United Thread - 2023/24

[r.soleofsalford]

Rag manager on SKY now. They don’t half give him an easy ride

 

[MadchesterCity]

Got to disagree with you here. For whatever you think about what happened, by law someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court. We can argue about his guilt, but the fact remains within our system as it currently stands, those that prosecute crime don't believe they can prove his guilt. For what its worth, my view is that the system we have that effectively punishes his girlfriend if she proceeds with a complaint is wrong beyond words.

That being said as an employer, United have a duty of care to their contracted employee however distasteful that might be. Now if it was a situation like Lee Hughes I would agree with you.

What if he (or one of his colleagues after seeing this behaviour is deemed acceptable) were to rape a fellow employee at United, is it then OK to sack him? Where do United draw the line, for me that line is already drawn after he raped and using physical violence towards another human

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Got to disagree with you here. For whatever you think about what happened, by law someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court. We can argue about his guilt, but the fact remains within our system as it currently stands, those that prosecute crime don't believe they can prove his guilt. For what its worth, my view is that the system we have that effectively punishes his girlfriend if she proceeds with a complaint is wrong beyond words.

That being said as an employer, United have a duty of care to their contracted employee however distasteful that might be. Now if it was a situation like Lee Hughes I would agree with you.

You don’t need to be convicted to be sacked from your job.

If any of us did what Greenwood did, what percentage of us would still be in a job a week later, let alone 18 months?

 

[skillman]

What the fuck did they expect? Idiots.

https://x.com/centregoals/status/1692846760446840913?s=46&t=_h4l-9_J0Vngw9jIG-nprQ

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

What if he (or one of his colleagues after seeing this behaviour is deemed acceptable) were to rape a fellow employee at United, is it then OK to sack him? Where do United draw the line, for me that line is already drawn after he raped and using physical violence towards another human

My understanding is the charges of rape have been dropped. However, to answer your question, if found guilty of rape totally, United would have every right to sack him. Where United should, in my view draw the line is within the limits of the law, if the CPS are stating "no longer a realistic prospect of conviction" then they can't assume guilt.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Rag manager on SKY now. They don’t half give him an easy ride

Amount of money he has spent so far he needs to be challenging for the league. From what we saw Monday night they are a long way away from that, the press won’t say anything though.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Amount of money he has spent so far he needs to be challenging for the league. From what we saw Monday night they are a long way away from that, the press won’t say anything though.

And long May it continue. 8-)

 

[Bluesince1979]

Well said mate, a great description of the utter scum of a club, its loathsome inhabitants and associates…!

Contrast how we treated mendy. Wages stopped paying, see you later. No concern about anything else but the right thing to do

 

[MadchesterCity]

My understanding is the charges of rape have been dropped. However, to answer your question, if found guilty of rape totally, United would have every right to sack him. Where United should, in my view draw the line is within the limits of the law, if the CPS are stating "no longer a realistic prospect of conviction" then they can't assume guilt.

The video and transcript prove that he is a rapist and a woman beater, its only that he hasn't been convincted because his partner is weak, manipulated and abused.
As a father of a girl this acceptance by Manchester United and normalisation of rape and abuse of woman deeply concerns me

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Got to disagree with you here. For whatever you think about what happened, by law someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court. We can argue about his guilt, but the fact remains within our system as it currently stands, those that prosecute crime don't believe they can prove his guilt. For what its worth, my view is that the system we have that effectively punishes his girlfriend if she proceeds with a complaint is wrong beyond words.

That being said as an employer, United have a duty of care to their contracted employee however distasteful that might be. Now if it was a situation like Lee Hughes I would agree with you.

Nothing to do with legality and the arguing about his guilt, this is just another stain on their club, driven by the need for money. As for duty of care, they also have a duty of care to all their supporters, the PL brand and to everybody who finds this issue repugnant, which will be the majority.

The release from the victim, and she is a victim, is what is taken into account, also the detail of her loathsome father, cannot be dismissed and is the true detail of this incident. Why the CPS dropped it is open to debate. The facts aren’t.

 

[Bluesince1979]

The video and transcript prove that he is a rapist and a woman beater, its only that he hasn't been convincted because his partner is weak, manipulated and abused.
As a father of a girl this acceptance by Manchester United and normalisation of rape and abuse of woman deeply concerns me

This is why i keep repeating that united should pay him up and get rid. Any decent club would do that and to hell with the cost.

But they wont, because when it comes to the scum, its all about the dollar

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

You don’t need to be convicted to be sacked from your job.

If any of us did what Greenwood did, what percentage of us would still be in a job a week later, let alone 18 months?

Yes my understanding is you are correct you don't need to be convicted to be sacked. The law though is pretty strict about when you can be fired after an trail and this wasn't even that... the irony is United would, as I understand it be in a better position to fire him had he been found not guilty! This would be viewed as an accusation.

The second point, this would be going to ACAS for a normal person without question should they be fired, but I very much doubt something like this would take 18months for you or I!

​

​

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Contrast how we treated mendy. Wages stopped paying, see you later. No concern about anything else but the right thing to do

It’s different to Mendy and not really comparable as his trial ended at the same time as his contract with us ran out.

Greenwood was also suspended after being charged, up until the point the charges were dropped. Now he’s being paid, unlike Mendy, who was a free agent.

Mendy also was tried and acquitted. Greenwood hasn’t been.

United have spent 6 months carrying out an internal investigation, which sounds more like setting up a strategy to bring him back into the fold in a lot of detail.

What can’t go away are the images and audio that the world has seen and heard.

We’d all like to think that City would have paid of Mendy if he had more time on his contract. We probably would have done too as he’d been shite for us and hardly ever fit.

Had it been Foden, I’m not as certain we’d have done the right thing, but hope we would have.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Yes my understanding is you are correct you don't need to be convicted to be sacked. The law though is pretty strict about when you can be fired after an trail and this wasn't even that... the irony is United would, as I understand it be in a better position to fire him had he been found not guilty! This would be viewed as an accusation.

The second point, this would be going to ACAS for a normal person without question should they be fired, but I very much doubt something like this would take 18months for you or I!

​

​

It’d be quite a short ACAS hearing though.

Exhibit A: Battered face.
Exhibit B: Audio of potential rape.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Yes my understanding is you are correct you don't need to be convicted to be sacked. The law though is pretty strict about when you can be fired after an trail and this wasn't even that... the irony is United would, as I understand it be in a better position to fire him had he been found not guilty! This would be viewed as an accusation.

The second point, this would be going to ACAS for a normal person without question should they be fired, but I very much doubt something like this would take 18months for you or I!

​

​

If a person, on investigation by the employer, is found guilty of gross misconduct, they can be dismissed. What that severance would be, would be down to the two parties, and this is what is being taken into consideration, not the legal entity.

A form of administrative action, one of those regulations will be ‘Bringing the club into disrepute’, and that’s what they seem to be toying with, even in a case like this.

As I said, their actions are a stain on their club and can never be seen as a champion of social values going forward.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Got to disagree with you here. For whatever you think about what happened, by law someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court. We can argue about his guilt, but the fact remains within our system as it currently stands, those that prosecute crime don't believe they can prove his guilt. For what its worth, my view is that the system we have that effectively punishes his girlfriend if she proceeds with a complaint is wrong beyond words.

That being said as an employer, United have a duty of care to their contracted employee however distasteful that might be. Now if it was a situation like Lee Hughes I would agree with you.

Do you think Prince Andrew should have all of his privileges returned and be welcomed back into the circle and sent out as an ambassador for the UK on business trips? He's never been convicted of any offence.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

If a person, on investigation by the employer, is found guilty of gross misconduct, they can be dismissed. What that severance would be, would be down to the two parties, and this is what is being taken into consideration, not the legal entity.

A form of administrative action, one of those regulations will be ‘Bringing the club into disrepute’, and that’s what they seem to be toying with, even in a case like this.

As I said, their actions are a stain on their club and can never be seen as a champion of social values going forward.

It’s interesting seeing peoples’ differing opinions on Schofield, Edwards, Wooton and Greenwood.

Sometimes the same person is arguing for some and against others, when all are borderline illegal and certainly immoral.

 

[Ric]

Looks like the inevitable u-turn is now coming. They’ve handled this terribly though. Richard Arnold seems even more incompetent than his predecessor.

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

Do you think Prince Andrew should have all of his privileges returned and be welcomed back into the circle and sent out as an ambassador for the UK on business trips? He's never been convicted of any offence.

Really good analogy, not meaning to dodge this, don't really follow the royals or support them. However you are correct, if you see Andrew as an employee my defence would apply equally to him, thank you for giving me that perspective.

 

[Nellies left peg]

Looks like the inevitable u-turn is now coming. They’ve handled this terribly though. Richard Arnold seems even more incompetent than his predecessor.

Thankfully, though he was good on Good morning Britain:-)