Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that we shouldn't use the fact that other clubs' sources of funding are dodgy, too, as an excuse. And this whole thread suggests that if some other clubs aren't squeaky clean either, that excuses the investment from City's morally questionable owners.
I started the thread not as a defence to the conspiracy theory about who owns the majority shareholding (although I don’t find our financing to be one bit immoral) but to expose the negative treatment that City get in comparison to other clubs who have been taking morally controversial money for a hell of a lot longer than us.