Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Mason Greenwood

Status
Not open for further replies.
We all saw and read what this scumbag did.i thought United were just letting his contract run out and do damage limitation over him like we did with Siggurdson. They're not convicted so legally we cannot hoof them but they are poison.

A dark stain on United if they want anything to do with this pos. Unless there is some huge evidence to exonerate him then it's insanity to involve yourself with him
 
roydo said:
Do not disagree. I doubt United have any appetite to retain his services personally. Its just how they can legally get rid.
Click to expand...
'Bringing the club into disrepute' would be something you'd think they'd include in his contract which, as you mentioned above, looks a possible avenue.

It would be interesting to know why key witnesses pulled out of supporting the prosecution and what the new evidence was.
 
Complex problem that reveals the moral abyss we're in, these days. Their income breaks down roughly like this: 25% sponsorship, 20% merchandising, 20% matchday, 35% broadcasting. Some of the sponsorship contracts have substantial penalties for failure to earn certain placements in competitions, and small upsides for doing well.

They're bleeding red ink, so they're stuck walking a tightrope trying to maximize revenue. They take a beating either way, so the question becomes: which is the lesser of the two evils? It would seem they have decided that taking a beating on the commercial side beats losing revenue on the share of revenue (broadcasting and sponsorship clauses) attached to the competition side, plus whatever legal chicanery with respect to Greenwood's contract might come down the pipeline if they decide to get shut.

The worst part is that they're probably right about the math. I doubt matchday revenue will suffer. They'll get hurt on apparel, and they'll only get hurt on sponsorship if the sponsors walk away, which they probably won't.
 
PhilM said:
'Bringing the club into disrepute' would be something you'd think they'd include in his contract which, as you mentioned above, looks a possible avenue.

It would be interesting to know why key witnesses pulled out of supporting the prosecution and what the new evidence was.
Click to expand...

Thats kinda what I am getting, legally wise. Can United have access to the CPS files as to why the witnesses blinked? I have no idea; nor about this new evidence. But if United step one inch out of line, you can bet your bottom dollar that some lawyer will nail them down the line. Like @tommye said, like we did with Sig, just let it drift till end of contract.
 

tommye said:
Some things are bigger and more important than money.

I hope the rest of the men's squad have balls as big as the women
Click to expand...
They painted themselves into this corner with Woodward's strategy to go public and chase global revenue from glory hounds, while spending beyond the club's means and letting the Glazers loot the club's goodwill. The reason not to do this (at least to the degree that they did) is obvious enough. Later on, there will be hard choices where the right thing, and the necessary thing for the finances, do not match.
 
roydo said:
Thats kinda what I am getting, legally wise. Can United have access to the CPS files as to why the witnesses blinked? I have no idea; nor about this new evidence. But if United step one inch out of line, you can bet your bottom dollar that some lawyer will nail them down the line. Like @tommye said, like we did with Sig, just let it drift till end of contract.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't be eligible for access to CPS files for any case, let alone one where the alleged victim is granted life-long anonymity under law.

But as @Blueclouds mentioned, the video itself could be enough to merit a finding of gross misconduct if they had the specific clauses in their contracts.
 

Martin Alvito said:
Complex problem that reveals the moral abyss we're in, these days. Their income breaks down roughly like this: 25% sponsorship, 20% merchandising, 20% matchday, 35% broadcasting. Some of the sponsorship contracts have substantial penalties for failure to earn certain placements in competitions, and small upsides for doing well.

They're bleeding red ink, so they're stuck walking a tightrope trying to maximize revenue. They take a beating either way, so the question becomes: which is the lesser of the two evils? It would seem they have decided that taking a beating on the commercial side beats losing revenue on the share of revenue (broadcasting and sponsorship clauses) attached to the competition side, plus whatever legal chicanery with respect to Greenwood's contract might come down the pipeline if they decide to get shut.

The worst part is that they're probably right about the math. I doubt matchday revenue will suffer. They'll get hurt on apparel, and they'll only get hurt on sponsorship if the sponsors walk away, which they probably won't.
Click to expand...
Surely its just cheaper to pay his contract off?

The PR hit will cost triple what that would.
 
Goat said:
Surely its just cheaper to pay his contract off?

The PR hit will cost triple what that would.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, because they'll leak revenue from the foreign broadcasting contracts and the sponsorship contracts, should they fail to meet the on-pitch performance benchmarks (like CL) in the contracts. There's also the problem of how much, and how quickly, they take a financial hit from kit sales/matchday. The timing is suspicious in the sense that I would bet a large chunk of their kit sale revenue happens in July and early August. They're also selling a lot of kit overseas in places where this story might appear on the front page for a day, then vanish.

Long run, you're probably right that the PR hit will do more damage to future sponsorship contracts than they save now, but they're not in a position to think long-term. They're losing $100M a year, and have a decaying stadium they'll have to do something about sooner rather than later.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register
Back
Top