Into the holes littering the statement explaining Manchester United’s mutual separation from Mason Greenwood poured anger and indignation, and it might yet do for the author.
When United’s chief executive officer Richard Arnold let loose his rationale for the parting of the ways on Monday he did not account for the moral authority and forensic ardour of Rachel Riley, a television personality bearing down on his explanation like an angel of truth.
“Green lighting abuse” and “turning an alleged abuser into a victim” were just two of her observations as the details of how United sought to keep Greenwood began to emerge.
According to reports United had outlined an elaborate PR plan to choreograph Greenwood’s reintegration into the squad, including the kind of photographs to be released from training and briefing the manager on how to answer questions about the case.
The policy was still on track as late as last Friday until it was revealed that the club had identified groups who would be for, neutral or against the scheme. Domestic abuse charities were categorised as being hostile actors, a detail which evinced a negative reaction that would grow into outrage, making Greenwood’s retention untenable.
None of this detail was offered by Arnold, who was deliberately vague in accounting for United’s volte face. Riley wants Arnold gone, believing his handling of the case is a betrayal of the moral standards expected.
That it is put by Riley, an individual of significant influence born not least of the integrity of her role as Countdown’s maths wizard, is potentially ruinous for Arnold.
She is a lifelong United fan who represents wholesome goodness, a genuine supporter who felt so strongly about the wrong Greenwood’s retention would have represented, she was prepared to sever her allegiance.
Riley’s ire was triggered not only by the club’s support of Greenwood, stating that he did not commit the offences of which he was accused, but the failure to consult experts to add the necessary context and properly acknowledge the horrors involved.
“I’ve seen first hand how little is known [about the truth in domestic abuse cases], even amongst professionals who are supposed to be dealing with this. I include the police, I include social services.
“If they don’t know the intricacies, I don’t know how a CEO at Manchester United, who has multi-million pounds at stake, is in any position to make a judgment on what has happened, especially having not consulted domestic abuse charities.
“Not only that, having not consulted them, putting them on a list, calling them hostile to the idea that he would come back. I think it’s been absolutely mismanaged. I’ve never been more ashamed of the club.
“I think it’s just a disgrace. They had another opportunity to make it right, make a good statement and they have just green-lighted the abuse that’s been going on social media to claim innocence, to turn the alleged abuser into the alleged victim, which is classic, Davro [Deny, attack and reverse victim and offender] technique. I am so disappointed.”
Riley’s devastating intervention followed criticism from former United player Gary Neville, who claimed the Greenwood affair had been mismanaged and that the club is devoid of authoritative leadership. Reports that Arnold advised the United management group earlier this month that Greenwood would be returning further exposes how poorly he understood the issues surrounding the case and how badly he judged the public mood.
Riley joined Neville in identifying as a telling mistake the failure of the club to order an independent probe into Greenwood’s case following the withdrawing of all charges against him in February. This led them into a series of poor decisions rooted in bias.
Arnold was serving the interests of Manchester United in protecting a prized asset instead of doing the right thing. Greenwood has gone. Arnold may not be far behind.
from Football - inews.co.uk https://ift.tt/2eckIsi
Post a Comment