Source: Daily_Mail
IAN RIDLEY: Sheik carries threat of a spent force in the tale of two Citys
There are, it is said, only two types of people: those who generalise and those who do not. And there are only two types of football supporter: those solely interested in the fortunes of their team and those also concerned by the condition of their club.
At moneybags Manchester City, many fans will be simply rejoicing that they finally have the financial muscle - £100million this summer alone, and rising - to compete with a United who have taunted them with wealth and power for so long.
Others worry that they are losing the soul and culture of their club. City are certainly in danger of compromising their reputation as one of life's lovable losers. Their spending has largely brought contempt from their rivals.
Sir Alex Ferguson has belittled them, Arsene Wenger accuses them, along with those other market-distorters Real Madrid, of 'financial doping'.
It is obscene, say outsiders, particularly when the country is in recession and people are struggling to find cash for a match ticket.
The distaste increases, too, when the game, for all the natural optimism of a new season, is striving to avoid the bust that could follow the boom. Notts County apart, many clubs lower down are having their overdrafts called in by banks with problems of their own and all but giving away their shirt sponsorships.
One in the Championship, I understand, settled for £15,000. You would have some sympathy for the complaints had much of the whingeing not been coming from those most threatened by it - and even jealous of City's new wealth.
And the obscenity of the money? Students of the game's history might find it obscene that United 'stole' the Wayne Rooney of his day, Billy Meredith, from City in a fire sale of players they were forced into for only £500 just over a century ago. The Blue half should be permitted their pleasure at pinching Carlos Tevez.
In addition, the word 'obscene' has always been employed when big money has been spent. Former United chairman Martin Edwards used almost to take pride in his club being the most frequent breakers of the British transfer record. Thus could City's spending power be a good thing for the Premier League, after the tedium of recent years with the only uncertainty being in which order the 'Big Four' will finish?
Martin O'Neill's cute development of Aston Villa with gifted young talents may be more admirable, but City are just repeating what Roman Abramovich and Chelsea did in rapidly assembling a title-challenging side.
You only hope that City do not lose their credo and core values as a community club who develop young players thoughtfully. What will be obscene is if all the money being pumped into the club by the new owner, Sheik Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, is discovered to be loans to add to the Premier League's debt.
Loans are the curse of the modern game, indeed, apart from helping clubs with short-term cash flow, and simply store up trouble for the future. It has taken some time but, at Chelsea, Abramovich has converted some of his loans to equity - half the £709m originally owed to him.
We will not know for sure until the club's next published accounts. If the same thing does not happen at City, they are surely heading for a big fall. Should they not start well - and pre-season performances and results have not been encouraging - we will see if the owner has a twitchy trigger finger.
And should the club not hit the global heights he expects in the next few seasons, then how strong will be his stickability? Fans have a habit of turning if expectation is raised then dashed with what owners see as monstrous ingratitude. Ask Mike Ashley.
And should the sheik walk away - what of the money he is owed? You hope the Premier League is duly monitoring. You cannot take away the dream element of the game, nor expect clubs simply to accept their role as also-rans.
It often takes money, however, to alter their fate. Nothing wrong with that, if the cash comes genuinely from a benefactor simply wanting a run for his considerable funds.
Longer term, it damages the game if there are strings attached and clubs are left living beyond their means. Might Manchester City care to tell us: donation or loan?
My colleague Patrick Collins last week quoted poignantly Sir Bobby Robson from a speech he gave at a dinner last year.
As we go into a new season without him, the words he first heard from his chairman at Ipswich John Cobbold - and which he kept with him throughout his life - bear repetition as one of his many legacies. 'Love the game above the prize,' he said. 'Because without the game, there is no prize.'
It would serve as a fitting tribute to Sir Bob should owners, managers and players find it within themselves to heed his sentiment this season.
