Marsdengiant wrote:Wow, what a super bet!
So you knew your analogy was bollox when you wrote it.
OK.
Marsdengiant wrote:I think it is great that the Chairman of your club resorts to such childishness.
It is a cliche and everyone knows what it means. It's shorthand for a wealthy backer who has more money than sense. But why am I telling you this, when you already know? It would seem to be just you who has a problem with what is an ordinary term, well understood by everyone else.
Marsdengiant wrote:Does he have some problem with wealthy people putting money into the game?
I have no reason to believe so. Do you? If not, why ask?
Marsdengiant wrote:Would he extend his opprobrium
"Opprobrium", now, is it?
Don't you think you're getting just a tad carried away with yourself now?
Marsdengiant wrote:...If Tordoff or Morrisson wanted to put a few million into the Bulls would he call them sugar daddy to their face? ...
I refuse to engage in Rhetorical Questions For Dummies, ta. I would suggest though that whatever financial relationship either of those two exceptionally shrewd businessmen might ever be interested in entering into, anything akin to a sugar daddy would not be it. If you think either would pour vast sums of money into a business for nothing but personal aggrandisement, kudos or whatever (I presume you aren't implying sexual favours) then you truly must be mad.
OTOH if I were as rich as an Abramovich, I might well be inclined to be a sugar daddy for the Bulls. I wouldn't mind a bit if anyone used the phrase, as in that situation I wouldn't be making any sort of real investment, I'd just be chasing a dream, and it would be a very reasonable description.