|
Post by mattyovrio on Aug 21, 2023 17:06:59 GMT
Going on past history with other players think he is going to find it very difficult to play at any other club. He'll be fine abroad. It's the media over here that will make his life hell.
I hope him, his partner and his new born child have a happy life together and that he learns from his mistakes.
Obvious candidate for Saudi
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Aug 22, 2023 10:15:08 GMT
Going on past history with other players think he is going to find it very difficult to play at any other club. He'll be fine abroad. It's the media over here that will make his life hell.
I hope him, his partner and his new born child have a happy life together and that he learns from his mistakes.
A lot depends on what your opinion on the law is. If you feel that a person is innocent of anything unless they are found guilty of something then he should be able to pick up his career where it left off. Its a different question to a player who has served his time after a guilty verdict to then walk back into football which a few have done.
|
|
|
Post by David Schofield on Aug 22, 2023 10:19:06 GMT
He'll be fine abroad. It's the media over here that will make his life hell.
I hope him, his partner and his new born child have a happy life together and that he learns from his mistakes.
Obvious candidate for Saudi United haven’t let him go for that precise reason imo They want a fee and those mad f*cks in Saudi will pay one and won’t give a toss about his behaviour
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,298
|
Post by Mozzer on Aug 22, 2023 10:25:28 GMT
He'll be fine abroad. It's the media over here that will make his life hell.
I hope him, his partner and his new born child have a happy life together and that he learns from his mistakes.
A lot depends on what your opinion on the law is. If you feel that a person is innocent of anything unless they are found guilty of something then he should be able to pick up his career where it left off. Its a different question to a player who has served his time after a guilty verdict to then walk back into football which a few have done. In law, he's not been found guilty of any offence. That doesn't mean an employer can't take other factors into consideration. Let's be honest, there is no moral stance being taken here by Man U. They've decided to bin him on the balance that keeping him harms their image more than keeping him would benefit them. About a week ago, I think they were more inclined to the opposite view.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Aug 22, 2023 11:34:53 GMT
A lot depends on what your opinion on the law is. If you feel that a person is innocent of anything unless they are found guilty of something then he should be able to pick up his career where it left off. Its a different question to a player who has served his time after a guilty verdict to then walk back into football which a few have done. In law, he's not been found guilty of any offence. That doesn't mean an employer can't take other factors into consideration. Let's be honest, there is no moral stance being taken here by Man U. They've decided to bin him on the balance that keeping him harms their image more than keeping him would benefit them. About a week ago, I think they were more inclined to the opposite view. So he is a victim then of trial by public opinion. Those who have the opinion of getting rid of him might be first to moan about being presumed guilty themselves without a court of law saying they are.
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,298
|
Post by Mozzer on Aug 22, 2023 11:55:20 GMT
In law, he's not been found guilty of any offence. That doesn't mean an employer can't take other factors into consideration. Let's be honest, there is no moral stance being taken here by Man U. They've decided to bin him on the balance that keeping him harms their image more than keeping him would benefit them. About a week ago, I think they were more inclined to the opposite view. So he is a victim then of trial by public opinion. Those who have the opinion of getting rid of him might be first to moan about being presumed guilty themselves without a court of law saying they are. Well, this is where it's tricky, yes. But the alternative is that anything goes provided you've not been found guilty of an offence in a court of law.
|
|
|
Post by orkneyhatter on Aug 22, 2023 13:00:49 GMT
So he is a victim then of trial by public opinion. Those who have the opinion of getting rid of him might be first to moan about being presumed guilty themselves without a court of law saying they are. Well, this is where it's tricky, yes. But the alternative is that anything goes provided you've not been found guilty of an offence in a court of law. its a problem in that there have already been protests outside OT about him returning (this was before he left "by mutual consent"). Yes he has not been convicted of anything but to some people there's no smoke without fire. IMO it's a lot to do with being in the public eye. If he worked in an office block down the road we would never have heard about it, and it possibly wouldn't be an issue, except possibly with his work colleagues.
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,298
|
Post by Mozzer on Aug 22, 2023 13:07:56 GMT
Well, this is where it's tricky, yes. But the alternative is that anything goes provided you've not been found guilty of an offence in a court of law. its a problem in that there have already been protests outside OT about him returning (this was before he left "by mutual consent"). Yes he has not been convicted of anything but to some people there's no smoke without fire. IMO it's a lot to do with being in the public eye. If he worked in an office block down the road we would never have heard about it, and it possibly wouldn't be an issue, except possibly with his work colleagues. It's exactly about him being in the public eye IMO, yes. In this case, the harm his presence there does to the Man Utd brand. They've weighed it up and decided it's too great to stomach. I doubt they've spent very long worrying about the moral complexities of getting rid of someone not convicted of an offence. They've not actually sacked him though, have they? So he is presumably still picking up a wage until he's sold/his contract expires - they're just not going to play him.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 22, 2023 13:11:09 GMT
They've not actually sacked him though, have they? So he is presumably still picking up a wage until he's sold/his contract expires - they're just not going to play him. They've not sacked him you're right, but they've even gone a step further by more or less saying they believe he's not guilty of the original charge brought against him, so they probably couldn't sack him even if they had wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 22, 2023 13:24:06 GMT
In law, he's not been found guilty of any offence. That doesn't mean an employer can't take other factors into consideration. Let's be honest, there is no moral stance being taken here by Man U. They've decided to bin him on the balance that keeping him harms their image more than keeping him would benefit them. About a week ago, I think they were more inclined to the opposite view. So he is a victim then of trial by public opinion. Those who have the opinion of getting rid of him might be first to moan about being presumed guilty themselves without a court of law saying they are. Forget guilt, innocence, and all that. It's about Corporate reputation and anyone who works for an organisation knows, and lives by rules, that mean that they can be held accountable for their actions outside of work. And if those actions impinge negatively on the reputation of the company you work for then you have a problem. Businesses are not obliged to allow you to work for them. Within the constraints of Law they can dispense with your services for any reason which they choose. I used to do a lot of work with a very gifted Commercial Underwriter. She got caught on camera having it off on the late train home after a night on the piss in London. In the morally corrupt corporate world...nothing to see here. However, said picture of her getting amorous was contained within one of London's rags. And the dreaded "...an employee for E.H." also appeared. Lost her job within days. And she was a huge asset to the business. An income creator. Very professional, very expert in her field. Gone...just like that. If I said something on this website that was ill-advised and it got back to my employer...be the same for me.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 22, 2023 13:31:07 GMT
They've not actually sacked him though, have they? So he is presumably still picking up a wage until he's sold/his contract expires - they're just not going to play him. They've not sacked him you're right, but they've even gone a step further by more or less saying they believe he's not guilty of the original charge brought against him, so they probably couldn't sack him even if they had wanted to. "Mutual consent" unless I'm mistaken. Basically sacked but with a settlement agreed on the basis that he won't go after them for wrongful dismissal and no doubt commensurate with settling his remaining contract, and can therefore rebuild his career elsewhere. If he can pick up a career elsewhere I can imagine he'll come out of it pretty financially sound.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 22, 2023 13:31:31 GMT
Forget guilt, innocence, and all that. It's about Corporate reputation and anyone who works for an organisation knows, and lives by rules, that mean that they can be held accountable for their actions outside of work. And if those actions impinge negatively on the reputation of the company you work for then you have a problem. Businesses are not obliged to allow you to work for them. Within the constraints of Law they can dispense with your services for any reason which they choose. United haven't dispensed with his services though, as presumably they feel they have no (legal / employment law, etc) grounds to. He's still a United employee and getting paid.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 22, 2023 13:38:42 GMT
Forget guilt, innocence, and all that. It's about Corporate reputation and anyone who works for an organisation knows, and lives by rules, that mean that they can be held accountable for their actions outside of work. And if those actions impinge negatively on the reputation of the company you work for then you have a problem. Businesses are not obliged to allow you to work for them. Within the constraints of Law they can dispense with your services for any reason which they choose. United haven't dispensed with his services though, as presumably they feel they have no (legal / employment law, etc) grounds to. He's still a United employee and getting paid. Until dispensed with...shortly. By mutual agreement. He's no longer providing his services to them. He's a footballer. He'll never play for them again. ie. "his services are no longer required". You think clubs can't dispense with someone's services if they have no legal grounds to? For real? I can provide you with a list of people who precisely that happens to practically every week in football...and they haven't even done anything that warranted criminal investigation. Simon Rusk...there's a start. Jim Gannon. Another.
|
|
|
Post by David Schofield on Aug 22, 2023 13:46:17 GMT
He’s a rapist. A convicted rapist..? No. But a rapist all the same.
Manchester United are not a publicly listed company but are in negotiations with multiple buyers to sell the Club - their reputation matters, not just from brand perspective but in fiduciary terms - there was never a way back for him - the Club just had to be seen to have thoroughly explored all outcomes
He should f*ck off to Saudi where he’ll fit right in
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 22, 2023 13:49:47 GMT
You think clubs can't dispense with someone's services if they have no legal grounds to? For real? I can provide you with a list of people who precisely that happens to practically every week in football...and they haven't even done anything that warranted criminal investigation. Simon Rusk...there's a start. Jim Gannon. Another. You're specifically talking there about Managerial sackings, in which case I expect both Gannon and Rusk were paid up their contracts, or at least settled to terms that were agreed when the contract was signed. United could pay up Greenwood's contract, which they may do, but that's different from sacking him on the grounds of what he's done. I'm sure if they had sufficient evidence they would just terminate his contract and save themselves X Mil in wages. Doesn't seem they have grounds for that, so they either: 1) pay up his contract at considerable expense, 2) loan him out somewhere with a view to potentially recouping some money back on him in the future
|
|