Football 2021/2022

[pink_triangle]

13 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I think its fairly obvious by now how useless the police is at this sort of thing. And why women can't really just rely on telling the police.

I don't really see the 'let him defend himself' part of it given the photos and audio 

While I see your point, at the same time I don't want Man U to have to pay him off millions of pounds just to get rid of the situation. They will have to follow legal process whatever that is.

[thetime]

20 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

I don't really see the 'let him defend himself' part of it given the photos and audio 

Because everyone has a right to defend themselves in court. Rather than guilty by social media. 

[st dan]

13 minutes ago, thetime said:

Because everyone has a right to defend themselves in court. Rather than guilty by social media. 

But the problem is (especially with domestic abuse cases where there is often little evidence) a top lawyer can try and wangle their way out of it somehow. When it’s pretty obvious what’s happened from the photos, and particularly the audio. 

Send him to jail, United terminate his contract and sue him for breach of contract (if plausible) and let the scumbag rot and never have a career in football again. 

I’m sure the United PR machine wants nothing to do with him, and the repetitional damage even trying to support him in any way could bring. The players have now started distancing themselves and unfollowing him on Instagram etc - he’s done. 

Edited January 30, 2022 by st dan

[thetime]

57 minutes ago, st dan said:

But the problem is (especially with domestic abuse cases where there is often little evidence) a top lawyer can try and wangle their way out of it somehow. When it’s pretty obvious what’s happened from the photos, and particularly the audio. 

Send him to jail, United terminate his contract and sue him for breach of contract (if plausible) and let the scumbag rot and never have a career in football again. 

I’m sure the United PR machine wants nothing to do with him, and the repetitional damage even trying to support him in any way could bring. The players have now started distancing themselves and unfollowing him on Instagram etc - he’s done. 

Unless there is an arrest, charge and conviction they can't sack him can they? They will suspended tomorrow I would of thought. 

Has he been arrested? Has his gf even made a complaint to the police? 

 

[The Nal]

2 hours ago, zahidf said:

I don't really see the 'let him defend himself' part of it given the photos and audio 

There have been laws in place for hundreds of years for that exact reason. 

Do you think he should just be sent to jail today without an investigation or a trial?

[zahidf]

Just now, The Nal said:

There have been laws in place for hundreds of years for that exact reason. 

Do you think he should just be sent to jail today without an investigation or a trial?

Is that what I said? I'm saying he's a scumbag and I hope he gets arrested soon

Am I not allowed to call Marilyn manson or Louis CK scumbags? I didn't realise I had tk wait for a court conviction first.

[charlierc]

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

While I see your point, at the same time I don't want Man U to have to pay him off millions of pounds just to get rid of the situation. They will have to follow legal process whatever that is.

The nearest to a precedent I can think of is Adam Johnson. I cannot recall however if Sunderland had to pay him to sack him when he was convicted of his off-pitch behaviour.

[charlierc]

In the last 10 minutes Manchester United have put out a statement that they have suspended Mason Greenwood from training and match involvement.

Not surprised at all. The testimony shared this morning was horrendous.

[zahidf]

Just now, charlierc said:

In the last 10 minutes Manchester United have put out a statement that they have suspended Mason Greenwood from training and match involvement.

Not surprised at all. The testimony shared this morning was horrendous.

Yup. Good approach.

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, charlierc said:

The nearest to a precedent I can think of is Adam Johnson. I cannot recall however if Sunderland had to pay him to sack him when he was convicted of his off-pitch behaviour.

That whole thing was grim: he played for 11 months for the club whilst on bail, whilst the Club (allegedly) knew he was going to plead guilty to one of the accounts. The crimes were against an underage Sunderland fan as well!

[thetime]

6 minutes ago, charlierc said:

In the last 10 minutes Manchester United have put out a statement that they have suspended Mason Greenwood from training and match involvement.

Not surprised at all. The testimony shared this morning was horrendous.

That was always going to happen. Correct decision until a possible court case is heard.

[thetime]

10 minutes ago, charlierc said:

The nearest to a precedent I can think of is Adam Johnson. I cannot recall however if Sunderland had to pay him to sack him when he was convicted of his off-pitch behaviour.

I would of thought the current Everton player case is more relevant at the moment. After all he hasn't been arrested yet as far as I'm aware, or even if the alleged victim has even gone to the police. 

[pink_triangle]

30 minutes ago, charlierc said:

The nearest to a precedent I can think of is Adam Johnson. I cannot recall however if Sunderland had to pay him to sack him when he was convicted of his off-pitch behaviour.

I'm pretty sure his contract was terminated the day he pleaded guilty and they wouldn't have had to pay the remainder of his contract. My friend thinks there is a possibility they would be able to fire just on the basis of being charged, but would depend on the wording of his contract and HR policies.

I have no doubt as well that clubs (even if they won't admit) will consider the value of the player before making a decision. If it was a player they were desperately trying to shift they would probably take advantage if they thought they could. I struggle with valuations but suspect yesterday Greenwood would have been in that 50 million bracket and that's a lot for a club to write off.

[zahidf]

10 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I'm pretty sure his contract was terminated the day he pleaded guilty and they wouldn't have had to pay the remainder of his contract. My friend thinks there is a possibility they would be able to fire just on the basis of being charged, but would depend on the wording of his contract and HR policies.

I have no doubt as well that clubs (even if they won't admit) will consider the value of the player before making a decision. If it was a player they were desperately trying to shift they would probably take advantage if they thought they could. I struggle with valuations but suspect yesterday Greenwood would have been in that 50 million bracket and that's a lot for a club to write off.

That was Sunderland thinking when he played for them during his 11 month bail!

[zahidf]

3 hours ago, thetime said:

Unless there is an arrest, charge and conviction they can't sack him can they? They will suspended tomorrow I would of thought. 

Has he been arrested? Has his gf even made a complaint to the police? 

 

Yes he's been arrested

 

 

[lost]

1 hour ago, charlierc said:

The nearest to a precedent I can think of is Adam Johnson. I cannot recall however if Sunderland had to pay him to sack him when he was convicted of his off-pitch behaviour.

Seem to remember Adrian Mutu at Chelsea. I think they sacked him and then sued him for the money they'd lost on him.

Edited January 30, 2022 by lost

[charlierc]

6 minutes ago, lost said:

Seem to remember Adrian Mutu at Chelsea. I think they sacked him and then sued him for the money they'd lost on him.

That's right, yes. It went through appeal after appeal after appeal long after the sacking in 2004. Think it was still in the courts as late as 2018/19.

Ofc it wouldn't be the perfect comparison to something like this given testing positive for coke is it's own very different legal firestorm.

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, thetime said:

I would of thought the current Everton player case is more relevant at the moment. After all he hasn't been arrested yet as far as I'm aware, or even if the alleged victim has even gone to the police. 

I'd forgotten all about that story tbh. The player was formally arrested in July according to reports - it was in the news 10 days ago following a bail extension through to April.

[lost]

11 minutes ago, charlierc said:

That's right, yes. It went through appeal after appeal after appeal long after the sacking in 2004. Think it was still in the courts as late as 2018/19.

Ofc it wouldn't be the perfect comparison to something like this given testing positive for coke is it's own very different legal firestorm.

Chelsea got about £14m back I think. Regarding the Everton player his bail is now pretty close to the end of his contract. I'm guessing if its extended again and he possibly doesn't get charged until he's a free agent, I would think Everton have no recourse to pursue the money.

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

That whole thing was grim: he played for 11 months for the club whilst on bail, whilst the Club (allegedly) knew he was going to plead guilty to one of the accounts. The crimes were against an underage Sunderland fan as well!

Yeah I seem to recall a lot of Sunderland fans at the time (and indeed football fans in general) had the moment when Johnson pleaded guilty of the mirage shattering, where it really sunk in just how badly that whole thing was managed by the club. And that came just a few days after he'd scored a goal for them against Liverpool at Anfield.

[lost]

1 hour ago, thetime said:

 if the alleged victim has even gone to the police. 

I'm guessing you've read the same rumour as myself for why its dragging on so long with that comment. If true I think its still possible he wont charged.

[Hugh Jass]

 

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

I'm pretty sure his contract was terminated the day he pleaded guilty and they wouldn't have had to pay the remainder of his contract. My friend thinks there is a possibility they would be able to fire just on the basis of being charged, but would depend on the wording of his contract and HR policies.

I have no doubt as well that clubs (even if they won't admit) will consider the value of the player before making a decision. If it was a player they were desperately trying to shift they would probably take advantage if they thought they could. I struggle with valuations but suspect yesterday Greenwood would have been in that 50 million bracket and that's a lot for a club to write off.

We had Lee Hughes, who literally killed a guy, he had his contract terminated the second he was convicted.

Due to the “innocent until proven guilty” nature of our legal system clubs have to wait until the player either pleads guilty or has been found guilty before they can act.

[pink_triangle]

22 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

 

We had Lee Hughes, who literally killed a guy, he had his contract terminated the second he was convicted.

Due to the “innocent until proven guilty” nature of our legal system clubs have to wait until the player either pleads guilty or has been found guilty before they can act.

I guess it depends on the wording of the contract, but you are probably correct. The trouble is it means there is huge financial advantages to the player to do everything to delay things.

[squirrelarmy]

8 hours ago, thetime said:

Unless there is an arrest, charge and conviction they can't sack him can they? They will suspended tomorrow I would of thought. 

Has he been arrested? Has his gf even made a complaint to the police? 

 

He’s being arrested, suspended and I’ve seen the social media evidence and it’s pretty damning. 
 

There’s definitely something about that particular number 11 shirt that brings out the worst in people. 

[Ryan1984]

13 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

 

We had Lee Hughes, who literally killed a guy, he had his contract terminated the second he was convicted.

Due to the “innocent until proven guilty” nature of our legal system clubs have to wait until the player either pleads guilty or has been found guilty before they can act.

Lee Hughes still ended up having a career in the lower leagues. Shame on the clubs that employed him.

The Greenwood stuff is horrible. It’s been taken down now but yesterday the Mail had a story about her dad claiming her IG account was hacked and how she never wanted these images shared etc.