Lot to get through, but I'm happy to go through this bit by bit because there's an awful lot of misconception, misinformation and general untruths in this. I don't blame you though, as a lot of the stuff you've written is well-worn cliché trotted out on social media, and it's tough to separate the truth from the nonsense. Particularly for newer fans.
The "sustainable Bayern model vs the City model" - I'm not sure if you've looked too deeply in to this, but it seems to be coming from a place of naiveté. Bayern's 2018/19 accounts show excluding player trading, their revenue was €660m compared to €590m for City.
Bayern's €660m revenue; TV €211m, Commercial €357m, Match day €92m.
City's €590m revenue; TV €279m, Commercial €250m, Match day €60m.
The main reason for City's TV revenue being so much higher is because they're in the Premier League, which is the most watched sports league in the world, which of course makes it the most attractive for sponsors and therefore revenue.
The Bundesliga is obviously a minor league in comparison, and with it being seen as a boring, one team league (Bayern have won 8 on the spin) and much of the managerial and playing talent leaving Germany for England, there seems little prospect of the Bundesliga catching the PL in commercial terms anytime soon.
So in TV revenue terms, it's a safe bet to say that City's revenue from TV appears much more sustainable model than Bayern's.
City's commercial revenue being over €100m less than Bayern's, on paper seems to be an argument for Bayern's model being more sustainable. But it's important to note, since these accounts, City's kit deal has gone up from €13m a season with Nike to €72m a year with Puma, which gives you some indication of the increase in City's appeal to major sponsors over the last few years.
Bayern are heavily reliant on commercial sponsorship from partners such as adidas, Allianz, VW etc. Interestingly enough, all of these companies have a shareholding in Bayern and a place on their board. So they're essentially "sponsoring themselves". Something City were this week found to be categorically NOT doing by the 3 independent judges at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, of course.
"MANCHESTER CITY DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS COMMERCIAL INCOME." They are CAS's exact words. Although, I appreciate there are alternative viewpoints on Twitter etc.
Which leads nicely in to your "not sustainable when either the oil-well dries up, or the benefactor loses interest" line.
So assuming you'd agree that Premier League TV revenue for City probably wouldn't be affected too much by the oil drying up in the UAE, let's look at the commercial income potential.
So, let's put aside for one second the relationship that Bayern have with adidas, Allianz and VW, and assume that all of those deals are at a market rate. Let's assume that Bayern haven't been "disguising equity funding as commercial income". We don't know this for certain, like we do with City, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
Let's look at the commercial reach of each club and the potential exposure for the brands who sponsor them. It's difficult to find accurate figures for the worldwide TV reach of each league. But according the PL, it has the potential to reach 4.7bn people, broadcast in 212 territories, to 643m homes. It's easily the most watches sports league in the world. The Bundesliga? Not so much.
Sponsors want eyeballs on their brand. It's not Bayern's fault they play in an unattractive league. But maybe that's why the vast majority of their sponsors are German. It's a domestic league for a domestic audience. Nothing wrong with that.
So let's look at each club's potential reach - how many fans are engaging with them day-to-day. On Twitter, City have 8.1m followers. Bayern have 4.8m on their German language page, and 1.1m on their English language page (6.9m total). On Instagram, it's 19.5m for City, 21.7m for Bayern.
Similar numbers, both with huge worldwide fan bases. That's attractive to sponsors. Perhaps City's 8.1m Twitter followers and 19.5m Instagram followers are only there for the oil, but my best guess is they're there because they're engaged in the team and if the ownership changed, it wouldn't make too much of a difference?
It's another interesting point, what would happen if the Sheikh up and left? Well as the club has zero debt, if Mansour gave it all up tomorrow, we'd still have a world class squad, manager, training facilities and stadium, and wouldn't owe him a penny.
As the club is now financially self-sufficient (based on revenue from TV, match day, commercial etc and does not require any equity investment) it would be a pretty attractive proposition for any owner if Sheikh Mansour decided to give it away for free.
In fact, there have been equity purchases of 10% of CMC in China and Silverlake from the US. Their share purchases value the holding company of the club at £5.5bn. Seen as Sheikh Mansour's investment in to City itself is around £1.5bn, you'd have to say it's been fairly good business.
So in terms of sustainability, and City's vulnerability if the Sheikh walked away tomorrow, I'm not sure what your view is based on? In what way would it be vulnerable? And vulnerable to what, exactly?
The club is financially self sustainable right now. As demonstrated in its audited accounts. It's not disguising equity funding as commercial income, as has been proven in an independent court. And it has zero debt. So what are you basing the vulnerability on, maybe there's something I've missed, or is it just misinformed Twitter chit-chat you're basing it on?
As for Liverpool - it's important to note that Liverpool's run of success in the 70s and 80s was off the back of major investment from the Moore's family of Littlewood's pools fame. They were a 2nd Division club who invested heavily in the playing squad to kick-start their period of success and then the club was managed very well for the following decade through a series of managers. Similar to City, really.
United went on a spending splurge never before seen in English football after the cash injection of floating on the stock market in the early 90s (equity funding, not commercial revenue) and they broke the British transfer record 3 times in 5 years before Fergurson had won the league.
In fact, in 1989, Fergurson took charge of the most expensive team ever assembled in the history of football, this 4 years in to the job and before he'd even won a trophy, remember.
Leeds were a similar sized club to City pre-2008. Leeds had won 3 titles to City's 2, but City had won more FA Cups and more League Cups, and the same amount of European trophies, (although City's was more prestigious).
City's attendances have tended to be a touch higher than Leeds'. Prior to the takeover, City's average was 42k and Leeds 26k. Last time both teams were in the top flight at the same time, City's was 2004 - Leeds average attendance was 36k and City's 46k.
When City went down to the 3rd tier, our average attendance was 28k. Leeds average in the 3rd tier was around 24k, with their highest season average being 26k.
So what is it that makes Leeds more "proper" to City in your view? Is it just the lack of success over the last 12 years, or are there some other factors I'm perhaps missing?
Leicester, I assume was some kind of joke, so maybe I'll leave that one out?
So to conclude, I don't blame you for having the ignorances and misconceptions. Unfortunately, the way social media works, negativity seems to spread far more easily than truth. That's not your fault.
