…says Martin Samuel in the Times:
‘Ultimately, unfair as it may seem, Malcolm Glazer’s fate will not be decided by Manchester United shareholders, hooded education committees, independent supporters or Tony Lloyd, MP for Manchester Central. Whether United’s new owner is on his way to his next billion or has just made the worst call since Nick Leeson woke up one morning in Singapore and announced that he felt lucky is in the hands of one man. Sir Alex Ferguson, same as always. For all the highfalutin talk of leveraged debt, delisting, hedge funds and television rights, Glazer’s takeover has football’s essential requirement at its heart: results.
‘So it goes. Some football matches may be breathlessly unpredictable, but the game itself never alters. No manager has ever been dismissed, even if caught with his hand in the till, if his team are winning. No corporate sponsor has ever withdrawn on a matter of principle from a team that are top of the league.
‘This is why the manager’s position at United is now so utterly compelling. The next year will decide whether he has the strongest, safest job in football or is merely its biggest lame duck. Unavoidably, he is now at the centre of the political subplot of the Glazer takeover. Right now, the new owners need him more than he needs them, but that cherished status has a shelf life of precisely one lousy season.
‘There are those who think that the manager should have walked away out of solidarity with the Stretford End or on a point of principle, but it is too late for that. Ferguson, a high-profile socialist, has been exceedingly happy to exist, thrive within and benefit from a Premiership system that is Thatcherite laissez-faire capitalism at its most extreme. If he was comfortable with that, there is no reason why he should not also be at ease with the sincere market force that is the hostile takeover.
‘Yet there is a Catch-22. By staying, Ferguson also erodes his secret weapon, the unswerving loyalty of the fans. He now becomes The Man Who Worked With Glazer. That is not to say that he is no longer revered, more that an emotional attachment that compelled supporters to stand dutifully by his side through the fall- out with John Magnier and J. P. McManus, even when to the outside world all parties had clearly acted less than properly, will have worn thin.’