I'm fed up with reading articles suggesting United have no money to spend on players or referring to the £500 million spent servicing the debt—the implication that the Glazers are bleeding the fans dry.
Manchester United are one of the very few football clubs in world football that is and remains profitable. Can anyone honestly see City or Chelsea—or Liverpool, for that matter—making a profit in the foreseeable future?
And what on earth would happen to City or Chelsea if their owners walked away? Quite simply, they would fail.
People resent the Glazers' debt, but it is not on the balance sheet of the football club.
And OK, Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour can write off as much as they want to for years to come so that there is never any debt on the balance sheet. But that will never make them viable.
The latest version of the "United have no money to spend" is the parroting of the £500 million that has gone on debt servicing and repayments.
Never in the history of football has there been so much hypocrisy and ignorance.
First, if you had a sizable personal debt and a bundle of spare cash flowing into your bank account with nothing to spend it on, what would you do? Investment rates are as little as one percent or less; the debt interest is nine percent or more. A no-brainer, really...
Then people blame the Glazers for not spending money on players.
For the umpteenth time, the only person not spending money on players is Sir Alex Ferguson. If he deserves one criticism in this respect, it is that he didn't replace Paul Scholes and Roy Keane before they retired. Players such as Wesley Sneijder and Luka Modric were much cheaper when Real Madrid and Spurs bought them, respectively.
Most importantly, it is not just about the transfer fees. It is especially about the players' wages.
Let's be clear. Manchester United will have no difficulty meeting the FFP regulations.
Last season, they had a deal agreed upon with Samir Nasri to come to Old Trafford at £135,000 a week. City simply trumped that at the last minute by at least £40,000. Nasri can claim he made the right decision, but so did United in not being sucked into a financial war that would decimate their wage structure, financial and commercial soundness.
Nani is being offered £130,000 a week. How much would he have demanded last year if Sir Alex had caved in to Nasri's demands?
And as for Eden Hazard, frankly he's beginning to look like a "near miss." Already far too voluble and frankly naive, he has talked about meeting "both coaches" before joining Chelsea. But the Blues don't have one.
Oh sorry, of course, Roman Abramovich is the real manager, which is why Pep Guardiola will never come...
United would have been nuts to meet Hazard's demands for £100,000 a year tax-free, equivalent to £182,000 a week gross. He may have been the French league's best player for two years, but he's 21. His total cost over five years will be £78 million.
If Luka Modric comes to Old Trafford for £35 million on a wage of £150,000 a week, he will cost £73 million. Who is the better bargain?
Hazard talks about preferring the Chelsea project, but no doubt John Terry has already put his arm around him and he is salivating at the prospect of the Chelsea social calendar...
But to return to United not having money to spend because of the Glazers...
The owners have always sanctioned Sir Alex's spending, as they did last summer. He has gone on record many times talking about "value" in the transfer market. By that, he means both stupid fees and silly salaries.
Sir Alex and David Gill run a tight ship. The Scottish Knight may have dropped a couple of clangers with Djemba Djemba, Kleberson, Bellion and Bebe, but what about Romelu Lukaku at £18 million who hasn't started a match for Chelsea?
£50 million was splashed last summer, to follow the excellent signings of Smalling and Hernandez. More will follow this summer.
If Guardiola were to arrive at Chelsea this summer, he would probably find Hulk, Hazard and Marin all signed by the owner, with no manager involved.
How do you fit Hulk into the Barcelona way of playing? Or Torres for that matter? Barca don't even play a number nine, nor a "normal" defence.
There are a number of dichotomies here.
Sir Alex is loved and respected by United supporters and hardly ever criticised, despite it being his stewardship of the footballing and financial soundness of the club that leads him to be careful with money—not the Glazers.
And meanwhile, many of those who carp may have mortgages. For some, these may be close to or beyond their means. Do they feel guilty for depriving their children of a better life or more pocket money while meeting the mortgage payments or buying another new car and filling the tank at a cost of £100?
11 million households in the UK are financed by mortgages. Millions more households have borrowed money to buy cars.
1.4 million people filed for bankruptcy in the US in 2011; just over 41,000 in the UK.
Even if the Glazers were to default on their payments, does anybody honestly think that United would fail? At the very worst, a number of prospective buyers would emerge ready to much more than clear the outstanding debt. In any case, the debt will be wiped by a flotation at some time.
But if City's or Chelsea's owners walked away, who would emerge to let either club continue with such financial profligacy?
Not many years ago, Leeds United were in the Champions League and Portsmouth were in the Premier League. Let them be a warning to others.