So it's about helping all of the disadvantaged clubs have a chance? And City are somehow the saviours for breaking the "entrenched" clubs?Excellent point, and it begs the question why so many who claim to have the sport's best interests in mind (when speaking about City) ignore this massive flaw in the rules (the answer is obvious; they didn't care until their clubs were disadvantaged). In a world without rule-breaking, you've basically entrenched a hierarchy of clubs, capped by their revenues. Because you can't build a stadium overnight or organically sell noodles to billions in Asia; and you being competent on and off the pitch won't move the needle against big sides with entrenched financial advantages.
Which is why it's either you're upset that stupid rules were broken, or non-plussed at stupid rules being broken, and there's not much ground for compromise there.
Before City started paying Mancini under the table they hadn't finished in the top 4 since 1978. Then they suddenly went from mid table to being in the Champions League spots from 2010/2011 onwards, again after they started paying at least one person at the club under the table thanks to a new ownership that are currently under investigation.
So how does City cheating when other clubs are following the rules benefit all of the other teams that have missed out on Champions League football?
The rules being stupid or not is not exactly the point. The point is that one team have breached the rules everyone else was following, and some folk are desperate for them not to be punished in the same way other clubs would have been were they doing the same thing.