Even as a United fan I have absolutely no problem with City's spending whatsoever. How is Barcelona, Real Madrid, ourselves being able to outspend every club beneath us year after year a level playing field? Not only that, how is Barcelona, Real Madrid and ourselves being able to outspend those clubs INDEFINITELY fair as we prohibit the equalising investment from wealthy owners that bridge the gap? How does that encourage growth and competition within the game? People on this forum whinge incessantly about Manchester City gaining an unfair advantage over us through their owners and ourselves being unable to compete with Manchester City's spending... bull. Even if they are diddling their accounts they still officially record their revenue as less than our own - we CAN outspend them, we SHOULD be outspending them, it's just that our unbelievably appalling owners choose to skim off the top for their own gain rather than investing what we earn. Whether Manchester City's owners are only at their club to improve their own image has no tangible impact on how they run the club - they are brilliant owners. We should be rising to meet them, not dragging them down. There is an argument that mega-rich owners could ruin the game by simply outspending every other club that does not have a rich owner, but then you need to find a BALANCE to distinguish fair from unfair competition, and the current rules prohibiting any supplementary investment in the playing squad are so skewed on this scale it's unreal. A far fairer method would be that outside owners can spend an extra £100m per season up until their club starts making a certain amount of revenue, at which point it goes down to £75m, and incrementally so on. Saying they can't invest any of their money at all a la UEFA's FFP is abhorrent.