[Football] Mason Greenwood charged with attempted rape

[Easy 10]

Having heard the recording, the guy is quite clearly an unpleasant piece of shit. I would hope that Man U can cancel his contract, as playing him now would bring the club into disrepute.

He needs to disappear. If he ever shows his face again on a UK football pitch, I hope dogs abuse rains down on him. His name is now so toxic, I would imagine sponsors would be pulling deals in their droves to disassociate themselves from him and any club that felt they could employ him. Nasty, nasty piece of work.

 

[drew]

Begs the question whether she was threatened, bought off or just not telling the truth! I don't know but I'm inclined to exclude the last option!!

 

[The Optimist]

If United sack him (if they can), he will be a free agent, looking to get a huge signing on bonus, while United get nothing. It would be a nice gesture - virtue signalling and all that - if United sack him, but it'll cost them the £20 to £40M or so that they could get as a transfer fee from some team abroad that doesn't mind the smell. I wonder which side the Glazers will drop?

I’m not so sure. Keep him and isn’t there a risk of upsetting/ putting off sponsors?

 

[Hugo Rune]

Begs the question whether she was threatened, bought off or just not telling the truth! I don't know but I'm inclined to exclude the last option!!

There seems to be new evidence too. Domestic cases can be astonishingly complex. Love, money, fear & violence can get incredibly tangled. I just hope that it was here her decision and that she has made the right decision for herself and other women. Some people value other things above justice.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Like all Premier League players he’s on the standard EPL contract. Man U can therefore give him the boot for “bringing the club's reputation into disrepute” if they feel they have a good enough case. A case which only has to be proven on the balance of probability. The evidence against Mount which in the public domain must surely meet this criteria?

 

[Acker79]

 

[SAC]

United are in a difficult situation. He was a very talented player and was probably worth £80 million a year ago and is still probably worth £20-40 million.

I can't see him playing for them again, probably won't play in the UK ever again. The question is, can United ride out public pressure to sack him so they can try and sell him abroad in the summer? I suspect that they will sack him and write off any transfer fee.

 

[Brian Fantana]

It's all surely complicated by him having no case to answer, legally. I can't imagine there are very strong grounds for his contract being terminated because he was accused of something, which he was then subsquently not convicted of. United COULD, I suppose, lean on the social media 'evidence' that was circulating to originally kick the whole episode off, but you'd imagine it might be a bit of a messy employment dispute.

Happy to be corrected though, as I'm not a legal professional!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Like all Premier League players he’s on the standard EPL contract. Man U can therefore give him the boot for “bringing the club's reputation into disrepute” if they feel they have a good enough case. A case which only has to be proven on the balance of probability. The evidence against Mount which in the public domain must surely meet this criteria?

Even without the indictments being proved, there is domestic abuse, which could then be said to bring the club into disrepute.

 

[martin tyler]

They could easily cancel his contract. The burden of proof is different from criminal to civil matters. I would suggest the video alone would be enough to give them an opportunity to cancel the contract if they wished at the very least dragging the club name into a bad light as he is a representative of them.
Would be costly for them if they lost that in court later down the line but I still think less damaging than having him on there books going forward in terms of sponsorship. Also as a human being would you want him in your team?

 

[GT49er]

I’m not so sure. Keep him and isn’t there a risk of upsetting/ putting off sponsors?

I didn't include keeping him as one of the options in my post.

 

[Dibdab]

It's all surely complicated by him having no case to answer, legally. I can't imagine there are very strong grounds for his contract being terminated because he was accused of something, which he was then subsquently not convicted of. United COULD, I suppose, lean on the social media 'evidence' that was circulating to originally kick the whole episode off, but you'd imagine it might be a bit of a messy employment dispute.

Happy to be corrected though, as I'm not a legal professional!

I have zero doubt that the evidence readily available to anyone would fall firmly in the bringing the club into disrepute clause and he'd have almost no grounds to object.

 

[jcdenton08]

What has actually changed though? He isn’t facing criminal charges, but the audio and video evidence came out before he was charged.

What has taken Manchester United so long to terminate his contract? Even if charges were dropped - as they were - the court of public opinion won’t forget what they’ve seen and heard with their own eyes anyway.

Even if exonerated at trial (or case dropped), there was never going to be a magical solution to undo what has already come out

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I have zero doubt that the evidence readily available to anyone would fall firmly in the bringing the club into disrepute clause and he'd have almost no grounds to object.

This is how I feel. The stuff in the public domain is damning. If there’s any sense, Man U will give him the boot, he’ll accept this and reflect on this period of his life and decide how he wishes to move forward with the rest of his life.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What has actually changed though? He isn’t facing criminal charges, but the audio and video evidence came out before he was charged.

What has taken Manchester United so long to terminate his contract? Even if charges were dropped - as they were - the court of public opinion won’t forget what they’ve seen and heard with their own eyes anyway.

Even if exonerated at trial (or case dropped), there was never going to be a magical solution to undo what has already come out

United couldn’t do much until the trial concluded. They, quite rightly, are now taking stock of the situation and will make an informed decision shortly.

They’ve handled this as would be expected so far.

 

[Pinkie Brown]

What has actually changed though? He isn’t facing criminal charges, but the audio and video evidence came out before he was charged.

What has taken Manchester United so long to terminate his contract? Even if charges were dropped - as they were - the court of public opinion won’t forget what they’ve seen and heard with their own eyes anyway.

Even if exonerated at trial (or case dropped), there was never going to be a magical solution to undo what has already come out

As stated above United had to follow due process and let proceedings run their course. Which is normal practice with most employers. Suspend any employee suspected of gross misconduct until the outcome of any internal inquiry is determined. Which path United take is unsure. Despite the charges being dropped, the vile recordings are in the public domain and sacking Greenwoood for gross misconduct and bringing the club into disrepute should be a formality. Despite the grunting of the knuckle dragger fraternity across various social media that he is 'innocent,' 'not guilty' plus similar predictable bollocks. Quite shocking but in these times shouldn't really be. Even the S** had a headline screaming he was CLEARED. Awful. There is no reason why United couldn't go down the path of gross misconduct and bin him off. The Terry - Ferdinand incident of a few years back - not guilty in court but charged and found guilty by the FA of bringing the game into disrepute.

The other path United might take is coming to some form of 'mutual' and terminate his contract. Whichever, there is surely no way he'll play for United or even in Britain again.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Like all Premier League players he’s on the standard EPL contract. Man U can therefore give him the boot for “bringing the club's reputation into disrepute” if they feel they have a good enough case. A case which only has to be proven on the balance of probability. The evidence against Mount which in the public domain must surely meet this criteria?

Not Mason Mount now as well as Greenwood...

 

[jcdenton08]

Aren’t the above two replies exactly what I said?

My point is regardless of the outcome in terms of criminal process, nothing has actually changed with his prospects of playing for the club again. If anything, this strengthens his position. So why must he be released now as opposed to when the recordings were made public?

 

[Napper]

for balance , why was she recording and that cut on the lip video she released is deffo not blood

He Still sounds like a shit bag though

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

My point is regardless of the outcome in terms of criminal process, nothing has actually changed with his prospects of playing for the club again. If anything, this strengthens his position. So why must he be released now as opposed to when the recordings were made public?

Because it may come out in the investigations that the recordings weren't legitimate?

No, I don't think that either but waiting till anything legal is concluded is a no brainer to avoid any unnecessary issues further down the road.