision until May when things have died down and we potentially have some positive news to allow for a '5hit sandwich' announcement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A criminal investigation isn't the same as an internal investigation in a workplace. Plenty of examples where the FA have waited until a police investigation is complete before undertaking their own investigation. Your lack of common sense astounds me sometimes, it really does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club haven't said they are investigating.
What makes you think the club wouldn't have been upto speed re what happened, why, and why it was dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to speed when? You have previously suggested that the club knew what was happening during the investigation.
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 18 seconds ago
Why WOULDNT the club be aware of what's gone on?
Yes. A process. To determine the potential fallout from him being reinstated.
I wouldnt be surprised if we don't have a decision until May when things have died down and we potentially have some positive news to allow for a '5hit sandwich' announcement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A criminal investigation isn't the same as an internal investigation in a workplace. Plenty of examples where the FA have waited until a police investigation is complete before undertaking their own investigation. Your lack of common sense astounds me sometimes, it really does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club haven't said they are investigating.
What makes you think the club wouldn't have been upto speed re what happened, why, and why it was dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to speed when? You have previously suggested that the club knew what was happening during the investigation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe they would have known a such as Greenwood and his lawyers will have known.
posted on 15/2/23
As much
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 7 minutes ago
It is funny that you are talking about how the club will be taking to sponsors, when in one of your previous posts you said that the sponsors won't be a concern to the club. You are so hellbent on disagreeing with people that you disagree with what your have previously said. You are an oddball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iv never said they wouldn't consider the sponsors feelings on the matter.
Big fibber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you did. I said that unless there was some evidence the completely exonerated Mason, that he likely wouldn't play for United again due to impact on sponsors. You said that the club wouldn't care about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy enough for you to quote me, but you won't, because we both know that's a big dirty fib.
Thought I'm you were better than making up stuff. Clealry not.
hought you were better than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you said it. Even worse, you said that reputational damage only happens is it he is found guilty.
And now you are saying that the process isn't an investigation, but is only taking place to see if the various stakeholders will have him back. Why wouldn't they have him back if reputational damage is only an issue if he is found guilty?
If there isn't any investigation and no-one needs to worry about reputable damage, what exactly is the process happening for you absolute gimp? Might as well just get him back in the team eh? Nothing to worry about.
You are so full of sh!t is amazing.
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 18 seconds ago
Why WOULDNT the club be aware of what's gone on?
Yes. A process. To determine the potential fallout from him being reinstated.
I wouldnt be surprised if we don't have a decision until May when things have died down and we potentially have some positive news to allow for a '5hit sandwich' announcement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A criminal investigation isn't the same as an internal investigation in a workplace. Plenty of examples where the FA have waited until a police investigation is complete before undertaking their own investigation. Your lack of common sense astounds me sometimes, it really does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club haven't said they are investigating.
What makes you think the club wouldn't have been upto speed re what happened, why, and why it was dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to speed when? You have previously suggested that the club knew what was happening during the investigation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe they would have known a such as Greenwood and his lawyers will have known.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what is this process for then?
You have stated that there is no reputational damage to worry about unless he is found guilty. Might as well sack it off and get him back in the team ey?
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 7 minutes ago
It is funny that you are talking about how the club will be taking to sponsors, when in one of your previous posts you said that the sponsors won't be a concern to the club. You are so hellbent on disagreeing with people that you disagree with what your have previously said. You are an oddball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iv never said they wouldn't consider the sponsors feelings on the matter.
Big fibber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you did. I said that unless there was some evidence the completely exonerated Mason, that he likely wouldn't play for United again due to impact on sponsors. You said that the club wouldn't care about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy enough for you to quote me, but you won't, because we both know that's a big dirty fib.
Thought I'm you were better than making up stuff. Clealry not.
hought you were better than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you said it. Even worse, you said that reputational damage only happens is it he is found guilty.
And now you are saying that the process isn't an investigation, but is only taking place to see if the various stakeholders will have him back. Why wouldn't they have him back if reputational damage is only an issue if he is found guilty?
If there isn't any investigation and no-one needs to worry about reputable damage, what exactly is the process happening for you absolute gimp? Might as well just get him back in the team eh? Nothing to worry about.
You are so full of sh!t is amazing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One claim at a time please.
Show.me where I said the club wouldn't consider the sponsors opinions.
And no, I don't think it'd an investigation. The club didn't call it that, and they already know what happened, why, and why thr charges were dropped.
The Process is to determine the potential fallout from reinstating him.
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 7 minutes ago
It is funny that you are talking about how the club will be taking to sponsors, when in one of your previous posts you said that the sponsors won't be a concern to the club. You are so hellbent on disagreeing with people that you disagree with what your have previously said. You are an oddball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iv never said they wouldn't consider the sponsors feelings on the matter.
Big fibber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you did. I said that unless there was some evidence the completely exonerated Mason, that he likely wouldn't play for United again due to impact on sponsors. You said that the club wouldn't care about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy enough for you to quote me, but you won't, because we both know that's a big dirty fib.
Thought I'm you were better than making up stuff. Clealry not.
hought you were better than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you said it. Even worse, you said that reputational damage only happens is it he is found guilty.
And now you are saying that the process isn't an investigation, but is only taking place to see if the various stakeholders will have him back. Why wouldn't they have him back if reputational damage is only an issue if he is found guilty?
If there isn't any investigation and no-one needs to worry about reputable damage, what exactly is the process happening for you absolute gimp? Might as well just get him back in the team eh? Nothing to worry about.
You are so full of sh!t is amazing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One claim at a time please.
Show.me where I said the club wouldn't consider the sponsors opinions.
And no, I don't think it'd an investigation. The club didn't call it that, and they already know what happened, why, and why thr charges were dropped.
The Process is to determine the potential fallout from reinstating him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you agree that the club wouldn't need to determine potential fallout if they only need to consider reputational damage if he was found guilty?
Here, this stupid post of yours covers both 'claims' really:
===========================
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 1 week, 5 days ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Rdd is back (U22942)
posted 15 minutes ago
If they were to terminate now, it would be on the strength of the audio alone, which wasn’t considered grounds to terminate 14 months ago, and has seen us pay him £5-10m in wages while suspended.
The case being dropped is the absolute best outcome he could have hoped for, so if it wasn’t enough 14 months ago, I don’t believe it will be now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you going on about? This is all about reputational damage and whether they believe it is salvageable or not, not whether he is a criminal or not.
That’s not a decision they needed to or would have ever wanted to take while the court case was ongoing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The damage only comes if he is proven to be guilty.
The only people who will have issue with Greenwood playing for us again are those that think they know better than the CPS.
posted on 15/2/23
So, again, where do I say that the club won't consider the opinions of the club?
Cmon, you big fibber.
BTW, I can show you a post where I explicitly say the club will be consulting with key stakeholders, including sponsors. 👍🏻
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 5 minutes ago
BTW, I can show you a post where I explicitly say the club will be consulting with key stakeholders, including sponsors. 👍🏻
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure you can. Because as usual, you changed your story a few days later to be contrary.
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 5 minutes ago
BTW, I can show you a post where I explicitly say the club will be consulting with key stakeholders, including sponsors. 👍🏻
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure you can. Because as usual, you changed your story a few days later to be contrary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide evidence of me saying what you claimed I said then.
OR you are fibbing again.
posted on 15/2/23
The Process is to determine the potential fallout from reinstating him.
—
Crickey, the club must have been following his posts on ja606!
posted on 15/2/23
RDD, if the club aren't carrying out an investigation, and no-one needs to worry about reputational damage (as Mason hasn't been found guilty), what exactly is this ongoing process?
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 46 seconds ago
RDD, if the club aren't carrying out an investigation, and no-one needs to worry about reputational damage (as Mason hasn't been found guilty), what exactly is this ongoing process?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club are speaking with all key stakeholders to determine what they should do with the lad.
Now. Il ask again. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that I said the club would not consider then opinions of sponsors.
Or admit you were wrong / finning.
posted on 15/2/23
Fibbing
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 8 minutes ago
The Process is to determine the potential fallout from reinstating him.
—
Crickey, the club must have been following his posts on ja606!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Rdd II (U22942)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 46 seconds ago
RDD, if the club aren't carrying out an investigation, and no-one needs to worry about reputational damage (as Mason hasn't been found guilty), what exactly is this ongoing process?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club are speaking with all key stakeholders to determine what they should do with the lad.
Now. Il ask again. Can you please provide evidence to support your claim that I said the club would not consider then opinions of sponsors.
Or admit you were wrong / finning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a no from me.
posted on 15/2/23
Why would they need to speak to stakeholders to determine what to do with the lad if there is no reputational damage?
posted on 15/2/23
Unsurprisingly there have been reports that some of the UTD women's team have expressed concerns about Greenwood remaining at the club.
Th
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 2 minutes ago
Why would they need to speak to stakeholders to determine what to do with the lad if there is no reputational damage?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be happy to answer your questions, but it shouldn't be one sided. Iv asked for evidence of what you claim i said, and tou uave refused because we both know I didn't say it.
Now you're either fibbing, or incapable of such a discussion.
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 4 minutes ago
Unsurprisingly there have been reports that some of the UTD women's team have expressed concerns about Greenwood remaining at the club.
Th
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. I'm not surprised that 'story' is out there. Its too good a story for the tabloids to let die.
posted on 15/2/23
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 7 minutes ago
Unsurprisingly there have been reports that some of the UTD women's team have expressed concerns about Greenwood remaining at the club.
Th
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently half of the men's team too.
Page 5 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9