comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 3 seconds ago
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistakes most probably relate to breaking his bail conditions,.which we KNOW he did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
guess as much as you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's no a guess. We KNOW he broke his bail. And is therefore.logical the club are referring to this as his mistake
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depends on what they are defending?
seems you have an agenda and are looking for some sorta of ammo?
I agree that the club have more info than we do to make a decision.
I think any opinion on whether it was based on money or morals is pure guesswork.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So their defence of greenwood as not committing the original offences of attempted rape, assault, and controlling behaviour may have been for financial reasons and not legal ones. Is that correct?
You're ignoring when I ask why posters on here should be labelled Rapists for defending him when you think it's an unfair label for United who defended him.
That seems to be an agenda to me.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Scott Tiffoney (U1734)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 2 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without any context or explanation, I feel he shouldn't have spoken to her as he did
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And so do the club, who have more info than you that was enough for them to come to their conclusion.
You have come to yours based on less into.
Id say the club are in a better place to asses this than you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club have stated that they do not believe that he did any of the things accused of, based on the additional evidence that they have received.
This includes a longer version of the video that provides further context.
They are the ones with further evidence.
The reasons for the club and him parting ways is not because they believe he did the things he is being accused of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but that there is things on there that they cannot and will not tolerate or things that they have info on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says who?
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but that there is things on there that they cannot and will not tolerate or things that they have info on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says who?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
says me , thats how I interpret it.
"That said, as Mason publicly acknowledges today, he has made mistakes which he is taking responsibility for."
you might not, thats fine.
comment by lessons101 (U23062)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depends on what they are defending?
seems you have an agenda and are looking for some sorta of ammo?
I agree that the club have more info than we do to make a decision.
I think any opinion on whether it was based on money or morals is pure guesswork.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So their defence of greenwood as not committing the original offences of attempted rape, assault, and controlling behaviour may have been for financial reasons and not legal ones. Is that correct?
You're ignoring when I ask why posters on here should be labelled Rapists for defending him when you think it's an unfair label for United who defended him.
That seems to be an agenda to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
they said he didnt commit the charges he was put forward for.
for me morally the recording is enough.
For Man Utd it seems that either that recording was also enough for them to get rid or they also know additional info.
is it possible that he is completely innocent? .. of course it is, is it possible they actually know more and could be worse... yes also entirely possible?
I know what I heard and if the club was mine I wouldnt have him at my club based on the recording.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but that there is things on there that they cannot and will not tolerate or things that they have info on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says who?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
says me , thats how I interpret it.
"That said, as Mason publicly acknowledges today, he has made mistakes which he is taking responsibility for."
you might not, thats fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistakes aren't grounds to give up on a player.
They are most likely referring to him breaking of his bail.
If he's completely innocent why on Earth is he with her?
He nearly went to jail and his career is in tatters.
The statement is clearly a PR exercise in which no-one takes any responsibility whatsoever and subtly leaves out any mention of sponsors.
Imo you've got to be a moron to lap it up at face value.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
they said he didnt commit the charges he was put forward for.
for me morally the recording is enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For me it was enough too and I wouldn't have him at my club, but that's not what we're talking about
For Manchester United they haven't stated that they're getting rid of him for that reason. They've come out and defended him for whatever reason.
I'm going to leave it here because I've asked you a simple question as to whether it's fair to label a poster on here a Rapist for defending greenwood when United have said they are confident he didn't commit the offences and you've continued to avoid it.
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 3 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistakes aren't grounds to give up on a player.
They are most likely referring to him breaking of his bail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
impossible statement to make give you dont know the mistakes in reference.
your guessing ..... AGAIN
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
If he's completely innocent why on Earth is he with her?
He nearly went to jail and his career is in tatters.
The statement is clearly a PR exercise in which no-one takes any responsibility whatsoever and subtly leaves out any mention of sponsors.
Imo you've got to be a moron to lap it up at face value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah right so defending a rapist/abuser is just a PR exercise.
Great stuff from Manchester United
comment by lessons101 (U23062)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
If he's completely innocent why on Earth is he with her?
He nearly went to jail and his career is in tatters.
The statement is clearly a PR exercise in which no-one takes any responsibility whatsoever and subtly leaves out any mention of sponsors.
Imo you've got to be a moron to lap it up at face value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah right so defending a rapist/abuser is just a PR exercise.
Great stuff from Manchester United
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With the amount of money involved it's hardly leftfield. Sponsors had already dropped him.
It's just a way to fvck him off without committing to saying he did much wrong, and seeing as Greenwood himself has said he was fully involved in the decision I suspect that was part of the deal.
Whondunnit
It's not just the club though.
The victim dropped it.
The CPS didnt think the evidence would result in a guilty verdict .
The club concluded he didn't do what he was accused of.
The family agreed with this conclusion.
In balance, he disnt do what he was accused of.
The club are letting him go because they are a hugely commercial business and the negative public opinion (based on some of the facts) cannot be ignored.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 3 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistakes aren't grounds to give up on a player.
They are most likely referring to him breaking of his bail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
impossible statement to make give you dont know the mistakes in reference.
your guessing ..... AGAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He broke his bail. That's a more logical conclusion than, we heard the rest of the tape, and it's terrible, so we are letting him go.
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With the amount of money involved it's hardly leftfield. Sponsors had already dropped him.
It's just a way to fvck him off without committing to saying he did much wrong, and seeing as Greenwood himself has said he was fully involved in the decision I suspect that was part of the deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically Manchester United are a club that will claim somebody didn't rape/abuse someone when they did for financial gain.
Which was my point really, not seen a single United fan getting angry on that, and it's quite shocking to see that nobody appears to give a toss that he wasn't just out the door with no attempts to defend him,
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 7 minutes ago
If he's completely innocent why on Earth is he with her?
He nearly went to jail and his career is in tatters.
The statement is clearly a PR exercise in which no-one takes any responsibility whatsoever and subtly leaves out any mention of sponsors.
Imo you've got to be a moron to lap it up at face value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the.Earth is flat and the Queen was a reptilian.and God is real.
😆
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 7 minutes ago
If he's completely innocent why on Earth is he with her?
He nearly went to jail and his career is in tatters.
The statement is clearly a PR exercise in which no-one takes any responsibility whatsoever and subtly leaves out any mention of sponsors.
Imo you've got to be a moron to lap it up at face value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the.Earth is flat and the Queen was a reptilian.and God is real.
😆
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 4 seconds ago
Whondunnit
It's not just the club though.
The victim dropped it.
The CPS didnt think the evidence would result in a guilty verdict .
The club concluded he didn't do what he was accused of.
The family agreed with this conclusion.
In balance, he disnt do what he was accused of.
The club are letting him go because they are a hugely commercial business and the negative public opinion (based on some of the facts) cannot be ignored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, none of that addresses what Man Utd may know that was not submitted to courts. what they know of Mason personally etc. the club very clearly say the he was innocent of the original charges. we have no idea what they already knew, or found out.
We not proven not guilty of anything thats the only way you say he didnt do anything. dropping charges doesnt mean innocent.
The club dont want him there they have their reasons.
your guessing yours
So you are now introducing things that NOBODY has accused him of, but you think the club MAY know about ?
The club haven't said they don't want him they have said it is too difficult for him to continue with us, which is obviously referring to the public outcry of the case
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 2 seconds ago
So you are now introducing things that NOBODY has accused him of, but you think the club MAY know about ?
The club haven't said they don't want him they have said it is too difficult for him to continue with us, which is obviously referring to the public outcry of the case
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nup thats you putting words in my mouth.
Im saying that the club will know more than us, and on that info decided that he isnt fit for purpose at the club.
"It has therefore been mutually agreed that it would be most appropriate for him to do so away from Old Trafford,"
your the one making assumptions from guesswork not me
Where have they said based on what we know, we want rid?
That is the opposite of how the majority of people have interpreted the statement.
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 4 seconds ago
Where have they said based on what we know, we want rid?
That is the opposite of how the majority of people have interpreted the statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
based on the mistakes Greenwood made.
Feel free to guess what those mistakes were.
'what Man Utd may know that was not submitted to courts. what they know of Mason personally etc'
You are speculating the club have knowledge of something else that the police, CPS, and family don't, that is grounds to release him.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 4 seconds ago
Whondunnit
It's not just the club though.
The victim dropped it.
The CPS didnt think the evidence would result in a guilty verdict .
The club concluded he didn't do what he was accused of.
The family agreed with this conclusion.
In balance, he disnt do what he was accused of.
The club are letting him go because they are a hugely commercial business and the negative public opinion (based on some of the facts) cannot be ignored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, none of that addresses what Man Utd may know that was not submitted to courts. what they know of Mason personally etc. the club very clearly say the he was innocent of the original charges. we have no idea what they already knew, or found out.
We not proven not guilty of anything thats the only way you say he didnt do anything. dropping charges doesnt mean innocent.
The club dont want him there they have their reasons.
your guessing yours
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely ignoring the fact that the club did not have access to all the evidence.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 4 seconds ago
Where have they said based on what we know, we want rid?
That is the opposite of how the majority of people have interpreted the statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
based on the mistakes Greenwood made.
Feel free to guess what those mistakes were.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We know he spoke to her appalljngly. We know he broke his bail.
Why aren't you prepared to consider these could be the mistakes the club refer to?
Sign in if you want to comment
Greenwood
Page 19 of 24
20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
posted on 22/8/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 3 seconds ago
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistakes most probably relate to breaking his bail conditions,.which we KNOW he did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
guess as much as you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's no a guess. We KNOW he broke his bail. And is therefore.logical the club are referring to this as his mistake
posted on 22/8/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depends on what they are defending?
seems you have an agenda and are looking for some sorta of ammo?
I agree that the club have more info than we do to make a decision.
I think any opinion on whether it was based on money or morals is pure guesswork.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So their defence of greenwood as not committing the original offences of attempted rape, assault, and controlling behaviour may have been for financial reasons and not legal ones. Is that correct?
You're ignoring when I ask why posters on here should be labelled Rapists for defending him when you think it's an unfair label for United who defended him.
That seems to be an agenda to me.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Scott Tiffoney (U1734)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 2 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without any context or explanation, I feel he shouldn't have spoken to her as he did
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And so do the club, who have more info than you that was enough for them to come to their conclusion.
You have come to yours based on less into.
Id say the club are in a better place to asses this than you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club have stated that they do not believe that he did any of the things accused of, based on the additional evidence that they have received.
This includes a longer version of the video that provides further context.
They are the ones with further evidence.
The reasons for the club and him parting ways is not because they believe he did the things he is being accused of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but that there is things on there that they cannot and will not tolerate or things that they have info on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says who?
posted on 22/8/23
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but that there is things on there that they cannot and will not tolerate or things that they have info on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says who?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
says me , thats how I interpret it.
"That said, as Mason publicly acknowledges today, he has made mistakes which he is taking responsibility for."
you might not, thats fine.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by lessons101 (U23062)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depends on what they are defending?
seems you have an agenda and are looking for some sorta of ammo?
I agree that the club have more info than we do to make a decision.
I think any opinion on whether it was based on money or morals is pure guesswork.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So their defence of greenwood as not committing the original offences of attempted rape, assault, and controlling behaviour may have been for financial reasons and not legal ones. Is that correct?
You're ignoring when I ask why posters on here should be labelled Rapists for defending him when you think it's an unfair label for United who defended him.
That seems to be an agenda to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
they said he didnt commit the charges he was put forward for.
for me morally the recording is enough.
For Man Utd it seems that either that recording was also enough for them to get rid or they also know additional info.
is it possible that he is completely innocent? .. of course it is, is it possible they actually know more and could be worse... yes also entirely possible?
I know what I heard and if the club was mine I wouldnt have him at my club based on the recording.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but that there is things on there that they cannot and will not tolerate or things that they have info on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says who?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
says me , thats how I interpret it.
"That said, as Mason publicly acknowledges today, he has made mistakes which he is taking responsibility for."
you might not, thats fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistakes aren't grounds to give up on a player.
They are most likely referring to him breaking of his bail.
posted on 22/8/23
If he's completely innocent why on Earth is he with her?
He nearly went to jail and his career is in tatters.
The statement is clearly a PR exercise in which no-one takes any responsibility whatsoever and subtly leaves out any mention of sponsors.
Imo you've got to be a moron to lap it up at face value.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
they said he didnt commit the charges he was put forward for.
for me morally the recording is enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For me it was enough too and I wouldn't have him at my club, but that's not what we're talking about
For Manchester United they haven't stated that they're getting rid of him for that reason. They've come out and defended him for whatever reason.
I'm going to leave it here because I've asked you a simple question as to whether it's fair to label a poster on here a Rapist for defending greenwood when United have said they are confident he didn't commit the offences and you've continued to avoid it.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 3 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistakes aren't grounds to give up on a player.
They are most likely referring to him breaking of his bail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
impossible statement to make give you dont know the mistakes in reference.
your guessing ..... AGAIN
posted on 22/8/23
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
If he's completely innocent why on Earth is he with her?
He nearly went to jail and his career is in tatters.
The statement is clearly a PR exercise in which no-one takes any responsibility whatsoever and subtly leaves out any mention of sponsors.
Imo you've got to be a moron to lap it up at face value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah right so defending a rapist/abuser is just a PR exercise.
Great stuff from Manchester United
posted on 22/8/23
comment by lessons101 (U23062)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
If he's completely innocent why on Earth is he with her?
He nearly went to jail and his career is in tatters.
The statement is clearly a PR exercise in which no-one takes any responsibility whatsoever and subtly leaves out any mention of sponsors.
Imo you've got to be a moron to lap it up at face value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah right so defending a rapist/abuser is just a PR exercise.
Great stuff from Manchester United
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With the amount of money involved it's hardly leftfield. Sponsors had already dropped him.
It's just a way to fvck him off without committing to saying he did much wrong, and seeing as Greenwood himself has said he was fully involved in the decision I suspect that was part of the deal.
posted on 22/8/23
Whondunnit
It's not just the club though.
The victim dropped it.
The CPS didnt think the evidence would result in a guilty verdict .
The club concluded he didn't do what he was accused of.
The family agreed with this conclusion.
In balance, he disnt do what he was accused of.
The club are letting him go because they are a hugely commercial business and the negative public opinion (based on some of the facts) cannot be ignored.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 3 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistakes aren't grounds to give up on a player.
They are most likely referring to him breaking of his bail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
impossible statement to make give you dont know the mistakes in reference.
your guessing ..... AGAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He broke his bail. That's a more logical conclusion than, we heard the rest of the tape, and it's terrible, so we are letting him go.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With the amount of money involved it's hardly leftfield. Sponsors had already dropped him.
It's just a way to fvck him off without committing to saying he did much wrong, and seeing as Greenwood himself has said he was fully involved in the decision I suspect that was part of the deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically Manchester United are a club that will claim somebody didn't rape/abuse someone when they did for financial gain.
Which was my point really, not seen a single United fan getting angry on that, and it's quite shocking to see that nobody appears to give a toss that he wasn't just out the door with no attempts to defend him,
posted on 22/8/23
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 7 minutes ago
If he's completely innocent why on Earth is he with her?
He nearly went to jail and his career is in tatters.
The statement is clearly a PR exercise in which no-one takes any responsibility whatsoever and subtly leaves out any mention of sponsors.
Imo you've got to be a moron to lap it up at face value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the.Earth is flat and the Queen was a reptilian.and God is real.
😆
posted on 22/8/23
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - At the end of a storm (U6374)
posted 7 minutes ago
If he's completely innocent why on Earth is he with her?
He nearly went to jail and his career is in tatters.
The statement is clearly a PR exercise in which no-one takes any responsibility whatsoever and subtly leaves out any mention of sponsors.
Imo you've got to be a moron to lap it up at face value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the.Earth is flat and the Queen was a reptilian.and God is real.
😆
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See
posted on 22/8/23
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 4 seconds ago
Whondunnit
It's not just the club though.
The victim dropped it.
The CPS didnt think the evidence would result in a guilty verdict .
The club concluded he didn't do what he was accused of.
The family agreed with this conclusion.
In balance, he disnt do what he was accused of.
The club are letting him go because they are a hugely commercial business and the negative public opinion (based on some of the facts) cannot be ignored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, none of that addresses what Man Utd may know that was not submitted to courts. what they know of Mason personally etc. the club very clearly say the he was innocent of the original charges. we have no idea what they already knew, or found out.
We not proven not guilty of anything thats the only way you say he didnt do anything. dropping charges doesnt mean innocent.
The club dont want him there they have their reasons.
your guessing yours
posted on 22/8/23
*he was not proven
posted on 22/8/23
So you are now introducing things that NOBODY has accused him of, but you think the club MAY know about ?
The club haven't said they don't want him they have said it is too difficult for him to continue with us, which is obviously referring to the public outcry of the case
posted on 22/8/23
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 2 seconds ago
So you are now introducing things that NOBODY has accused him of, but you think the club MAY know about ?
The club haven't said they don't want him they have said it is too difficult for him to continue with us, which is obviously referring to the public outcry of the case
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nup thats you putting words in my mouth.
Im saying that the club will know more than us, and on that info decided that he isnt fit for purpose at the club.
"It has therefore been mutually agreed that it would be most appropriate for him to do so away from Old Trafford,"
your the one making assumptions from guesswork not me
posted on 22/8/23
Where have they said based on what we know, we want rid?
That is the opposite of how the majority of people have interpreted the statement.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 4 seconds ago
Where have they said based on what we know, we want rid?
That is the opposite of how the majority of people have interpreted the statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
based on the mistakes Greenwood made.
Feel free to guess what those mistakes were.
posted on 22/8/23
'what Man Utd may know that was not submitted to courts. what they know of Mason personally etc'
You are speculating the club have knowledge of something else that the police, CPS, and family don't, that is grounds to release him.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 4 seconds ago
Whondunnit
It's not just the club though.
The victim dropped it.
The CPS didnt think the evidence would result in a guilty verdict .
The club concluded he didn't do what he was accused of.
The family agreed with this conclusion.
In balance, he disnt do what he was accused of.
The club are letting him go because they are a hugely commercial business and the negative public opinion (based on some of the facts) cannot be ignored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, none of that addresses what Man Utd may know that was not submitted to courts. what they know of Mason personally etc. the club very clearly say the he was innocent of the original charges. we have no idea what they already knew, or found out.
We not proven not guilty of anything thats the only way you say he didnt do anything. dropping charges doesnt mean innocent.
The club dont want him there they have their reasons.
your guessing yours
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely ignoring the fact that the club did not have access to all the evidence.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 4 seconds ago
Where have they said based on what we know, we want rid?
That is the opposite of how the majority of people have interpreted the statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
based on the mistakes Greenwood made.
Feel free to guess what those mistakes were.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We know he spoke to her appalljngly. We know he broke his bail.
Why aren't you prepared to consider these could be the mistakes the club refer to?
Page 19 of 24
20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24