Man Utd must sell Greenwood – and resist the urge to pocket the cash

Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s arrival changes nothing and it would be morally wrong to use a sale for sporting advantage

In one sense Sir Jim Ratcliffe has paved the way for Mason Greenwood to return to Manchester United. In another the man who will now effectively run the club was only giving a compassionate answer to a difficult question.
When asked about Greenwood’s future, Ratcliffe talked about the need to understand the player’s background, to not listen to the “hype” and to “make a fair decision in light of the club’s values”.
That all sounds reasonable enough. Except there is no way that Greenwood can play for United ever again and Ratcliffe should have already accepted that.
Now is not the time to undertake a fresh review given United have already conducted an internal investigation which lasted more than six months after the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued the case against the forward for attempted rape, assault and coercive control.
The CPS said there was “no longer a realistic prospect of conviction” after key witnesses withdrew their co-operation from the investigation. Greenwood denied all the alleged offences and has not been found guilty of anything. In the eyes of the law he is innocent.
United deliberated long and hard about what to do with the 22-year-old and despite insisting no decision had been made the indications were that they initially wanted to re-integrate him.
That proved impossible with United then deciding to send him out on loan, with Greenwood joining Spanish club Getafe, which felt like the correct solution. They did not tear up Greenwood’s contract, they did not sack him, they did not try and wash their hands of him – and they did not bring him back.
There was, as Ratcliffe alluded to, a ‘duty of care’ and responsibility towards Greenwood who had been in United’s system since the age of seven. The club could not turn its back on him and so a loan to re-start his career, away from Old Trafford, away from England, was the right thing to do. For now he remains a United employee and so they are overseeing his return and fulfilling their responsibility. He has the right to be a footballer.
But that is where it should end. When he joined Getafe it was clear from United that he had no future at the club. “All those involved, including Mason, recognise the difficulties with him recommencing his career at Manchester United,” the club said in a statement last August. “It has therefore been mutually agreed that it would be most appropriate for him to do so away from Old Trafford, and we will now work with Mason to achieve that outcome.”
Greenwood himself added: “The best decision for us all, is for me to continue my football career away from Old Trafford, where my presence will not be a distraction for the club.”
So, although that does not explicitly rule out an eventual return, the expectation – after the six-month internal investigation and in the knowledge of the outcry taking him back would cause – is without doubt. Greenwood cannot play for United again. If not, then we have been misled.
What has changed? Nothing except Ratcliffe coming in.
“There is no decision that’s been made,” he said. But that is not actually the case, is it? No-one was left in any doubt. Now claiming that there has not been a “decision” is an exercise in semantics which Ratcliffe should certainly be avoiding.
“Is he the right type of footballer? Is he a good person or not?” Ratcliffe asked but while he is perfectly entitled to conduct reviews of how United operate – and it would be remiss of him not to – does he really want to give the impression that he is questioning the club’s internal investigation?
If he does so then he needs to pay for an independent investigation and it is unlikely he, the club or Greenwood will want that.
The apparently heavily-lawyered statements from United, Greenwood and the then chief executive Richard Arnold – in an open letter to fans – mentioned the player’s “mistakes” without explaining what those mistakes had been. Greenwood was accused of being the male voice in the leaked audio that prompted the case.
Neither, actually, should United profit from his sale even if it would significantly improve a bottom line in their finances that is being severely stretched, especially if they fail to qualify for Champions League football.
Legally, logically, commercially, financially United are entitled to keep the fee if Greenwood is sold.
But morally? No, they should not if Greenwood signs for Atletico Madrid who, Telegraph Sport have previously reported, are targeting him. Greenwood has a contract with United for one more full season – with an option for a further 12 months – and although his value in the transfer market is difficult to determine, a fee of around €40 million (£34.3 million) has been mooted.
Given he is an academy product then, in accountancy terms, that money could be banked as pure profit by United – and would offset a large amount of what they would miss out on if they do not qualify for the Champions League.
So, it must be tempting. And especially for a new co-owner who has set himself the challenge of quickly turning around the team’s fortunes and is inheriting a tricky balance sheet.
Ratcliffe needs to resist that urge. United cannot be seen to profit from this whole episode with Greenwood. Instead they should accept the biggest fee they can realise and use that money in a variety of other ways.
The club has already been urged to donate it to domestic abuse charities and this would be a good move. As would using the money to further support women’s football. It is the kind of money that can make a real, lasting and positive difference. It should not be spent on the men’s first-team.
Ratcliffe needs to think again about his approach. Yes, Greenwood is innocent in law and, yes, he deserves to rehabilitate himself – his life and his career – but that must take place away from United. If the club loses out in football and finance then it is a small price to pay for doing the right thing.