Interpretation of Manchester United's release of Mason Greenwood: Top capricious players blame themselves No one is a winner

This summer, I received a lot of friends asking Greenwood in the comments section and private messages, and I have been avoiding this question because I know that no matter which angle I answer, it will immediately cause controversy.

So my personal opinion was back in May, "I don't think Greenwood should be taken into account yet."

The genesis of this view is that I am personally not optimistic about Greenwood's return prospects.

Greenwood's affairs are actually not that complicated, but many friends are unclear and overlook many key points in the discussion.

First of all, this is a public prosecution case, the plaintiff is a state organ, that is, the prosecution, and the woman, as the victim, participates in the proceedings as a key witness.

Greenwood was charged with attempted rape, acts of control and coercion, death threats and intentional injury, and the woman had already posted pictures of her injuries and audio of the incident on social media, and there was direct evidence of these allegations.

Finally, in February this year, the prosecution chose to withdraw the case because of the "non-cooperation of key witnesses" and emerging evidence, which made it impossible to continue the proceedings.

In the later period, we also saw that Greenwood and the woman got back together and had children.

So:

If the name is not identified after the incident, and the woman does not disclose the direct evidence, many things will be relieved, roughly like an X player who is suspected of rape but plays every week, players and clubs can pretend to be confused and not admit it, so that the big things are small and the small things are turned into small things.

If this is a civil lawsuit and the woman is the plaintiff, there is the possibility of out-of-court mediation, after all, the two themselves have an emotional foundation, and there is no need to completely tear their faces, which is not the best choice for both parties.

However, if the woman publishes evidence early, Greenwood will be morally completely considered guilty by public opinion, and his true identity will be identified, and Greenwood will be publicly accused by the prosecution, and will not be "taken care of" like this "X player" who is not publicly identified by the prosecution, after all, before the evidence is sufficient, anyone should be legally presumed of innocence.

So the key point is that the prosecution withdraws the indictment, not the court acquits him.

As a result, Mendy, who was acquitted, believes he has the right to demand wages from Manchester City, but Greenwood's problem becomes even more difficult:

Because if the woman continues to cooperate with the prosecution, Greenwood will go to jail nine times out of ten, the woman does not cooperate, Greenwood does not have to go to jail, but she exposed evidence before, Greenwood is morally reprehensible.

Zuma's abuse of cats at home is inevitably criticized all the time, not to mention beating people.

As Mendy's lawyer said in an interview, even if found not guilty, "the player's life and career in the UK is definitely over".

So, for the club, it's a question of whether to cut off Mason Greenwood because of moral flaws.

You can certainly say that he was not found guilty, so the club has the right to continue using him, but how many real and potential problems does that bring? Is the club's reputation to be tarnished?

Of course, you can also say that other people have bad character, so the club should be fired immediately, but after all, it is an excellent player, or its own youth training, and it may still be of great use in the team.

So in my opinion, it is not a big problem to deal with this matter for a long time, because it is really very tricky, determining whether it is positive or negative for the club, and making a decision later, whether positive assets can cover negative assets, is a difficult question to answer immediately.

The only problem in dealing with it is the previous iteration.

This must be the Manchester United way of thinking in the Glazer era: want to cut, reluctant to give up his positive assets; If you don't cut, you can't afford to mess with his negative equity.

Selling individuals are grinding and hawning, buckling the rope, because a little money makes the transaction easy to fall through, dealing with this kind of trouble, this kind of problem, it is normal.

I finally decided to stay, but the news leaked, causing public anger, so I decided to cut it today.

Yes, I don't think the previous media news came from the club's intention to test the outside world, because the test does not have to be so stupid, you can do an anonymous survey inside and outside the club, I believe they also did it, and got the results, but I don't think it will be as serious as the results of the investigation.

Glazer is a businessman, not a fool, so it's more like a high-level lard blinded by the belief that its future positive assets can cover the negative assets, so the decision to stay, but opponents within the club leaked the news, which triggered the follow-up.

Think about the European Super League incident, how the club risked the world's great opposition, this is just another operation similar to the European Super League, only looking at the interests and not the impact.

Before some friends felt that with a change of boss, Greenwood would hopefully stay, and this idea was also relatively immature.

Even if you are a Middle Eastern owner who buys an English club, you need to respect the local right, not that if you buy Manchester United, you can make Manchester United behave like a Middle Eastern club.

And for the new boss, Greenwood is clearly negative equity, in business, cutting is almost the only option, let alone if people are not poor in money.

For the sake of a young man who has not yet fully realized his potential, but to really affect the reputation of the club, it is clearer which is more important.

It was only under Glazer that it would have dragged on for so long, and there been so many iterations, to get to where we are today.

Among the cases:

The dumbest is Greenwood, for whatever reason, there is no excuse for bullying the weak, no doubt.

The second stupid is the woman, can forgive this kind of person, not much to say.

The next stupid one was Glazer, lard blinded, but it was also normal.

So much for that.