Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Them as well, sadly it seems that there are more clubs that have been bought by rich owners, and then been held liable for their off-field financial troubles, then ones that are now stable.
City, Chelsea, and PSG should count their lucky stars, that nothing like that has happened to them.”
Of those three clubs, I think City would be the worst off if the money disappeared all of a sudden right now. Chelsea have actually done a decent job of building a sustainable model over the last 10 years - they're now a globally-recognised "brand" (and I hate that word being used in regards to football clubs) which should mean they would be okay.
PSG are the only club in a city of 4 million people so they have a large catchment area to work with, plus owning a club in a city as appealing as Paris has it's own attractions obviously.
City I think are still some way off being globally recognised in the same way as Chelsea - they haven't had the European success that came as quickly as it did for them either - Ranieri took them to the semi-finals of the Champions League in their first season under Roman if my memory serves me correctly. No-one has managed to do that at City yet. City also don't have any "superstar" players either; Touré and Aguero come close, but just aren't in the same bracket as the likes of Ibra, Ronaldo, Suarez, Messi etc.
Furthermore, they are still seen as the second team in their own city - anyone around the world asked to name a football team from Manchester will still say "United" at this point in time - City are still currently something of an afterthought, and will probably remain that way until they start to succeed in Europe, or until they manage to pull the biggest "name" players in the world there.