comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
Twitter: some United journalists
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 47 minutes ago
Rumours mounting of club U-turn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly the people running the show are pathetic. More and more the off-the-record briefings about an impending announcement look like an exercise in testing the waters (clumsily throwing the women's team under the bus in the process).
They were clearly planning to bring him back, so must have been preparing or have some reasons (hopefully good ones, given they've been mulling over this for six months) and will have understood there was/is an expectation that those reasons would be clearly stated.
For them to backtrack either means that they haven't got the courage of their convictions to stand by whatever led them to opt for reinstatement, or that they literally didn't have any remotely justifiable reasons to bring him back and were never intending to give any in the first place (which was my reading between the lines when they mentioned the "anonymity of the alleged victim" in their statement).
I'm sure people will criticse the club for an apparent u-turn however I think that's still preferable to going ahead with getting Greenwood back. Still a terrible state of affairs though of course.
What a mess!
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 7 minutes ago
I'm sure people will criticse the club for an apparent u-turn however I think that's still preferable to going ahead with getting Greenwood back. Still a terrible state of affairs though of course.
What a mess!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the club had concluded that they had strong enough reasons to reinstate him, then they should be sticking to their decision and showing those workings out. If the fanbase and wider community feel those reasons are simply not good enough, then the backlash would continue, but with the benefit of some extra knowledge than what is currently in the public domain. Personally I'd just prefer to know what they uncovered in the last 6 months. I'm giving the club the benefit of the doubt in assuming that there was enough mitigating evidence to go down the reinstatement route.
But if the club didn't really have any reasons other than "he's a good player who scores goals and we need one", and they were still going to try and bring him back, they're a disgrace.
Personally I'd just prefer to know what they uncovered in the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------
I think they spent the last six months planning the best way to bring him back.
Sign in if you want to comment
More details on Greenwood return
Page 6 of 6
6
posted on 19/8/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
Twitter: some United journalists
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting
posted on 19/8/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 47 minutes ago
Rumours mounting of club U-turn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly the people running the show are pathetic. More and more the off-the-record briefings about an impending announcement look like an exercise in testing the waters (clumsily throwing the women's team under the bus in the process).
They were clearly planning to bring him back, so must have been preparing or have some reasons (hopefully good ones, given they've been mulling over this for six months) and will have understood there was/is an expectation that those reasons would be clearly stated.
For them to backtrack either means that they haven't got the courage of their convictions to stand by whatever led them to opt for reinstatement, or that they literally didn't have any remotely justifiable reasons to bring him back and were never intending to give any in the first place (which was my reading between the lines when they mentioned the "anonymity of the alleged victim" in their statement).
posted on 19/8/23
I'm sure people will criticse the club for an apparent u-turn however I think that's still preferable to going ahead with getting Greenwood back. Still a terrible state of affairs though of course.
What a mess!
posted on 19/8/23
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 7 minutes ago
I'm sure people will criticse the club for an apparent u-turn however I think that's still preferable to going ahead with getting Greenwood back. Still a terrible state of affairs though of course.
What a mess!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the club had concluded that they had strong enough reasons to reinstate him, then they should be sticking to their decision and showing those workings out. If the fanbase and wider community feel those reasons are simply not good enough, then the backlash would continue, but with the benefit of some extra knowledge than what is currently in the public domain. Personally I'd just prefer to know what they uncovered in the last 6 months. I'm giving the club the benefit of the doubt in assuming that there was enough mitigating evidence to go down the reinstatement route.
But if the club didn't really have any reasons other than "he's a good player who scores goals and we need one", and they were still going to try and bring him back, they're a disgrace.
posted on 19/8/23
Personally I'd just prefer to know what they uncovered in the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------
I think they spent the last six months planning the best way to bring him back.
Page 6 of 6
6