The taut and tame

The Glazers are rubbish.  It's pretty simple.  And this fact leads to an over-zealousness to pin everything to their door, every little thing has to be connected to the Glazers rubbishness.

And that is what this article by David Conn on The Guardian blog does, it connects the van Persie signing to the Glazers as if to prove they are rubbish.  And yet that isn't enough, because nowhere in the article does it explain anything.

It starts saying that the signing "gives a blast of the ambition" that we're meant to stand for, then goes into the history of how little we've spent under the Glazers: 

Sir Alex Ferguson's justifications have never quite convinced; his assertion that the owners, whom he pronounced "great" this summer, have made enough money available to him but he declined to spend it because there was "no value in the market." The transfer market can be considered obscenely inflated, but it works both ways and United never spent the £80m received from Real Madrid for Cristiano Ronaldo on replacement players of similar class.

Then claims, of the van Persie signing: 

this is a taste of the buying power and the A grade ambition United could be expected to have wielded had the Glazers not swooped in 2005

Then continues with how awful and useless the share flotation has been and ends with: 

The US-based venture capitalist Michael Moritz, who has financially backed companies with huge growth prospects including Google, has repeatedly been scathing about United's float. He has insisted that the Glazers' financial draining of United for their own interests should be considered by the old-fashioned description: asset-stripping. Although the Glazers never explain themselves publicly, Ferguson, Gill and Woodward have always defended their running of United. Now, with Van Persie, United have found the money to sign a genuinely top class, fully-formed footballing asset, for the first time in years.

Which would seem to be precisely where the article should begin - how have we found the money?  What does the signing mean in the context of the Glazers and our debt?  The article explains nothing, doesn't even attempt to explain anything.  A paraphrase of this article would be - Man Utd, if they weren't debt-laden, would be able to afford signings like van Persie, but they are debt-laden so  they've signed van Persie.  Which is, no matter how much you hate the Glazers, a bit rubbish.