Fine, I'll bite. We will keep going... so saying you didn't have financial dominance until/without Chelsea and City.
98/99 - Manchester United buy the two most expensive players in the league that season Yorke and Stam. Title winner - United
99/00 - United do nothing. - Title winner United
00/01 - United again do very little - Title winner United
01/02 - United dig deep buying the two most expensive players in the league that season. RVN and Stam, breaking the english transfer record.
02/03 - United again break the british transfer record for Rio Ferdinand (he is a full €30m more expensive than the leagues 2nd most expensive signings Diouf and Anelka). Title winner - United
03/04 - Without Chelseas signings United buy the 2nd and 3rd most expensive players entering the PL this season (Ronaldo and Saha). Only Reyes to Arsenal cost more.
04/05 - United have the most expensive singing in the premier league in Wayne Rooney (almost double the price of their nearest rivals signing of Cisse)
05/06 - United spend feck all while Newcastle spunk money. Title winner - United (this is how long it took for the Rio fee to be bested by Chelsea)
06/07 - The most expensive player in the PL, Michael Carrick to you guess it Manchester United. Title winner - United
07/08 - Torres is the big move, but United sign the 2nd, 3rd and 4th most expensive players (Anderson, Nani and Hargreaves) Title winner - United
08/09 - Berbatov to United is the most expensive deal. Title winner - United
So in 11 seasons that is 8 titles. The most expensive signing 6 times, the 2nd most expensive signing 4 times (coming with the 3rd most expensive on two of those occasions).
That is complete and utter financial dominance and an ability to sign players the others could never dream of.
Fwiw you'd have won the title in 09/10, 10/11, 11/12, 12/13 as well. Just the 8 in a row.
City and Chelsea aside you would also have the most expensive signings in 11/12, 12/13, 14/15, 15/16, 16/17, 17/18
So yes, complete and utter financial domination without Chelsea first and then City. How you guys can't comprehend that the richest club in the world has the most money is fecking illogical and like I said without Chelsea the league becomes the BL. United win the title 12 times in 15 seasons and there is no way you have the post-Ferguson collapse.
It's easy to pick an choose numbers to fit while not even comparing them to other clubs that were rivaling United at the time or looking at players United had sold, isn't it?
To put that first figure (1998/99) into context, let's look at what United had spent in the 6 previous Premier League seasons, when they'd won 4 titles and 2 FA Cups:
£3.05m net.
Liverpool had spent £30m net during that same period and won a single League Cup.
Chelsea spent £24.8m net and won an FA Cup, a League Cup and a Cup Winner's Cup.
Newcastle spent £43.4m (£32.2 million in the 1995/96 season alone - £9m more than United spent in their treble winning season) and have still won nothing.
Blackburn broke British transfer records (I can't find figures for their spending) and won the title once.
Manchester City spent £19.2m and got relegated twice.
In 2001/02, United had won three titles in a row and were at the time one of the top clubs in Europe. In the seasons 1999/2000 - 2001/02,
United spent £37m and won 2 league titles. Liverpool spent £32.5m (winning an FA Cup, a League Cup and a UEFA Cup, Chelsea spent £40.75m (winning an FA Cup), Newcastle spent £34.1m (winning nothing), Leeds spent £59.2m (also winning nothing), while City spent £22.7m (outspending United in 2000/01 - and getting relegated again).
In 2002/03, United signed Rio Ferdinand. The final fee for him was £27.5m (was supposed to be £29.3, but Leeds took a reduced final payment in 2004). In total,
we spent £27.35m net that season. City spent £30.35m (more than United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Newcastle, and possibly every other team in the league that season).
In 2003/04, United sell Veron and Beckham, and
spend a huge £2.94m net on the replacements.
Chelsea spend £121m net. Arsenal spend £16.6m net, Liverpool spend £11.5m net, City spend £4.9m net.
In 2004/05 United spent £34.1m net on players. Chelsea spent £92.5m net, while the next biggest spenders were Liverpool with £25.25m net.
In 2006/07, United made a £5.25m profit on transfers, signing Michael Carrick after selling Van Nistelrooy and others.
Liverpool spent £14.3m net, Chelsea spent £39.3m net. Aston Villa, Newcastle and Everton all outspent United that season too.
In 2007/08, United spent a net £25.8m, outspent by both Liverpool (spend a net £38m) and City, who spent £43.1m net on players.
2008/09 - Manchester City break the British transfer record for Robinho, spending a net £118m on transfers. United's £35.5m net spend that year is dwarfed in comparison.
Personally, I'd say United earned both the money they spent and the right to spend it. They also got great value for the most part, and had to compete with three or four other clubs at most points in the Premier League era to do so. It's only the post-Fergie/post Abu Dhabi era that we have done poorly in the market, but that is both a mixture of hapless managers and the prices being distorted by PSG and City, forcing others to pay the same fees as they do.
Edit: Most of these figures can be checked here and on Transfer League, by the way.