I have written my thoughts in an email to the club, outlining that I would no longer in good conscience be willing to support the team should he be reintroduced. The response:

Thank you for taking the time to email Manchester United. We note and understand your strength of feeling on this matter.

This has been a difficult case for everyone associated with the Club, and we recognise the strong opinions it has provoked.

Since charges were dropped against Mason Greenwood in February, we have conducted our own investigation into the allegations made against him, and we want to assure you that the welfare and perspective of the alleged victim has been central to the club’s inquiries.

As a club, we are extremely mindful of the views of our supporters, but we also believe that our decision in this case should be based primarily on the findings of our investigation.

As communicated yesterday, despite media reports, we have not yet reached a final decision. When we do, we will communicate and explain it through club channels.

We assure you that we are listening to carefully to your views and ask for patience as we work through the final stages of this considered process.

Kind regards,

Manchester United Football Club

This was an absolutely revolting read, but a great job by Crafton. It’s all round disgusting what the upper management at United are trying to do. Well done to those inside the club who are opposing it and even leaking all this dirt to media. The more light is shed on this, the better.

Excerpts from the article (thanks to @RamesesKnibs@lemmy.world over at reddevils

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.”

Do you have to be a public figure to get on the ‘hostile’ list or are they accepting open applications? I’d like to join too please.

deleted by creator