• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Interim manager thread 2.0

DeanoAustin said:
Because it’s a fact of the case. It’s not being brought up or suggested as definitive proof of anything. But if you’re going to condemn Greenwood on the basis of an accusation or evidence that was never tested in a court of law, it’s reasonable that people will offer facts that potentially point in another direction in the interests of balance and fairness.

None of us knows what actually happened.
Click to expand...

Aah but De Zerbi knows, the horrible clam.
 
DeanoAustin said:
Because it’s a fact of the case. It’s not being brought up or suggested as definitive proof of anything. But if you’re going to condemn Greenwood on the basis of an accusation or evidence that was never tested in a court of law, it’s reasonable that people will offer facts that potentially point in another direction in the interests of balance and fairness.

None of us knows what actually happened.
Click to expand...

I don't see how what has happened subsequently is part of the 'case'. The case is the accusations, the evidence that led to him being charged and what he was charged with.

And once again, the fact that she has stayed with him is evidence of nothing regarding what happened - it doesn't point to anything, especially when one of the charges was controlling and coercive behaviour...
 
billyiddo said:
I don't see how what has happened subsequently is part of the 'case'. The case is the accusations and the evidence that led to him being charged. And once again, the fact that she has stayed with him is evidence of nothing regarding what happened.
Click to expand...
The fact that he wasn’t prosecuted and that the case was dropped because the person making the accusation withdrew the charges and new evidence came to light are really the only relevant facts as far as his guilt is concerned. No one said her still being with him was a gotcha moment.

That said, if Spurs looked at signing Greenwood, I wouldn’t be comfortable with it. What he said on that tape was fairly disgusting whether or not he actually did anything. As a result, I’m also not sure how I feel about de Zerbi for playing him. Either way, I’m not sure this sort of drama is what we as a club need right now.
 
DeanoAustin said:
The fact that he wasn’t prosecuted and that the case was dropped because the person making the accusation withdrew the charges and new evidence came to light are really the only relevant facts as far as his guilt is concerned. No one said her still being with him was a gotcha moment.

That said, if Spurs looked at signing Greenwood, I wouldn’t be comfortable with it. What he said on that tape was fairly disgusting whether or not he actually did anything. As a result, I’m also not sure how I feel about de Zerbi for playing him. Either way, I’m not sure this sort of drama is what we as a club need right now.
Click to expand...

His legal guilt sure and obviously so, no trial = no crime. Just like with Partey and 97+% of all other accusations that don't amount to anything.
 
Clearly some of you have strong opinions against de Zerbi, but far more relevant, was he a decent coach? Did he get Brighton to win games? All that matters is whether he can motivate this misfiring team, coach them to act as one, and in particular to DEFEND AS A UNIT??
 
lurker of old said:
Clearly some of you have strong opinions against de Zerbi, but far more relevant, was he a decent coach? Did he get Brighton to win games? All that matters is whether he can motivate this misfiring team, coach them to act as one, and in particular to DEFEND AS A UNIT??
Click to expand...
Aside from the moral question, personally I think he would struggle to get his style into these players at a speed that would help us this season. He is also very hot headed and I’d have doubts over whether we would see him blow up next season, he’s had fallings out with players and given our playing squad and board I feel it would be easy to fall out again.

I don’t know about longer term or from next season onwards, but I can’t help but feel he isn’t the best choice for the current situation.

I did like Brighton under him. A style like that takes a while to imprint however.
 
Has anyone considered that maybe De Zerbi didn't know the in and outs of the Greenwood situation? Maybe he hasn't listened to the audio or video (I haven't, so I dont know whether it was a video or audio recording).

Maybe all he knew was there was an accusation and it went no further?

Just seems really ott to be judging someone so harshly without knowing the full story.
 
Rafa87 said:
Aside from the moral question, personally I think he would struggle to get his style into these players at a speed that would help us this season. He is also very hot headed and I’d have doubts over whether we would see him blow up next season, he’s had fallings out with players and given our playing squad and board I feel it would be easy to fall out again.

I don’t know about longer term or from next season onwards, but I can’t help but feel he isn’t the best choice for the current situation.

I did like Brighton under him. A style like that takes a while to imprint however.
Click to expand...
It took Brighton a little while to get results when he took over IIRC.

I remember listening to Dunk, I think, after a game and he played a pass out that Brighton scored or created a chance from. In the post match interview he said the manager will go nuts at him because he played the wrong pass. So de Zerbi has very, very specific and structured ideas on how the game should be played and what his players should do. I’d imagine that’s something that takes a while to embed.

I guess I can see a lot of downsides to de Zerbi but, as is the problem for all of us, I cannot offer up an outstanding candidate.

Edit. He lost 3 and drew 2 of his first 5 games at Brighton albeit they played Liverpool, us, Brentford, City and Forest.
 
Gutter Boy said:
No, she dropped the charges. After her dad accepted a multi-million pound blood money settlement
Click to expand...
No, the CPS dropped the charges, after "new evidence came to light". Yes, she asked the police and CPS not to proceed with the prosecution. That is not unusual. And in fact is standard in abuse cases. Often the victim does not support law enforcement intervention or prosecution. The CPS can proceed with a victimless prosecution but something more fundamental seems to have gone down. The CPS cited "new evidence" and all of the witnesses withdrew their support at the same time. That says to me there was some kind of revelation that totally undermined any case against Greenwood.
 
billyiddo said:
If I had a colleague who was accused of rape by his partner and she put out damning evidence on social media then I'd expect the company to sack him or put him on leave if unable to legally do so (I work in construction where everyone is essentially in a freelance role so don't know the ins and outs of what is legal elsewhere as in my industry they'd just be told there's no more work for them) and if they failed to do so I would refuse to work alongside them.
Click to expand...
What if all charges were dropped though (as in the case of Greenwood), you'd atill stand by "trial by social media"?
 
billyiddo said:
If i managed someone at work with the same thing hanging over them I would refuse to work with them.

RDZ was probably part of the discussions wrt to signing him and once he signed he played him - he's complicit. No different to Arteta & Partey, in fact it's probably worse as the evidence was more damning and he was signed with it all out in the open.
Click to expand...
You say the evidence was more damning, but the prosecution is proceeding against Partey whereas the CPS officially stated the evidence against Greenwood waa such that there was not a reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution. So that clearly is not the case.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
You say the evidence was more damning, but the prosecution is proceeding against Partey whereas the CPS officially stated the evidence against Greenwood waa such that there was not a reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution. So that clearly is not the case.
Click to expand...

The key witness(es?) against Partey have not withdrawn their evidence so you aren't making an even comparison.

And as per your other post, no I would not change my opinion, all things being equal.
 
billyiddo said:
The key witness(es?) against Partey have not withdrawn their evidence so you aren't making an even comparison
Click to expand...
I am making an even comparison. It is being said that the evidence against Greenwood was "more damning" than against Partey. Which is a completely nonsensical statement as the prosecution is proceeding against Partey under the evidential test whereas Greenwood's case didn't meet the evidential test for the CPS to support it. So the fact is that having assessed the evidence in both cases the CPS lawyers consider the evidence against Partey to be stronger. They didn't feel like they even had a case worth putting in front of a jury re: Greenwood.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
I am making an even comparison. It is being said that the evidence against Greenwood was "more damning" than against Partey. Which is a completely nonsensical statement as the prosecution is proceeding against Partey under the evidential test whereas Greenwood's case didn't meet the evidential test for the CPS to support it. So the fact is that having assessed the evidence in both cases the CPS lawyers consider the evidence against Partey to be stronger. They didn't feel like they even had a case worth putting in front of a jury re: Greenwood.
Click to expand...

...because the evidence was withdrawn by the witness.

Which means there was no evidence with which to proceed.
 
billyiddo said:
...because the evidence was withdrawn
Click to expand...
The evidence wasn't withdrawn. New evidence came to light that clearly undermined the case. All of the witnesses withdrew their support. That doesn't mean that the evidence they gave is withdrawn. It means they are no longer willing to stand by their statements in court. It would be speculation but i suspect the "new material" whatever it was caused both the witnessed to withdraw their support and the CPS to drop the case. We will never know what that evidence was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back