This is a much better argument than the one you brought before. This I like and I would say fair points. The league is most certainly not redundant and you have zero stats to back that out, nor would it be with United having Saudi owners. Titles have been bought since the beginning of football. Is what City are doing worse? Its certainly bigger, The numbers are vastly bigger but as yet we've won 4 titles in 10 years, by comparison United won 7 in 10 (8 of 11) in their best spell and 5/7 post Joses Chelsea. Liverpools peak with the Moores money I was referring to was 6 titles in 9 years. Was it fair on City who came 2nd in 77 that Liverpool had the Moores money behind them and we had barely a pot to piss in? What about QPR whose only ever title challenge saw them beaten by said Littlewoods financed Liverpool? Did they care where the money came from, nope people simply said "You can't compete they are going to dominate forever" but they didn't, the pools money dried up and so did their success. People have been saying what you guys are saying about City, about Chelsea, before that about Liverpool and the pools/Littlewoods. Some myself included said it about United in the 90's something that has been proven pretty much false in fairness but United under Sir Alex were the exception to the rule not the rule (not that they won on a shoestring ). People spouted about the league becoming redundant since the 20's over one team having more. On the issue of our owners being absolutely horrid people with a human rights record thats shocking.. you'l get no argument from me but I didn't choose them. Are Liverpool (sorry Liverpool fans I'm not meaning to pick on you so much) a morally better club, when they spent 3 years whoring themselves out to DiC before walking away when the money never came? By Rick Parry's own words Liverpool ran off to Dubai looking to get what City got? Lets looks at the so called proper clubs - Liverpool - we've discussed already. Would they even be a vastly bigger club than Villa, Forest etc.. without that investment? Arsenal - Bribed their way into top level football and pretty much were the PSG of 1920's, building a massive empire and huge club off the back of said investment. United - The least guilty of buying their way to the top, but still needed bailouts from 2 wealthy benefactors to keep the club afloat, without whom they would never have been able to build the biggest football club in the world. The moral outrage about City is because we are not deemed a big club. Was it United, Liverpool or Arsenal who got what we got there wouldn't be half the drama because it would be justified as earned from being a huge club. Is whats happening at City good for football? nope, has it somehow made football worse? Nope, Football is the same shit show where the haves hoover up whats to be won and the have nots are left to into their beers. City are the ultimate symptom of a broken sport but its always been broken.