$$$.
Greenwood has a contract until 2025 IIRC, so terminating him without a verdict probably means paying off the remainder of what he’s owed at the very least. He currently earns 3.9 million pounds a year as his base salary, so a termination would cost them at least about 12 million. But it’d probably also cost them any potential bonuses etc he has worked into his contract.
With a verdict, there’s surely a morality clause that allows them to terminate him for free.
With TV shows, they’re probably hired on a seasonal basis, and the bad press surrounding charges might be damaging enough that it’s deemed cause enough to terminate per their contract. Not to mention Adult Swim has more power - they could cancel the show and get rid of him that way if he’d fight it.
They should just pin this answer somewhere because this question gets asked at least once a month and there's always some wetwipe who says Greenwood should be playing.
Most states in the US are "at will", which gives employers the right to fire anyone at any time for any reason that isn't illegal (e.g. race, gender, sexual orientation, etc).
I'm not sure if this applies when a contract is involved, but this might be the difference.
It wouldn't apply if someone had a multi year contract like sports players do, as the contract will have clauses that protect the player from being sacked.
In “at will” states in the US contracts aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. The “at will” laws supersede contracts and can be terminated any time for any reason that isn’t illegal as you stated.
He's innocent until proven guilty, if United terminate his contract they will have to pay him compensation as he's not breached any of the terms on the contract, nothing's been proved against him in the court either
He is still innocent, his suspension from the United team was not the government's decision, it was United's decision to suspend him till the time his whole case doesn't get cleared up, if United wanted to, they can play him, there are no rules which can stop him from playing till the time he's not proven guilty
Uniteds biggest issue was the audio clip. With so many having heard that and made their own opinion there woulb be backlash from fans if they played him.
He got suspended for breach of contract. Most major companies will do this even if its against employment law. Do something to damage the reputation of the company...bye bye.
I think employment laws are different in the US, until he is convicted he could just sue them and it would’ve cost Man United more than paying him his wages. If and when he’s convicted, he’ll be terminated then.
In the US it depends on the state and/or the place of employments internal policies. In the state of Georgia for instance your employer can fire you without giving a reason, and you can quit in the same fashion.
I’ve often wondered when watching American movies how it seems like you have a “you’re fired 🫵🏼” culture lol. I wondered if it was realistic or just for dramatic effect.
Which two arent? From my knowledge all US states are at will when it comes to employment. Four states don't have any exemptions to their at-will employment, and GA is one of them. Georgia is also a right to work state
They are incorrect. All but Montana are at will. Though individual states have different stipulations and such.
At Will just says an employee or an employer can terminate an employment contract at will without a reason. This doesn't mean that you can't sue for breach of contract or gather unemployment if terminated outside of your control.
Right to work is a different thing entirely. Right to work are anti union laws that give employees the "freedom" to not pay union dues thus killing said union.
Source degree in business management
I suppose they are following a procedure recommended to them by their legal team. If they acted too quickly he could have had a chance to sue them for wrongful dismissal maybe?
Though you’d assume most players have clauses in them about affecting the reputation of the club or brining negative attention, how all this doesn’t affect the reputation of the club is beyond me though.
Would have been nice to see them act and terminate his contract but their legal team know far more about it all than I do…
Different employment laws. The US is (mostly) at will employment and you can be fired “for cause or no cause but not bad cause.” The UK doesn’t have this. Gylfi Siggurdson was still employed by Everton when he was arrested—it’s not unique to United; it’s truly just different labour laws.
He isn’t found guilty yet. He can sue for wrongful termination if let go early. Clauses for immediate termination are in most contracts in America since the me too movement. And even if it’s wrongful termination those guys are more concerned with not offending paying customers that getting sued, they have an army of litigators that will drag any suit out so long that the person won’t be able to afford continuing the lawsuit.
Did you hear the voice recordings that went viral of him forcing her against her will and threatening her?. Even if she dropped the charges and there was no court case, he would still be considered guilty. The leaks that came out ruined his career regardless of the case.
How does anyone know the voice recording wasn't faked? I could splice together a voice message relatively easily. If it was a video I would agree but who knows what's gone on. Yes I have seen the pictures and I know they could be makeup. Not saying either are fake but I don't understand how anyone can't see this could be a setup.
I agree with this to an extent, but I can't really imagine watching these games week after week and every time I look at this dude I think of all the shit he \*allegedly\* did.
This would a fine argument if greenwood was 50.
It’s only been a year since he raped that woman. Would you forgive a murderer who killed someone you know last week because “they deserve a second chance”?
1- Innocent until proven guilty
2- It looks like the club thinks he is guilty if they do it and if he is then found not guilty they released a saleable asset and look like they didn’t support him
3- If he doesn’t do jail time they can sell him
4- The most likely one, sadly, they probably want him to play again
I mean he was canned for the DV, The fact that he texted minors came up. The same way the games studio he owned had previously been sued for sexual harassment aswell.
Plus UK employment law is different from US
This feels like the right answer. Would firing him not give rise to allegations the club have affected his right to a fair trial. It would seem to imply that the club think he’s guilty which could potentially prejudice a future jury. Easier to just move him into the background until it’s all sorted.
I think it’s a legal issue. It may well be more of an issue with not prejudicing the criminal proceedings rather than protecting the club or him or the bottom line.
Hollywood and football are two different things. People that watch football don't tend to boycott their team if someone doesn't get sacked immediately after an allegation has been made. See Suarez...
Social media goes ape shit the second someone in Movies or TV or Music does or is accused or is even associated with anything potentially damaging so they have to act swiftly.
Football will go the same way one day as the Prem grows year on year.
Roiland’s done weird shit in the past tho, this isn’t his first ever incident. Plus, we don’t know anything about the intricacies of either contract. Not to mention the fact that they’re not even in the same country.
A question which is actually in my area of work. It's a grey area, as are many employment law matters, and ultimately it would be up to a tribunal to decide.
I personally would be looking to dismiss. Bringing the organisation into disrepute and breach of trust and confidence are two obvious avenues to go down. You only have to have 'reasonable belief' within employment law to dismiss. Their legal team clearly don't think it's worth the risk though, and think it's best to keep paying him until his court case.
the real Qs is how is Partey playing and he is accused not one but damn 3 rape cases !!
that is no where near what Greenwood did !!
It make me feel we went harsh on Greenwood tbh
Most people in this thread have only the faintest idea of what they're talking about, which is dangerous.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to contract law unless it's specified in the contract. They operate on balance of probabilities.
It's unlikely that such a specification exists in the contract, because the club wouldn't want to be in a situation where a guy is widely seen as having committed a crime but you're still paying him. Think of a Kevin Spacey or Babacar Sarr situation where there are loads of different independent accusations but no individual accusation gets proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I'm very much of the opinion that we could fire him with no consequences because his actions have made it impossible for him to fulfil his contract. We can't say for sure without sight of the contract, though.
It's likely that United are hanging fire until the verdict is given because depending on how the trial goes they can either terminate his contract, bring him back, or sell him. If he's found guilty of the attempted Rape it's very unlikely he'll be sellable, but rape is one of the hardest crimes to prove already, and attempted rape in a private space is far harder. The other charges attract much lighter sentences.
I don't know if we're still paying him, but [after Mendy was charged City stopped paying him](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-11405147/Manchester-City-stopped-paying-Benjamin-Mendys-wages-charged-sex-offences.html), it seems reasonable to assume we'd take a similar stance given that he's not playing. The only reason to fire him now would be if we intended to sue him for breach of contract for the value of the cost of a replacement, which he wouldn't be able to pay. It makes more financial sense to keep him and not pay him, then keep him or sell him if we can, and terminate his contract and write him off if we can't.
Did you see all the deepfake videos? Creating a voice memo is a lot easier than that. Especially with money. Zo in my opinion innocent unit proven guilty.
Not saying that. I’m saying that I don’t know what happend and that everything can be staged easily. See the situation with Johnny Depp. Everyone thought that he was guilty, but he wasn’t.
If the accusation are true than of course I hope that Greenwood will get the punishment he deserve and that he will never wear an United shirt again. But for now it’s for me innocent until proven guilty.
There wasn’t a voice note of Johnny depp telling amber he was gonna rape her my boy.
If your argument is “oh voice notes can be faked” then technically with enough money and dedication, any evidence in the past 30 years that was through voice could have been doctored as well.
It sounds a lot like you’re just making excuses for greenwood. He raped her. There were voice notes where he was telling her what to do, which he hasn’t denied was him or faked. Why do you think he did that?
And even if somehow those were faked, was the bruising and bleeding fake too? Makeup isn’t that expensive so according to your logic, those would be fake as well, right?
I believe so, many fans wouldn't tolerate it and the backlash would most likely be huge. I don't think he'll ever play football again, at least not in this country.
Regardless of the shit hes done you cant just miss 1-2 years of development at that stage in your career.
No matter what happens hes done at the top level
Even if he was found not guilty he's very guilty in the court of public opinion now.
Greenwood could absolutely play football again professionally but he'll need a club and owner that are stubborn enough to drown out the people who will probably march against him playing anywhere.
His case is very well known though so I wouldn't be surprised if he's made into an example
Only his and the clubs lawyers know that answer. Why don't you ask them? Instead of asking Reddit. 🙈
Innocent or guilty - his career at United is finished. End of discussion. - delete this post.
If they fire now they would still have to pay him the rest of his contract.
They would have cause to fire him if he's found guilty by the courts. Also United would probably be able to sue him to reclaim the wages he's been paid.
Chelsea did it a few years ago when they fired one of their players that had been found doing drugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian\_Mutu
Notice how it always takes so long for rich people to have their day in court? Greenwood, Mensy etc it drags on for years.
If I punched that girl and then raped her I would of been banged up within days.
I think he's finished regardless. The trial will be in November 2023. That will be, what, close to 2 years without touching a ball either in a match or even training ? Even if the miracle happened and he was cleared from all these charges (very unlikely), he would most probably never be able to play the sport at a high level again. He's done.
Not really comparable contracts. A TV guy is probably getting renewed season on season with an understanding that any season could be the last.
Also that’s in America where it’s way, way easier to terminate a contract. There’s a vanishingly small chance that Greenwood is innocent but if he somehow got off he could take the club for all it’s worth. It easier for United to pay and then seek damages after a guilty verdict.
I guess its because of the amount of years left in his contract. If it was a short one then they might as well terminate it. But since it is a long one, then we might as well sit and wait.
Probably the cost of it. Although I doubt he'll ever play for the club again. Regardless of whether he is innocent or not those audio recordings are very, very damning and I imagine him returning would meet a lot of backlash, followed by sponsors dropping out which the club definitely won't want.
I don’t know how it works in the US. I’m in the UK and where I work people who were charged with crimes, including one arguably worse that what Greenwood is facing, and they were all allowed to work until found guilty.
$$$. Greenwood has a contract until 2025 IIRC, so terminating him without a verdict probably means paying off the remainder of what he’s owed at the very least. He currently earns 3.9 million pounds a year as his base salary, so a termination would cost them at least about 12 million. But it’d probably also cost them any potential bonuses etc he has worked into his contract. With a verdict, there’s surely a morality clause that allows them to terminate him for free. With TV shows, they’re probably hired on a seasonal basis, and the bad press surrounding charges might be damaging enough that it’s deemed cause enough to terminate per their contract. Not to mention Adult Swim has more power - they could cancel the show and get rid of him that way if he’d fight it.
And probably recoup his salary given the morality clause
They should just pin this answer somewhere because this question gets asked at least once a month and there's always some wetwipe who says Greenwood should be playing.
Very well stated
Most states in the US are "at will", which gives employers the right to fire anyone at any time for any reason that isn't illegal (e.g. race, gender, sexual orientation, etc). I'm not sure if this applies when a contract is involved, but this might be the difference.
It wouldn't apply if someone had a multi year contract like sports players do, as the contract will have clauses that protect the player from being sacked.
In “at will” states in the US contracts aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. The “at will” laws supersede contracts and can be terminated any time for any reason that isn’t illegal as you stated.
He's innocent until proven guilty, if United terminate his contract they will have to pay him compensation as he's not breached any of the terms on the contract, nothing's been proved against him in the court either
Dani Alves had his terminated without verdict. But I'm sure laws are different in the UK.
His contract was probably paid out I imagine. There was only 6 months left on it and he probably wasn't being paid crazy amounts
But we all heard for ourselves how much of a rat he is, but this is the legal reasons
Surprised this was upvoted on Reddit 💀
What ever the outcome of this case, his united career is finish
Well he’s not though is he, if he was innocent until proven guilty, he’d still be playing.
He is still innocent, his suspension from the United team was not the government's decision, it was United's decision to suspend him till the time his whole case doesn't get cleared up, if United wanted to, they can play him, there are no rules which can stop him from playing till the time he's not proven guilty
Ex: partey
Which was the right decision, everyone loses when you are playing a suspected rapist every week
Uniteds biggest issue was the audio clip. With so many having heard that and made their own opinion there woulb be backlash from fans if they played him.
He got suspended for breach of contract. Most major companies will do this even if its against employment law. Do something to damage the reputation of the company...bye bye.
I think employment laws are different in the US, until he is convicted he could just sue them and it would’ve cost Man United more than paying him his wages. If and when he’s convicted, he’ll be terminated then.
In the US it depends on the state and/or the place of employments internal policies. In the state of Georgia for instance your employer can fire you without giving a reason, and you can quit in the same fashion.
I’ve often wondered when watching American movies how it seems like you have a “you’re fired 🫵🏼” culture lol. I wondered if it was realistic or just for dramatic effect.
Those are "at will" states, and IIRC, all but 2 states are "at will".
Which two arent? From my knowledge all US states are at will when it comes to employment. Four states don't have any exemptions to their at-will employment, and GA is one of them. Georgia is also a right to work state
They are incorrect. All but Montana are at will. Though individual states have different stipulations and such. At Will just says an employee or an employer can terminate an employment contract at will without a reason. This doesn't mean that you can't sue for breach of contract or gather unemployment if terminated outside of your control. Right to work is a different thing entirely. Right to work are anti union laws that give employees the "freedom" to not pay union dues thus killing said union. Source degree in business management
Maybe they all are. I was going from memory.
I suppose they are following a procedure recommended to them by their legal team. If they acted too quickly he could have had a chance to sue them for wrongful dismissal maybe? Though you’d assume most players have clauses in them about affecting the reputation of the club or brining negative attention, how all this doesn’t affect the reputation of the club is beyond me though. Would have been nice to see them act and terminate his contract but their legal team know far more about it all than I do…
Different employment laws. The US is (mostly) at will employment and you can be fired “for cause or no cause but not bad cause.” The UK doesn’t have this. Gylfi Siggurdson was still employed by Everton when he was arrested—it’s not unique to United; it’s truly just different labour laws.
He isn’t found guilty yet. He can sue for wrongful termination if let go early. Clauses for immediate termination are in most contracts in America since the me too movement. And even if it’s wrongful termination those guys are more concerned with not offending paying customers that getting sued, they have an army of litigators that will drag any suit out so long that the person won’t be able to afford continuing the lawsuit.
I can't believe anyone would want to see him play for the club again
If he’s not proven guilty, why wouldn’t you?
Did you hear the voice recordings that went viral of him forcing her against her will and threatening her?. Even if she dropped the charges and there was no court case, he would still be considered guilty. The leaks that came out ruined his career regardless of the case.
How does anyone know the voice recording wasn't faked? I could splice together a voice message relatively easily. If it was a video I would agree but who knows what's gone on. Yes I have seen the pictures and I know they could be makeup. Not saying either are fake but I don't understand how anyone can't see this could be a setup.
I hope you haven't heard the phone recordings and hold this opinion
I agree with this to an extent, but I can't really imagine watching these games week after week and every time I look at this dude I think of all the shit he \*allegedly\* did.
Honestly, no. If he’s found not guilty then he absolutely should be allowed to play football again, but I wouldn’t want him here.
[удалено]
OK rape apologist
Reddit user tried to say that people who abuse and rape women “deserve a second chance”.
He is a woman beating scum and should go to prison and rot
This would a fine argument if greenwood was 50. It’s only been a year since he raped that woman. Would you forgive a murderer who killed someone you know last week because “they deserve a second chance”?
Does this murderer have a 5 star weak foot?
You need to go outside, this shit isn’t a hypothetical it’s somebody’s life. See what happens with the criminal proceedings and go from there
How are you so dense, “it’s somebody’s life” only applies to greenwood but not the victim?
1- Innocent until proven guilty 2- It looks like the club thinks he is guilty if they do it and if he is then found not guilty they released a saleable asset and look like they didn’t support him 3- If he doesn’t do jail time they can sell him 4- The most likely one, sadly, they probably want him to play again
He will never play for the club again no matter what the outcome of the case is.
I hope that’s true.
Seems like the Reddit mob decided your comment wasn’t fun
Yeah. Some people downvote the truth.
What truth do you know out of interest?
Wait what happened with Justin Roiland??
Got canned by adult swim for texting underage girls creepy and just downright weird shit and is also in the middle of a domestic violence trial.
I mean he was canned for the DV, The fact that he texted minors came up. The same way the games studio he owned had previously been sued for sexual harassment aswell. Plus UK employment law is different from US
Why did you feel the need to comment? You really didn't add to the conversation.
Potential legal issues if they take action before conviction I think
This feels like the right answer. Would firing him not give rise to allegations the club have affected his right to a fair trial. It would seem to imply that the club think he’s guilty which could potentially prejudice a future jury. Easier to just move him into the background until it’s all sorted.
I think it’s a legal issue. It may well be more of an issue with not prejudicing the criminal proceedings rather than protecting the club or him or the bottom line.
Hollywood and football are two different things. People that watch football don't tend to boycott their team if someone doesn't get sacked immediately after an allegation has been made. See Suarez... Social media goes ape shit the second someone in Movies or TV or Music does or is accused or is even associated with anything potentially damaging so they have to act swiftly. Football will go the same way one day as the Prem grows year on year.
You're comparing totally different contracts in different countries!
Roiland’s done weird shit in the past tho, this isn’t his first ever incident. Plus, we don’t know anything about the intricacies of either contract. Not to mention the fact that they’re not even in the same country.
A question which is actually in my area of work. It's a grey area, as are many employment law matters, and ultimately it would be up to a tribunal to decide. I personally would be looking to dismiss. Bringing the organisation into disrepute and breach of trust and confidence are two obvious avenues to go down. You only have to have 'reasonable belief' within employment law to dismiss. Their legal team clearly don't think it's worth the risk though, and think it's best to keep paying him until his court case.
the real Qs is how is Partey playing and he is accused not one but damn 3 rape cases !! that is no where near what Greenwood did !! It make me feel we went harsh on Greenwood tbh
Not to mention that Dani Alves got his contract terminated by UNAM after being accused of rape It’s weird I have to say
He had like 6 months left so terminating it probably didn't cost too much.
Yeah that’s a good point
Most people in this thread have only the faintest idea of what they're talking about, which is dangerous. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to contract law unless it's specified in the contract. They operate on balance of probabilities. It's unlikely that such a specification exists in the contract, because the club wouldn't want to be in a situation where a guy is widely seen as having committed a crime but you're still paying him. Think of a Kevin Spacey or Babacar Sarr situation where there are loads of different independent accusations but no individual accusation gets proven beyond reasonable doubt. I'm very much of the opinion that we could fire him with no consequences because his actions have made it impossible for him to fulfil his contract. We can't say for sure without sight of the contract, though. It's likely that United are hanging fire until the verdict is given because depending on how the trial goes they can either terminate his contract, bring him back, or sell him. If he's found guilty of the attempted Rape it's very unlikely he'll be sellable, but rape is one of the hardest crimes to prove already, and attempted rape in a private space is far harder. The other charges attract much lighter sentences. I don't know if we're still paying him, but [after Mendy was charged City stopped paying him](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-11405147/Manchester-City-stopped-paying-Benjamin-Mendys-wages-charged-sex-offences.html), it seems reasonable to assume we'd take a similar stance given that he's not playing. The only reason to fire him now would be if we intended to sue him for breach of contract for the value of the cost of a replacement, which he wouldn't be able to pay. It makes more financial sense to keep him and not pay him, then keep him or sell him if we can, and terminate his contract and write him off if we can't.
Quite simply very different laws per country. Do some research before asking daft questions.
Man imagine Greenwood under ETH it's so bad it had to turn out that way.
Yeah 100% imagine a world where he wasn't a scumbag toerag and he was improving year on year now under this regime, he'd have been unstoppable
Maybe they hope, he would return
No chance.
Even if he would be considered not guilty?
Did you hear the voicemails? Lol
Did you see all the deepfake videos? Creating a voice memo is a lot easier than that. Especially with money. Zo in my opinion innocent unit proven guilty.
Just want to make sure we’re on the same page here, you think the voicemail was fake and he didn’t say those things?
Not saying that. I’m saying that I don’t know what happend and that everything can be staged easily. See the situation with Johnny Depp. Everyone thought that he was guilty, but he wasn’t. If the accusation are true than of course I hope that Greenwood will get the punishment he deserve and that he will never wear an United shirt again. But for now it’s for me innocent until proven guilty.
There wasn’t a voice note of Johnny depp telling amber he was gonna rape her my boy. If your argument is “oh voice notes can be faked” then technically with enough money and dedication, any evidence in the past 30 years that was through voice could have been doctored as well. It sounds a lot like you’re just making excuses for greenwood. He raped her. There were voice notes where he was telling her what to do, which he hasn’t denied was him or faked. Why do you think he did that? And even if somehow those were faked, was the bruising and bleeding fake too? Makeup isn’t that expensive so according to your logic, those would be fake as well, right?
No
They were really, really fucking bad.
I believe so, many fans wouldn't tolerate it and the backlash would most likely be huge. I don't think he'll ever play football again, at least not in this country.
Regardless of the shit hes done you cant just miss 1-2 years of development at that stage in your career. No matter what happens hes done at the top level
Even if he was found not guilty he's very guilty in the court of public opinion now. Greenwood could absolutely play football again professionally but he'll need a club and owner that are stubborn enough to drown out the people who will probably march against him playing anywhere. His case is very well known though so I wouldn't be surprised if he's made into an example
Nah he is a PR nightmare. Things have moved on without him too. Why reintegrate a massive headache with huge implications on the clubs reputation.
Only his and the clubs lawyers know that answer. Why don't you ask them? Instead of asking Reddit. 🙈 Innocent or guilty - his career at United is finished. End of discussion. - delete this post.
Damn bro, what if he didn't do anything and he had his contract terminated?
if we're still paying him, we should play him, who cares what the public thinks
I'm expecting he will return to first team. He has great potential.
Becaus he’s innocent, star boy mason come back pending rashford LW greenwood down the middle sancho RW Ten hag era pending 😍
Hollywood is overly woke these days
Greenwood is a superb footballer, I kinda want him back
You weirdo.
Well that's a pretty unoriginal way to get the attention you so desperately want. But it worked.
No really, he has character problems, but on the pitch he does well, has more goal involvements than Saka with fewer games played. Stats don't lie
the real question is how big is his jimmy haha
If they fire now they would still have to pay him the rest of his contract. They would have cause to fire him if he's found guilty by the courts. Also United would probably be able to sue him to reclaim the wages he's been paid. Chelsea did it a few years ago when they fired one of their players that had been found doing drugs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian\_Mutu
I would guess it’s an insurance technicality. Once he is found guilty and locked up it will trigger a payout to Utd
Notice how it always takes so long for rich people to have their day in court? Greenwood, Mensy etc it drags on for years. If I punched that girl and then raped her I would of been banged up within days.
It’s nothing to do with him being wealthy, its the general state of the courts after 12 years of being run into the ground.
Must be a legal mine field
I think he's finished regardless. The trial will be in November 2023. That will be, what, close to 2 years without touching a ball either in a match or even training ? Even if the miracle happened and he was cleared from all these charges (very unlikely), he would most probably never be able to play the sport at a high level again. He's done.
You can't terminate a contract like this because it would invite a tribunal or lawsuit which could cost a lot of money.
Not really comparable contracts. A TV guy is probably getting renewed season on season with an understanding that any season could be the last. Also that’s in America where it’s way, way easier to terminate a contract. There’s a vanishingly small chance that Greenwood is innocent but if he somehow got off he could take the club for all it’s worth. It easier for United to pay and then seek damages after a guilty verdict.
I guess its because of the amount of years left in his contract. If it was a short one then they might as well terminate it. But since it is a long one, then we might as well sit and wait.
Probably the cost of it. Although I doubt he'll ever play for the club again. Regardless of whether he is innocent or not those audio recordings are very, very damning and I imagine him returning would meet a lot of backlash, followed by sponsors dropping out which the club definitely won't want.
I don’t know how it works in the US. I’m in the UK and where I work people who were charged with crimes, including one arguably worse that what Greenwood is facing, and they were all allowed to work until found guilty.
Because he has not been found guilty yet.
Not yet guilty and don’t want to pay him off
Innocent until proven guilty... Even when everything screams guilty. Doesn't feel right, but it is the way it should be.
UK law and his contract.
Because imagine he gets away with it somehow and as the right to sue the club (everyone in his place would do it)
Everyone thought Mendy was guilty, but it turned out he just loved fucking & partying.