In all the commotion surrounding David Moyes' underwhelming performances as a United manager, one key aspect often gets overlooked IMO. Irrespective of whether we're MoyesOut or MoyesIn it has been well documented that our player personnel is nowhere near the high standards of vintage United teams. I for one have a hard time believing that Sir Alex, who broke numerous transfer records over the years was struggling to find value in the market. Now I'm not blaming the man for covering up, he's a United legend but maybe the "value" term was coined because his hands were tied up with scant finances. Equally I find it difficult to digest that the Glazers have suddenly become philanthropic and are willing to inject the quoted 200 million into the club since technically we're still over 350 million in debt. Yes, they might be scared of losing returns on their investment but I do still think they want to take the cheapest possible route. There are some parallels between United and their NFL franchise in Tampa. After some initial success they refused to invest in the team. They had some of the best defensive linesmen in the history of the game in Derrick Brooks, Warren Sapp and Simeon Rice yet they never made an effort to replace them through the draft or in free agency. The Super Bowl winning team is still struggling to find its feet after a decade of chronic underspending. The fans of their NFL franchise are equally disillusioned with them and funnily some of them claim their profits are being siphoned off to United's accounts. The Glazers been more than happy to keep their team there or thereabouts without risking profits. No lessons have been leant even after years of failure with their franchise and they look equally clueless about the NFL as they seem with football. And this worries me to be honest. What if they're employing the same tactic with United ?Compare it with Liverpool's current owner John Henry and there's a stark difference in philosophy. One of the first things he did after he acquired the Boston Red Sox was to modernise the club. Even though his efforts to replace their stadium in Fenway Park bore no fruit, they've progressively modernised the venue each year : adding to pavilion capacity, refurbishing the interiors etc. Now this is where things get a bit to familiar for comfort. Henry is trying to do the same with Liverpool. The Stanley project got shelved because it was financially not viable but they're going ahead with increasing Anfield's capacity. Contrast this to the Glazers who've made no attempts to improve United's infrastructure bar the 2005 expansion. They've leeched millions from the club's coffers without adding anything tangible in return and rewarding the local community. I feel bad for local Manc supporters in that sense. They're being treated as consumers instead of home support and no efforts were being make to engage their local community until Woody's appointment. Now we have Liverpool on the rise again after 25 years. Yet another parallel with Henry's ownership of the Boston Red Sox. In all fairness Liverpool's title drought is nothing compared to the Red Sox and the legendary Curse of Bambino. They were the pre-eminent giants of baseball until they traded away arguably the best player of all time in Babe Ruth to the Yankees. What ensued was an extraordinary 92 year title drought that puts Liverpool's struggles to shame. And within 2 years of Henry's takeover they broke the streak and won the world series, much like Liverpool are looking increasingly certain to win the league this season. The parallels are uncanny and really spooky. Additionally opposed to the Glazers, Henry seems quite pragmatic in his decisions and is willing to take expert help or hire innovative backroom casts. He famously made a substantial offer to Billy Beane for implementing his "moneyball" philosophy at the Red Sox. Henry looks to have pulled as similar coup with Rodgers, who's a young innovative manager.All of this makes me worry for the future of the club. Maybe I'm just being paranoid but there are certainly too many similarities for me to shake off the whole issue. And I do feel we have probably the worst set of owners any club of our magnitude could dream of having. We can criticize City and PSG for the petro dollars. But their owners have done so much for their clubs and the Glazers have repeatedly failed. Their owners are intent on improving their club's infrastructure, have a long term plan of ensuring success and inject massive money into the playing squad. But our owners have only one interest in United : sign massive sponsorship deals and siphon off the money. It's telling that even after almost a decade we still haven't paid off a major chunk of our debt despite almost 800 million being robbed out off United's coffers and us being enlisted in New York. Their backers say they have greatly enhanced our commercial appeal and revenue but I'm like wtf ? Before they came along United was the heavyweight champion in terms of finances and by far the richest club in world football - more than even Real and Barcelona who we currently lag behind. We regularly spent record breaking amounts on the likes of Rio, Ruud, Veron, Stam, Cole, Rooney etc. I know that football is becoming a business but the Glazers have taken it to an extreme and we are just commodities for them. It makes me angry but it also makes me sad thinking of what we could have done without having the honour of them owning us. The 800 million they've looted, Ronaldo's money that was used to payoff PIK debts could all have been put to better use.