I used to browse this forum a lot but stopped a while back because of the relentless negativity/vitriol so fair play on being one of the first from the ENIC out lot to take a rational approach to the argument.
My personal opinion, I've always accepted that Levy is far from perfect but being born in 91 and growing up around United, Chelsea and Woolwich fans there has always been an increased pride for me in winning those big games from doing things the right way. Of course, if we want to win the league it is unlikely without state owned money but I can't imagine how there is anything exciting about being a City fan these days for example. You're expected to win it every year because you have a squad of £50-100m players. I could play football manager and do that if I really wanted.
I just think it's laughable that many of those on the other side of the argument take things to such an extreme. Worst owners in football, chairman that never spends money (then when the figures are shown counters the claim with how the money is spent but wasted), everything on the pitch being Levy's fault, every successful manager being a lucky appointment while every unsuccessful one being down to him. All bad transfers are his fault, countless semi-finals and finals bottled, must be his fault too.
I agree there's a lot he could do better but I can't see how the argument will ever be won with such extremes. If people truly think we're in a bad position as a club relative to 20 years ago, trophy haul aside, then there is no hope.
Out of all of the things you could criticise Levy for, this is a weird one and seems very insignificant. He presides over a multi-billion pound operation of which he owns a considerable share. As ENIC are an investment company, they benefit from us being successful on the pitch and the growing of the brand as a result. The £40m he has taken in the past 13 years is a fraction of what revenue has increased by under his stewardship.