Man Utd should have reached this decision on Mason Greenwood a long time ago

The final call by Manchester United was the right one even if they have left themselves open to the accusation of being backed into a corner before making it.

There is no way that Mason Greenwood could play for them again (even if they still do not explicitly make that statement) and that should have been evident long ago.

It has always been crystal clear. That is has taken more than six months for this fog to lift is extraordinary.

It also points to the fact that United actually did want Greenwood back and were working hard to find reasons to justify a hugely controversial decision. It is still there, implied in the language they used in the statements.

The club can, despite one ‘scenario plan’ of reintegrating Greenwood into the squad being revealed last week, always argue that no final decision was made.

After all, if the plan was to announce it on August 4 then why was it not announced then?

But, in fact, Telegraph Sport understands that as long ago as June United were moving towards wanting Greenwood to return and were working out their reasons and strategy.

The feeling was the 21-year-old had not been convicted, that the club had a ‘duty of care’ towards a player who had joined them aged seven, that the full story had not come out and that he was only guilty by social media.

In fairness that, again, was a plan rather than a fully formed decision but the time United have taken since then, with the painful drip-drip of information, has left them open to the accusation that they have now simply buckled after last week’s outcry and completed an about-turn partly based on the fear of bad PR and reputational damage.

But, then, that is the risk that is run when it takes so long.

United also stand accused of looking at the issue in far too legalistic terms. They will claim they have to, especially in their public statements where an employer’s words must be chosen with care, but they appear to have become bogged down in the law and the process of the law.

Not only that, but the remarkable length of time it has taken them to conclude their own internal investigations as to what Greenwood did, and not least because it did not actually involve many people, has left the impression that they have kicked this can down the road.

What were they expecting? Were they simply hoping that public opinion towards their striker would somehow soften? United will deny it and will, again with justification, argue that their painstaking intention was to simply get it right. But the damage has been done.

The reaction of their fans shows that. The announcement that Greenwood will leave was not greeted with anything else but relief and frustration and a continued sense of disenfranchisement. The anger has not dissipated because United sound like this is an announcement they have made almost under duress.

Somehow the club has undergone a thorough, sensitive and painstaking process while alienating many of the people whose feelings it was trying to be sensitive about. Not least among its own staff.

For example, it emerged that the final decision over Greenwood was delayed, when originally intended to be announced before the first Premier League game of the season on August 14, because the club wanted to consult with its own players at the women’s World Cup.

Okay, but the final only took place on Sunday and is it really plausible that the club was in contact with Mary Earps, Ella Toone and Katie Zelem between the final whistle in Sydney and the 3pm announcement on Monday (when they were in the air back to the UK)? Maybe it did happen. But it seems unlikely.

While the statements released stress that United believe that Greenwood did not “commit the offences” he was originally charged with – attempted rape, assault and coercive behaviour – the player himself acknowledges “I made mistakes in my relationship”. But there is no explanation as to what that means, either.

In fact if the case had gone to trial and Greenwood was either cleared or convicted, United would actually have had a far easier decision to make. The legal system would have decided the course of action and they would have followed.

United will argue that they are restricted in what they can say or do and there has to be sympathy for that position. They have to look after not just Greenwood but also the alleged victim having obtained “evidence not in the public domain”– which again begs more questions.

United have done the right thing and for that we should be relieved. The alternative would have re-defined them. It was about morals and ethics as well as the law but it also dictates the future direction of the club and what club they want to be.

Stepping back from the investigation it should have been obvious that Greenwood could not have put on a United jersey again. It may have felt unfair to the player but, in truth, it makes far more sense for his own well-being to try and revive his career elsewhere, probably initially on loan. It also makes far more sense for United.

That it has taken so long, and despite their protestations that they were being thorough and it was highly complex, suggests they really wanted him back and that impulse delayed everything. Thankfully the wrong decision did not happen and, however belated, United have actually done the right thing.