Except his revisionism and portrayal of the two clubs that always seem to feature in his posts.. Liverpool FC and Manchester United PLC.
On the surface some of his stuff looks plausible. But not if you were there throughout the term in question. Anyone can grab any figures in with the right spin can change them to what they want to portray. Until you look at what is being said and then compare it to the situation, times, events and players in question. Then it raises questions. Typing War and Peace in every response doesn't make your points any more viable.
I agree to an extent, the context he's explained his facts are at the turn of the last century, over a decade ago. He's stops short at the point to which United bought the likes of Ronaldo, Rooney, Nani, Anderson and co, what about those two Serbian(?) players for example, they apparently were lined up at a big combined fee?
However there is a running theme of truth within what he has explained about how United have managed to be more efficient generally speaking in terms of quantity of players and quality of players bought, i.e for every million they've spent it's returned better value, and he's rightly explained that the turnover of management has played it's part in our less than coherent squad we see now in terms of suitability for system, wages relative to performance and natural linear progression where young players fill the voids when older players that are in decline are politely moved on.
If he does happen to be a Manc, he's not a WUM in the traditional sense. He's outlined some valid arguments for me, even if it was cherry picked to support his point in terms of time and context.