EPTBut bringing this back to De Zerbi, he didn't need to say anything about the situation other than sticking to footballing matters, but he decided to make comments about the situation that were misguided at best. I don't think people would have such a big problem with him having managed Greenwood if his comments about the situation hadn't been so poorly judged.
Football (Soccer) Thread - Page 121
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
But bringing this back to De Zerbi, he didn't need to say anything about the situation other than sticking to footballing matters, but he decided to make comments about the situation that were misguided at best. I don't think people would have such a big problem with him having managed Greenwood if his comments about the situation hadn't been so poorly judged. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9958 Posts
On April 02 2026 02:33 evilfatsh1t wrote: what? there was no verdict at all because the case was never tried. do you even know what it means when prosecution drops charges? and thats not how defamation works at all. if i repeatedly call you a pedophile without concrete evidence to back my claim, and you eventually lose your job because of me, you can sue me for defamation. theres no requirement that my statement needs to refer to a court verdict or any other nonsense. the claim that greenwood is a domestic abuser is now slanderous because you cannot say that you have proof of what he did. the only "proof" the public had, prosecutors also had (and more) and yet the prosecutions final words on the matter was "In this case a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.". they not only admit to not having enough proof, but they also cast doubt on the truth of the original claim by explicitly referring to the existence of new material (that the public doesnt have) which would damage their case. with all of this being in the public record, it is not a reasonable position for any member of the public to say now that greenwood is a domestic abuser in a court of law. but yeah ok. act like you know what youre talking about rofl. this is the problem with half the people who jump on the cancel culture agenda. literally clueless about their own legal system and the facts of the case. also, the audacity to say that a "not guilty" verdict in court doesnt mean anything about the innocence of a man. jesus fking christ You seem to be trying to put everyone into some kind of movement or pretend this is an organized uprising against Mason Greenwood. That's not what is happening here at all. Basically people who have brains and empathy would listen to the audio and see the pictures and think "fuck that Greenwood guy" and that is basically it. Those people may put this opinion out there if the topic comes up. They aren't part of a movement. They aren't part of 'cancel culture'. They are just people making their minds up about something based on hearing and seeing things. Not everyone sees violence against a woman and immediately gets to work thinking how they can spend years jumping to the defense of the violent man. You'll have to get your head around this one day. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8916 Posts
its perfectly fine for you to form your opinion about the matter, as i do. honestly? yeah he probably did hit her in that instance. but as i said before, you want to hate on someone, you do it in private. the correct course of action for someone in your position would have been to say "i think he may have hit her, but since prosecutors failed to bring charges, greenwood should be allowed to move on with his life". instead, what youve essentially done is say, "i think he may have hit her, and i understand prosecution failed to prove their case, but i endorse the actions of those who are actively preventing him from returning to his job". the former is having respect for basic principles your judicial system was founded upon, whereas the latter enables cancel culture because you sat idly by while various individuals and groups announced publically that they would protest his return (eg. the utd womens squad apparently). lets not pretend there wasnt an agenda against greenwood. it may not have been organised, but every guy and their dog was online saying their piece about how theyre the greatest detectives in the world and they could say with certainty that abuse took place when prosecutors couldnt and that greenwood must never return. cancel culture is all about noise, and at the time, there was heaps of it. put it another way. if you had a coworker at your average day job and he was an absolute cunt to his wife and kids, are you going to do something about it? youd say hes an asshole and you wouldnt think of him highly, but at the end of the day, his private life and his work life are separate. he does his job and you do yours. if he doesnt suck at his job are you going to run to your boss and ask him to fire the guy? no you arent. its not your place to meddle in his affairs where law enforcement couldnt | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18400 Posts
On April 02 2026 03:24 evilfatsh1t wrote: it isnt an organised movement, no. i said movement to make my point but the reality is people like you enable cancel culture by allowing those who are more vocal about their discontent to get their way. its perfectly fine for you to form your opinion about the matter, as i do. honestly? yeah he probably did hit her in that instance. but as i said before, you want to hate on someone, you do it in private. the correct course of action for someone in your position would have been to say "i think he may have hit her, but since prosecutors failed to bring charges, greenwood should be allowed to move on with his life". instead, what youve essentially done is say, "i think he may have hit her, and i understand prosecution failed to prove their case, but i endorse the actions of those who are actively preventing him from returning to his job". the former is having respect for basic principles your judicial system was founded upon, whereas the latter enables cancel culture because you sat idly by while various individuals and groups announced publically that they would protest his return (eg. the utd womens squad apparently). lets not pretend there wasnt an agenda against greenwood. it may not have been organised, but every guy and their dog was online saying their piece about how theyre the greatest detectives in the world and they could say with certainty that abuse took place when prosecutors couldnt and that greenwood must never return. cancel culture is all about noise, and at the time, there was heaps of it. put it another way. if you had a coworker at your average day job and he was an absolute cunt to his wife and kids, are you going to do something about it? youd say hes an asshole and you wouldnt think of him highly, but at the end of the day, his private life and his work life are separate. he does his job and you do yours. if he doesnt suck at his job are you going to run to your boss and ask him to fire the guy? no you arent. its not your place to meddle in his affairs where law enforcement couldnt Ffs, this is the football thread, why are you trying to make a point about cancel culture?! Mason Greenwood is a dick. He can live his life in freedom and play football wherever he wants but nobody has to fucking like him. And just because the court never ruled him guilty doesn't mean he isn't a massive shithead. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
The same ‘cancel culture’ was perfectly happy to have the wheels of justice turn with a Thomas Partey or a Benjamin Mendy. The latter of whom can be said to have a rather legitimate gripe with how he was treated. The Crown Prosecution Service were probably right to drop it, but I’d imagine they were highly motivated to do so by an understanding that we still have societal blind spots on issues like this. You’re probably going to struggle to assemble a jury where a majority don’t just go ‘well he can’t be guilty, sure she went back to him’ and that would be that. | ||
|
DropBear
Australia4428 Posts
De Zerbi and Marseille picked up pretty much every player with a black mark against them. Pretty clearly did it because they were on a tight budget and wanted good players available for cheaper than normal, i.e. from a purely financial perspective, good value signings. I somehow doubt Greenwood, Wari et al were signed because De Zerbi approves of DV. Spurs refusing De Zerbi because he once signed a controversial player, while operating on a tight budget, seems silly to me. It's not like they come as a pair, they won't also be signing Greenwood | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10530 Posts
On April 02 2026 02:33 evilfatsh1t wrote: what? there was no verdict at all because the case was never tried. do you even know what it means when prosecution drops charges? and thats not how defamation works at all. if i repeatedly call you a pedophile without concrete evidence to back my claim, and you eventually lose your job because of me, you can sue me for defamation. theres no requirement that my statement needs to refer to a court verdict or any other nonsense. the claim that greenwood is a domestic abuser is now slanderous because you cannot say that you have proof of what he did. the only "proof" the public had, prosecutors also had (and more) and yet the prosecutions final words on the matter was "In this case a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.". they not only admit to not having enough proof, but they also cast doubt on the truth of the original claim by explicitly referring to the existence of new material (that the public doesnt have) which would damage their case. with all of this being in the public record, it is not a reasonable position for any member of the public to say now that greenwood is a domestic abuser in a court of law. but yeah ok. act like you know what youre talking about rofl. this is the problem with half the people who jump on the cancel culture agenda. literally clueless about their own legal system and the facts of the case. also, the audacity to say that a "not guilty" verdict in court doesnt mean anything about the innocence of a man. jesus fking christ There's a lot of legal words here and a lot of faux legal analysis here. I hope you're not a lawyer. Also defamation against a public figure, at least in the states, is insanely difficult to prove. So saying "the claim that greenwood is a domestic abuser is now slanderous" is pretty poor legal analysis. Finally, the verdict of the court room and the verdict of public society are two completely different things, the latter of which is not bound by any legal standards but rather the morality of the public based on publicly available information (and theories). Cancel culture and legal systems are not the same, nor should they be the same, because one can fail. Yes, in some cases, cancel culture may go too far, jump on something too quickly without enough facts. But the legal system may also fail. Do you think that cancelling OJ Simpson was bad because he was found not guilty in his trial? The legal system is not perfect, idk why your implication is that whatever the legal system says is final and why society's culture must be unequivocally bound to the decisions made in the court room. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8916 Posts
firstly, the uk doesnt give a shit about public figures in defamation. the standard for defamation is different, most notably being that the onus is on the defendant to prove their statement was true in the uk, unlike in america where the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. not sure why youre bringing in your american examples when they dont fit the circumstances now i already said that greenwood isnt going to go around actually suing people. its not commercially and logistically feasible. but if for arguments sake we pretended that the entire mob that wanted greenwood cancelled was a singular entity, then yes greenwood could very easily sue for defamation and his claim for damages would be the loss of his contract at united. straight up easy win. just because there arent being suits filed everywhere it doesnt mean it isnt happening, like if i punched you in the face once because of a confrontation, you probably arent going to bother to sue me for assault. that doesnt mean the assault didnt happen. now why the constant reference to englands legal system? well for one, i expect people around the world to respect their country's legal system. its built on a set of values that are important to well functioning societies. most countries have a fairly good system that follows due process and ensures fair trial. presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right and principle that is upheld in countries like the uk. if you dont have any respect for this then thats a quick ticket to a collapse in society. is the legal system perfect? no. but that doesnt give the public licence to cast judgment where they see fit. the oj simpson case and greenwoods case have nothing in common. pretty pathetic attempt to create a parallel tbh. oj simpsons case ran a full trial and he was acquitted because prosecution dropped the ball. the crimes oj simpson allegedly commit are on a completely different scale. greenwoods case is not only nowhere near as severe, it didnt see a verdict not because prosecution dropped the ball, but because they decided that the case literally wasnt even worth pursuing in court. saying that both cases illiciting the same public outcry is justified is ridiculous. the whole point of my disapproval of the publics objections to greenwood continuing his career either at united or in england is because it shouldnt be the publics place to decide what happens in his life. and for those who consider themselves to be standing on some moral high ground, i find it hypocritical. to hell with presumption of innocence, most people would actually have preferred that greenwood ended up like benjamin mendy, or worse. not what i consider to be civilised behaviour. anyway this is the last im going to post about this topic. if anyone really wants to continue further just do it in dms | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
On April 01 2026 20:28 sharkie wrote: Because Spurs are a bad club which should never win anything and (unfortunately) Chelsea used to be a winner's club who just win shit load of trophies. Ange winning Europa League with Spurs is an achievement no one will do for at least another decade and Tuchel at that time winning with Chelsea was just another "year we all expect Chelsea to somehow win things" Used to be. Chelsea in the relative short term prior to Tuchel, and post-Tuchel weren’t/aren’t a team competing for league titles or at the business end of the CL, so I think with that in mind he did a better job than just getting another trophy with perpetual winners. Which I think is something you could say about say, Di Matteo. | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18721 Posts
https://www.transfermarkt.com/pedri-4th-szoboszlai-18th-yildiz-41st-the-100-most-valuable-players-in-the-world/view/news/477527 When did Mbappe turn 27? I can't believe it's already been so long! | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7347 Posts
On April 07 2026 23:00 sharkie wrote: Pedri 4th, Szoboszlai 18th, Yıldız 41st - The 100 most valuable players in the world https://www.transfermarkt.com/pedri-4th-szoboszlai-18th-yildiz-41st-the-100-most-valuable-players-in-the-world/view/news/477527 When did Mbappe turn 27? I can't believe it's already been so long! I feel like most players playing in PL are rated 10-20% too high compared to the other leagues. Also Manu Neuer doing Neuer things at 40 years old. What a monster | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland2077 Posts
Real - Bayern was very back and forth. I guess 1-2 was sort of fair result, although Bayern had a pretty good penalty shout at the end to make it 1-3. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9958 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8916 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9958 Posts
4 points from safety with 4 games to go. What an incredible fall from grace. A cautionary tale for teams trying to level up and compete with the very best. | ||
GTR
51667 Posts
also - lol arsenal their game against city next week at the etihad will definitely be the title decider | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8916 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9958 Posts
On April 13 2026 00:23 evilfatsh1t wrote: tottenham in relegation! de zerbis got an express ticket to the championship now De Zerbi getting a losing start is a fucking dream come true, man! If they had won today they would have made safety for sure. I'm really starting to think they are most likely out of everyone to go down. I was watching the Forest game but apparently Romero left the pitch in tears. Not what you want from your captain lol. Game's gone. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
On April 13 2026 00:29 Jockmcplop wrote: De Zerbi getting a losing start is a fucking dream come true, man! If they had won today they would have made safety for sure. I'm really starting to think they are most likely out of everyone to go down. I was watching the Forest game but apparently Romero left the pitch in tears. Not what you want from your captain lol. Game's gone. Shows he cares at least! Weird fucking appointment though. Someone at Brighton, possibly Lewis Dunk IIRC said on the record that De Zerbi was a great coach who improved his players, but initially it was a confusing clusterfuck and took time to bed in, and Brighton’s early results attested to that. This isn’t hidden, arcane knowledge, I mean I and the 4 separate podcasts I heard it off knew this. Say what you want about Daniel Levy, great off the pitch, made some underwhelming calls on it. But not many that were outright daft. I do rate De Zerbi but as a late season firefighter? | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland2077 Posts
| ||
| ||
