The 2023-2024 Football Thread

[Scepticalscribe]

Timber has ruptured ACL and out for up to 9 months

And probably wont be the same on return

Very possibly, unfortunately.

And on his debut, as well.

Ouch.

A personal tragedy and a professional debacle.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Reading United’s statement re Mason Greenwood.

I think he will included in the First Team squad as the season progresses.

Personally, I must say that I hope not.

Anyway, according to the Guardian, United had tried to put some of the responsibility for this decision ultimately on those Manchester United players who are female and who happen to be facing into a World Cup Final (at the other end of the world) with the Lionesses.

As if they didn't have more than enough to deal with, as it is.

 

[laptech]

Reading United’s statement re Mason Greenwood.

I think he will included in the First Team squad as the season progresses.

The problem United have is that whilst the charges against Greenwood were dropped, they were dropped mainly in part due to key witnesses dropping out of the case amongst other things which means as far as the public is concerned, what they saw on social media of the physical injuries to his then partner and the abuse and vile text messages he sent, he is guilty as sin and as we all know, rightly or wrongly the court of public opinion can be extremely strong. The question for United will be how much do they want to alienate their female fan base because if they allow him back into the squad there will surely be a concerted effort by female fans to drag United's name into the mud, worse than what it already is with the Glazers.

Whilst Greenwood and his supporters will say that he is an innocent man, those on the other side of the argument will say that he has not been proven to be innocent either because there is proven evidence against him just that it has not been put to the test in open court. So whilst he isn't guilty, he isn't innocent either is what people will say and that is what will hurt United if they keep him and allow him to play.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Man Utd are in a corner due to the legal proceedings, which publicly demonstrated that Greenwood has behaved atrociously but cleared him of legal wrongdoing. If they decide not to play him there could be ructions from the player and agent (and it costs them money). But if he plays Man Utd are employing a known abuser, whatever the legal realities. I don't think their 'investigation' is so much an investigation as it is an exploration of damage-control options. I would not want him pulling on my club's shirt ever again. He's legally innocent, but playing professional football at an elite level is a privilege, and I seriously question whether he merits that privilege.

As for all the Saudi League stuff, it's gotten so pervasive and depressing I barely want to talk about it. Fans, players, and clubs talk about passion, loyalty, tradition, blah, blah, blah - but then leap into the arms of the first shady so-and-so that waves a few quid under their noses. That sort of behavior has been going on for years - but not this shamelessly.

If money is the only thing that matters, then people need to stop talking about passion, loyalty, traditions, sportsmanship....because they are rapidly becoming irrelevant. All that matters is money.

 

[laptech]

Personally, I must say that I hope not.

Anyway, according to the Guardian, United had tried to put some of the responsibility for this decision ultimately on those Manchester United players who are female and who happen to be facing into a World Cup Final (at the other end of the world) with the Lionesses.

As if they didn't have more than enough to deal with, as it is.

I think it is fair to get the feeling of the female United players and others because they will be seeing Greenwood around the ground and training facilities on a daily basis and as a squad member there will be instances where members of the club will be working with him directly. Any employer will tell you that you cannot have an employee who will cause problems and issues for others. Yes it will not be fair on Greenwood but if club staff say they will refuse work to with him or be anywhere near him then the club will have no choice but to let him go.

 

[laptech]

.....

As for all the Saudi League stuff, it's gotten so pervasive and depressing I barely want to talk about it. Fans, players, and clubs talk about passion, loyalty, tradition, blah, blah, blah - but then leap into the arms of the first shady so-and-so that waves a few quid under their noses. That sort of behavior has been going on for years - but not this shamelessly.

If money is the only thing that matters, then people need to stop talking about passion, loyalty, traditions, sportsmanship....because they are rapidly becoming irrelevant. All that matters is money.

Here here.... I totally agree.

 

[fanboy-ish]

As for all the Saudi League stuff, it's gotten so pervasive and depressing I barely want to talk about it. Fans, players, and clubs talk about passion, loyalty, tradition, blah, blah, blah - but then leap into the arms of the first shady so-and-so that waves a few quid under their noses. That sort of behavior has been going on for years - but not this shamelessly.

If money is the only thing that matters, then people need to stop talking about passion, loyalty, traditions, sportsmanship....because they are rapidly becoming irrelevant. All that matters is money.

Hasn't always been like this?

I mean, why did all the best players come to Italy in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s? Then why did they start moving to the Premier League? Money.

Money bought all the best players, and having all the best players made the leagues, be it Serie A or the Premier League, the most prestigious and the most coveted by players.

The same goes for clubs. Why is Real Madrid prestigious? For their history, yes, but also for their present, there are plenty of clubs with prestigious histories and not as exciting present, players are not banging their doors down to play there, because money isn't there and, therefore, trophies won't be there, but mostly money.

Even if we only talk about domestic transfers, pre-Bosman ruling, we see a pattern of, basically, the same clubs alternate and winning competitions, because those were the rich clubs, with rich owners who poured money into the clubs, and bought the best players available.

Yes, we've always had some players here and there who stayed at the same club throughout their careers, even if going to another club (probably) would have meant more money and trophies, but the vast majority of players never pledged any allegiance to a single club.

Michel Platini was recently interviewed by an Italian newspapers and he said that players are like migratory birds, they will go where the money is, and he's right, in my opinion.

Now we are shocked because this kind of money, besides being sports washing, is preposterous. But I'm old enough to remember many players with a price tag then considered preposterous.

The problem nowadays, not really nowadays as it started a few years ago, is that clubs are competing against countries, and there's no way an industrial group can compete against a country, especially one so rich and ruled, almost, on whims.

I see many Italian fans are waking up to the reality of football, the moment other clubs got into the game of spending like there's no tomorrow, and those are not the clubs they support, then ruling the football world thanks to their owners' deep pockets is not nice anymore and must be stopped, but they (we) seem to want to forget when our clubs used to do the same. I mean, I'm a Juventus fan, I know what it means to rule thanks to owners' money, but I also recognize the reality of the football world, it's ruled by money, when there's someone able, or willing, to spend more than you, that someone will take your throne, it's just the way it is.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Hasn't always been like this?

In a word, no.

It's a question of degree. Which, I fully admit, implies a subjective limit that is different for different people. Professionalism, and thus business, has been part of the game for a very long time. But at what point does money become too pervasive, sportswashing too cynically flagrant, governance too corrupt and ineffective, transfer fees too inflated, fan costs too high? Because none of those ills have been as severe before as they are today, nor have all of those factors previously converged and reinforced each other the extent they currently have.

It feels, to me, like we are at a tipping point.

 

[pachyderm]

Hasn't always been like this?

I mean, why did all the best players come to Italy in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s? Then why did they start moving to the Premier League? Money.

Money bought all the best players, and having all the best players made the leagues, be it Serie A or the Premier League, the most prestigious and the most coveted by players.

The same goes for clubs. Why is Real Madrid prestigious? For their history, yes, but also for their present, there are plenty of clubs with prestigious histories and not as exciting present, players are not banging their doors down to play there, because money isn't there and, therefore, trophies won't be there, but mostly money.

Even if we only talk about domestic transfers, pre-Bosman ruling, we see a pattern of, basically, the same clubs alternate and winning competitions, because those were the rich clubs, with rich owners who poured money into the clubs, and bought the best players available.

Yes, we've always had some players here and there who stayed at the same club throughout their careers, even if going to another club (probably) would have meant more money and trophies, but the vast majority of players never pledged any allegiance to a single club.

Michel Platini was recently interviewed by an Italian newspapers and he said that players are like migratory birds, they will go where the money is, and he's right, in my opinion.

Now we are shocked because this kind of money, besides being sports washing, is preposterous. But I'm old enough to remember many players with a price tag then considered preposterous.

The problem nowadays, not really nowadays as it started a few years ago, is that clubs are competing against countries, and there's no way an industrial group can compete against a country, especially one so rich and ruled, almost, on whims.

I see many Italian fans are waking up to the reality of football, the moment other clubs got into the game of spending like there's no tomorrow, and those are not the clubs they support, then ruling the football world thanks to their owners' deep pockets is not nice anymore and must be stopped, but they (we) seem to want to forget when our clubs used to do the same. I mean, I'm a Juventus fan, I know what it means to rule thanks to owners' money, but I also recognize the reality of the football world, it's ruled by money, when there's someone able, or willing, to spend more than you, that someone will take your throne, it's just the way it is.

 

[fanboy-ish]

Sevilla 1 - City 0

In a word, no.

It's a question of degree. Which, I fully admit, implies a subjective limit that is different for different people. Professionalism, and thus business, has been part of the game for a very long time. But at what point does money become too pervasive, sportswashing too cynically flagrant, governance too corrupt and ineffective, transfer fees too inflated, fan costs too high? Because none of those ills have been as severe before as they are today, nor have all of those factors previously converged and reinforced each other the extent they currently have.

It feels, to me, like we are at a tipping point.

We do are at a tipping point, I fully agree with you, if we are not there yet we are inching closer each season, or with each transfer.

There are fewer and fewer European clubs able to compete with oil money - except those fueled by oil money themselves -, if there are any, clubs have to spend around 200/300 million euros (between wages and transfers) each season just to be competitive, not even winning 3 or 4 straight Champions League titles will give you a return on investment.

Leagues keep asking more money to TVs because the clubs need the money, TVs will then increase prices for fans, tickets and merchandise prices keep going up.

I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that this system is not sustainable, there's just not enough money going around for clubs to keep this level of spending without relying on someone obscenely rich that spends hundreds of millions of euros like they're playing with paper money.

 

[Apple fanboy]

You say tipping point but it’s no different than in the past. There is always some teams that are on a different level in terms of finance.

Yes we don’t like the source of the cash. But the PL has been toothless in trying to enforce any sense of rules when it comes to club ownership or FFP. They will be even less willing to get involved if they fear the Saudi league will steal all the best players (and limelight!).

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I hope the WWC final is a decent match but have to say that, unusually for me, I'm behind England on this one. They got off to a pretty slow start but they've grown into the tournament and are the real deal. They've got a mix of experience and youth, a winning mentality thanks to the Euros, high morale, have won while playing badly / missing players though injury, and largely avoided dressing room controversies. Checking all the boxes there.

Sarina Wiegman deserves plenty of credit as well, a breath of fresh air after the slightly clownish Phil Neville era (USA fans are keenly aware of the difference a a manager makes at the moment).

You say tipping point but it’s no different than in the past. There is always some teams that are on a different level in terms of finance.

Not to the same degree, no. You say money is money is money. I say how much money, who is spending it, and why they are spending it matters more than the presence of money per se. Population centers (London, Manchester, Rome, Madrid etc etc) will always have more resources to support professional teams. But even heavy advantages in corporate sponsorship/ownership (where revenue still matters) pale in comparison to dilettante oligarchic owners, like Abramovich, who are seeking the shiniest toy to go along with their mansions, islands, and mega-yachts - profit be damned. And a still crazier paradigm is reached by state clubs, who get involved to advance large-scale, long-term geopolitical projects. Money, paradoxically has no effect on them - but they are using its corrupting influence to silence, bribe, and distract critics.

Most football fans hate the idea of football talk becoming a geopolitical discussion. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... "Stick to sport."

That's exactly what the Saudis are shrewdly and cynically counting on - getting other people to do their work for them. And that's why state club ownership is my tipping point - a new and awful chapter in the corruption of the sport.

 

[Silencio]

Personally, I must say that I hope not.

Anyway, according to the Guardian, United had tried to put some of the responsibility for this decision ultimately on those Manchester United players who are female and who happen to be facing into a World Cup Final (at the other end of the world) with the Lionesses.

As if they didn't have more than enough to deal with, as it is.

As poorly as United has handled the whole Greenwood situation, I don't believe these specific media reports are accurate at all. You want the input of the women's team, but it's not fair to make them the final arbiter. It's such a tough line to tread.

I also don't think United can win either way. Contractually, they may have little to no recource to terminating Greenwood's contract without a legal conviction. There's still so much we don't know about the entire situation, so it's hard to say what the right move is — or if there even is a right move. If you listened to the audio, no matter what context it's placed in, it won't ever disappear from the mind.

If United bring Greenwood back, I will only begrudgingly accept it, at best.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

As poorly as United has handled the whole Greenwood situation, I don't believe these specific media reports are accurate at all. You want the input of the women's team, but it's not fair to make them the final arbiter. It's such a tough line to tread.

I don't think the Guardian article @Scepticalscribe refers to was actually claiming Man utd intentionally delegated responsibility on Greenwood's verdict to their female players - only that publicly referring to consulting them can be taken as an excuse by bad actors to blame those players for any punishment Greenwood may suffer.

I also don't think United can win either way. Contractually, they may have little to no recource to terminating Greenwood's contract without a legal conviction. There's still so much we don't know about the entire situation, so it's hard to say what the right move is — or if there even is a right move. If you listened to the audio, no matter what context it's placed in, it won't ever disappear from the mind.

I agree that they are in a lose-lose scenario. They counted on the legal proceedings providing clarity, and clearly now have no plan B.

They are guilty of being completely self-interested and irresolute to the point of not actually having an opinion on the substance of the scandal. Their attention is focused entirely on doing damage control on a situation that looks bad. They are not stopping to think about the fact that Greenwood looks bad because he almost certainly (myself not being subject to UK libel laws, I can say it) did something bad. There may be individuals at the club who don't feel that way, but that's the corporate line.

At this point they have two options, neither of them palatable. Essentially they have to take sides. No matter what they say to spin it, if they keep Greenwood they are going to be seen as Team Greenwood: either cowardly and cynical or winking at domestic abuse, or both. If on the other hand they jettison him, the lawyers, player, and agent will take them for a ride. It will cost a bunch of money, wiping out any savings they would have made by getting rid of him. But it would, I hasten to add, be the ethical thing to do. He can go play somewhere else.

Which, I assume, means they'll keep him. Remember what I previously said about money.

Even from a sporting perspective it's a lose-lose. If Greenwood shines on the pitch it will just keep the controversy in the spotlight indefinitely. He will be a permanent lightning rod for pantomime hate and toxic 'bantz.' If he washes out as a player they will have soiled their public image with a large portion of the fanbase for very little in concrete returns.

EDIT: I doubt most clubs would have handled this much better than Man Utd either. They would hope the court verdict would essentially settle the matter in law and the public eye, and most would probably have been caught just as flat-footed by developments as Man Utd were.

But maybe this incident will have a few club lawyers around the league rubbing their chins and updating some of their standard contract language.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I don't think the Guardian article @Scepticalscribe refers to was actually claiming Man utd intentionally delegated responsibility on Greenwood's verdict to their female players - only that publicly referring to consulting them can be taken as an excuse by bad actors to blame those players for any punishment Greenwood may suffer.

I think it is astonishingly careless, heedless, and thoughtless, and irresponsible, at best (to delegate some responsibility for this onto the female players) and I am astounded that Manchester United have chosen to do so publicly, - essentially abrogating taking responsibility for taking a stance on what to do with Greenwood - especially on the eve of a World Cup Final, for, as both Lineker and Kane have observed, (re the Lionesses) it is not as though England gets to reach World Cup Finals on a regular basis.

Had they chosen to do so privately, it would have been better; it strikes me as a face saving attempt to avoid having to take a responsible and ethical position.

And, worse, by taking this step, it will serve (as the Guardian and @Lord Blackadder have pointed out) to draw toxic (Twitter among others) ire onto the female footballers, which is wrong at any time, but astonishingly careless and thoughtless and irresponsible - actually, it is downright cynical - going into a World Cup Final.

I agree that they are in a lose-lose scenario. They counted on the legal proceedings providing clarity, and clearly now have no plan B.

They are guilty of being completely self-interested and irresolute to the point of not actually having an opinion on the substance of the scandal. Their attention is focused entirely on doing damage control on a situation that looks bad. They are not stopping to think about the fact that Greenwood looks bad because he almost certainly (myself not being subject to UK libel laws, I can say it) did something bad. There may be individuals at the club who don't feel that way, but that's the corporate line.

Agreed.

At this point they have two options, neither of them palatable. Essentially they have to take sides. No matter what they say to spin it, if they keep Greenwood they are going to be seen as Team Greenwood: either cowardly and cynical or winking at domestic abuse, or both. If on the other hand they jettison him, the lawyers, player, and agent will take them for a ride. It will cost a bunch of money, wiping out any savings they would have made by getting rid of him. But it would, I hasten to add, be the ethical thing to do. He can go play somewhere else.

Again, agreed.

Which, I assume, means they'll keep him. Remember what I previously said about money.

Even from a sporting perspective it's a lose-lose. If Greenwood shines on the pitch it will just keep the controversy in the spotlight indefinitely. He will be a permanent lightning rod for pantomime hate and toxic 'bantz.' If he washes out as a player they will have soiled their public image with a large portion of the fanbase for very little in concrete returns.

Personally, I would never want to see him wear the shirt of any club I support.

The guy is an appalling abuser who behaved atrociously and - irrespective of his talent - does not deserve to wear the shirt.

We may err too much when we expect young men from very ordinary backgrounds who are paid obscene sums of money to be exemplary role models (although some do manage this; as a human being, Marcus Rashford is an inspiration), but we can at least take a stance when they behave egregiously and make it clear that we do not - in any way - condone such conduct, and that means severing ties and ensuring that they do not represent the club, and that the club does not support such conduct.

 

[laptech]

As poorly as United has handled the whole Greenwood situation, I don't believe these specific media reports are accurate at all. You want the input of the women's team, but it's not fair to make them the final arbiter. It's such a tough line to tread.

I also don't think United can win either way. Contractually, they may have little to no recource to terminating Greenwood's contract without a legal conviction. There's still so much we don't know about the entire situation, so it's hard to say what the right move is — or if there even is a right move. If you listened to the audio, no matter what context it's placed in, it won't ever disappear from the mind.

If United bring Greenwood back, I will only begrudgingly accept it, at best.

The club do not need a legal conviction to sack Greenwood. All they would need is evidence of wrong doing that would invoke clauses in his contract that basically says he has to be a good boy and not to bring the good name of Manchester United into disrepute because he is in the public eye. Remember, there is actual physical evidence against Greenwood that is strong enough to take him to court but key eyewitnesses backed out and without them the prosecution has no case hence why they dropped the charges against him because they now lacked enough evidence to bring him to trial. United can use the prosecutions evidence in an employee gross misconduct case against Greenwood. United would have to prove that bringing back an alleged rapist and abuser would not only cause harm to the club but be detrimental to the club (fans not buying tickets, season ticket holders handing in their season tickets, sponsors ending contracts). If the club did sack Greenwood, yes he could claim he was unfairly dismissed but then he would have to prove that the evidence used against him is false.

In cases of wrong doing, employers are allowed to carry out their own investigation but once that investigation is completed they must follow employment law procedures which is they would have to have a 'back to work interview' with Greenwood explaining to him the outcome of the investigation and what the club intends to do.

Over the years there have been printed articles in the newspapers where someone has tried to use the press to get them to report on employers wrongly terminating employee contracts and in cases where the employee has done something that has caused discontent with the rest of the workforce, that employee has been sacked and even lost unfair dismissal case against them. It would be no different with Greenwood.

What makes the case with United and Greenwood so difficult is that people in the UK view a person as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law even if there is evidence proving the person's guilt. If it is not presented in a court of law then the person is still innocent no matter what and if United was to sack Greenwood based on the evidence we all know that is out there, there would be immediate shouts of United being heavy handed because they would be accused of sacking someone who is innocent.

United will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

… invoke clauses in his contract that basically says he has to be a good boy and not to bring the good name of Manchester United into disrepute because he is in the public eye.

Most clubs seem reluctant to put those clauses to the test in court. Because even if they successfully enforce them it’s usually only after an expensive court case and appeal process.

United will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I think we all agree on that.

 

[laptech]

......

We may err too much when we expect young men from very ordinary backgrounds who are paid obscene sums of money to be exemplary role models (although some do manage this; as a human being, Marcus Rashford is an inspiration), but we can at least take a stance when they behave egregiously and make it clear that we do not - in any way - condone such conduct, and that means severing ties and ensuring that they do not represent the club, and that the club does not support such conduct.

That only works when it comes to who the player is. A very good example is Ryan Giggs. He had an 8 year affair with his brothers wife whilst he himself was still married. He admitted he is a love cheat but yet fans loved him. He was still a United player when the affair became public but due to his 'legend' status at the club, his indiscretions were mostly ignored because he was an important figure at the club.

 

[Sal09]

Will the senior players want him back in the dressing room? Yes we keep talking about the women’s squad but im sure the men’s team will have their own reservations.

There will be plenty of inappropriate chants directed towards him whether it be home fans or away fans.

How will other players families feel about that.

There is already a backlash brewing on social media not just by United fans but all football fans with how United handled things today.

One minute they were congratulating the England trio and how proud they were of them. And then they dropped the statement.

 

[Sal09]

That only works when it comes to who the player is. A very good example is Ryan Giggs. He had an 8 year affair with his brothers wife whilst he himself was still married. He admitted he is a love cheat but yet fans loved him. He was still a United player when the affair became public but due to his 'legend' status at the club, his indiscretions were mostly ignored because he was an important figure at the club.

You can’t compare Giggs situation with what Greenwood did.

Ryan and Natasha’s affair was consensual. Yes morally wrong on every level but it wasn’t abusive.

To this day Greenwood has shown no remorse or issued a sincere apology to the fans.

All i read was he was relieved that charges were dropped.

If Fergie was still there he would have kicked him out no matter how much they had to pay him.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

That only works when it comes to who the player is. A very good example is Ryan Giggs. He had an 8 year affair with his brothers wife whilst he himself was still married.

There is a difference - a significant difference, to my mind, and I write as a woman who lost a lot of respect for Ryan Giggs, yes, I used to like him as a player - between being a love rat or cheat and behaving in an atrocious manner towards your partner in a relationship marked by violence and coercion.

He admitted he is a love cheat but yet fans loved him.

Most fans, yes, because he was a legend.

He was still a United player when the affair became public but due to his 'legend' status at the club, his indiscretions were mostly ignored because he was an important figure at the club.

This is true, but I would argue - firstly - that it is also true that perceptions on such things may have changed a bit, and secondly, more women (and their wallets) support football nowadays, and their views may matter a little more thanks to money and clatered attitudes.

In other words, I'm not quite sure that Giggs would be treated quite so indulgently today.

However, what he did pales (private sleaze, which must have been extraordinarily disruptive of his personal life - was that affair with his brother's wife, or with a team-mates's wife? - the details escape me, as I didn't pay much heed to them at the time) into comparison with the sort of violent coercive controlling abuse attributed to Greenwood.

Above all, nothing was ever said or written to suggest that what Giggs did was not consensual (on the part of both parties ot the affair) Consent matters.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

You can’t compare Giggs situation with what Greenwood did.

Ryan and Natasha’s affair was consensual. Yes morally wrong on every level but it wasn’t abusive.

To this day Greenwood had shown no remorse or issued a sincere apology to the fans.

All i read was he was relieved that charges were dropped.

If Fergie was still there he would have kicked him out no matter how much they had to pay him.

Exactly.

Thank you.

 

[Sal09]

Oh well on a lighter note one day to go before next round of PL fixtures kick in.

Shame Arsenal not playing this weekend.

I want to see Roy Hodgson having a dual with Arsenal players on Monday .

 

[laptech]

In my opinion it does not matter what level of weight the players indiscretions carry, a player behaviour both personal and professional should be beyond reproach. Many players are idolised by fans, they have pictures of the player on their wall, have autographs of the player, have shirts with the players name on and as such they should be setting a very high level of standards and when they do not as in the case of Giggs and Greenwood, both of them should have been booted out the club. Hit a woman, hhhmmmm it's a tough one, let's investigate, not sure if we can sack him but have an affair that destroys a marriage, destroys a family, put's untold hardship, pain and stress on the woman and her children but yeah that's ok, your ok to carry on at the club. It's wrong no matter how you try and swing it.

 

[laptech]

With that said, time to look forward to the WWC final, it should be a good one