M18CTID said:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
What's more likely to induce boredom?
Owning Sunderland: ground two thirds full; league ambition - mid-table, at best; no European games; reasonable possibility of a good cup run; local derby - Newcastle.
Owning City: ground sold out every week, expansion in the pipeline; league ambition - to win it; European games - Champions League; strong possibility of a good cup run: local derby - second biggest game in European club football.
Oh the agony of choice.
In any event who the fuck could ever "get bored" of running the wonderful insane asylum that is Manchester City?
Fantastically put as always. I'd also hazard a guess that for all the Sheikh's business interests, while owning City is hardly his most profitable, it may well give him the most satisfaction. Selling those shares in Barclays at a huge profit no doubt gave him a buzz but moments like Aguero's title-winning goal are priceless.
Our critics fail to understand the Arab mentality that exists within the ruling elite.
Anyone who follows horse racing will know that the sport is heavily dependent on it's Middle East backers, but apart from the occasional superstar animal that arises, the sport is close to being a loss making venture. Yet they still participate because it brings them prestige and they are likely to meet the 'right' people who have similar interests. It isn't called the Sport of Kings for nothing.
Football will not bring them the same elitist contact, but it is far more likely to bring them recognition on a personal level, and it will certainly bring their nations global publicity.
There is no boredom to be suffered. Instead, owning City is a sound and sensible investment.