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.”
My Lord, is that legal?