Manchester United

[MrBlack]

On 12/08/2023 at 15:01, Genie said:

Because the alleged victim dropped her charges, and got back together with him, and now they have a baby together.

This is why the law fails domestic abuse victims. It doesn't try a case when the complainant withdraws their testimony (unless there is another witness).  There could be any number of reasons why said victim withdrew their claims, and the perpetrator being innocent is only one of them.

There's an argument they were role playing and she then made up the claims, which she later dropped when he agreed to whatever it was she wanted from him. Maybe they'd done that role play before and she liked it, but then thought it would be handy audio to record incase something arose in the future that threatened her relationship. The bruises she has showed suggest not, but it's possible.

Theres an argument that she was genuinely being raped and has now been coerced into a life being his effective slave through whatever pressure or promises he's made to her. 

The law didn't make a judgement so everyone else has to make theirs. And I can see why united are picking the former view given the value of the asset on the pitch. Scumbag club does scumbag things.

If he wasn't good they'd bin him in a second (although he also wouldn't have the salary which would make sacking him less financially impactful). It's a disgrace.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

The thing that jumps out at me is specifically calling themselves "the male fans". "Us blokes have all got around the table, specifically excluded all of the lady folk, and decided it's quite important we forgive a rapist".

Might be wrong, and my faith in humanity might be about to fall to new lows, but I just can't believe that's legit.

It's 'real' as in I don't think it's a joke or a parody, but I can't see any evidence that he represents anyone other than himself. 'The male fans of Manchester United' do not have a representative body that have deputised him to speak on their behalf. 

[Xela]

On 12/08/2023 at 15:01, Genie said:

Because the alleged victim dropped her charges, and got back together with him, and now they have a baby together.

Its amazing what money can do. 

[HalfTimePost]

3 hours ago, MrBlack said:

This is why the law fails domestic abuse victims. It doesn't try a case when the complainant withdraws their testimony (unless there is another witness).  There could be any number of reasons why said victim withdrew their claims, and the perpetrator being innocent is only one of them.

There's an argument they were role playing and she then made up the claims, which she later dropped when he agreed to whatever it was she wanted from him. Maybe they'd done that role play before and she liked it, but then thought it would be handy audio to record incase something arose in the future that threatened her relationship. The bruises she has showed suggest not, but it's possible.

Theres an argument that she was genuinely being raped and has now been coerced into a life being his effective slave through whatever pressure or promises he's made to her. 

The law didn't make a judgement so everyone else has to make theirs. And I can see why united are picking the former view given the value of the asset on the pitch. Scumbag club does scumbag things.

If he wasn't good they'd bin him in a second (although he also wouldn't have the salary which would make sacking him less financially impactful). It's a disgrace.

I've tried to not follow along with this Greenwood saga too much as it's so depressing and anger inducing.

...is this story what they're putting out there about what happened? Or a hypothetical from you?

(Not an accusation, genuinely interested and it wouldn't surprise me if this is exactly what they put out)

[MrBlack]

1 hour ago, HalfTimePost said:

I've tried to not follow along with this Greenwood saga too much as it's so depressing and anger inducing.

...is this story what they're putting out there about what happened? Or a hypothetical from you?

(Not an accusation, genuinely interested and it wouldn't surprise me if this is exactly what they put out)

No, sorry, realise I made it say that way. I was just suggesting the hypothetical argument that those trying to justify it might use. I can't think of another reason they might say is valid, maybe they'll use the reformed character argument, but then that admits guilt of a crime he got away with so unlikely. 

I don't believe Mason and his woman have said what the truth is. But she withdrew her complaint and "new evidence came to light" according to the police so they didn't think he'd get found guilty off just the audio clip and bruise photos. No idea what that evidence was, don't think it was ever announced.

Following that, Mason and the woman got back together and had a baby, so United could spin it very positively I'm sure if they wanted to. 

Only Mason and she will know the truth.

[Rodders]

Grim. They're clearly going to try and reintegrate him. Can't possibly work. Someone will break his legs in training or a match.

 

[VillaChris]

Think they'll just loan him out in the end.

Talk he's going to declare for Jamaica so that will be interesting.

[Pinebro]

[Kiwivillan]

Change thread title to VARchester United

[Demitri_C]

You veey rarely seen such poor decisions go against the top clubs for the smaller clubs. 

It **** stinks and we want answers

[Genie]

Remember how hard they looked at our goal a year or 2 ago and then ruled out out because someone bumped into Bruno on the edge of the box in the build up? It’s ridiculous that the ref missing that was deemed a clear and obvious error.

[Mr_Dogg]

If that incident had happened in the 20th minute it would have been given, they just absolutely bottled it.

[MrBlack]

3 hours ago, Mr_Dogg said:

If that incident had happened in the 20th minute it would have been given, they just absolutely bottled it.

Agreed. Basically those officials should be permanently relieved of their duty. They cant cope with the pressure of key decisions. Or are corrupt in ways that mean they shouldn't be used.

 

[Mic09]

4 hours ago, Mr_Dogg said:

If that incident had happened in the 20th minute it would have been given, they just absolutely bottled it.

Possibly, but I watched an interview with Marciniak (World Cup & CL final referee) and he said the referees are being pointed to make decisions based on the minutes gone. So he is unlikely to give a card in the first minutes for an offence which gets a card at 50 minutes+.

Refereeing is a very weird clique overall. I think it's the power to control a game that gets to their head. Making decisions and causing outcomes in a multi billion £ sport, dishing out punishments to people earning 200k+ a week. It's gonna get to your head. 

It's the Milgram prison experiment in real life. 

[oishiiniku_uk]

The VAR should be mic'ed up. If I could hear the thought process then I might have a chance of understanding how they could justify ignoring such a blatant foul. 

[ender4]

10 minutes ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

The VAR should be mic'ed up. If I could hear the thought process then I might have a chance of understanding how they could justify ignoring such a blatant foul. 

I think that might just make us more angry and show them to be even more corrupt than we think they are.

[Genie]

53 minutes ago, ender4 said:

I think that might just make us more angry and show them to be even more corrupt than we think they are.

This place will go nuts if we give a 90+7 min pen against them. Then ETH will be complaining about us in his press conference. Let’s just let it go, it’ll be fine. 

[villan95]

1 hour ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

The VAR should be mic'ed up. If I could hear the thought process then I might have a chance of understanding how they could justify ignoring such a blatant foul. 

[VillaJ100]

3 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Possibly, but I watched an interview with Marciniak (World Cup & CL final referee) and he said the referees are being pointed to make decisions based on the minutes gone. So he is unlikely to give a card in the first minutes for an offence which gets a card at 50 minutes+.

Refereeing is a very weird clique overall. I think it's the power to control a game that gets to their head. Making decisions and causing outcomes in a multi billion £ sport, dishing out punishments to people earning 200k+ a week. It's gonna get to your head. 

It's the Milgram prison experiment in real life. 

Nah cos then you'd be stricter and more of a nob the bigger the club/player. Whereas instead they dawn over the so called 'big' clubs

[villan95]

Maguire refusing to leave and costing them a £30M fee