Why is Richard Arnold getting a free pass from the fans?

[VP89]

It's been a shit-show. Are you serious?

Yes. Explain what exactly was the shit show. Try to look beyond the headlines and tell me what was a shit show in the investigation.

The amount of time it took the club to come out with a decision is not in line with competence. On the balance of likelihood, with FFP and cash flow constraints, the plan was to bring MG back into the fold. It seems that this top down decision was made and then they tried to get all their ducks in a row to pass it through. In the end it backfired, which is a clear mishandling of the situation. Ultimately they should've done a bottom up assessment instead of letting the accounts dictate the decision.

The first sentence is bullshit. There is no objective timeline for this because the detail involved is unknown to most people and so is the ramifications. Outside of ethics and sponsors there is also financial and legal considerations.

Youre also basing the supposed plan off mosiac pieces of information Crafton received which have no context whatsoever. All you know is that there was a detailed plan with the avenue of bringing him in. You are not aware of all the other iterations.

 

[pratyush_utd]

The amount of time it took the club to come out with a decision is not in line with competence. On the balance of likelihood, with FFP and cash flow constraints, the plan was to bring MG back into the fold. It seems that this top down decision was made and then they tried to get all their ducks in a row to pass it through. In the end it backfired, which is a clear mishandling of the situation. Ultimately they should've done a bottom up assessment instead of letting the accounts dictate the decision.

You are right. He should ask the internet mob, vigilante journalists and politicians what he should do about a person who has not been found guilty of any crime.
Some of you really think that there are no consequences of any decision.

Arnold handled it the best way possible, gave enough time possible to find all possible details and kept the relevant parties in loop. Redcafe members werent sadly part of that. Conclusion also was taken to protect the interest of family. People with their agenda forget that there are real families involved in this decision

 

[Crashoutcassius]

What are the reasons that he fecked it up outside of evidence from tabloids who routinely make things up or extrapolate tiny bits of out of context info to make up stories to sell to the gullible? Like is that the basis of all this uproar or do people feel like he messed up something gravely based on the facts ? (Don't mean the facts of the case but what we know happened with man United's handling)

 

[padzilla]

Regardless of the Greenwood situation, he's been dire so far, it's almost as if he's Ed Woodward in a mask.

 

[Withnail]

Yes. Explain what exactly was the shit show. Try to look beyond the headlines and tell me what was a shit show in the investigation.


The first sentence is bullshit. There is no objective timeline for this because the detail involved is unknown to most people and so is the ramifications. Outside of ethics and sponsors there is also financial and legal considerations.

Youre also basing the supposed plan off mosiac pieces of information Crafton received which have no context whatsoever. All you know is that there was a detailed plan with the avenue of bringing him in. You are not aware of all the other iterations.

Ok mate. Crafton is a hack and the process was perfect. It absolutely should have taken them 6 months, they should have drip fed information to gauge public opinion for a decision they'd already made, threw the women's team under the bus at the very end when they had been following a supposedly clear process for 6 months and then shit themselves and pulled a 180 at the last minute. Oh and they definitely should have proclaimed Greenwood was innocent of the initial charges he faced when even the Police can't do that.

 

[VP89]

Ok mate. Crafton is a hack and the process was perfect. It absolutely should have taken them 6 months, they should have drip fed information to gauge public opinion for a decision they'd already made, threw the women's team under the bus at the very end when they had been following a supposedly clear process for 6 months and then shit themselves and pulled a 180 at the last minute. Oh and they definitely should have proclaimed Greenwood was innocent of the initial charges he faced when even the Police can't do that.

You're paraphrasing what I said.

If you think internal investigations on extremely serious cases like these involving academy talents who were also on the cusp of being generational strikers doesn't take a along as 6 months, then you are extremely naieve.

And this idea that they pulled a 180 is a laughing stock. Unless you actually assumed that what Crafton had was the exhaustive list of all options they were pursuing? Shame on you for being this naieve, honestly.

 

[NicolaSacco]

You're paraphrasing what I said.

If you think internal investigations on extremely serious cases like these involving academy talents who were also on the cusp of being generational strikers doesn't take a along as 6 months, then you are extremely naieve.

And this idea that they pulled a 180 is a laughing stock. Unless you actually assumed that what Crafton had was the exhaustive list of all options they were pursuing? Shame on you for being this naieve, honestly.

There’s no issue I can see with the 6 months. Perfectly normal. But I’m surprised you think it’s naive to think they did an about-turn. We’ll likely never know definitively either way, but I don’t see how it can be discounted to the point where it’s a ‘laughing stock’ to find it believable.

 

[VP89]

There’s no issue I can see with the 6 months. Perfectly normal. But I’m surprised you think it’s naive to think they did an about-turn. We’ll likely never know definitively either way, but I don’t see how it can be discounted to the point where it’s a ‘laughing stock’ to find it believable.

I think it's naive because the opinion is based off a document Crafton had got. And the assumption from many posters and twitter virtue signalling celebrities is that it was the only option being considered.

Let's not play dumb, any competent CEO goes into massive detail on every iteration they consider.

 

[padzilla]

One thing is clear, the club still has a problem with leaks to the press - be it from the team or the board. If what was being reported was untrue it would be a straightforward case of libel, the fact the club aren't taking that action says all you need to know.

 

[Duafc]

You're paraphrasing what I said.

If you think internal investigations on extremely serious cases like these involving academy talents who were also on the cusp of being generational strikers doesn't take a along as 6 months, then you are extremely naieve.

And this idea that they pulled a 180 is a laughing stock. Unless you actually assumed that what Crafton had was the exhaustive list of all options they were pursuing? Shame on you for being this naieve, honestly.

So you are complaining about people jumping to assumptions on something they hold <10% of the info about and being led there by journalists.

Whilst you yourself are stating that a U turn is such a laughing stock of an idea from United board that it's deserving of shame based on.... All that concrete knowledge and evidence you have on the matter?

 

[VP89]

So you are complaining about people jumping to assumptions on something they hold <10% of the info about and being led there by journalists.

Whilst you yourself are stating that a U turn is such a laughing stock of an idea from United board that it's deserving of shame based on.... All that concrete knowledge and evidence you have on the matter?

I am saying that no one knows the full picture so don't try and conclude that it was poorly handled based on ONE document attained by a journalist.

 

[Tarrou]

the handling of the Greenwood situation has been awful, for sure

hopefully once the club is sold the new owners will bin him off

 

[NicolaSacco]

I think it's naive because the opinion is based off a document Crafton had got. And the assumption from many posters and twitter virtue signalling celebrities is that it was the only option being considered.

Let's not play dumb, any competent CEO goes into massive detail on every iteration they consider.

So there is some, incomplete evidence supporting a u-turn theory. Would be interesting to see the opposing evidence you’ve seen that makes the above option so laughable.

 

[VP89]

So there is some, incomplete evidence supporting a u-turn theory. Would be interesting to see the opposing evidence you’ve seen that makes the above option so laughable.

Its laughable to suggest that all options were not considered in full detail. I do not need evidence to say this.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Its laughable to suggest that all options were not considered in full detail. I do not need evidence to say this.

That’s all I needed. You’re speculating based on zero information, whilst criticising others for speculating based on an unknown, but likely incomplete, amount of information.

 

[VP89]

That’s all I needed. You’re speculating based on zero information, whilst criticising others for speculating based on an unknown, but likely incomplete, amount of information.

I am not speculating at all. You need to read my posts better.

I am saying that no one, including me, can conclude incompetence based on a fragment of information.

So all of this "oh he's spineless, sack him, he's so incompetent" posts are just based on a fragmented fall out from a very confidential and detailed investigation, and it genuinely makes me laugh at how people make their minds up without knowing the full picture.

Not once have I said Arnold is absolutely flawless. I'm just saying I don't know where he would have taken a step differently. I don't have the full picture. No one does.

 

[Duafc]

I am saying that no one knows the full picture so don't try and conclude that it was poorly handled based on ONE document attained by a journalist.

But you did say the U Turn idea is a laughing stock and naive to the point of shame. Something you don't have the full picture on, but you were still able to reach such an iron clad position re whether a U+turn happened or not.

So the above is what you are saying other people shouldn't do, whilst basically carrying on doing the same thing yourself.

 

[Duafc]

Its laughable to suggest that all options were not considered in full detail. I do not need evidence to say this.

Surely you can see the inconsistency in your logic here.

 

[VP89]

But you did say the U Turn idea is a laughing stock and naive to the point of shame. Something you don't have the full picture on, but you were still able to reach such an iron clad position re whether a U+turn happened or not.

So the above is what you are saying other people shouldn't do, whilst basically carrying on doing the same thing yourself.

Im saying that the idea that there was a U turn based on Crafton single document is laughable. It's laughable becsuse the premise of the logic would be THAT was the only option considered.

And if you ask me what evidence I have that no other option was considered then we both know it's broken logic. Let's not pretend that the club didn't evaluate all routes for Greenwood, be it staying or leaving.

 

[VP89]

Surely you can see the inconsistency in your logic here.

Are you serious? You are actually insinuating that beyond reasonable doubt, Manchester United did not look at other options outside of keeping Greenwood? feck me

 

[Long Time Red]

I am not speculating at all. You need to read my posts better.

I am saying that no one, including me, can conclude incompetence based on a fragment of information.

So all of this "oh he's spineless, sack him, he's so incompetent" posts are just based on a fragmented fall out from a very confidential and detailed investigation, and it genuinely makes me laugh at how people make their minds up without knowing the full picture.

Not once have I said Arnold is absolutely flawless. I'm just saying I don't know where he would have taken a step differently. I don't have the full picture. No one does.

Of course it's incompetence, in his statement when he appointed he said:

“I am honoured to have the chance to serve this great club and its fans. I am determined to return that honour in any way I can.”

Don't think many fans would think bringing Greenwood back was returning the honour, do you?

He's now Woodward mkII and has destroyed any credit he had built up with a large portion of the fanbase.

 

[crossy1686]

He's another stooge. An upgrade on Woodward but that's not a massive compliment in itself, pretty sure the average fan could have done better than him. Completely out of his depth and another 'yes' man.

 

[Zed is not dead]

Yay another witch hunt!

I was afraid people would get bored after Carrick and McKenna left.

I’m always amazed by these threads saying « why is x getting a free pass » when this place shits on absolutely everyone after a defeat, no one ever gets a free pass.

It’s not even about football anymore, it’s just people venting and screaming « shambles » and « incompetent » all the time.

Perhaps we should make a thread about the incompetence of the bus driver?

 

[Duafc]

Are you serious? You are actually insinuating that beyond reasonable doubt, Manchester United did not look at other options outside of keeping Greenwood? feck me

No that's not what I'm saying.

I'd typed out a big long reply but it's honestly pointless. Your logic is simplistic and conflicting to your other statements. It's all a waste of time, have a good one!

 

[Oldyella]

Of course it's incompetence, in his statement when he appointed he said:

“I am honoured to have the chance to serve this great club and its fans. I am determined to return that honour in any way I can.”

Don't think many fans would think bringing Greenwood back was returning the honour, do you?

He's now Woodward mkII and has destroyed any credit he had built up with a large portion of the fanbase.

Read the Greenwood thread, and social media. Plenty did/do think he should have been allowed to return.

He's not Woodward, at all. We are still getting over Woodwards decisions.

 

[Baxquux]

Greenwood was not "cleared of charges". And I have to say I find your attempt to construe a set of possible motives for everyone who disagrees with you here that are all different shades of malignant, dishonest or misguided to be distasteful. You are not making a reasonable case. Whatever your view on Greenwood, there are perfectly valid reasons to think otherwise that do not require being misled or misconstruing the realities out of some ulterior agenda.

Don't be pedantic - this meant the legal system found he had no case to answer. It comes down to this - I've never denied that he MIGHT be guilty; large swathes of people on here, however, are unequivocally asserting that he IS guilty, and that the facts of what he did are so established that the club (and potentially the whole professional game) either is or would be right to de facto exclude him from playing.

My position is being equivocal, reserving judgment, other positions here are absolute: I'm sorry that people seemingly can't differentiate between those two standards and see why one is more responsible than the other. I'm saying it's unreasonable to make judgements based on material whose veracity has been questioned by the person, with evidence for that misrepresentation, whatever it entails, being made available to us to the context that it (legally, and or considering the interests of the alleged victim and MG, can be made available).

Can you deny that to all intents and purposes people haven't shifted their judgement at all away from this absolute 'he did it', as if this were established fact, despite the new circumstances presented to them: the case was dropped, the club investigated, his partner not only took him back but started a family with him, various statements have indicated that the material initially made available was presented in a misleading fashion, with the accuser suggesting the images were fabricated. Why wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that people are more interested in enjoying their outrage and signalling that than in the truth, however messy or ambiguous?

That claim about 'motives' doesn't have the same status as my previous 'we don't know' ( which is a point of fact)... but that's obvious - it's an interpretation, and people can quibble with it, fine. But there have been lots of articles and books written about social media frenzies and witch-hunts and the different 'rewards' people gain from them and I think some of those theories would apply here (I'm not going to attempt badly paraphrased descriptions and applications of it here, because no-one would appreciate them and I also have other stuff to do!) As an aside though, maybe it indicates something strange about the relationship of many fans to this club that they would be so keen to take sides against the player when fresh evidence arrives to seriously cast that guilt into doubt. Again, it's only speculation informed by observation, so a weak hypothesis, but I'd contend no other club would behave like this, no other set of fans within a larger club fan base would fail to protect or at least extend suspended judgment to their player in these circumstances.

I'm not saying everyone who is outraged at MG in the world is behaving in some disingenuous or self-serving way, but the people on this forum commenting have by and large made themselves familiar with the basic details of revised circumstances and still carry-on asserting errors about facts. We don't know the status of the conversations which have been continuously quoted: with the case being dropped new interpretations become more feasible and necessary to consider. Who are people doing this for? Certainly not the alleged victim.

But I'm going to stop posting about this, because there hasn't been any good faith engagement, that I've seen, towards other posters questioning the narratives and indicating where some of the flaws in argument are... and it's probably not great for my mental health or other duties honestly! Again, maybe a carousel many of us need to get off or wait for this to all die down...

 

[VP89]

No that's not what I'm saying.

I'd typed out a big long reply but it's honestly pointless. Your logic is simplistic and conflicting to your other statements. It's all a waste of time, have a good one!

I agree it's a waste of both our times to go in circles. I've said my piece, I don't conclude from a fragment of information. That's all.

 

[spiriticon]

He would have been better off not penning that 'open letter' and assuming the clubs fans are all idiots.

A whole jumbo-wash of lawyer speak which says nothing concrete about what exactly happened and what we plan to do with Mason exactly.

"This does not signal the end of the matter." Oh really, Arnold? You want to drag this on and on and on?

 

[saivet]

Serious question but what the feck is wrong with this?
Any competent CEO would exhaust all of the avenues in complete detail.

Crafton is a fecking bellend and hasn't put any context into anything.

Exploring the options is one thing but it seems like they had no plans or intention to at least consult or engage with domestic violence charities. It's one thing to say they would be hostile towards bringing him back, but surely you'd at least reach out to a few charities for some guidance in some form. As far as PR goes, that would have probably been a good move but you'd imagine the charities would tell United something they would rather not hear.

I think similarly from a PR perspective they could have made clear that Manchester United condemns domestic abuse and will take all incidents seriously.

In tennis the ATP was criticised for how they handled allegations of domestic abuse against Zverev but the two statements and approach are very different. Appreciate it's a different sport with different complexities and allegiances but both handled quite differently, rightly or wrongly.

Statement from the ATP can be found here.

 

[saivet]

Im saying that the idea that there was a U turn based on Crafton single document is laughable. It's laughable becsuse the premise of the logic would be THAT was the only option considered.

And if you ask me what evidence I have that no other option was considered then we both know it's broken logic. Let's not pretend that the club didn't evaluate all routes for Greenwood, be it staying or leaving.

Crafton made clear that other options were considered but that a decision was made to reintegrate him back into the first team at the start of August. It wasn't purely on Crafton but his piece was definitely a catalyst on the u-turn. I imagine if they didn't have any leaks and they announced he was coming back at the start of August, as planned they would have been forced to do the u-turn due to public backlash anyway. If anything Crafton's piece probably helped United.

 

[Withnail]

You're paraphrasing what I said.

If you think internal investigations on extremely serious cases like these involving academy talents who were also on the cusp of being generational strikers doesn't take a along as 6 months, then you are extremely naieve.

And this idea that they pulled a 180 is a laughing stock. Unless you actually assumed that what Crafton had was the exhaustive list of all options they were pursuing? Shame on you for being this naieve, honestly.

Well of course I was paraphrasing. I.do think part of the reason it took so long was they wanted to leave more time in the hope that the whole thing died down a bit in the public imagination.

I think you're the one being naive if you think they weren't planning on bringing him back until they realised it was going to be extremely bad PR. This was about protecting an asset from day 1 and all of the noises they were making until they finally decided not to bring him back suggested that was exactly what they were planning.

 

[Rightnr]

Exploring the options is one thing but it seems like they had no plans or intention to at least consult or engage with domestic violence charities. It's one thing to say they would be hostile towards bringing him back, but surely you'd at least reach out to a few charities for some guidance in some form. As far as PR goes, that would have probably been a good move but you'd imagine the charities would tell United something they would rather not hear.

I think similarly from a PR perspective they could have made clear that Manchester United condemns domestic abuse and will take all incidents seriously.

In tennis the ATP was criticised for how they handled allegations of domestic abuse against Zverev but the two statements and approach are very different. Appreciate it's a different sport with different complexities and allegiances but both handled quite differently, rightly or wrongly.

Statement from the ATP can be found here.

I wouldn't be quick to point to the ATP for best practice on this.

Zverev was charged in Germany recently by the mother of his child. It appears he's definitely got form for it and yet he's still one of the faces of the ATP.

 

[VP89]

Well of course I was paraphrasing. I.do think part of the reason it took so long was they wanted to leave more time in the hope that the whole thing died down a bit in the public imagination.

I think you're the one being naive if you think they weren't planning on bringing him back until they realised it was going to be extremely bad PR. This was about protecting an asset from day 1 and all of the noises they were making until they finally decided not to bring him back suggested that was exactly what they were planning.

I didn't say they weren't planning to bring him back. I'm saying no one can be sure what the certain course or action was. Maybe we were, maybe we wanted to see first what the public reaction would be if we leaked a feeler first. Maybe we were on the fence.

My point is simply this - the investigation is very opaque and there are many facets that need to be grappled with. The biggest ones blocking a simple termination being financial and legal. Richard Arnold needs to consider this as well as consider the PR and ethical side.

Its very easy to sit back and point fingers at how poorly it's 'seemingly' handled, but any CEO, Arnold or otherwise, is answerable to the Glazers. Like it or lump it, that's a fact and he has to wrestle the different stakeholders whilst justifying the position to the owners. Owners who we know are more greedy about retaining asset value than almost anything else.

So before we go out and lazily point fingers at the investigation length or the outcome or the directions, we should appreciate there's WAY more intricacies than we, or journalists, or virtue signalling celebrates are aware of.

 

[justsomebloke]

Don't be pedantic - this meant the legal system found he had no case to answer. It comes down to this - I've never denied that he MIGHT be guilty; large swathes of people on here, however, are unequivocally asserting that he IS guilty, and that the facts of what he did are so established that the club (and potentially the whole professional game) either is or would be right to de facto exclude him from playing.

My position is being equivocal, reserving judgment, other positions here are absolute: I'm sorry that people seemingly can't differentiate between those two standards and see why one is more responsible than the other. I'm saying it's unreasonable to make judgements based on material whose veracity has been questioned by the person, with evidence for that misrepresentation, whatever it entails, being made available to us to the context that it (legally, and or considering the interests of the alleged victim and MG, can be made available).

Can you deny that to all intents and purposes people haven't shifted their judgement at all away from this absolute 'he did it', as if this were established fact, despite the new circumstances presented to them: the case was dropped, the club investigated, his partner not only took him back but started a family with him, various statements have indicated that the material initially made available was presented in a misleading fashion, with the accuser suggesting the images were fabricated. Why wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that people are more interested in enjoying their outrage and signalling that than in the truth, however messy or ambiguous?

That claim about 'motives' doesn't have the same status as my previous 'we don't know' ( which is a point of fact)... but that's obvious - it's an interpretation, and people can quibble with it, fine. But there have been lots of articles and books written about social media frenzies and witch-hunts and the different 'rewards' people gain from them and I think some of those theories would apply here (I'm not going to attempt badly paraphrased descriptions and applications of it here, because no-one would appreciate them and I also have other stuff to do!) As an aside though, maybe it indicates something strange about the relationship of many fans to this club that they would be so keen to take sides against the player when fresh evidence arrives to seriously cast that guilt into doubt. Again, it's only speculation informed by observation, so a weak hypothesis, but I'd contend no other club would behave like this, no other set of fans within a larger club fan base would fail to protect or at least extend suspended judgment to their player in these circumstances.

I'm not saying everyone who is outraged at MG in the world is behaving in some disingenuous or self-serving way, but the people on this forum commenting have by and large made themselves familiar with the basic details of revised circumstances and still carry-on asserting errors about facts. We don't know the status of the conversations which have been continuously quoted: with the case being dropped new interpretations become more feasible and necessary to consider. Who are people doing this for? Certainly not the alleged victim.

But I'm going to stop posting about this, because there hasn't been any good faith engagement, that I've seen, towards other posters questioning the narratives and indicating where some of the flaws in argument are... and it's probably not great for my mental health or other duties honestly! Again, maybe a carousel many of us need to get off or wait for this to all die down...

1. The distinction between being cleared of all accusations and the charges being dropped because the prosecution deems the evidence insufficient to give a good chance of conviction is not pedantic. At all. On the contrary, it's fundamental.

2. Sorry, but your position, such as you stated it in that post can not be described as "equivocal, reserving judgment". Your description of the realities of the case, apart from being factually wrong on a key point, is one-sided in the extreme. The "facts" are selected and laid out in a way that points unequivocally to MGs innocence, and your description of those who criticise that position is tendentious, speculative, based on largely unfounded and entirely negative assumptions and apparently take it for granted that the views of these people cannot be motivated by, for instance, responding to an accurate reading of the facts with reasonable moral outrage. Instead, you discuss at length what may have caused them to behave in such an erroneous way, as if it could be taken for granted that they are. Organizational reasons? Virtue signalling? Oppositional fandom? Outrage at seeing a suspected rapist don a United shirt? Oh sorry, that last one wasn't among your options, was it. Then the discussion about how people are, as you put it, "driven to regard (the supposedly exculpatory impact of evidence they haven't seen) as another form of conspiracy" and how that can occur. Same low rhetoric trick - don't argue that Dave is an asshole, just start a discussion about why Dave is an asshole. Then the "deepfake" drop-off, suitably qualified by stating you "don't believe there is currently evidence for it", which saves you from having to justify bringing that into it, even though you just did. Then, a further line of entirely imagination-based postulating about how this wouldn't even matter, because people would just move on to new quasi-conspiratorial thinking, as if you have remotely any sort of basis for assuming that. then the Rachel Riley character assasination, phrased in a way you probably think is clever, but it really isn't.

By the last paragraph in your previous post, you're probably entitled to assume that anyone who's still reading for any other reason than morbid curiosity is going to buy pretty much anything. Which you'll need, because it's quite some time since I read a worse concoction of unproven assumptions peddled as facts, innuendo, wild exaggerations and chains of reasoning where all of these things are present to prop each other up.

In short - your expose is the opposite of reasonable or fact-based, and it is anything but equivocal or reserving judgment. It's just dishonest about it.

So don't give me that bullshit. I know a propagandist when I see one.

 

[Withnail]

I didn't say they weren't planning to bring him back. I'm saying no one can be sure what the certain course or action was. Maybe we were, maybe we wanted to see first what the public reaction would be if we leaked a feeler first. Maybe we were on the fence.

My point is simply this - the investigation is very opaque and there are many facets that need to be grappled with. The biggest ones blocking a simple termination being financial and legal. Richard Arnold needs to consider this as well as consider the PR and ethical side.

Its very easy to sit back and point fingers at how poorly it's 'seemingly' handled, but any CEO, Arnold or otherwise, is answerable to the Glazers. Like it or lump it, that's a fact and he has to wrestle the different stakeholders whilst justifying the position to the owners. Owners who we know are more greedy about retaining asset value than almost anything else.

So before we go out and lazily point fingers at the investigation length or the outcome or the directions, we should appreciate there's WAY more intricacies than we, or journalists, or virtue signalling celebrates are aware of.

Ok we so just sit on the fence and have no opinions. I really hate this type of post.

It's clearly been a PR disaster from start to finish and while I appreciate it's difficult to manage a situation like that, even if you look at the small example of throwing the women's team under the bus to buy more time. That was a obviously terrible decision. The mind boggles as to how they thought that would be ok.

 

[VP89]

Ok we so just sit on the fence and have no opinions. I really hate this type of post.

It's clearly been a PR disaster from start to finish and while I appreciate it's difficult to manage a situation like that, even if you look at the small example of throwing the women's team under the bus to buy more time. That was a obviously terrible decision. The mind boggles as to how they thought that would be ok.

Its Manchester United, it's always going to be painted as a PR disaster, because that's what will sell.

Im not saying missteps haven't been taken but journalists will be vultures on any information they get regardless of context.

I also feel we are being micro analysed by the whole debacle. Charges were dropped, we had an investigation, 6 months later hes exiting. If you park the micro journalism of tidbids with inside knowledge and feck all context that's basically the summary..

I dont see the value in getting wound up by that. I certainly don't see why we should wrap a noose around Arnold, who had ultimately been given a lose lose situation.

 

[justsomebloke]

Its Manchester United, it's always going to be painted as a PR disaster, because that's what will sell.

Im not saying missteps haven't been taken but journalists will be vultures on any information they get regardless of context.

I also feel we are being micro analysed by the whole debacle. Charges were dropped, we had an investigation, 6 months later hes exiting. If you park the micro journalism of tidbids with inside knowledge and feck all context that's basically the summary..

I dont see the value in getting wound up by that. I certainly don't see why we should wrap a noose around Arnold, who had ultimately been given a lose lose situation.

It's not being painted as a PR disaster, it IS a PR disaster. You don't have to micro-analyse to see that.

Certainly all of this isn't an easy pie to get dumped on your plate, but then again, if you're going to be regarded as competent in a position as demanding as the one Richard Arnold has the expectation is you should be able to handle that. If not perfectly, then at least better than this. It's hard to see how it could be done a lot worse. If it's enough to earn him the sack I'm not sure, but certainly it's not to his credit, is it.

 

[Withnail]

Its Manchester United, it's always going to be painted as a PR disaster, because that's what will sell.

Im not saying missteps haven't been taken but journalists will be vultures on any information they get regardless of context.

I also feel we are being micro analysed by the whole debacle. Charges were dropped, we had an investigation, 6 months later hes exiting. If you park the micro journalism of tidbids with inside knowledge and feck all context that's basically the summary..

I dont see the value in getting wound up by that. I certainly don't see why we should wrap a noose around Arnold, who had ultimately been given a lose lose situation.

Well we seem to be arguing at cross-purposes as that's not really what I was talking about. At no point did I call for his head nor did Crafton in the vid. I have no problem with anything he said in the clip. I think it's quite fair which was why I responded to you.

 

[roseguy64]

One thing is clear, the club still has a problem with leaks to the press - be it from the team or the board. If what was being reported was untrue it would be a straightforward case of libel, the fact the club aren't taking that action says all you need to know.

When have clubs ever gone after newspapers for getting things wrong?

 

[roseguy64]

Exploring the options is one thing but it seems like they had no plans or intention to at least consult or engage with domestic violence charities. It's one thing to say they would be hostile towards bringing him back, but surely you'd at least reach out to a few charities for some guidance in some form. As far as PR goes, that would have probably been a good move but you'd imagine the charities would tell United something they would rather not hear.

I think similarly from a PR perspective they could have made clear that Manchester United condemns domestic abuse and will take all incidents seriously.

In tennis the ATP was criticised for how they handled allegations of domestic abuse against Zverev but the two statements and approach are very different. Appreciate it's a different sport with different complexities and allegiances but both handled quite differently, rightly or wrongly.

Statement from the ATP can be found here.

Yeah agree about that. I definitely think they were leaning towards bringing back Greenwood but weren't sold on it yet and were waiting on feedback from the fan advisory board and women's team. But not engaging with the domestic abuse orgs was an own goal. I assume that they wanted to keep all the info inhouse to avoid leaking sensitive details but it would have been smart to at least reach out for feedback.

Additionally, I think an external party should have been involved in the investigation. I get that the club involved multiple executives in the decision with Arnold making the final call but having some independent party vouching for whatever they decided would be helpful and that party could have also produced some kind of reduced/redacted report. Maybe the club lawyers advised against that and like before wanted everything to be kept in-house.