Greenwood

Manchester United chat
User avatar
Felwin
Legend
Posts: 1373
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Abroad

Fuck the Glazers wrote: 6 months ago
swampash wrote: 6 months ago Is this your field of work, Sid?
Yeah, domestic abuse is often a feature of the clients I get, so I've had a shitload of training on it. It's not the main line of work, but certainly a feature. I have an understanding but there are others in the field that are experts.

I just imagine this as if I was supporting her - fucking hell - it'd be one where we had very close eyes on and be constantly liaising with safeguarding - especially cos we've heard actual death threats and seen evidence of physical attacks. It'd be the highest risk category. It'd be a multi agency approach aka social workers, safeguarding, police etc.

But without consent there's nothing anyone can do unless they're in immediate danger. Victims are often too scared to push it - and rightly so, cos the chance of being killed at point of leaving is high. Even a simple text from a support worker or unknown person could inflame the situation and put her at risk.

Professionals will have safety planned with her and the kid aka find a quick way out of the house, a place to hide either outside or at a friend/family members houses etc. There'll also be a risk management strategy to calm him down and defuse situations. It's one where every precaution has to be taken.
Cheers for posting this. Hard to read but puts it all into perspective.

Not to hijack the topic, but it makes me think of the Suarez thing at Liverpool. I was one of those taken in by the narrative that LFC was rotten to the core and allowing Dalglish to pull his stunt and align the club with racism was evidence of that. And now here we are a decade or so later and our club is capable of precisely the same mix of tone-deafness and lack of compassion.

I know none of us here are naive enough to think they'd have risen to the morality of the situation and handled it correctly, but we simply have to expect more. Otherwise there's no fucking point. If every institution we look up to is purely governed by economic cynicism, we're absolutely lost.
User avatar
swampash
Legend
Posts: 2891
Joined: 10 years ago

Does that mean he’ll be loaned out?
User avatar
Felwin
Legend
Posts: 1373
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Abroad

What a steaming pile of fucking wank. Talking about standards and values and then within a few sentences passing judgement as though they are the moral arbiter. The judgement and then the subsequent "recognise the difficulties" bullshit is clearly designed to stand with Greenwood without explicitly saying it, laying the ground for extracting a transfer fee. They have to know that them putting in a statement that they don't believe he commited the offences is tantamount to green-lighting his career. The only reason he won't be turning out for us is purely political. Can't be arsed with the backlash.

Like many on here have said, worst of both worlds. Making everybody upset whilst cynically looking to make as much money out of the situation as possible. Twats the lot of them.
User avatar
JoelfuckingGlazer
Legend
Posts: 3965
Joined: 10 years ago

They've explicitly come out and that the information obtained in their investigation gives them the view that he didn't commit the acts that he was alleged to have done. That's huge - either they have good reason, or they've been fundamentally mislead, or they're lying.

And watch the lack of morality now with how quickly he gets snapped up. He'll go to somewhere abroad, surely. Turkey, Italy. Maybe Saudi, though they'll probably swerve it as it doesn't fit with their sportwashing image campaign.
User avatar
dozer
Legend
Posts: 3886
Joined: 10 years ago

Felwin wrote: 6 months ago
What a steaming pile of fucking wank. Talking about standards and values and then within a few sentences passing judgement as though they are the moral arbiter. The judgement and then the subsequent "recognise the difficulties" bullshit is clearly designed to stand with Greenwood without explicitly saying it, laying the ground for extracting a transfer fee. They have to know that them putting in a statement that they don't believe he commited the offences is tantamount to green-lighting his career. The only reason he won't be turning out for us is purely political. Can't be arsed with the backlash.

Like many on here have said, worst of both worlds. Making everybody upset whilst cynically looking to make as much money out of the situation as possible. Twats the lot of them.
What can the club do when Greenwood and presumably his partner and their families say he didn't do it?
What did you expect the club to say?

He's effectively being punished by not playing for the club. This is the best outcome although it could have happened a lot earlier IMO.
User avatar
dozer
Legend
Posts: 3886
Joined: 10 years ago

I think United were covering their asses and yet punishing him. I don't think the club can just punish Greenwood, and say he did it, when he's not been legally found guilty
They got Greenwood to make a statement effectively saying that he's satisfied with the decision to get rid of him. I don't think he'd have agreed to this if they'd called him guilty of the crime.

This way they get him to leave and become not liable, legally. The club cant go for his throat. The reality is, his partner who's the alleged victim and their families are presumably defending him and legally he's not been charged.
If they sell him for money, assuming someone buys him, then idk how this is different from playing him. Unless the money's donated to charity.
User avatar
dozer
Legend
Posts: 3886
Joined: 10 years ago

User avatar
Jason
Star Man
Posts: 819
Joined: 10 years ago

So let me get this right, when the club stated they wanted to discuss with the lionesses, it was to check if theyd be happy get shot of greenwood?

As if.

Its quite obvious the club have done an about turn on this in the past week, its just farcical.

Either you decide he's innocent, and comes back, or he's guilty and you get rid. Don't just sway to public opinion to flip the decision you've made on the back of a 6 month investigation.
User avatar
Felwin
Legend
Posts: 1373
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Abroad

dozer wrote: 6 months ago I think United were covering their asses and yet punishing him. I don't think the club can just punish Greenwood, and say he did it, when he's not been legally found guilty
They got Greenwood to make a statement effectively saying that he's satisfied with the decision to get rid of him. I don't think he'd have agreed to this if they'd called him guilty of the crime.

This way they get him to leave and become not liable, legally. The club cant go for his throat. The reality is, his partner who's the alleged victim and their families are presumably defending him and legally he's not been charged.
If they sell him for money, assuming someone buys him, then idk how this is different from playing him. Unless the money's donated to charity.
Mutually terminating his contract wouldn’t have necessarily been a verdict on him if they’d acted swiftly because they want to act as an institution should. Dragging it out in order to test the water and then wriggling out of it due to the optics is just bottom of the barrel behaviour.

Agree with you that they should donate any transfer money to charity but I still think it’s wrong to essentially back him but not keep him because of how it looks. They’re passing the buck. Like the classic “I’m sorry YOU’RE offended”. They may as well say “we’d love to have him back but these cunt supporters and journos won’t let us”.
Post Reply