^^^^
According to this site which u have given as an example:
Sadly, the high profile leveraged buy-outs of two of the league’s highest profile clubs, Liverpool and Manchester United, has shown us the other end of the spectrum. In both cases, US investors with no interest in football have used debt financing to purchase the clubs simply to line their own pockets.
Villa are 93m in debt but that is 'Indicates soft loans (i.e. loans provided by benefactors with reduced or no interest)'
Man Utd are 717m in debt and the interest is nearly 70 m whilst Villa's is less than £400,000
What I am saying is that a severe financial hit along the line for Man u will seriously hinder their stability whereas Villa's 'Sugar Daddy' has barely borrowed a penny and although it's hard for fans to take, we have barely spent anything in the last transfer market because we just couldn't afford it.
Away from this my point was that it's always the jealousy card thrown at anyone time and time again if you dare to criticise Man Utd.
As for the 'Chelsea were crap before 2004' holds no weight for me. Chelsea and the Glenn Hoddle era brought us Ruud Gullit, Zola, Di Matteo and a virtual rebuilding of the stadium long before Abramovich. The fact that their spending in the last 2 seasons has been significantly reduced and they are still doing well speaks volumes for the business acumen there.
Believe it or not, I don't dislike Man U. They are one of the most successful English teams ever and they still retain a fantastic team ethos that we should all learn from BUT you have your faults and it would be so good to hear a few fans actually acknowledge them from time to time. Besides Man U fans are the easiest fans in the world to wind up
