Have been reading a similar thread on the Spuds board, not commented yet because they are a bit precious.
My thoughts on owners (regardless of how they made their money, nobody gets that rich from being nice).
Your lot, bought the club in a fire sale with the proviso that they built a new stadium. Reality, they have built a new stand by loaning the money to the club and are taking it back in re-payments. Nothing actually put into the club just used as an asset to gain money.
Our lot, bought the club as a leveraged buy and put the club in £500k of debt (never in debt before), have taken well over £1bl out of the club and haven't even given the ground a lick of paint in 15 years+, Always seem to leave enough in for big transfers and wages though.
Chelsea, owner has pumped well over a billion into the club as loans and taken nothing out, has periodically wiped the loans off the books. Man seems to care about the club be it as a vanity project or a real supporter.
City, owners have pumped billions into the club and surrounding area, great for both beneficiaries. This is obviously an attempt to clean their image up to the world but is doing a great deal of good for thousands of local people and the area.
Spuds, spent a billion on a ground (very nice) that is at least aimed 50% at the NFL and seem to have put the cost of this on Spurs?
Also spent a **** lot of money on hotels and flats around the area, who do they belong to?
The ground is great but in the great scheme of things worth **** all apart from the land it stands on, who would buy a football ground and for what use?
There is a reason City and WestHam rent theirs