Whilst I can sympathise that these are merely the mutterings of radio host, his audience is still substantial, and he's misleading a large number of listeners.
It's fine to be critical, but you have to be even handed and objective about it. By all means discuss the negatives of City, but compare and contrast them with the positives. Many other clubs do a fair bit for the community too, but without the budget we have, but we've also been doing it for years prior to the money arriving.
They moan about appalling owners asset stripping clubs, and yet when a set of owners start splashing out on more than just players, that's criticised too.
Even if we are doing something positive 'because we can'. Isn't that a darn sight better than not doing anything 'when you can'?
And let's not forget, when City spend 50m on a player, that's 50m arriving at another club, which in turn will trickle down to others. In the end, our money is dispersed across multiple other clubs, and the product we produce along with the other clubs is what's funding Collymore's employment.
