If I'm being honest, I jumped on the anti-Glazer bandwagon when it was at it's peak with little or no genuine understanding of the impact the Glazer takeover was happening. I just was of the opinion at the time that we weren't spending a lot of money. My mate who supports Spurs recently called me out on being anti-Glazer and I couldn't really articulate why their takeover was necessarily a bad thing, especially in light of the exponential increase in revenue and spending in recent years.

His argument about the interest payments/debt was this: As shareholders, the Glazers take money out of the club to service their debt, just as another shareholder may take dividends to buy new Ferraris/luxury items etc. Of course this is a heuristic, so my real question is thus: [ignoring from the increases in revenue] do the Glazer's spend a disproportionate amount of the club's revenue on servicing their debt, as opposed to what majority shareholders of other big clubs take to service their private wants/needs.

Any related links to articles re: the impact of the Glazer's on United from reputable newspapers/columns also welcome!

Thanks in advance guys!