A leveraged buy-out, increased debt, and lack of spending almost sent Liverpool into relegation and administration. This was under the infamous Gillett and Hicks era between Feb 2007 and Oct 2010, which was an issue worrying enough to be debated in the House of Commons. United have had a similar ownership under the Glazers since 2005, so would be apprehensive about the club’s future as long as the Glazers are in control.

In my opinion, it is down to Sir Alex Ferguson’s excellent managerial skills that United have not gone down the same road Liverpool did during 2007-2010. By ensuring success on the field, he convinced fans to spend on the club and ensured United had enough to continue spending and pay wage bills. The Glazers were happy enough to let Ferguson continue as he continued to get profits for them while Gillett and Hicks, the latter in particular, picked fights with then manager Rafael Benitez, leading to failures on the pitch and thus, no real sources of revenue for the club. Liverpool’s troubles, financially at least, seem to be over. United’s troubles have been swept under the rug, for now.

United may need a saviour, financially at least, like Liverpool’s Fenway Sports Group; who have an established presence in the sporting arena with their ownership of the Boston Red Sox. After their take-over in 2002, the Red Sox have won two World Series titles and consistently reached the play-offs. At Anfield, FSG has worked to clear much of the debt owed by the club under its previous owners Gillett and Hicks, thought to be around £200 million. They have also spent generously on transfers.

United fans (I am one myself) will no doubt question the kind of players bought under their ownership. Stuart Downing and Jordan Henderson for £20 million each, was surprising but not as much as Andy Caroll for £35 million! Luis Suarez for £22 million was a very good buy however. But fault for this must go to the manager, who becomes the next point of debate here.

In Part 1 of the series, I talked about how Ferguson might have left if United had been bought by Roman Abramovich, considering the conflict of egos between the two. So how would the Scot react at FSG’s take-over? One would not be too wrong in assuming he would be only too happy to work under such owners. He may not be given a ton of cash to spend, but Ferguson doesn’t look to do so. Critics may say his comments about ‘value for money’ in the transfer market may be down to the Glazers’ curbs on spending, but it is one he genuinely believes in. Otherwise he would have left United long ago. FSG would be only too happy to provide Ferguson the cash he needed, considering the gaffer’s policy of investing in youth, and not pay exorbitant prices like City at the same time, or even like Liverpool under Kenny Dalglish.

FSG’s arrival would have meant, that United would continue to have little or no debt as in their pre-Glazer era, instead of the £300 million+ the club owes now thanks to the Glazers. Would we have missed out on the likes of David Villa or Ozil? No. FSG would continue to make profits out of United, but can be safely assumed, to put much of it back into the club.

And with Ferguson continuing, it is again difficult to imagine disciplinary issues occurring at United (again, read Part 1). The Luis Suarez incident is one that comes to mind however. After the racism incident while Suarez underwent an investigation, fellow Liverpool players turned up to train in shirts expressing their support for the Uruguay striker. While Ferguson would appreciate the bond between the players, it is very doubtful he would let his squad support a team-mate accused of racism in such a way, at least publicly.

As it is, Liverpool were criticized for their handling of the case for supporting Suarez much before the F.A completed its investigations. Owners FSG had to step in, even after American papers started showing the company in a bad light. Would Ferguson, who has never spoken against even the Glazers themselves, allow the club to be shown in such a bad light? I don’t think so. FSG would thus have benefited from having a manager like Ferguson in such a situation.

An issue of concern for United under FSG however, might be a perceived lack of trust in the owners. Brendan Rogers recently made comments regarding the Andy Carroll loan move to West Ham, which seemed to indicate he was mislead by the club, who failed to get him a new striker. The owners were ready to pay just £4 million for Clint Dempsey, barely half of what Fulham wanted, that too on Deadline day.

The two incidents above shows that the American company has still some lessons to learn when it comes to handling issues on and off the pitch in the Premier League. If that were to have been overcome, helped by Ferguson of course, and FSG had really taken over Manchester United and not Liverpool, it would have been a win-win situation for both club and owners.

Agree or disagree with me, sound off in comments!

0 votes