Professor Jonathan Michie, the director of Birmingham Business School, writing in the Guardian:
‘A successful company can be bought by someone with no interest in the organisation, who doesn't have the money to buy it and therefore saddles the company with the borrowing made to buy it. Glazer is likely to replace the independent non-executive directors with his sons. The company will be forced to extract extra profit from customers, suppliers and anyone else that can be squeezed to pay the debts.
‘What sort of way is this to run an economy - and what public interest is served by allowing such a takeover? The Monopolies and Mergers Commission blocked BSkyB's attempted takeover of United, which would have been far less damaging to the club and the industry. Yet the Competition Commission, for whom the issue of public interest has been further downgraded, has said nothing.
‘Hopefully, the Glazer takeover will increase pressure on the government to tackle such threats; takeovers should not be permitted unless they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
‘But the Glazer takeover also represents a threat to football. It flies in the face of recent progress, from the government's 1997 Football Task Force to the launch of the Independent Football Commission (to deal with complaints from fans) and Supporters Direct (to promote supporters' trusts). Now the FA's Burns review is considering how the game's structures can be reformed. And at Manchester United, the supporters' trust Shareholders United has more than 30,000 members holding around 2% of the shares.
‘The lesson is that the FA and the leagues - Premier League, Football League and Conference - should be working towards supporter and community involvement in and ownership of clubs. These are the constituencies on which the long-term success of clubs depends. What about a League rule requiring a 30% stake in each club to be made available to the supporters' trust? What about the League or FA holding a golden share in each club, to prevent the sacking of independent directors without good cause?
‘The FA and the leagues have introduced rules so that only "fit and proper" persons can become directors of football clubs. Glazer was described by a US judge as a "snake in sheep's clothing". He is seeking to profit from this takeover through the use of debts that he will pass on to the club. He could hardly be thought a "fit and proper" person to run a Premiership club. But neither the FA nor the Premier League has taken any action to prevent this takeover or back the supporters' campaign to keep the club independent.
‘No doubt Leeds United fans will be lobbying the monetary policy committee to double interest rates so Glazer can't afford the payments, pushing Manchester United into administration. A large number of Manchester United fans would agree. If the only way of saving the club is to bankrupt the company, that would be a price well worth paying.
‘I started supporting United when I met my wife-to-be 18 years ago; she had been a season ticket holder in the 1970s when the club were playing in the second division. They were great days, she says - certainly better than the prospect of supporting Glazer & Sons.
‘So boycott the club's sponsors so they abandon the deals. Don't buy the merchandise. Hit the company's profits so the debt repayments can't be made. Then we supporters can pick up the pieces, take a controlling stake in the club and put the plc era behind us. Perhaps that will only come about through a financial meltdown. And that could result in another spell of second division football. Bring it on.’