United Thread - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
waspish said:
Antony slimy kunt!

With his "I can calmly state that the accusations are false and that the evidence already produced and the other evidence that will be produced demonstrate that I am innocent of the accusations made,"

That word Calmly says to me he is a lying piece of woman beating dirty rancid kunt!
Click to expand...
The only thing that this **** does calmly is disappear up his own ass whilst pretending to be a footballer
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
It’s not the same as Greenwood. There are no photos or videos that “prove“ his guilt.

Other players have continued playing whilst having things like this hanging over their heads.

If he’s not charged, and no evidence is put in the public domain, Antony would probably just get lots of chants about his alleged behaviour without a huge demand to cancel him.
Click to expand...
So there was evidence that proved Greenwood's guilt. Not according to the statement put out by the rags, at the conclusion of their investigation. Part of which read.

Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged.

Shit stain of a club, but can't see how they can carry on playing Antony, but wouldn't surprise me if they did.
 
Academica said:
So there was evidence that proved Greenwood's guilt. Not according to the statement put out by the rags, at the conclusion of their investigation. Part of which read.

Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged.

Shit stain of a club, but can't see how they can carry on playing Antony, but wouldn't surprise me if they did.
Click to expand...
Their manager has a history of supporting abusive people.
 
Academica said:
So there was evidence that proved Greenwood's guilt. Not according to the statement put out by the rags, at the conclusion of their investigation. Part of which read.

Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged.

Shit stain of a club, but can't see how they can carry on playing Antony, but wouldn't surprise me if they did.
Click to expand...
The evidence that has been seen on social media has made up most peoples’ minds that Greenwood has committed the crimes he was charged with, but never got to defend himself in court because his partner withdrew her support.

The rags undertook a review that took 6 months and that decided that they were happy that he didn’t commit any offence. They gave no context or reasoning for this and it also emerged that they hadn’t even spoken with Greenwood’s partner.

The Antony situation is similar to where we were with Mendy before he was charged. They aren’t likely to suspend him until a decision is made on that. (As we did)

If he is never charged with anything, then this is where the kangaroo court of Social Media will come in. It’s not as “clear cut” as Greenwood as the public haven’t seen any evidence.

People continue to be innocent until proven guilty, although there might need to be a caveat added of not being innocent on social media until proven not guilty in court.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
The evidence that has been seen on social media has made up most peoples’ minds that Greenwood has committed the crimes he was charged with, but never got to defend himself in court because his partner withdrew her support.

The rags undertook a review that took 6 months and that decided that they were happy that he didn’t commit any offence. They gave no context or reasoning for this and it also emerged that they hadn’t even spoken with Greenwood’s partner.

The Antony situation is similar to where we were with Mendy before he was charged. They aren’t likely to suspend him until a decision is made on that. (As we did)

If he is never charged with anything, then this is where the kangaroo court of Social Media will come in. It’s not as “clear cut” as Greenwood as the public haven’t seen any evidence.

People continue to be innocent until proven guilty, although there might need to be a caveat added of not being innocent on social media until proven not guilty in court.
Click to expand...

Call my cynical but " the review undertaken by the rags that took 6 months, before deciding the Greenwood didn't commit the offence " is a crock of shit imo,facilitated by the fact that the girl withdrew her complaint.

Now whether that decision was taken under duress, money being exchanged to persuade/ help her or others ( possibly the club ) to withdraw the claims or whatever, is far from persuasive of Greenwoods innocence in my opinion.

I believe that Greenwood is perceived by the club as a financial asset which they do not want to give up.

And for that reason I think the messages coming out of the club are pure horseshit , trial or no trial.

If you believe differently, that is your prerogative.

I am unaware of genuine evidence to support the view that the club really care about their employees/ players , other than considering them to be financial assets. Ex players being thrown out of club houses does not suggest that they are caring employers.

However I believe they are desperate to portray the impression that they are a wonderfully caring club who value their reputation so much, that they would do almost anything for it to be seen to be untainted .
 
Last edited:
Colin Bells Boots said:
Call my cynical but " he review undertaken by the rags that took 6 months, before deciding the Greenwood didn't commit the offence " is a crock of shit imo,facilitated by the fact that the girl withdrew her complaint.

Now whether that decision was taken under duress, money being exchanged to persuade/ help her or others ( possibly the club ) to withdraw the claims or whatever, is far from persuasive of Greenwoods innocence in my opinion.

I believe that Greenwood is perceived by the club as a financial asset which they do not want to give up.

And for that reason I think the messages coming out of the club are pure horseshit , trial or no trial.

If you believe differently, that is your prerogative .
Click to expand...
I don’t particularly, but we don’t know for sure. Of course they will seek to protect a £100m asset if they can.

The fact they haven’t released any further info absolving him suggests to me that they didn't have any.

Ultimately Greenwood hasn’t faced any charges, but has been found guilty. That doesn’t sit right with me, longer term, but in this instance, it’s hard not to see the evidence and think him guilty.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I don’t particularly, but we don’t know for sure. Of course they will seek to protect a £100m asset if they can.

The fact they haven’t released any further info absolving him suggests to me that they didn't have any.

Ultimately Greenwood hasn’t faced any charges, but has been found guilty. That doesn’t sit right with me, longer term, but in this instance, it’s hard not to see the evidence and think him guilty.
Click to expand...

Protecting a financial asset before accepting responsibility for an employee transgressing human deceny doesn't sit right with me.

And Mendy and any perceived transgression by him, didn't deter City from taking what they believed was the correct action. And he was found not guilty following a court trial.

And he was a financial asset to City ( although many will question that statement )

Two entirely different approaches to similar situations.

That is my last word as we neither know all the facts .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.