United Thread - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whether or not said:
It is a fair enough comment, and you won’t find a bigger critic of Mendy than me. But Greenwood was a young home grown player seemingly going astray, not an established international player who had been bought for millions. Clubs should take more responsibility for guiding their kids through the obvious pitfalls of fame and wealth at a young age. Much of what was doing the rounds about Greenwood involved the (friends) he had, which should have had alarm bells ringing at the swamp.
Click to expand...
When him and Foden got together on international duty they both got into bother for breaking COVID rules. Only one of those players has kept their noses clean since then.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
That statement appears rushed and very last minute. Certainly not the clubs desired outcome of a "6-Month" investigation.
Click to expand...
The Athletic reckons that in order to get him to agree to a mutual separation, with 3 years left on his contract, that they had to publicly support him so that he would be able to leave with some semblance of a career in football afterwards. If they just chucked him under the bus, he could just sit on his 80 grand a week wages and continue to be a thorn in their side until his contract ran out.
 
The Times refused to publish the United statement in full following advice from their legal people.

Anyone know why?
 
Ardnaree said:
The Athletic reckons that in order to get him to agree to a mutual separation, with 3 years left on his contract, that they had to publicly support him so that he would be able to leave with some semblance of a career in football afterwards. If they just chucked him under the bus, he could just sit on his 80 grand a week wages and continue to be a thorn in their side until his contract ran out.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a line straight from the Rag's PR department in an attempt to detract from the shocking way they've handled the whole situation.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
All they have to do is put a disclaimer on it.
Click to expand...
So why still not publish it?
What is in it that is a legally questionable risk for a third party?

Martin Samuel Refers to it here…

“…Far more so than can be set out here. There are even elements of United’s official statement – words the club are happy to place on record, and in print – that the lawyers working for this newspaper will not allow us to publish. If you are reading this in its online format, you will note, again, that below the line comment is not permitted. Some of the absent details would be greatly illuminating, would help explain the processes and how difficult it has been for United, as Greenwood’s employers (the priority of offering sympathy for the alleged victim goes without saying). So there was never an easy answer to this; never, once United had conducted their investigation, a straightforward case for sack or retain. The club were anxious to point out that had their investigation found Greenwood had committed the offences with which he was initially charged then – whether the case proceeded to court or not – his contract would have been terminated…”
 
Last edited:
Seems strange that the mirror online doesn’t allow people to text in today on all of the news of greenwood. Legal stuff?
 
denislawsbackheel said:
Unlike Greenwood Mendy was cleared of all charges.
Click to expand...

But like Greenwood, whilst legally in the clear, the evidence in the public domain showed both to be highly unsavoury characters.

"Legally cleared" and "shown to have behaved acceptably" are not synonymous, something (wilfully?) ignored by many in both cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top