Spain - Women World Cup Champions - 1 week later. (How not to manage a crises)

It is hard to comment on it as we don't know what evidence the police gathered to conclude they couldn't prosecute him

The police don't prosecute, they hand their findings to the CPS.

The CPS decided to prosecute anyway even in light of allegations been withdrawn and new evidence presented to them in April 2022.

They continued this stance until February this year until their own internal review process told them to drop the case. Who knows maybe the new evidence wasn't past on.

You would have to wonder if it was a young white footballer would he have been made stew for nearly a year.

The Manu statement doesn't reveal anything at all only makes claims they couldn't back up with any evidence

Well no the statement is clear.

the evidence we did collate led us to conclude that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with

We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording, and for the images posted online.

Are people incapable of reading between the lines here?

Also it is worth nothing Greenwood is still an employee of United he has not been fired.

In other news I see Rubiales mother is in hospital. This is a sad state of affairs. He should resign, for his family's sake, and so we can close this thread!

It was the dribbling mob camped outside her house that largely drove her to protest.

Why did you leave out the rest of it? 😕

We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording,

What are you talking about? They were given the whole audio, as were the Police and eventually the CPS.

They concluded based on the evidence presented to them including cooperation from the alleged victims family he did not commit the acts he was originally charged with, which were attempted rape, controlling and coercive behaviour and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Charges which were later dropped.

the evidence we did collate led us to conclude that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with

despite this mountain of irrefutable evidence neither party has publicly released it

Again if knew anything about the case you would know why.

The investigation by the organisation who really wanted to keep Mason Greenwood as their player concluded on the basis of the alternative explanations they were told that he did not commit the crimes he was charged with

Well you see that is nonsensical. Their own investigative review process determined he not commit the acts he was originally charged with but he has to go anyway.

I think without further explanation of what actually happened there was not much desire among manu supporters for Greenwood to return. That is just judging by the posts on the manu forum here.

It just seems that was another pr disaster in the football world, their handling of his possible reintegration to the squad was handled really badly.

If they "really wanted to keep him as a player" and their own investigation cleared him of what he was accused of.

Why isn't he back in training?

The statement simply states they have longer audio recordings, they don't refer to the content of the longer audio recordings 

The longer audio recording could just be the exact same as the shorter one

That is just nonsense. If the longer audio was a continuation of the edited snippet United would not be declaring he did not do what he was charged with.

Anyway. It is also way off topic.

I'll leave it on this note, what actually happened in reality and the evidence which proves it hasn't been released is to protect someone, that someone is not Greenwood.

I think what Arnold said to finish statement should probably be respected.

Although we have decided that Mason will seek to rebuild his career away from Manchester United, that does not signal the end of this matter. The club will continue to offer its support both to the alleged victim and Mason to help them rebuild and move forward positively with their lives.

That is what the United statement states and it is clear that the alternative explanation to the audio recording is the main reason that they concluded that Greenwood did not do the crimes

The main reason they concluded he did not do what he was originally charged with is because they had the cooperation of people involved with it including evidential materials that have not been released to the public. The same evidential materials were provided (eventually) to the CPS who dropped all charges on the back of them.

Your assertion is that United wanted to keep him at all costs so their investigation was tainted is illogical.

The reality is the easiest thing and probably best outcome for the club was to find evidence against Greenwood that would have nullified his contract therefore allowing them to fire him and not have to agree on settlement.

Worse case scenario in some respects was they conclude he did not do what he was accused of, which is what they actually concluded.

IF the true story is ever revealed, which it could be, circumstances can always change. United are not going to look great.

It's why the letters and statements are crafted as they are.

I won't be engaging anymore on it because it's over the moon off topic.

United's statements on the other hand were purely financial.

No they weren't, there findings leave them on the hook for the remainder of his contract.

There is the prospect that they may receive a fee.

They are not looking to generate a fee and if one was to be it will be given to women's charities.

They are his employer.

We can't just get rid of employment protections and law because the lady who does maths on the telly wants to garner twitter likes.

Or do you think we should replace procedure with Twitter Polls?

What law was broken?

I didn't say any law has been broken.

But it's not Man United places to make any statement on what Greenwood did or didn't do. They are not the body who decides that.

"He didn't do it because Man United said so" is a patently stupid position to take.

Why are you talking about the law for so? The body who decides if laws were broken already decided that.

It then moved on to employment law which an employer is legally obliged to follow, which they did.

Now in normal circumstance that remains behind closed doors. But as explained.

This was an internal disciplinary investigation between employer and employee which would ordinarily take place outside of the public eye. Given the public nature of the allegations and Mason's profile, I acknowledge that this was not an ordinary situation, but I felt it important that we still follow due process and, so far as possible, avoid media comment until I had made a definitive decision.

So again why would United not be allowed make determinations of fact on whether an employee does or does not keep their job?

What does that have to do with my only argument about this, which is that placing any faith in the findings of a Man United investigation is nonsense.

So by that logic if they found that he actually committed what he was accused of and they fired him on that back of that you would be calling for him to be reinstated immediately because the findings would be nonsense, right?

But why is it nonsense? The are compelled by law to follow employment law.

So are you saying no investigation should have taken place by the club and he should have been reinstated into the squad immediately once the CPS decided all charges were to be dropped?