Sky Sports News’ Melissa Reddy recounts how Manchester United reached their decision for Mason Greenwood to leave the club.
Mason Greenwood will continue his career away from Manchester United. Multiple sources have told Sky Sports News that this has more to do with a public backlash over reintegrating the player than the findings of the club’s internal investigation.
This week, after a six-month process overseen by an executive panel, Manchester United finally shared their outcome.
The club mutually agreed with Greenwood that it would be most appropriate for him to recommence his career away from Old Trafford.
This was a result of what United believe to be a painstaking examination of the facts and context around the distressing content uploaded onto social media platforms in January 2022.
The chilling images and audio recordings led to the Crown Prosecution Services charging Greenwood with attempted rape, assault, and controlling and coercive behaviour.
That came on the same day he committed an alleged breach of his bail conditions on October 15 2022.
In February, all charges against Greenwood were dropped after key witnesses withdrew their involvement and new material came to light.
That is when United’s probe began, overseen by CEO Richard Arnold, chief operating officer Collette Roche, football director John Murtough, legal counsel Patrick Stewart, and chief communications officer Ellie Norman.
United’s final outcome was, Sky Sports News has been told, not the original plan, nor the one the club’s football operations had wanted for a forward whose value was in excess of £100m at the time of his arrest last year.
The club insist welcoming the academy graduate back to Carrington was one of various scenarios modelled and had not been their final conclusion at any point, but high-placed sources dispute this.
Several club employees have claimed the initial intention was to welcome the forward back to the fold, hence the need to explain the thinking to key stakeholders – including the women’s team – before it was made public.
Those claims are supported by the delay in United communicating their findings which were due to be delivered before the start of the new Premier League season. That timeline did not factor in the involvement of Manchester United players Mary Earps, Ella Toone and Katie Zelem at the Women’s World Cup and needed to be shifted.
United were resolute that internal and external pressure were not going to sway them on making a decision based “on the facts”. However, the strength of feeling from staff, supporters, and the general public to Greenwood returning was significantly underestimated.
In a holding statement released last Wednesday, United appeared to be paving the way for reintegration. That position seemed untenable by Friday.
There is an acceptance of this in the most recent set of communique released by the club. In an open letter, Arnold, wrote: “I am mindful of the challenge that Mason would face rebuilding his career and raising a baby together with his partner in the harsh spotlight of Manchester United.
“Further, this case has provoked strong opinions, and it is my responsibility to minimise any distraction to the unity we are seeking within the club.”
The wording of United’s statements and that of Greenwood on Monday are curious. The club state they were “unable to access certain evidence” yet “concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged”.
They stress “the importance of making a decision based on full information” but accept, as above, that they did not have the complete pool of evidence.
The statement goes on to state the 21-year-old admits “he has made mistakes which he is taking responsibility for”.
Greenwood, however, said: “I did not do the things I was accused of” but “I take my share of responsibility for the situations which led to the social media post.”
He also stated, “in February I was cleared of all charges”. The CPS said the charges were discontinued.
Manchester United’s communication over the decision is as confusing as the route to reaching it.
Last Wednesday, in reaction to the holding statement from United amid reports they considered domestic abuse charities as “hostile” to Greenwood’s first-team return, Women’s Aid reached out to the club.
Their aim was simple but vital: increasing understanding and awareness of a problem that affected 1.7m females in the UK last year, a head-spinning figure made more shocking by the fact that less than 24 per cent of such crime is reported to the police.
Sources have told Sky Sports News that this was the first time during a half-year process, which United say was “carefully considered” and “thorough”, that a conversation with an organisation specialising in supporting women through domestic and sexual abuse had occurred and that it only happened because Women’s Aid took the initiative.
United’s investigation into the situation surrounding Greenwood’s arrest in January 2022 contained flaws, but the most significant was not engaging with charities that could have better informed and guided their process.
The blind spot in the club’s knowledge on domestic and sexual violence is evidenced in their statements and overall handling of the matter.
United have always maintained that they did not need to ascertain whether Greenwood had committed a criminal offence but whether his actions were in keeping with the values the institution wants to hold.
None of his previous misdemeanours on file at the club – some in the public domain, others kept private – were considered as part of the investigation.
United say the focus was concentrating on the context and circumstances around Greenwood’s arrest. Despite being “unable to access certain evidence for reasons we respect,” United concluded “Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with”.
There will need to be some hard truths about whether the handling of the situation met the standards the club wanted to uphold given the reputational damage suffered over the past few days.
Staff at United, across divisions, have been candid in saying that if Greenwood was an average player, he would have been discarded from the moment he was suspended. The club flag their duty of care to him.
It is claimed United were originally prepared to lose sponsors, a heap of other commercial income, and endure pushback to serve results on the pitch.
That was until they witnessed the real scale of opposition to that decision.
