The current state of Arsenal under the ownership of the Kroneke family means that most Gooners are desperate to see the man sell up and be gone.
So when Spotify co-founder Daniel Ek threw his hat into the mix late last week it was easy to get carried away at the prospect.
However, the words of Michael J Fox from the film The American President springs to mind.
“People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand”.
That kind of reminds me where we may be with Daniel Ek.
The reason is simple, he is not rich enough to bankroll the club and he will be forced into owning the club with the same self-sufficient method that the Kroenke’s have been working with.
Ek, according to Forbes, is worth $4.7b, a tidy sum no doubt but nowhere near enough to compete with the likes of Man City or PSG and still a lot less than what Roman Abramovich is worth ($15.2b) at Chelsea.
Unless it is ridiculous wealth, any new owner that comes in will be in no better position than what Stan Kroenke has been in and remember, he has been dropping significant amounts in recent transfer windows.
So what would Daniel Ek bring that is so different? Maybe he will be more visible but why would that make a difference to results?
He would have to overhaul the board if he wants an improvement in recruitment because buying the club but not changing how it operates is not going to make much difference either, is it?
The bottom line is that getting rid of Kroenke with another billionaire is unlikely to make much difference unless it is someone with astounding wealth prepared to compete directly with Man City and clubs like them.
The difference will come once better recruitment is achieved and a better manager is installed.
The grass may be greener on the other side but it is more likely to be just another mud pit.