Melissa Reddy of Sky Sports News explains how Manchester United came to the conclusion that Mason Greenwood should leave the team.
Mason Greenwood will not be playing for Manchester United anymore. According to many individuals who spoke with Sky Sports News, the public outcry over the player's reintegration has more to do with this than the conclusions of the club's internal probe.
At last, Manchester United released their results this week, following a six-month procedure supervised by an executive panel.
That it would be best for Greenwood to resume his career somewhere else than Old Trafford was decided upon by the club and agent.
In January 2022, disturbing information was posted on social media platforms. United believes that a thorough investigation of the circumstances and facts surrounding the content led to this decision.
Greenwood was charged by the Crown Prosecution Services with attempted rape, assault, and intimidating and coercive behaviour as a result of the disturbing photos and audio recordings.
He allegedly violated his bail terms on October 15, 2022, the same day that that occurred.
Greenwood was charged by the Crown Prosecution Services with attempted rape, assault, and controlling and coercive behaviour as a result of the disturbing photos and audio recordings.
This occurred on October 15, 2022, the same day that he is accused of violating his release terms.
After important witnesses withdrew from the case and fresh evidence surfaced in February, all charges against Greenwood were dismissed.
United's investigation got underway at that point, under the direction of CEO Richard Arnold, COO Collette Roche, football director John Murtough, attorney Patrick Stewart, and CCO Ellie Norman.
According to sources close to Sky Sports News, United's ultimate result was not what the football operations of the club had hoped for or anticipated for a striker whose market worth exceeded £100 million at the time of his arrest last year.
High-ranking insiders reject the club's claim that inviting the academy graduate back to Carrington was their final decision and was only one of several scenarios they had considered.
As a result, it was necessary to communicate the plan to important stakeholders, including the women's squad, before it was made public, according to many club personnel who claim the original goal was to welcome the forward back to the team.
The fact that United took so long to release its findings—which were supposed to be delivered in time for the start of the next Premier League season—supports those allegations. The timetable has to be adjusted since it did not account for the participation of Mary Earps, Ella Toone, and Katie Zelem of Manchester United in the Women's World Cup.
United was convinced that they would not be swayed from reaching a choice based "on the facts" by pressure from either the inside or the outside. The public, employees, and supporters' strong feelings about Greenwood returning, however, were greatly misjudged.
In a statement that was made public on Wednesday, United seemed to be taking steps towards reunification. By Friday, that situation didn't seem manageable.
That's something that the club acknowledged in their most recent communiqué. Arnold wrote the following in an open letter: "I am aware of the difficulties Mason would have in trying to rebuild his career and raise a child with his girlfriend in the intense limelight of Manchester United.
"In addition, this case has sparked strong opinions, and it is my duty to minimise any distractions from the goal of club unity."
The language used in both United's and Greenwood's remarks on Monday is peculiar. The club claims that despite being "unable to access certain evidence," they came to the conclusion that Mason did not commit the charges for which he was first accused and that the information published online did not give a complete picture.
As previously said, they acknowledge that they did not have access to all available material, but they emphasise the "importance of making a decision based on full information."
The 21-year-old acknowledges that "he has made mistakes which he is taking responsibility for," according to the statement that follows.
However, Greenwood clarified, saying, "I accept my share of responsibility for the situations which led to the social media post. I did not do the things I was accused of."
"I was cleared of all charges in February," he added. The charges have been dropped, according to the CPS.
The path to arriving at the conclusion is as unclear as Manchester United's communication around it.
Women's Aid contacted the squad last Wednesday in response to United's holding statement, which came amid rumours that the club saw domestic violence charities as "hostile" to Greenwood's first-team comeback.
Their goal was straightforward but crucial: raising awareness of an issue that impacted 1.7 million women in the UK every year. This statistic is mind-boggling, especially considering that fewer than 24% of these crimes are recorded to the police.
Insiders told Sky Sports News that this was the first time in a six-month process that United describe as "carefully considered" and "thorough" that a conversation with a group that supports women who have experienced domestic and sexual abuse had taken place, and that Women's Aid alone was responsible for making it happen.
There were several shortcomings in United's inquiry of the circumstances surrounding Greenwood's arrest in January 2022, but the most important one was their failure to consult with organisations that might have provided them with more information and direction.
The club's comments and general handling of the situation reveal a blind area in their understanding of domestic and sexual abuse.
United has consistently argued that the most important question to ask was whether Greenwood's conduct aligned with the ideals the organisation seeks to uphold, rather than whether he had broken any laws.
None of the prior misdemeanours he had on file at the club—some kept secret, some in the public eye—were taken into account throughout the inquiry.
United claims that the background and conditions surrounding Greenwood's arrest were the main emphasis. United came to the conclusion that Mason did not conduct the offences he was accused with, despite being "unable to access certain evidence for reasons we respect."
Given the harm to the club's reputation over the last several days, it will be necessary to determine whether the way the incident was handled adhered to the standards the club wished to maintain.
Employees at United, from all departments, have stated very openly that they would have cut Greenwood as soon as he was suspended if he had been an ordinary player. To him, the club signals their obligation of care.
It is said that in order to achieve results on the pitch, United was initially willing to forfeit sponsors, a significant amount of additional revenue, and face opposition.
That is, until they saw how widespread the resistance to that choice really was.
0 Comments