Such bitterness, worn so openly and right out on the sleeve, is at the very heart of American sport, too. I say that with all respect.
For example, NASCAR’s business model relies fundamentally on it. And NASCAR is an enormous sports phenomenon in the US. [I realize you may find offensive my relation of NASCAR - and not F1 - to football, but I think you could rather find it encouraging]
You’re right: the success of the Glazer “theory” I outlined above does not depend on the success of Man U in the short run (but remember, the sports marketing is a lever only). However, you should know that, in the words of Scott’s George Patton, “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.” Truer words were never spoken, believe me.
What I’m laboring on about is this: there’s a good chance Glazer’s purchase is a win-win in the long run. Yes, Glazer does this to make himself richer first, but if he plans to use Man U to increase his wealth, then in the US he’ll never be the Steinbrenner of Soccer unless Man U are the Yankees of football. Man U’s success must come sooner rather than later to keep the attention of Americans [but not of true Mancs, of course].
Glazer wins, yes, but I think the success of his purchase relies fundamentally on reviving Man U as a winner.
And that would make you Mancs as happy as it would drive the ABU’s mad, no?