Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 2023-2024 Football Thread
- Thread starter Scepticalscribe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If United in the statements they have put out are saying Greenwood has done no wrong and Greenwood himself saying 'he made mistakes', it certainly makes you wonder what mistakes he made that warrant the club to get rid of him because let's face it, he was accused of rape and assault and there is pictures and mobile phone texts to prove that but that evidence was not enough to get rid of him because the club are saying they do not believe that evidence. So if the physical evidence against him is not strong enough to get rid of him it begs the question what evidence do United have that is stronger than the rape and assault evidence that they do have that justified in getting rid of him.
According to some of the football media, Mason Mounts recent injury is worse than what it originally was and thus he could be out for up to 6 weeks. That was money well spent lol
Now ETH is looking for a replacement before the transfer window closes because otherwise he be forced to use McTominay, a player ETH does not want with the club trying to sell him.
Now ETH is looking for a replacement before the transfer window closes because otherwise he be forced to use McTominay, a player ETH does not want with the club trying to sell him.
Not trying very hard to sell him. We tried to buy him twice!
But we do not know if that is down to the club or McTominay himself not wanting to go.
I think that the board of Manchester United were attempting to soften up public opinion while preparing the ground for the return of Mason Greenwood to the squad and team.
That nonsense about consulting the women's team (some of whom were away at the World Cup) was - I suspect - to supply some sort of fig-leaf, to give the impression of wide consultation (above all, with women) and of giving the appearance of earnestly attempting to take a wide range of opinion into account prior to proceeding to invite Greenwood to return to the squad and to the team.
The fact that the board (and worse, Greenwood) argued that the (appalling and graphic) evidence "did not provide (provide??) a full picture" and that "Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged" - these are nothing but pure weasel words, buttressed by an ethically egregious stance, - is morally monstrous, and absolutely appalling.
And, as for that sentence structure, one can't but help note the peculiar syntax - what does "...in respect of which he was charged" mean? That sentence (which is, of course, more quibbling, and slippery syntax) should read - in plain English, which makes clear what actually happened - "with which he was charged".
Moreover, the fact that the charges were dropped does not mean that Greenwood did not commit the offences, and nor does it mean that he was acquitted, and it is deeply cynical to imply otherwise.
Anyway, I think that the board had already taken a decision to allow Greenwood to return, - the consultations were a convenient smoke-screen and distraction to give the impression that the decison had not been taken - and were looking for a way to facilitate this.
However, they did not expect the strength of the backlash, from the public, from domestic violence charities, from MPs, from the fans, and - this seems to have astonished them as it is clear that they didn't expect it - from what must have been considerable numbers of Manchester United's own staff.
Nevertheless, your point that there must be much more (and far worse) to what Greenwood has done - other transgressions that have not been made public (one or two accounts hinted at this) is a good one.
As for the argument that because he has been with the club since he was seven years of age, and thus, they owe him a duty of care, the answer to that was given by Marina Hyde (in the Guardian) in an acerbic and briliant piece where she wrote: "To which the only reasonable response is: then you haven’t done a very good job with him, have you?"
Last edited:
What exactly has he been alleged to have done?
Sorry, a bit out of the loop and not enough time to hunt this one down.
Last edited:
Greenwoods partner at the time produce pictures and mobile text messages that showed he had physically assaulted her and mobile phone texts which basically amounted to Greenwood forcing unwanted sex on her. She went to the police saying she was raped and physically assaulted and handed over the picture and mobile phone text messages. He was arrested pending police investigation which was dropped because key witnesses decided not to testify against him.
The club said they was going to wait for the police investigation to finish before they decided to what to do with him. No one expected the case to be dropped, not with the evidence the police had against him, but dropped it was. The club then carried out it's own investigation to see if he goes or stays. It looked like the club wanted him to stay until the backlash against the club started. Now they have decided to get rid of him even though the club statements say he has done no wrong and do not believe the evidence against him.
It is such a huge mess, one that could have most certainly been handled so much better.
Last edited:
So IF Salah goes to Saudi do we think Klopp will resign? I really can’t see it, but there will be a price the board can’t say no to!
As of the beginning of August, Liverpool had already reportedly rejected cash offers for Salah and his agent was on the record saying he was not moving.
But, this being 2023, who knows? If we sell him for a colossal fee before the window ends maybe we can buy Harry Kane by making an offer even Bayern can't refuse. 🤣
As an Egyptian and possibly the biggest star from the region, the Saudis will consider him a very high priority for their 'project.' And so far they've gotten just about everything they wanted. So I expect this story to run on until they finally do get him. Hopefully not this season though.
It all boils down to the very transparent fact that Man Utd only ever looked at the Greenwood situation in terms of financial and legal liabilities, and did the right thing only very reluctantly after all other options were eliminated. Their lack of empathy and perceptiveness was stupefying.
Last edited:
While Al Jazeera (who tend to be a fairly credible source) have reported that Salah has "agreed [a] deal" with the Saudi club Al-Ittihad (owned by the same body that owns Newcastle), Liverpool haven't sanctioned this, and - while it is clear that discussions (and some sort of negotiation) are taking place between the player (who - as the Liverpool Echo has kindly reminded us - last year negotiated a new three years contract with a considerable increase in wages, making him Liverpool's highest paid and most handsomely rewarded and remunerated player), and Al-Ittihad, Liverpool haven't agreed to anything.
Actually, I would imagine that Klopp is livid.
However, if the board go behind his back - to cash in on a player who clearly wishes to depart - then, well, yes, Klopp would be quite within his rights to be furious.
Last edited:
Salah looked pretty livid the other day.
One things for sure, if Salah leaves they will be a poorer team for it. Back to 4th at best.
A poorer team, yes, of course. But but if the defense and midfield can be made to function better than last season, Liverpool won't need as many goals to get results. Jota, Diaz, and Gakpo aren't exactly donkeys, and Darwin is contributing, so even without Salah a top four finish is not an unreasonable goal to aim at, even though there are (depending on how you calculate it) potentially four richer/spendier teams in the league now.
Last edited:
I don't know if "poorer" is the right adjective...maybe in the footballing sense, but certainly not financially. He has 3 years left on a lucrative contract - we know what the SPL clubs will pay if pushed. Liverpool could easily get swayed by a massive financial outcome, even if it leaves them short of talent in the final third.
A very lucrative contract.
It seems that he is the best paid player in Liverpool's history.
Mind you, the Saudis can offer any multiple of that you may care to imagine.
There could well be a considerable difference of opinion between Klopp and the board on this matter, with the former seeking to retain the servcies of the player, while the latter would prefer to cash in on him now (two years of a three year contract remaining, notwithstanding) while such enticing offers are being waved at them.
Filthy old business, professional football.
There is a story doing the rounds in the UK press about the controversial usage of VAR and those who control it. VAR ref Mike Dean has admitted not pushing a VAR incident to the on field screen because he didn't want to give his mate on field ref Anthony Taylor any more grief. Not only is this explosive but has the potential to be very very damaging because now when VAR calls are not made, fans will be thinking is the VAR ref holding back because he is a mate of the on field ref.
uk.yahoo.com
Ref's do not have an easy life. They know every club has an element of fans that are extremely loyal to their club and if ref decisions do not go the teams way, those fans tend to take it out on the ref. Over the years I am sure we have all heard of incidents where ref's have been physically assaulted, pushed, spat at, had their car damaged, had their family threatened. I have no doubt ref's who officiate at all levels of the game have been warned of the dangers of being a ref therefore when a VAR incident occurs, is that VAR ref subconsciously thinking will them calling an incident put the on field ref life into difficulty thus having to make a split second decision to call it or not.
This could explain why VAR calls are not being made. The power of TV has the advantage of showing replays and we have seen time and time again where the TV station has shown a replay of an incident which clearly should have been called by VAR but wasn't. Or a VAR call was made and the TV replay shows the call should not have been made.
In my opinion Mike Dean's admission is going to give the profession a serious problem.
Mike Dean refused to send wrong decision to VAR as referee ‘is a mate’
Dean admits his decision to spare referee Anthony Taylor durign last season’s Chelsea vs Spurs match was ‘pathetic’
uk.yahoo.com
Ref's do not have an easy life. They know every club has an element of fans that are extremely loyal to their club and if ref decisions do not go the teams way, those fans tend to take it out on the ref. Over the years I am sure we have all heard of incidents where ref's have been physically assaulted, pushed, spat at, had their car damaged, had their family threatened. I have no doubt ref's who officiate at all levels of the game have been warned of the dangers of being a ref therefore when a VAR incident occurs, is that VAR ref subconsciously thinking will them calling an incident put the on field ref life into difficulty thus having to make a split second decision to call it or not.
This could explain why VAR calls are not being made. The power of TV has the advantage of showing replays and we have seen time and time again where the TV station has shown a replay of an incident which clearly should have been called by VAR but wasn't. Or a VAR call was made and the TV replay shows the call should not have been made.
In my opinion Mike Dean's admission is going to give the profession a serious problem.
The Spanish FA president is not going to resign over the unwanted kiss on the female Spanish player because according to him he said (and i quote) ‘It was spontaneous, mutual and consensual. It was consensual.'
So basically he is saying that the player consented to the kiss and therefore he has no reason to resign. Interesting when you consider prior to this the player said it was an unwanted kiss. Unwanted meaning it was not consensual. Will be interesting to see the response from the player when she and her agent reads what the man said.
metro.co.uk
An interesting point to note, when you read sexual assault cases which involve a man and a woman, whilst the woman always said she never consented, the man always says the woman consented.
There was a case last year I think where a woman met a player in a bar/nightclub, went back to his hotel room, they consented to sex, he then rang a couple of his mates to come round, they had sex with her but she did not consent to having sex with his mates, only him. She then went to the police to say she was raped, the men said she had consented when in fact she didn't, not to all of them, only one of them. It is a well known tactic used by defense lawyers to say the woman consented to sex because they know it is very difficult to disprove.
So basically he is saying that the player consented to the kiss and therefore he has no reason to resign. Interesting when you consider prior to this the player said it was an unwanted kiss. Unwanted meaning it was not consensual. Will be interesting to see the response from the player when she and her agent reads what the man said.
Spain FA president blames player for kiss and shouts 'I am not resigning!'
'I'm going to fight until the end.'
metro.co.uk
An interesting point to note, when you read sexual assault cases which involve a man and a woman, whilst the woman always said she never consented, the man always says the woman consented.
There was a case last year I think where a woman met a player in a bar/nightclub, went back to his hotel room, they consented to sex, he then rang a couple of his mates to come round, they had sex with her but she did not consent to having sex with his mates, only him. She then went to the police to say she was raped, the men said she had consented when in fact she didn't, not to all of them, only one of them. It is a well known tactic used by defense lawyers to say the woman consented to sex because they know it is very difficult to disprove.
What an absolute disgrace. It's disgusting that this clown is allowed to crap all over such a stunning and historic achievement by the Spanish women's team and is a perfect metaphor for the rampant state of misogyny in this world.
I hope the Spanish FA burns to the ground. There is at least one men's player who is boycotting the national team until Rubiales is ousted, and I hope many more join him. Men created this problem, men need to take responsibility and fix it.
I hope the Spanish FA burns to the ground. There is at least one men's player who is boycotting the national team until Rubiales is ousted, and I hope many more join him. Men created this problem, men need to take responsibility and fix it.
I totally agree. The mans response just goes to show that some men's attitudes are still in the dark ages because he is basically dismissing his actions by saying it was all done in the heat of the moment where feelings and emotions were high and as such that justifies his behavior. The thing is, that is no excuse as it is his responsibility to hold back his emotions and feelings and act in proper accordance. He failed to do so and is now coming up with excuses.
I am sure the majority of us understand the concept of 'in the heat of the moment' and that is what it was in my opinion. Emotions and feelings were high and because of that he inappropriately and unprofessional planted a kiss on one of the female players. All he had to do once the game is finished and everyone has cooled down and chilled out is issue a public statement that in the heat of the moment with emotions and feelings running high, he inappropriately kissed a female player and with that he unreservedly apologies to the player for his unprofessional conduct and he will learn to control his behavior in future. I am sure the player concerned would have understood and would have accepted his apology but no, he did nothing of the sort and is now trying to defend himself by basically saying what he did was acceptable.
Indeed. And instead of talking about the WC and all the good things about it, this is going to tarnish the whole event. Very disappointing.
Making a bad decision in the heat of the moment should lead to an apology and consequences.
In this case the idiot things neither is appropriate.
Sack him I say!
My thoughts exactly. The Spanish FA is a rotten chauvinist good ‘ol boys club. Rubiales is a complete embarrassment to the sport and just another example of a small-minded man in power doubling down on a ludicrous position, defiantly gaslighting the whole world for his own personal benefit. A terrible person who has no idea how terrible they are.
I hope this completely spoils Spain’s win. Sorry for the players but this is bigger than that - we can’t let the success on the pitch overshadow the disaster that is Spain’s football culture.
Having a woman being treated like an object in the pitch in front of the cameras by an FA suit is a huge slap in the face of everything the women’s game is trying to build. There has to be consequences.
Last edited: