Every season that the team doesn’t live up to experience expectations, this comes about and the grass is always greener on the other side. United needs to be more like Arsenal and find those hidden gems like Arsene did, more like Chelsea and ruthless shifting out our dead wood, more like Barcelona and build from the academy and stop buying players, more like Madrid and get those galaticos, more like Bayern and learn to pillage our domestic rivals, more like City and have that structure in place, etc.
The reality is that the Glazers aren’t great owners, but they are far from the worst. Hull, Blackburn, Rangers, Portsmouth, those are some bad owners. Chelsea is a vanity project for an Oligarch. We’re an investment from Americans just like Arsenal. PSG and City are PR projects from oil rich nation states. Real is Real and Barca are Barca.
There’s no question the leveraged buyout takes money out of the club. The issue is that I think people, like MUST, just assume:
It would not have not only have been re-invested by highly competent people who run the club, but invested properly and effectively. That’s the crux of the issue, under the Glazers the club has invested in the team, but it’s been arguably invested poorly, but we’ve also been unlucky too. When you look back on the players we bought and how we felt at time, the managers - hindsight is 20/20 but LvG and Mourinho were proven winners, it’s a bit disheartening how it all went pear shaped.
I am incredibly fearful of the “some new owner, any new owner would be better than the Glazers” sentiment. That’s just wrong, a bad owner can ruin the club completely. People say the Glazers ruined us, but Hicks and Gillett nearly had ‘Pool staring down administrators, god bless ‘em. FSG came in and believe me, look at how ‘Pool supporters thought of their ownership pre-Suarez, post-Suarez, and now after Klopp. It’s a roller-coaster. This idea of benevolent owners who only care about the performance on the pitch is pretty much pie in the sky thinking, IMO.
