Michael Carrick has been granted what we are contractually obliged to refer to as a ‘stay of execution’ as Manchester United coach. But why?

A raft of journalists with inside knowledge have sought to answer that question on Wednesday morning in the rush to explain how Manchester United decided that winning two and losing six of their first 12 games this season isn’t a sackable offence for a coach Championship side Middlesbrough dispensed with 16 months ago.

The Manchester United briefs and leaks will never die. It is always fun to see the specific lines fed wholesale to every writer – they each quote or paraphrase how Carrick and his players ‘will have the opportunity to turn the situation around’, and that ‘the focus is on preparing for Chelsea and showing their response on the pitch,’ while there is only mild disagreement as to whether Carrick arrived at Carrington at 7:30am or simply just before 8am on Tuesday morning.

We have sifted through each of those inside stories to find the more interesting standout lines.

Why was Carrick not sacked?
Jason Wilcox and Omar Berrada met at Carrington on Monday morning, with Sir Jim Ratcliffe, Avram and Joel Glazer joining on a conference call to discuss a situation threatening to engulf This Is Manchester United Football Club We’re Talking About Here.

At that stage, according to Simon Stone, Sami Mokbel and Dan Roan of BBC Sport, ‘a senior figure’ at the club ‘said calmness and a clear head would be needed to navigate the turbulence’.

It was not until Tuesday lunchtime that it was formally communicated that Carrick would remain in place for the trip to Chelsea on Saturday.

In the intervening hours, it was ultimately decided that while ‘there is a feeling the club need to stop the cycle of sacking managers’ (Pete Hall, The I Paper), it ultimately came down to the lack of an obvious, exceptional and available candidate to replace him.

The Sun’s Samuel Luckhurst quotes ‘a well-placed source’ as saying, ‘”the best ones won’t come,”‘ adding that Wilcox and Berrada ‘planned for a change in the dugout,’ but ‘failure to agree on a unanimous choice’ meant Carrick survived.

That report states that Manchester United have ‘not even made a formal approach’ for Antonio Conte, while the ‘departures’ of Dan Ashworth and Sir Dave Brailsford ‘count against’ Eddie Howe, and Julian Nagelsmann is a Christopher Vivell man.

Fabian Hurzeler and Unai Emery have been essentially ruled out because of how much they would cost to prise from Brighton and Aston Villa.

The latter, too, would likely insist upon retaining the control and ‘manager’ status he commands in the West Midlands. And we all know how that would go down with a certain inexplicably powerful former Blackburn winger.

Another line pops up in a few of the stories, relating to how the fan reception and sentiment during and after the Bournemouth defeat ‘did not go unnoticed’.

What other factors are in play?
As ever with Big Sir Jim and the Glazers: money.

Howe has been mentioned as a potential target, but a clause in his Newcastle contract would entitle them to £3m in compensation. And in any event, his and assistant Jason Tindall’s wages ‘are not insignificant in the eyes of United’, according to Laurie Whitwell and Chris McKenna of The Athletic.

There is also ‘sympathy among the United hierarchy,’ in the words of Chris Wheeler of the Daily Mail, about how he has been ‘let down’ by acutely underperforming players.

Charlotte Duncker of The Times adds that: ‘There is an understanding from the hierarchy that the players also need to step up.’

There is also a funny line from BBC Sport about how ‘senior figures at the club’ reckon ‘a squad they think are capable of qualifying for the Champions League’ should ‘shoulder some of the blame’.

Who those senior figures who reckon this is a Champions League level squad could possibly be is a mystery. For now, we should just call them J. Wilcox as a collective. No, that’s too obvious. Let’s go with Jason W.

That BBC article also quotes an unnamed player as saying: “The feeling is that we all want to put it right. Players, staff, everyone.”

Anything else?
Wheeler says that Wilcox and Berrada briefly met Carrick in the dressing room after the Bournemouth debacle, while ‘representatives from United were conspicuous by their absence from the Northern Football Writers’ awards dinner in Manchester’ on Sunday evening.

‘It would not have been lost on the two executives that their own positions could come under scrutiny if United decided to appoint a third head coach this year,’ he adds.

The successful law firm/BBC journalists Stone, Mokbel and Roan go even further, stating:

‘One source close to United feels it is inevitable [Wilcox] will eventually lose his job if a third managerial change in as many seasons is made.

‘Another senior figure in the game told BBC Sport both Wilcox and Berrada may be vulnerable, suggesting Ratcliffe could be considering a wider overhaul of senior staff.’

Whose call actually was it to keep Carrick?
Only one journalist puts a name on it: Jamie Jackson of The Guardian.

He writes that Wilcox ‘has driven the retaining of Carrick’ and ‘wants to give the 45-year-old a chance to change form and morale’.

Jackson does point out that it ‘may be a move to allow time for Wilcox to secure a replacement’.

That is corroborated by Whitwell and McKenna, who add:

‘There is also the consideration, voiced by some sources, that the international break in less than a fortnight’s time, following fixtures against Roma and Aston Villa, would allow any new head coach the chance to bed in better than now.’

It would also mean they have to work with Karl Darlow, Harry Maguire and a load of kids for a couple of weeks.

Does Carrick have the players back on board?
Until the precise moment in which they play football against another club again, it seems so.

“We’ll be a different team on Sunday,” said Carrick after the Como humbling. “We have to be a different team on Sunday.”

The message will presumably be similar before the Chelsea game, with Carrick on a Clear The Air mission before then.

He ‘held a meeting of players and staff – not directors’ on Tuesday to ‘galvanise everyone to the common cause of winning matches, whatever grievances they might have’.

The Athletic described that summit as ‘productive’.

And Rob Dorsett of Sky Sports has revealed that Carrick and Fernandes “met face-to-face” on Tuesday afternoon to discuss their differences, with both having “vowed to refocus their efforts” on helping Manchester United after “an open and frank” talk.

It is not yet known which of the two will drop the C-bomb on the other after they lose to Chelsea.