The Shrike said:
This is a genuine question - so don't throw the toys out. But do you genuinely feel that a club bankrolled like yours is is good for football?
This might sound like sour grapes coming from a Gooner - as we have had a much shorter time out of the trophies than you lot, and haven't had to bear the heartache that you have in the EPL era.
And what's more we are a wealthy club, and its a bit hypocritical the way some Gooners play the pauper card.
But if your model is replicated, the league becomes nothing more than a contest to see which billionaire has the biggest cock. After the first couple of titles, won't it all get a bit pointless?
To answer your original point (from which we have somewhat strayed) Is our funding model good for football.
To a greater or lesser extent football has always been this way. Richer clubs being dominant. You were paying £13m for Wiltord & £8m for Jeffers when we were scratching about for freebies. Utd spent £28m on Veron, £19m on VanNistlecheat & £28m on Wio over 2 seasons alone!
So yes, whilst our owners have wealth previously unknown in football circles, post EPL & CL it is the ONLY way for a club to break through the glass ceiling.
You Sky 4 were in a position to turn their cosy little world into a virtual closed shop, pulling up the ladder after them.
Where else are non CL clubs supposed to get the £30m a year of CL income to compete with you. Everton & Villa, with settled squads & good managers, failed to break your cosy cartel. the reason - money.
Spurs only managed it because the dippers imploded.
Will our success seem hollow?
You go 35 years without winning anything & see what answer you give!