It’s a very tricky situation to handle, especially for a huge company and club like ours.
I actually think they’ve handled it quite well. Not jumped the gun either way and I trust that they will have far more facts about the incident than we do so I trust that they can make an informed decision as to what is best for both club & player.
They have made it worse than it needed to be. Could have been on and then back off the front and the back of the papers already had they already said he was staying.
Clearly that's the intention too otherwise they wouldn't be so scared to say he was leaving.
I actually think Man Utd themselves have handles this situation very very well.
They have kept quiet and appear to investigated themselves for piece of mind. Its been kept reasonably quiet outwith the initial blow up.
I dont know what more the club could have done tbh?
If they do keep him on there is precedent of sorts here - https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/soccer/soccer-news/liverpools-reason-didnt-sack-jon-11877449
It’s a lose lose situation for us. If we keep him we look like absolute pariahs and also get a player who hasn’t kicked a ball in two years so might be about as good as Bebe.
We’re best off to just let him out of his contract and let Garnacho blossom.
Too much půssyfooting around, just terminate his contract and move on.
In addition to the other factors and motivations delaying decision, there will be very detailed legal scrutiny, if the club is minded to terminate the contract. In principle, as has been much discussed, there should be plenty of scope to sack Greenwood, but such decisions can be challenged based on the precise wording of the contract and interpretation of events and evidence. The club will definitely to avoid such wrangling even if confident they have a watertight case.
I can’t believe this hasn’t been nipped in the bud months ago, everyone has seen the video and the recording why the fack is this parasite still a United player
comment by Jonathan Moore (U11781)
posted 14 seconds ago
I can’t believe this hasn’t been nipped in the bud months ago, everyone has seen the video and the recording why the fack is this parasite still a United player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im pretty sure it will be for legal reasons.
comment by Robb Matilda (U22716)
posted 5 minutes ago
It’s a lose lose situation for us. If we keep him we look like absolute pariahs and also get a player who hasn’t kicked a ball in two years so might be about as good as Bebe.
We’re best off to just let him out of his contract and let Garnacho blossom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Garnacho had his chance v Wolves and blew it. Sell the Latin Luke Chadwick before the window closes.
To me it seems that consulting the women's team was a bit of an after thought. The last thing that's been done rather than one of the first.
As for getting rid, i am sure that in the circumstances if the intention wsa not to play him, then they would probably look to mutually agree to end his contract with severance pay. He could then start again somewhere else...may be Saudi, they like to oppress their women He could hide there for a couple years and may be come back to these shores with all this long behind him
So they’ve finally decided they can make a decision. Good to know.
I'd imagine the open letter released by the women's fans group put the club on edge after briefing the media only a week earlier that they would be releasing their verdict (which I assume had been choosen) before the Wolves game.
The whole thing's been a mess and it seems the club are trying to look like they've been thorough with their investigation. They've probably realised that their final decision (which will be to keep Greenwood) is going to go down far worse than they first imagined.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
In addition to the other factors and motivations delaying decision, there will be very detailed legal scrutiny, if the club is minded to terminate the contract. In principle, as has been much discussed, there should be plenty of scope to sack Greenwood, but such decisions can be challenged based on the precise wording of the contract and interpretation of events and evidence. The club will definitely to avoid such wrangling even if confident they have a watertight case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly this. It’s a complicated situation.
I think he will be given a warning as to future conduct and will be a United player again but perhaps sold later when it is not directly related to this matter (or at least defensibly so).
RR is right.
The legal wordings and potential interpretations of the Contract will determine what the club decide to do.
I dont believe there are many supporters who actually think that hanging on to Greenwood is a good idea (its a no brainer for me to just let him go)... if we want to seriously move on. Which as a club, we really have to do at this stage of the ETH project.
I think the club might also be hoping that the backlash to keeping hold of Greenwood (if that is what they decide to) will be so awful for for him personally, that he decides he's had enough and want out.
But I cant see that happening either.
It depends on who is advising him and how well they are doing that.
Surely, everyone can see that in this day and age, the best thing for him to do would be to move on to somewhere more low profile. This doesnt need to be done by going down hard legal route, but can be agreed mutually. He gets some severance and gets to start over, United can move on having acted honourably (in the end)
If United want to keep this asset then they will receive a massive backlash.
If Greenwood doesnt want to go quietly and wants everything he's "entitled to" then it will get messy.
Mutually agreed termination (of his contract, not him LOL) is the only way forward.
I hope Greenwood stays and plays for Man Utd. The best striker we had in last 10 years.
How exactly did he do anything wrong anyway? The law clearly states that the voice recording didn't exist
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 35 minutes ago
RR is right.
The legal wordings and potential interpretations of the Contract will determine what the club decide to do.
I dont believe there are many supporters who actually think that hanging on to Greenwood is a good idea (its a no brainer for me to just let him go)... if we want to seriously move on. Which as a club, we really have to do at this stage of the ETH project.
I think the club might also be hoping that the backlash to keeping hold of Greenwood (if that is what they decide to) will be so awful for for him personally, that he decides he's had enough and want out.
But I cant see that happening either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say the legal angle will 'determine' United's decision. Legal advice will set the parameters of the possible decision. The decision itself will be based on assessments of commercial and reputational (i.e. long term commercial) impacts. And the decision itself will be communicated in the language of ethics!
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 35 minutes ago
RR is right.
The legal wordings and potential interpretations of the Contract will determine what the club decide to do.
I dont believe there are many supporters who actually think that hanging on to Greenwood is a good idea (its a no brainer for me to just let him go)... if we want to seriously move on. Which as a club, we really have to do at this stage of the ETH project.
I think the club might also be hoping that the backlash to keeping hold of Greenwood (if that is what they decide to) will be so awful for for him personally, that he decides he's had enough and want out.
But I cant see that happening either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say the legal angle will 'determine' United's decision. Legal advice will set the parameters of the possible decision. The decision itself will be based on assessments of commercial and reputational (i.e. long term commercial) impacts. And the decision itself will be communicated in the language of ethics!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very sadly, I think this will be the case.
comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 5 minutes ago
No rdd yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wonder if Elvis has him filtered.
If we were to sack Greenwood what FFP implications would that have? Does anyone know? Rosso?
If there are any implications could that explain why we've not done anything yet?
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 35 minutes ago
RR is right.
The legal wordings and potential interpretations of the Contract will determine what the club decide to do.
I dont believe there are many supporters who actually think that hanging on to Greenwood is a good idea (its a no brainer for me to just let him go)... if we want to seriously move on. Which as a club, we really have to do at this stage of the ETH project.
I think the club might also be hoping that the backlash to keeping hold of Greenwood (if that is what they decide to) will be so awful for for him personally, that he decides he's had enough and want out.
But I cant see that happening either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say the legal angle will 'determine' United's decision. Legal advice will set the parameters of the possible decision. The decision itself will be based on assessments of commercial and reputational (i.e. long term commercial) impacts. And the decision itself will be communicated in the language of ethics!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of ethics, there is one aspect of this sorry story that does bother me and concern me if we were going to release Greenwood in some capacity (sell, termination etc)...
On the assumption that MG would (& should) only be retained/reintegrated into the squad on the condition that he is being monitored and helped by the club via counselling & other behaviour-changing work, I do wonder what the impact of releasing him would have on that.
With the club overseeing specialist personal development work, it seems to be that MG's propensity for engaging in the behaviour he exhibited in that audio should, theoretically, be reduced to the point of eliminated over time (at least that would be the goal). It strikes me that his partner or future partners may be safest if he's a United player. I'd be amazed if he reoffended as a United player, unless of course he's a bigger idiot than he's shown himself to be.
If he's released, then there's a question of who is overseeing his rehabilitation? We know that domestic abusers usually repeat offend, so there has to be some concern around that and how a lack of oversight and accountability enable a continuation of that behaviour. I can't look past that as a serious ethical concern.
United did their best - correctly so in my view - to help Ravel Morrison overcome his personal demons and destructive behaviour (which included behaviour not massively dissimilar to MG's). Obviously Ravel was a less high profile player at the time compared to MG's first team-status, so the former was easier in that whatever work the club was attempting to implement, it was done without much fanfare or public/media scrutiny.
Releasing Greenwood back into the wild and ridding our hands of him has a 'feel-good' factor about it, and I sympathise with that view because the audio is vile and he's clearly a troubled individual. It would appease some of the loudest voices who are understandably baying for blood. But it would be irresponsible to not consider what the implications of doing so would be for him as a person and his partner. My heart says bin him, my head says there's maybe an alternative option for the club do something more meaningful.
I imagine they are still waiting for the women's team to go along and watch him train to see how many goals he scores before making their decision?
Sign in if you want to comment
Club will make final Greenwood decision
Page 1 of 6
6
posted on 16/8/23
It’s a very tricky situation to handle, especially for a huge company and club like ours.
I actually think they’ve handled it quite well. Not jumped the gun either way and I trust that they will have far more facts about the incident than we do so I trust that they can make an informed decision as to what is best for both club & player.
posted on 16/8/23
They have made it worse than it needed to be. Could have been on and then back off the front and the back of the papers already had they already said he was staying.
Clearly that's the intention too otherwise they wouldn't be so scared to say he was leaving.
posted on 16/8/23
I actually think Man Utd themselves have handles this situation very very well.
They have kept quiet and appear to investigated themselves for piece of mind. Its been kept reasonably quiet outwith the initial blow up.
I dont know what more the club could have done tbh?
posted on 16/8/23
If they do keep him on there is precedent of sorts here - https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/soccer/soccer-news/liverpools-reason-didnt-sack-jon-11877449
posted on 16/8/23
It’s a lose lose situation for us. If we keep him we look like absolute pariahs and also get a player who hasn’t kicked a ball in two years so might be about as good as Bebe.
We’re best off to just let him out of his contract and let Garnacho blossom.
posted on 16/8/23
Too much půssyfooting around, just terminate his contract and move on.
posted on 16/8/23
In addition to the other factors and motivations delaying decision, there will be very detailed legal scrutiny, if the club is minded to terminate the contract. In principle, as has been much discussed, there should be plenty of scope to sack Greenwood, but such decisions can be challenged based on the precise wording of the contract and interpretation of events and evidence. The club will definitely to avoid such wrangling even if confident they have a watertight case.
posted on 16/8/23
I can’t believe this hasn’t been nipped in the bud months ago, everyone has seen the video and the recording why the fack is this parasite still a United player
posted on 16/8/23
comment by Jonathan Moore (U11781)
posted 14 seconds ago
I can’t believe this hasn’t been nipped in the bud months ago, everyone has seen the video and the recording why the fack is this parasite still a United player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im pretty sure it will be for legal reasons.
posted on 16/8/23
comment by Robb Matilda (U22716)
posted 5 minutes ago
It’s a lose lose situation for us. If we keep him we look like absolute pariahs and also get a player who hasn’t kicked a ball in two years so might be about as good as Bebe.
We’re best off to just let him out of his contract and let Garnacho blossom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Garnacho had his chance v Wolves and blew it. Sell the Latin Luke Chadwick before the window closes.
posted on 16/8/23
To me it seems that consulting the women's team was a bit of an after thought. The last thing that's been done rather than one of the first.
As for getting rid, i am sure that in the circumstances if the intention wsa not to play him, then they would probably look to mutually agree to end his contract with severance pay. He could then start again somewhere else...may be Saudi, they like to oppress their women He could hide there for a couple years and may be come back to these shores with all this long behind him
posted on 16/8/23
So they’ve finally decided they can make a decision. Good to know.
posted on 16/8/23
I'd imagine the open letter released by the women's fans group put the club on edge after briefing the media only a week earlier that they would be releasing their verdict (which I assume had been choosen) before the Wolves game.
The whole thing's been a mess and it seems the club are trying to look like they've been thorough with their investigation. They've probably realised that their final decision (which will be to keep Greenwood) is going to go down far worse than they first imagined.
posted on 16/8/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
In addition to the other factors and motivations delaying decision, there will be very detailed legal scrutiny, if the club is minded to terminate the contract. In principle, as has been much discussed, there should be plenty of scope to sack Greenwood, but such decisions can be challenged based on the precise wording of the contract and interpretation of events and evidence. The club will definitely to avoid such wrangling even if confident they have a watertight case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly this. It’s a complicated situation.
I think he will be given a warning as to future conduct and will be a United player again but perhaps sold later when it is not directly related to this matter (or at least defensibly so).
posted on 16/8/23
RR is right.
The legal wordings and potential interpretations of the Contract will determine what the club decide to do.
I dont believe there are many supporters who actually think that hanging on to Greenwood is a good idea (its a no brainer for me to just let him go)... if we want to seriously move on. Which as a club, we really have to do at this stage of the ETH project.
I think the club might also be hoping that the backlash to keeping hold of Greenwood (if that is what they decide to) will be so awful for for him personally, that he decides he's had enough and want out.
But I cant see that happening either.
posted on 16/8/23
It depends on who is advising him and how well they are doing that.
Surely, everyone can see that in this day and age, the best thing for him to do would be to move on to somewhere more low profile. This doesnt need to be done by going down hard legal route, but can be agreed mutually. He gets some severance and gets to start over, United can move on having acted honourably (in the end)
If United want to keep this asset then they will receive a massive backlash.
If Greenwood doesnt want to go quietly and wants everything he's "entitled to" then it will get messy.
Mutually agreed termination (of his contract, not him LOL) is the only way forward.
posted on 16/8/23
I hope Greenwood stays and plays for Man Utd. The best striker we had in last 10 years.
posted on 16/8/23
How exactly did he do anything wrong anyway? The law clearly states that the voice recording didn't exist
posted on 16/8/23
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 35 minutes ago
RR is right.
The legal wordings and potential interpretations of the Contract will determine what the club decide to do.
I dont believe there are many supporters who actually think that hanging on to Greenwood is a good idea (its a no brainer for me to just let him go)... if we want to seriously move on. Which as a club, we really have to do at this stage of the ETH project.
I think the club might also be hoping that the backlash to keeping hold of Greenwood (if that is what they decide to) will be so awful for for him personally, that he decides he's had enough and want out.
But I cant see that happening either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say the legal angle will 'determine' United's decision. Legal advice will set the parameters of the possible decision. The decision itself will be based on assessments of commercial and reputational (i.e. long term commercial) impacts. And the decision itself will be communicated in the language of ethics!
posted on 16/8/23
No rdd yet?
posted on 16/8/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 35 minutes ago
RR is right.
The legal wordings and potential interpretations of the Contract will determine what the club decide to do.
I dont believe there are many supporters who actually think that hanging on to Greenwood is a good idea (its a no brainer for me to just let him go)... if we want to seriously move on. Which as a club, we really have to do at this stage of the ETH project.
I think the club might also be hoping that the backlash to keeping hold of Greenwood (if that is what they decide to) will be so awful for for him personally, that he decides he's had enough and want out.
But I cant see that happening either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say the legal angle will 'determine' United's decision. Legal advice will set the parameters of the possible decision. The decision itself will be based on assessments of commercial and reputational (i.e. long term commercial) impacts. And the decision itself will be communicated in the language of ethics!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very sadly, I think this will be the case.
posted on 16/8/23
comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 5 minutes ago
No rdd yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wonder if Elvis has him filtered.
posted on 16/8/23
If we were to sack Greenwood what FFP implications would that have? Does anyone know? Rosso?
If there are any implications could that explain why we've not done anything yet?
posted on 16/8/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 35 minutes ago
RR is right.
The legal wordings and potential interpretations of the Contract will determine what the club decide to do.
I dont believe there are many supporters who actually think that hanging on to Greenwood is a good idea (its a no brainer for me to just let him go)... if we want to seriously move on. Which as a club, we really have to do at this stage of the ETH project.
I think the club might also be hoping that the backlash to keeping hold of Greenwood (if that is what they decide to) will be so awful for for him personally, that he decides he's had enough and want out.
But I cant see that happening either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say the legal angle will 'determine' United's decision. Legal advice will set the parameters of the possible decision. The decision itself will be based on assessments of commercial and reputational (i.e. long term commercial) impacts. And the decision itself will be communicated in the language of ethics!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of ethics, there is one aspect of this sorry story that does bother me and concern me if we were going to release Greenwood in some capacity (sell, termination etc)...
On the assumption that MG would (& should) only be retained/reintegrated into the squad on the condition that he is being monitored and helped by the club via counselling & other behaviour-changing work, I do wonder what the impact of releasing him would have on that.
With the club overseeing specialist personal development work, it seems to be that MG's propensity for engaging in the behaviour he exhibited in that audio should, theoretically, be reduced to the point of eliminated over time (at least that would be the goal). It strikes me that his partner or future partners may be safest if he's a United player. I'd be amazed if he reoffended as a United player, unless of course he's a bigger idiot than he's shown himself to be.
If he's released, then there's a question of who is overseeing his rehabilitation? We know that domestic abusers usually repeat offend, so there has to be some concern around that and how a lack of oversight and accountability enable a continuation of that behaviour. I can't look past that as a serious ethical concern.
United did their best - correctly so in my view - to help Ravel Morrison overcome his personal demons and destructive behaviour (which included behaviour not massively dissimilar to MG's). Obviously Ravel was a less high profile player at the time compared to MG's first team-status, so the former was easier in that whatever work the club was attempting to implement, it was done without much fanfare or public/media scrutiny.
Releasing Greenwood back into the wild and ridding our hands of him has a 'feel-good' factor about it, and I sympathise with that view because the audio is vile and he's clearly a troubled individual. It would appease some of the loudest voices who are understandably baying for blood. But it would be irresponsible to not consider what the implications of doing so would be for him as a person and his partner. My heart says bin him, my head says there's maybe an alternative option for the club do something more meaningful.
posted on 16/8/23
I imagine they are still waiting for the women's team to go along and watch him train to see how many goals he scores before making their decision?
Page 1 of 6
6