But it did, I see people saying the early years, the early years, I'm not on about the early years, I'm on about from around the time of treble winners on. Until Chelsea you were utterly dominant. £27m back then was a world class player btw... It's the equivalent of about a £100m player nowadays.
Leeds almost bankrupt themselves and could not keep up. Liverpool had to stop as they couldn't live with you. Arsenal had to slow, Newcastle were a mess. You could spend what you needed, the others couldn't. No other team could afford the Veron fee etc.. and if Chelsea didn't come along simple math says the gap was going to get bigger not smaller. As I said no Chelsea and in the end City, United would have less competition more top, top players and even given the times you came behind Chelsea and City, the tables say you would have 16 of the first 20 PL titles.
The dominance would be so big and clear cut you would never have had the post Ferguson collapse you suffered for a couple of years.
Here's the deloitte richest clubs in the world, from 07 to now, because it doesn't go back any further..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes'_list_of_the_most_valuable_football_clubs#2007_rankings
Here you can clearly see how much further you were and are still pulling away from Arsenal and Liverpool and make no mistake you'll always been at the top of that list with Real... Now imagine how England looks without City and Chelsea.
You are also equating financial dominance with spending but in reality you didn't spend because you didn't need to not because you couldn't. You also had many of the class of 92 in their peak at that same time. If you really believe Liverpool and Spurs had the financial power of Man United then we'll have to agree to disagree as we're moving in circles.