Basically we need to wait For Diavlo to get a few years of his bonus's in then he can come and take over the club

I don't want to prolong this but my point was City maintained their attendances despite a lack of on-field success.I found this 'gem' on Wikipedia - [iEven in the late 1990s, when the club were relegated twice in three seasons and playing in the third tier of English football (then Division Two, now Football League One), home attendances were in the region of 30,000, compared to an average for the division of fewer than 8,000.[60 Research carried out by Manchester City in 2005 estimates a fanbase of 886,000 in the United Kingdom and a total in excess of 2 million worldwide.[/i

reasonably safe to invest when a well stocked club shop and other revenue streams would be well supported.

The guy who invested in a poorly supported club - in comparison - Who I thought made his money in Canada,but I was mistaken,if the link attached is correct.He was born in the place but did not invest until he had made many millions [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_WalkerLink[/url

My point was that an individual,perhaps born in the north west but making his money/residing elsewhere in the world,may wish to invest.
I am aware,but cannot immediately recollect,of individuals/consortiums who declined to invest in sports clubs,mainly soccer,because of the conduct of some people.I concede that the behaviour was directed at them,but I think the principle still applies.