Search

... with the plan communicated by Arnold to executive leadership in first week August.

Excerpts from the article:

Manchester United’s plan to bring back Mason Greenwood was so advanced that the club even prepared documents outlining the type of images that should be taken of the player during training sessions and planned how manager Erik ten Hag should handle questions during an anticipated media storm.

According to sources with knowledge of United’s planning, who remain anonymous because they are not authorised to speak publicly, the club’s preparations for Greenwood’s return also included an assessment of the expected sentiment of external figures, listing individual football pundits, journalists and politicians and stating whether they would be for or against Greenwood’s reintegration. The planning divided these people into categories to the effect of “supportive”, “open-minded” or “hostile”. The club’s document listed a series of domestic abuse charities assumed to be “hostile”.

\-----

Earlier this week, United said in a statement that “the welfare and perspective of the alleged victim has been central to the club’s inquiries”. United’s process was led by Arnold, assisted by the club’s legal counsel Patrick Stewart, communications chief Ellie Norman, football director John Murtough and the chief operating officer, Collette Roche.

The internal process has not consulted any charities specialised in supporting women in cases where alleged domestic or sexual abuse has occurred.

\-----

The Athletic’s reporting of United’s intentions on Wednesday has triggered a significant backlash on social media from football supporters who are opposed to Greenwood’s return and the club’s sentiment trackers, which monitor supporter feeling online, have plummeted in recent days.

On Thursday, the prominent British television presenter Rachel Riley warned she would not continue to support the club if Greenwood returned and her social media posts were sent between staff members at the club.

\-----

The Athletic has also been told by sources close to the club, who will remain anonymous in order to protect their positions, that senior Manchester United executives held multiple intense meetings with staff after we reported on Wednesday that some employees feel ashamed by the club’s decision. Some staff members have discussed resigning in the event United continue to pursue the plan laid out by Arnold, while others have considered coordinated action, with some staff even exploring a strike.

\-----

The most extreme measures, however, remain hypothetical until the club formally communicates a decision, while it is also the reality of a situation such as this that aggrieved employees are more likely to speak to journalists than those who are either on the fence or supportive of the decision.

United’s concern on Thursday and Friday, however, was sufficient for crisis meetings to take place, which involved United executives seeking to justify a return for Greenwood to staff, while also claiming no final decision had been made. Many staff were left with the impression, though, that the plan to bring him back remains.

\-----

The plan to stage-manage Greenwood’s return went to the lengths of detailing the type of training images that should be taken of Greenwood and how they should be transmitted on club channels. The plan also included the possibility of Greenwood himself doing an extended interview in a few months’ time, once he has bedded back into the club. The medium — whether in-house or via an external broadcaster — of the interview is not clear.

United’s planning for Greenwood’s return also contains extensive ongoing psychological and physical support, which includes the player being offered a form of counselling or therapy.

A Manchester United spokesman said: “Manchester United has planned for various potential scenarios in relation to the future of Mason Greenwood. The Athletic has been leaked selective elements of one such scenario plan from several weeks ago. This is a difficult and sensitive case. It is entirely proper that we have taken a careful and thorough approach to planning for the various potential outcomes, including how we would engage with stakeholders and explain the decision after it is made. As previously stated, we are in the final stages of that process and will bring it to a conclusion as soon as possible.”

Full Thread:

"This morning, I approached Manchester United with a series of facts relating to their internal “process” on Mason Greenwood, which included the detail (undisputed by the club) that chief exec Arnold had told his executive team that the club was planning to bring Greenwood back.

As journalists, we provide right of reply to anyone we approach with a time period (deadline) in which they can respond. This is in the interests of balance and accuracy. And we did that today.

The usual protocol is that a responder would respond to the journalist first and foremost so any background or comment can be inserted into the story, to ensure balance and accuracy.

On this occasion, we were asked to extend our deadline so club could gather its response. Then, simultaneously, around 1545, the club issued a statement on its website, an all-staff email, and a press statement to all journalists who cover the club. And sent to us at same time.

As such, the only reasonable conclusion is that today’s United statement was unplanned and cobbled together as the club deliberated how to respond to our story. (Nobody plans to deliver a public statement at 3.45pm on a Wednesday afternoon)

Clearly, quite annoying personally, because it felt like an attempt to deflect from/bury our reporting, where we acted in entirely good faith with the club. But way more importantly, it was illustrative of United attempting to seize back narrative on increasingly strained process

Personal reading is United are unsettled & panicking that aspects of their choreographed plan made public and they are now witnessing a significant social backlash. I 100% stand by our reporting that Arnold told his exec team in 1st week August of plans to return Greenwood.

Of course, having abandoned their first proposed date (4th August), nothing has been announced, which gives the club plausible deniability on a “final decision”. After all, human beings can change their minds. (Likely reason for delay: wanting to brief women’s team still at WC)

But it is absolutely in the public interest for supporters of the club to know what has been going on in recent weeks, whatever happens next, and that’s why we reported this."

Full Tweet:

Exc: 🚨 Man United chief executive Richard Arnold told the club’s executive leadership team in first week of August that the club planned to bring back Mason Greenwood. The club then aborted scheduled announcement for August 4. Details @TheAthleticFC