My question is this: You want to get owners who don't take money out of the club, but rather owners who put money into the club...so that _______________________ what is filling the blank space here? I'm trying to bore down to the driving motivation underpinning your desire to replace the Glazers with less parasitic owners.
In order of preference for me:
1. The club is completely fan owned and fan run (à la Bayern)
2. The club is owned by shareholders who don't invest or take any dividends, but share 50+1 voting rights amongst season ticket holders
3.The club is owned by parasites who do take dividends, but share 50+1 voting rights amongst season ticket holders
4. The club is owned by dodgy sports washing monarchs/oligarchs, but share 50+1 voting rights amongst season ticket holders
5.The club is owned by shareholders who don't invest or take any dividends and who run the club themselves
6. The club is owned by parasites who do take dividends who run the club themselves (ie. the situation right now)
7. The club is owned by dodgy sports washing monarchs/oligarchs who run the club themselves
We don't want to be City (in outcome 7), where every single one of their titles has an asterisk against it. That's the difference between playing a video game as the developer intended versus playing it on cheat mode. It's kind of satisfying on a certain level. But in private you'd have to admit you'd rather win it based on your club's own good footballing decisions.
The realistic goal should be about forcing the government to institute legislation for 50+1 (any outcome from 2 to 4). As much as I dislike the Glazers' business model, the most important thing is to put the reins back into the hands of the supporters so we can set the philosophical direction of the club (ie. away from the ESL, towards development of the stadium, towards investment in training facilities, towards improving the local area surrounding Old Trafford, etc.).
If there's one message to take away from this, it's that it's not about increasing the net transfer spend. That might happen anyway due to better investment in other areas. But it would only be as a knock on effect to everything else.