Quite a few replies to my first blog criticised me for my decision to stop going to Old Trafford after the Glazer takeover, with this one being my favourite:

"Daniel, please stop using the word 'we' when discussing Man Utd. You lost that priviledge [sic] when you gave up your support for nothing more than an owner change. An owner who despite creating a massive debt (which they are paying off) has done nothing but give SAF free reign to do as he pleases and in doing so brought an s-load of trophies. Get over yourself and stop embarrassing 'us'. We don't miss your type."

Initially, I resisted the urge to reply in terse terms, but this past week I've got to stop chastising myself for my uncharacteristic reticence in illustrating why I'm right.

Prompting me was the closing of a transfer window in which United have managed to collect an enormous sum of money and not address the weaknesses in the squad, despite a need so obvious it has spent the last three months in a fluorescent cheerleader outfit singing "I am a need and I am obvious" to the tune of "Glory Glory Man United". Given that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers also left a chunk of their allocated budget for the draft unspent, despite a roster requiring similar reinforcement, this was not at all surprising.

But this kind of anecdotal speculation didn't work last time, so let's put it away, along with the bleeding heart, butchered heritage sentimentalism that was equally unsuccessful, and try a drier way of making the point. Here are some figures to make Jerome Kerviel wince.

United is jointly owned by two companies. In the last financial year, one of these - Red Football Limited - lost around £26.5m! Now I'm not a frequent user of exclamation marks, but I think you'll agree that astonishing fact merits one, and here's another. Red Football is a wholly owned subsidiary of Red Football Joint Venture, whose accounts for 2008 show a deficit of £42.7m!

During that period, United won the league and the European Cup. Yes, despite enjoying their most successful season in a decade, the club lost money - lots of it. Essentially, most of what it makes, plus a load it doesn't make, goes to pay off the interest - not capital - on the debt incurred by the Glazers in buying it in the first place. In a convenient quirk of the financial system that has served us so very well, they're permitted to borrow from the banks to acquire United, before using the assets of the club - gate receipts, player sales, telly money, merchandising, television rights and the rest - to pay them back.

But that isn't all. In 2013, the club will have to find £75m to pay off the debt, plus interest on the amount still outstanding, and £150m for the next three years after that, also plus interest, making the total amount of senior debt £575m. £425m of that is secured against the assets and undertakings of Manchester United Football Club, even though the loan was made to Red Football.

And still it gets worse; there are also some very cute pay-in-kind (PIK) notes, the compound interest on which rolls up in its tidy, rounded, lovable way, at 14.25%. These are carried by Red Football Joint Venture. As of last month, the total amount of debt attached to them is chilling at the £205m mark, and by maturity in August 2017, it'll have gently nosed its way up to a simply delectable £597m. Don't you just love Glazernomics?

Making the kind of money needed to service this debt is utterly unforeseeable, although if United were able to negotiate their own television deal, that would help a bit. But there's no way a majority of league members would ever accede; breaking the collective sale agreement would increase the gulf between the very top and the rest (although maybe they'd mind less if in exchange they got a competition with no relegation).

Examining the current agreement on legal grounds could, perhaps, circumvent this problem. Any serious challenge would have a decent chance of succeeding in the European court, which tends to frown on arrangements controlled by an effective cartel. If this happened, the results for the game in England would be disastrous.

Alternatively, and if other clubs were amenable, United could leave the Premier League and join a pan-European super league. This would actually be a good idea if it comprised only champions and replaced the current Champions League format, but if instituted to replace domestic competition, it would be, to steal Will Self's phrase, the diarrhoea icing on the sh*t cake.

The only other hope the Glazers have to get out of the hole they and the banks have dug is that someone of quite unfeasible richness comes along and takes the hit of the debt, and as a supporter, I suppose I'd just about prefer United to be a toy rather than a pension.

Otherwise, it'll be time to give Mickey Thomas a ring.

In the meanwhile, every conceivable revenue stream is maximised, which is a bit like me throwing a punch at Brock Lesnar. Transfer market parsimony aside, the most obvious example of this is in admission prices, which have increased by over 40% since the takeover. So along with those who left on principle, there's now an additional tranche who've been priced out, their match-going as past tense as Mr Praline's parrot; no longer is there a simple, single statistic by which devotion to the red cause can be measured.

Now as kids, everyone was told to look after the pennies and the pounds would look after themselves, which may have worked in terms of cola bottle acquisition, but is less a truism when the pounds are denominated in hundreds of millions. Nonetheless, United are doing their best, leading to an arrangement with a ticketing website. Season ticket holders unable to attend a particular game are able to list their seats on the internet, and if they are sold, a portion of their money is refunded. Although the ticket has been bought back for below face value, it is then sold on at significantly more than that, in a virtual environment that is a footballing Hamsterdam.

In the week leading up to the Arsenal game, there were 14 pages of tickets available. Ok it's early in the season, and it was Arsenal, not Liverpool or City, but that would still have been inconceivable until recently, and is a pretty good indication that the levee is beginning to break. Sign o' the times mess with your mind, baby.

The game itself was good and bad. Excluding Berbatov was cowardly, although no doubt when Fergie dropped the bombshell he pulled it out of the air on the tip of his toe and killed it stone dead it in one fluid movement. His non-selection - at home, nearing top form, and with one of the opposing centre backs unused to marking players as good as him and Rooney - makes you wonder if he'll ever be allowed to participate in any big games. Instead, the latter will be subjected to interminable afternoons flogged alone up-front like Van Nistelrooy before him, losing his temper, his hair and his youth.

Talking of team selection, for the last few years, the private messageboard of Redissue, one of United's fanzines, has run a prediction league in which people attempt to guess Fergie's starting eleven for each game. So far this season, including the Charity Shield, there've been four rounds, and out of sixty competitors each time, there've been three correct entries, none of them for last week's game.

Reflecting on the match itself, although the first half wasn't great, it certainly wasn't the one-sided annihilation suggested by some. United crafted two decent chances - one at the beginning and one at the end - as well as three excellent situations, all of which were wasted by Giggs. Arsenal passed the ball better, but weren't exactly shimmering with menace. Arshavin was the only player likely to create anything, and his goal was deserved, but for the quality of the strike rather than any mesmerising dominance until that point.

It was in the first few minutes of the second half that Arsenal really looked sharper. Passing the ball incisively for the only period in the game, although not fully pulled down, United's trousers were certainly hovering around the knee. But credit where it's due - they didn't flinch, taking the opportunity to show off the size of their testicles, handing Arsenal a bout of stage fright.

Fergie, on the other hand - if you'll permit me to extend the metaphor - had a bad case of shrinkage. Rather than go for it after the equaliser, he went to bring on Park - acceptable in replacing the execrable Valencia, but not the attacking change needed to exploit the shift in momentum against notoriously flaky opposition. Talking of Valencia, it would be wrong not to mention how hunky he looks in his new shrinkfit shirt, sleeves tight and short, moulded around the contours of his biceps. ¡Qué un hombre!

Anyway, before the change could be made, Diaby - who showed some interesting skills both before and after his ridiculous error - glanced in the decider. After that, even though United were dicey as riley defensively, Arsenal rarely threatened. In a way, this indicates that the three points were merited, going to the team stronger at the crucial moments and good enough to retain the advantage. Of course not having Manuel in nets also helped, but Arsenal had their chance before that. You come at the king, you best not miss.

That isn't to say all is rosy, because it isn't. Rooney, Evra and Fletcher are in outstanding form, Berbatov has played well when selected, and Nani's improving (funny what a run of games can do, eh Alex?). The rest of them have largely been making up the numbers.

Couple of other things I thought I'd mention. Despite Wenger's sour reaction to the defeat, I felt elements of sympathy for him twice last week. His sending off was, of course ridiculous, although I was confused by Keith Hackett's grovelling apology, stating that the officials should have taken into account how little time remained on the clock. The laws governing this element of the game must be similar to those governing derby fixtures, in which violent tackling is permitted, provided it occurs in the opening minutes.

With regard to the Eduardo controversy, there seems very little doubt he dived. But for banning him to be fair, the basis on which players can be charged for deceiving the referee need to be uniform and explicit. If there are no objective standards, then it's not reasonable for those that attract most publicity to be punished. Currently, it appears that if the referee sees the offence, it's a yellow card, but if he doesn't it's a double red - provided it was followed by requisite fuss. If a player dives to win a free kick on the touchline, that doesn't count, nor do any of the other occasions players lie to the officials to gain an advantage by means other than diving, even though all are covered by the law as it stands.

One last thing for now. Listening to BBC Radio Five Live the other day, I heard a snippet that the new owners of Southampton have stopped giving free match tickets to ex-players and managers. The presenter then went on to say that ex-manager Lawrie McMenemy was unhappy with this, which I found pretty unedifying. Ok, he was once employed by the club and did a decent job, but who's to say he's done more for it that its supporters? If he doesn't have an official role (and even then...), then unless he's seriously skint, he should pay in like everyone else - plenty of whom have less money than he, and none of whom had the privilege of serving the club they love in a professional capacity.