As regards the last sentence, I'd say there's a big gap between 'being City' and being 'the nice guys'. Just because we shouldn't illegally break the rules like City and their 115 charges, doesn't mean we have to go fully to the other extreme and lie down and take whatever is thrown at us - or refuse to take advantage of what we legally can do.
Teams like Brentford and Brighton have multiple club set up. As do Watford with Udinese and Granada. And many more. It isn't just City and Chelsea and now us. Brentford and Brighton get raved about for their set up model - and never get seen as 'the bad guys'. Or maybe it's just the size of club, and people are fine with smaller clubs benefitting but hate the idea of wealthy clubs like us, City and Chelsea gaining a further advantage?
Personally, I never thought multi club ownership should be allowed. For me it's always seemed like money laundering (a way of getting round FFP rules) and creates conflicts of interest. However, as it's not only been deemed legal but has continued to grow, then I don't think we should handicap ourselves by refusing to benefit from it when we legally can.
There's plenty of football laws I don't agree with - the stuttering penalty run up, goals disallowed for unintentional handball in build up, etc - but doesn't mean I won't be bloody annoyed if we're not allowed to benefit from them when others are. If there was a vote for banning multi-club ownership, I'd have always voted to do so and would still. But for as long as other teams are legally allowed to do it and benefit from it then I hope we can to, as we're already playing catch up on so many things and this is one way to help with that.
