My 2c on the Glazer 'debate':
1. We made our own bed, and we have to lie in it. We floated to gain capital, and got LBO'd. Sucks, but that was the risk.
2. Veron aside, United almost never bought established stars from abroad under SAF. Ever. It's a myth to say had the Glazers not come in we'd of acquired some team of Galacticos. Not the United way.
3. That said, had the Glazers not come in, we COULD have bought a team of Galaticos. At that time we didn't have much debt at all, had incredible cash flow and were the most profitable sporting franchise on the planet. That's why they chose us. Given the increases in both commercial and tv revenues by ALL clubs (not just those pioneered by the demi-God Ed Woodward) it's fair to say we would have remained at the very top of the cash and profit tables.
4. And this is the important bit, we WOULD have used that cash to improve the squad. This would have taken the form, imo, of Fergie's usual approach - buy 4 or 5 promising players and maybe 2 work out. If there is a genuine 'home isles' talent, buy it if we can (Ferdinand, Rooney) at any cost.
5. Without the Glazers' crippling interest payments, we could quite comfortably have spent 50m - 60m per season, and still had profits to re-invest in infrastructure, help season tickets and so forth. We are that big. It's not quite City/Chelsea level of spending, but it would have been close, and you have to imagine we would have gone 'over the line' on certain deals we pulled out of due to cost (Hazard for example).
6. I believe Ferguson would have adjusted his approach if he could have. Fact of the matter is you didn't have to spend 50% more on wages than other top 4 teams to win the league when Arsenal/United were at their peak through the 90's and early 00's. The billionaire clubs changed all that, and Ferguson if nothing else was adaptable. He had us at the top of the English game for the best part of 3 decades.