Yes, other things have certainly contrived against us.... but as others have said, much of it predates the current economics. The initial failed attempt at securing finance was before anything was built. Many of the subsequent on-going attempts were also long before the Russian invasion, which was 18 months ago, and before any steel had been erected.... so we committed hundreds of millions in full knowledge of the circumstances you're referring to.
It's not a bias at all, it's the view held by most of the larger clubs, based on the same basic economic principles of affordability you alluded to yourself. You asked if I thought they should "do nothing".... my simple reply was no, they had the same options as most of these other clubs. They simply chose the expensive one. Of course, that's perfectly fine as long as the owner's intentions are at least medium term and it's financially viable, or if they're prepared to foot the entire bill and absorb the risk if that viability is at all questionable or economically fragile. Otherwise, they've essentially gambled with our club's whole future!
