Footballer Mason Greenwood has rape charges dropped

[Petcha]

Have you got any links to the football clubs hiring sex workers thing? Not something Ive come across before.

I doubt the club would sort that kind of thing out but their agents would.

I can't see Mendy trawling escort sites all by himself

 

[ska invita]

Have you got any links to the football clubs hiring sex workers thing? Not something Ive come across before.

fair to pick me up on that, that was a bit of an exaggeration.....accounts ive read of it in the past are that it happens so regularly and as part of the routine day to day running of clubs and with the implicit approval of management that it is basically a part of the infrastructure....there are outside fixers who arrange everything, its some ones job, who actually foots the bill probably rarely if ever is the club, more so agents, but the clubs management are part of this culture, based on things i read in the past.

 

[Serge Forward]

'Man U' became seen as what the nu-footie glory-hunters (often southerners) used so the proper United fans stopped using it. This is a sort of 90s, post-PL thing, led by some of the fanzines at the time. I think 'Man U' was less controversial (but probably less common) in 80s and earlier.

This and the other reasons and the fact that "Man U" often comes with an insult. I guess it's an old school thing. I first heard it used in the 80s when it was only ever used by anti-united people. Yeah, I know it's used by some reds these days but it sets my teeth on edge. Oh and it's not so much about southern people. I remember Cockney reds being around back when we were relegated down to (old) division 2 and they were always welcome.

Apologies to MickiQ, I'm sure you weren't being unpleasant. It's just that seeing it written repeatedly in one post triggered my Candyman reflex.

Anyway, sorry for the derail, back to Greenwood. If he is kept on, it won't last as there will be mither.

 

[pbsmooth]

sex workers - I doubt the clubs would want to know anything about that, certainly not in the last 20 or so years of being more professional. as you say, will be agents and hangers on who sort out that out.
'orgies' and general shagging around was all the rage in the 90s/00s - the ashley cole stuff that seemed to drag on for ages - but that seems to have finally stopped in last decade or so, probably due to social media/phones and the likelihood of being caught out being that much greater.
ignoring this particular incident, you get the impression clubs are less likely to put up with that sort of shit and potential trouble players than they used to be. watching some of the docs about young kids trying to break into football, any hint of unprofessionalism at a young age and they tend not to bother with you - so many players to choose from and it's seen as a more important part of the game now.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Yeah I'd think these days at least there's virtually no chance that clubs are busy organising sex workers for their players. That's not because of any inherent virtue but they're very publicity conscious and the tabloids would absolutely love it if they got hold of anything like that - which I'm sure they would. Bearing in mind players are making hundreds of thousands a week at the top level I'm sure any who are interested have more than enough hangers on who'd be happy to sort it out if they wanted without clubs getting involved.

 

[comrade spurski]

I really have my doubts that would be the case, if the situation was the same as this - they'd absolutely suspend him once they became aware of it, and especially when he was charged, but once he has been acquitted in the way he was it would be such a risk to dismiss him. Any ET that was brought would probably inevitably see the victim at the heart of this case appear and say that the decision to dismiss had a big negative effect on them.

Plus DBS might not even flag up the acquittal if it wasn't relevant to the job they were going for.

My understand is :
Anyone in a job with vulnerable people would have this show up on the enhanced DBS report they have get. It is a requirement after the Ian Huntley case in 2002 where a school caretaker (Huntley) murdered 2 school girls from hospital school. After he was arrested they discovered he had previous complaints against him.
He was never convicted but had a series of complaints (including rape irrc) that his previous employers did not pass on to the school.
Any public institution (schools, nursery, police, prison service, hospitals etc) or company (locksmiths, private care homes, private care/ education agencies, taxi firms who transport vulnerable people etc.) would have to sack or not employ some who had this flag up on a DBS.
Only if the accusation was proven to be false / wrong would this not be the case.

over 10 years ago a family accused me of attacking their 9 year old son in the school because I stopped from attacking a girl who "annoyed" him.
He had a history of violence to children and staff and his family always justified his violence by blaming the other staff and kids.
The incident was witnessed by dozens of other students and some other staff and was partially caught on camera.
The child was not hurt, was not marked and all incident recording procedures were followed. The family reported me to the police and an investigation took place involving the school, the Borough and the police. After 3 weeks (where staff and students were interviewed) I was cleared and praised for my actions in protecting the girl and the boy from the physical and emotional costs of an assault taking place.

I have to declare this fact on all my job application forms.

While I find it irritating that a family thought they thought I should let their son attack another child and I still have to justify this I think it is correct.

My irritation is irrelevant if it prevents another Ian Huntley getting a job.

Sorry for the waffle but just wanted to explain myself properly.

 

[Flavour]

sell him to the Saudis, think he'd fit in there

 

[Pickman's model]

sex workers - I doubt the clubs would want to know anything about that, certainly not in the last 20 or so years of being more professional. as you say, will be agents and hangers on who sort out that out.
'orgies' and general shagging around was all the rage in the 90s/00s - the ashley cole stuff that seemed to drag on for ages - but that seems to have finally stopped in last decade or so, probably due to social media/phones and the likelihood of being caught out being that much greater.
ignoring this particular incident, you get the impression clubs are less likely to put up with that sort of shit and potential trouble players than they used to be. watching some of the docs about young kids trying to break into football, any hint of unprofessionalism at a young age and they tend not to bother with you - so many players to choose from and it's seen as a more important part of the game now.

2015 Leicester sack three players over racist orgy on Thailand tour

 

[The39thStep]

2015 Leicester sack three players over racist orgy on Thailand tour

Berlusconi says he offered Monza squad sex workers in dressing room for big win

Silvio Berlusconi has been seen in a video telling Monza’s players he would bring sex workers into their dressing room if they won again against a top Serie A club

www.theguardian.com

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

2015 Leicester sack three players over racist orgy on Thailand tour

You wonder if they'd have been so quick if the players given the boot weren't conveniently fringe/youth players rather than first team regulars.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

You wonder if they'd have been so quick if the players given the boot weren't conveniently fringe/youth players rather than first team regulars.

I think that this case was a bit different in that the events occurred in Thailand (Leicester are Thai owned) and included racist abuse.

But, yes, the use value of the commodity in a clearly a key determining factor when a football club considers its morality in such matters.

 

[BristolEcho]

fair to pick me up on that, that was a bit of an exaggeration.....accounts ive read of it in the past are that it happens so regularly and as part of the routine day to day running of clubs and with the implicit approval of management that it is basically a part of the infrastructure....there are outside fixers who arrange everything, its some ones job, who actually foots the bill probably rarely if ever is the club, more so agents, but the clubs management are part of this culture, based on things i read in the past.

Don't doubt that all sorts of shady shit goes on and I agree with parts of your original post about the world that footballers grow up in from a young age.

A lot of people have already responded, but I'd be very surprised if Bristol City's Head of Youth Development Brian Tinnion was organising sex workers and orgies for our players. The professionalism within academies is a lot better these days - these players are potentially worth £100m so it's in their interest to promote a very controlled lifestyle and one that keeps them out of trouble. Of course though there will be huge differences across the spectrum.

 

[Petcha]

Greenwood has been signed to United since he was 7 years old. There's something a little wrong about that in general IMO. So I can see why they might feel some kind of loyalty. But being pampered from that age.... no.

 

[The39thStep]

The cat is fully out of the bag now.

The Athletic now reporting that key part of Man Utd's strategy to resume Greenwood's career at the club includes :

• An assessment of the expected sentiment of external figures, listing individual football pundits, journalists and politicians and stating whether they would be for or against Greenwood’s reintegration.
• The planning divided these people into categories to the effect of “supportive”, “open-minded” or “hostile”.
• The club’s document listed a series of domestic abuse charities assumed to be “hostile”.

The internal process has not consulted any charities specialised in supporting women in cases where alleged domestic or sexual abuse has occurred.

https://archive.ph/fOzgj

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

United have given him the boot. Left by "mutual consent".

Now we get to judge which clubs are morally bankrupt - there's a very good football player available for no fee, costing nothing but your club's soul and reputation. I'd love to think no club would go near him, but you know - Ched Evans and all that.

 

[Wilf]

Just posted this in the United thread:

So, United think the police and CPS got it wrong. Fucking rape apologists.

Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged. That said, as Mason publicly acknowledges today, he has made mistakes which he is taking responsibility for.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/aug/21/mason-greenwood-to-leave-manchester-united-after-internal-inquiry\

 

[Raheem]

Just posted this in the United thread:

So, United think the police and CPS got it wrong. Fucking rape apologists.

Stinks, but they'll have negotiated the statement with his agent and his lawyers, won't they?

As the parent of a red, it's a massive relief to be rid and the rest is detail.

 

[Wilf]

Stinks, but they'll have negotiated the statement with his agent and his lawyers, won't they?

Yeah, this shits on the reputation of all the United greats, Best, Charlton, Law, Cantona, Ronaldo... oh.

 

[Wilf]

I think it's better to stay on track and say, do you know anything about this case? No you don't. The police and the club have and will investigate and know far more than some angry Chelsea fan on an Internet board so I'm happy to go with their decision.
Are you just annoyed still because Terry was never sacked by Chelsea when the FA found him guilty of racist abuse?

I'm tempted to ask whether you think a club owned by the Glazers are well placed to make a decision of this sort. But actually, that's irrelevant, the question is whether a football club, with an 'asset' they've invested in for years, who have few other concerns than success and making money are in a position to carry out an objective and/or moral decision of this sort. If you think they are, you are either very partisan or very naive.

 

[Serge Forward]

Yeah, this shits on the reputation of all the United greats, Best, Charlton, Law, Cantona, Ronaldo... oh.

Speaking as a born-an-bred red and who idolised George Best, in later years, there were later allegations of domestic violence on his part.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I'm tempted to ask whether you think a club owned by the Glazers are well placed to make a decision of this sort. But actually, that's irrelevant, the question is whether a football club, with an 'asset' they've invested in for years, who have few other concerns than success and making money are in a position to carry out an objective and/or moral decision of this sort. If you think they are, you are either very partisan or very naive.

Spot on. The fact that in their statement Manchester United claim that they deem Greewood innocent of the charges laid against him -and that therefore the decison was presumably motivated by commercial/reputational concerns - speaks for itself.

 

[Wilf]

Speaking as a born-an-bred red and who idolised George Best, in later years, there were later allegations of domestic violence on his part.

Aye, when I think about it, not the best most appropriate example.

 

[Wilf]

sell him to the Saudis, think he'd fit in there

Of course, they could have just waited a bit for the Qatari royal, Sheikh Jassim, to take over.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I gather that the women's Man U team were contemplating resigning en masse if Greenwood was kept on.

He has not been found to be innocent in any way. The principal witness withdrew, not because she had mislead, but because she couldn't face getting torn to bits by a hostile QC (how do those people sleep?), and I don't blame her. She has avoided being violated for the second time.

 

[tonysingh]

Has Greenwood has his contract with Manchester United paid up when they binned him? It's fairly common practise for clubs to pay up the remainder of a manager or players wages when they sack them. I ask because it'll be a tidy sum of money for him to walk away with while he resumes his career (wherever that might be) whilst the women he's been shown to abuse have been forgotten about.

 

[Wilf]

Stinks, but they'll have negotiated the statement with his agent and his lawyers, won't they?

As the parent of a red, it's a massive relief to be rid and the rest is detail.

If you look at this purely from the perspective of the club and its reputation, they've managed to do the exact opposite of making a virtue out of necessity. Actually playing Greenwood would have lead to tens of thousands chanting rapist at every game he played, plus permanent social media storms. It would never have worked. Others accused of rape have managed to play for a time at other clubs, but the storm would have been so much bigger with it being United. But instead of simply cancelling his contract the day after the CPS stopped the case and making a statement about sexual violence and women's rights, they go this farcical 'consultation'. Then they top it all off with a statement today saying 'we know better than the CPs, he didn't do it'. Don't get me wrong, if they had done 'the right thing'. it would have been for 'reputational' reasons, wouldn't have been worth much. But fucking hell, this is what they actually come out with:

Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged.

 

[Pickman's model]

If you look at this purely from the perspective of the club and its reputation, they've managed to do the exact opposite of making a virtue out of necessity. Actually playing Greenwood would have lead to tens of thousands chanting rapist at every game he played, plus permanent social media storms. It would never have worked. Others accused of rape have managed to play for a time at other clubs, but the storm would have been so much bigger with it being United. But instead of simply cancelling his contract the day after the CPS stopped the case and making a statement about sexual violence and women's rights, they go this farcical 'consultation'. Then they top it all off with a statement today saying 'we know better than the CPs, he didn't do it'. Don't get me wrong, if they had done 'the right thing'. it would have been for 'reputational' reasons, wouldn't have been worth much. But fucking hell, this is what they actually come out with:

they seem keen to plant both feet firmly in mouth while simultaneously shooting them

 

[Pickman's model]

I gather that the women's Man U team were contemplating resigning en masse if Greenwood was kept on.

He has not been found to be innocent in any way. The principal witness withdrew, not because she had mislead, but because she couldn't face getting torn to bits by a hostile QC (how do those people sleep?), and I don't blame her. She has avoided being violated for the second time.

he's avoided conviction which is being painted as vindication by man u

 

[Raheem]

If you look at this purely from the perspective of the club and its reputation, they've managed to do the exact opposite of making a virtue out of necessity. Actually playing Greenwood would have lead to tens of thousands chanting rapist at every game he played, plus permanent social media storms. It would never have worked. Others accused of rape have managed to play for a time at other clubs, but the storm would have been so much bigger with it being United. But instead of simply cancelling his contract the day after the CPS stopped the case and making a statement about sexual violence and women's rights, they go this farcical 'consultation'. Then they top it all off with a statement today saying 'we know better than the CPs, he didn't do it'. Don't get me wrong, if they had done 'the right thing'. it would have been for 'reputational' reasons, wouldn't have been worth much. But fucking hell, this is what they actually come out with:

Yeah, don't misunderstand me, the whole thing is depressing and shambolic. Just expressing that the main thing is that Greenwood won't be back.

They also backed themselves into a corner where it became difficult to get rid of him without getting his consent (because they had publicly undermined their grounds). I think the bullshit about knowing he's innocent because of special secret information is part of the price for getting him to agree.

 

[heinous seamus]

The BBC article reckons he's still under contract on full pay. They're just looking to move him on.