This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

I believe they are in the bottom half of capacity % by siegfried08

Just some ribbing, ticket sales are a drop in the bucket compared to TV and sponsorship money.

And to the larger point, two responses. First, I don't think it's fair to equate shirt sponsors to actual ownership of the club -- those are clearly two different things. But regardless, I don't think City's ownership is nearly as problematic as PSG or Newcastle. The latter two are pretty clearly sportswashing endeavors owned by regimes that cast aside human rights like tissue paper. The UAE/Sheikh Mansour seem to be just splashing cash on a vanity project. Arguably bad for competitive balance, but if the money is being spent within the rules, I don't have an issue with it.