Mason Greenwood

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

We got rid of one of the greatest players of all time and a club legend for doing an interview with Piers Morgan.  I would say you will see Greenwood leaving the club by "mutual consent" in the coming weeks.

Roy Keane was also invited to leave, from memory - and he’s arguably the best all-round midfielder in English football of the last thirty years.

 

I hope your club do exactly that, tbf. I suspect they will

[James]

He will find a club to take him on and pay him at least £10k a week. See Ched Evans.

 

If Man Utd can’t terminate him without paying off his contract in full, they’d be doing the public a favour if they can keep him on gardening leave and destroy his future earning potential.

[Thomson Mouse]

18 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

We got rid of one of the greatest players of all time and a club legend for doing an interview with Piers Morgan.  I would say you will see Greenwood leaving the club by "mutual consent" in the coming weeks.

That’s a slightly disingenuous claim.

 

He was causing a lot of trouble within the team as well, the interview just gave them the excuse.

 

 

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, Thomson Mouse said:

That’s a slightly disingenuous claim.

 

He was causing a lot of trouble within the team as well, the interview just gave them the excuse.

 

Was he causing a lot of trouble within the team? What's your source for that? I think that's a disingenuous claim. The interview is the reason why he was binned. 

[Thomson Mouse]

39 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Was he causing a lot of trouble within the team? What's your source for that? I think that's a disingenuous claim. The interview is the reason why he was binned. 

 

Of course he was, plenty of rumours about his tantrums then his stomping off like a little kid when he didn’t get on as sub.

 

YOu must be one of the few people around thinking he wasn’t causing bother 

[Froggy]

Just now, Thomson Mouse said:

 

Of course he was, plenty of rumours about his tantrums then his stomping off like a little kid when he didn’t get on as sub.

 

YOu must be one of the few people around thinking he wasn’t causing bother 

 

He did stomp off in the Spurs game after not getting on, and was made captain shortly after. That's my point.  That behaviour wasn't the reason he was binned, the interview was.

[Thomson Mouse]

4 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

He did stomp off in the Spurs game after not getting on, and was made captain shortly after. That's my point.  That behaviour wasn't the reason he was binned, the interview was.

 

Yes to try and placate him, then he did that interview and was binned. It’s pretty obvious

[Manxst]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

They can pay up his contract, which would cost no more than sending him on gardening leave.  That, of course, depends on whether or not they intend to play him.

A contract is a two way thing. One party can’t just pay up for the remainder of the duration without it being agreed by both sides or unless there’s a specific clause which states it’s possible. (See also, Castore shirts with NUFC). 

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, Manxst said:

A contract is a two way thing. One party can’t just pay up for the remainder of the duration without it being agreed by both sides or unless there’s a specific clause which states it’s possible. (See also, Castore shirts with NUFC). 

 

He's on 75k a week until 2025 as well. He's clearly a scumbag so he's not going to accept anything less than his full contract.

[Groundhog63]

15 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

He did stomp off in the Spurs game after not getting on, and was made captain shortly after. That's my point.  That behaviour wasn't the reason he was binned, the interview was.

No it wasn't. The interview was the icing on the cake. 

He was toast anyway. 

[TheBrownBottle]

11 minutes ago, Manxst said:

A contract is a two way thing. One party can’t just pay up for the remainder of the duration without it being agreed by both sides or unless there’s a specific clause which states it’s possible. (See also, Castore shirts with NUFC). 

Greenwood is likely outside of the protected period in his contract; even if he isn’t, the financial damages stretch only to the party suffering the loss i.e. the player.  And if you’re paying up his contract in its entirety - as in paying for every week of the remainder - that is covering damages.  If he’s outside the protected period there are no further sporting sanctions; if he is within, there can be - but are the FA really going to come down on Man Utd?  Seems unlikely.

 

edit: just to be clear, mutual consent is not required.  It’s only required if the parties want to arrange a negotiated settlement.  Greenwood is a little scrote so I can’t imagine that would appeal. 

 

Newcastle can also buy their way out of the Castore contract - but there are likely to be damages.  A contract isn’t a shackle; it’s just that the injured party needs to be compensated for potential losses.  I’ve seen people talk about just giving Castore their £5m a year back, but that’s not what Castore’s losses are - they expect to make a profit on that investment.  Given what’s happening, that could be a lot of profit.  So any break - assuming there is no clause in the contract for damages if the club breaks the deal - is likely to lead to an award of additional damages if it goes to arbitration. 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by TheBrownBottle

[Manxst]

I don’t agree, but hey ho. Greenwood’s damages by paying up his contract would extent to more than his basic wage. He’s been dropped by some sponsors but would still expect to benefit from Man Utd sponsors as well as any that have stuck by him as a premiership footballer. I just don’t think it’s be as easy as paying up what’s owed for the duration. You obviously know more than me though. 

[Froggy]

6 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

No it wasn't. The interview was the icing on the cake. 

He was toast anyway. 

 

OK lads. You know best.

 

[Groundhog63]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Greenwood is likely outside of the protected period in his contract; even if he isn’t, the financial damages stretch only to the party suffering the loss i.e. the player.  And if you’re paying up his contract in its entirety - as in paying for every week of the remainder - that is covering damages.  If he’s outside the protected period there are no further sporting sanctions; if he is within, there can be - but are the FA really going to come down on Man Utd?  Seems unlikely.

 

Newcastle can also buy their way out of the Castore contract - but there are likely to be damages.  A contract isn’t a shackle; it’s just that the injured party needs to be compensated for potential losses.  I’ve seen people talk about just giving Castore their £5m a year back, but that’s not what Castore’s losses are - they expect to make a profit on that investment.  Given what’s happening, that could be a lot of profit.  So any break - assuming there is no clause in the contract for damages if the club breaks the deal - is likely to lead to an award of additional damages if it goes to arbitration. 

In relation to Greenwood, rather than Castore, isn't it the case that he's innocent. 

Was going to quotation the "innocent" but, in the eyes of the law he is. Unfortunately. 

 

Don't mean to go all Azfal in the search for likes from Neville but he's innocent, now, IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. 

Likewise, the CPS not progressing the case doesn't mean he's NOT GUILTY of the offence. Just they deem it unlikely they could prove otherwise. 

The former but would mean, legally, he's entitled to his wedge. Notwithstanding "Disrepute" fault. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Manxst said:

I don’t agree, but hey ho. Greenwood’s damages by paying up his contract would extent to more than his basic wage. He’s been dropped by some sponsors but would still expect to benefit from Man Utd sponsors as well as any that have stuck by him as a premiership footballer. I just don’t think it’s be as easy as paying up what’s owed for the duration. You obviously know more than me though. 

I’m not saying you’re wrong re additional income from bonuses etc - but that might be difficult to argue if the club never intend to play him again.  His personal sponsors dropped him like a bad smell, so he’d find it difficult to argue he’d be in line for additional payment.

 

I’m sure a razor sharp shithouse lawyer could give it a go mind  

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Groundhog63 said:

In relation to Greenwood, rather than Castore, isn't it the case that he's innocent. 

Was going to quotation the "innocent" but, in the eyes of the law he is. Unfortunately. 

 

Don't mean to go all Azfal in the search for likes from Neville but he's innocent, now, IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. 

Likewise, the CPS not progressing the case doesn't mean he's NOT GUILTY of the offence. Just they deem it unlikely they could prove otherwise. 

The former but would mean, legally, he's entitled to his wedge. Notwithstanding "Disrepute" fault. 

Being ‘innocent’ means that the club cannot sack him - which would mean he walks away with nowt.  They’d have to pay him off (assuming he doesn’t agree to walk)

[Groundhog63]

3 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

OK lads. You know best.

 

Foggy has a hotline to Ten Hag on speed dial, lads. 

Fair doos. 

[Groundhog63]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Being ‘innocent’ means that the club cannot sack him - which would mean he walks away with nowt.  They’d have to pay him off (assuming he doesn’t agree to walk)

This

[Groundhog63]

The law's a frustrating process both in its working and, for the "hang em" brigade, quite often with its outcomes. 

Perhaps deliberately so. 

I follow a few experts. Azfal being one. 

Read all, so far, The Secret Barrister books.(*)

When you take the emotional/morality aspect away from any case and focus, purely, on the law it's more easily understood. 

 

 

 

* fully fledged Internet barrister me like. Just for the wig ?

 

[Dokko]

Fair play if manu bin him off still. It's a lot of money to throw away. I do wonder if they could still sue him even though he hasn't been charged. His actions may not be criminal, but they have been caught on camera and have put him into a position where his value has disappeared. 

[The Prophet]

2 hours ago, Froggy said:

 

I'm fairly sure we have to keep him on our books. I wouldn't be judging the club on that. If we were able to cut ties with him we would have done it already. 

 

This "internal investigation" that is happening now with the club is us exploring legal ways to get rid of him without penalty I would imagine. 

 

That's fair enough. You'd think they have enough evidence to bin him for gross misconduct.

[TheBrownBottle]

13 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

That's fair enough. You'd think they have enough evidence to bin him for gross misconduct.

Yep.  You don’t need to have committed a crime for that.  

[TheBrownBottle]

33 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

The law's a frustrating process both in its working and, for the "hang em" brigade, quite often with its outcomes. 

Perhaps deliberately so. 

I follow a few experts. Azfal being one. 

Read all, so far, The Secret Barrister books.(*)

When you take the emotional/morality aspect away from any case and focus, purely, on the law it's more easily understood. 

 

 

 

* fully fledged Internet barrister me like. Just for the wig ?

 

I’m not in the string ‘em up brigade.  But the lack of prosecution does not mean that a person should expect to retain a high-profile, high-paid job.  

[Froggy]

1 hour ago, Groundhog63 said:

Foggy has a hotline to Ten Hag on speed dial, lads. 

Fair doos. 

 

Bit pot kettle mate.  You and Thomson Mouse seem to know the ins and outs of my club so I'll leave you both to it. 

[Joey47]

26 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Bit pot kettle mate.  You and Thomson Mouse seem to know the ins and outs of my club so I'll leave you both to it. 

 

Tbf the whole thing was about as public as it could get. How can you say the interview was the sole cause when his attitude was clearly stinking the place out. The interview was a sympton of that whole shitshow.