What is it about City that makes you [people] think they can just carry on and stay at this relentless level for the foreseeable future? It's very clear to me that the ultimate difference maker for them is Pep. Of course having bottomless pockets helps him immensely but City are hardly the only team in the league who can spend money.
What is Chelsea and United's excuse? Why aren't our clubs as consistent and relentless as City? Or even close to it? We've spent a bag full of millions too. Why can't we get close to them in the league? For me the difference is Pep. Once he leaves, they'll return to the levels they showed before him, which was still really good but Mancini and Pellegrini didn't have this league in a headlock the way Pep does.
As I explained elsewhere, United and Chelsea have plenty of money available over a given period, but they still have budgets they must adhere too.
City are able to 'fail fast' in that there are no consequences to them for making poor signings. Pep and City have been no better in the transfer market than any other club, and certainly far worse than a club like Liverpool, but they are able to move on from these mistakes instantly.
Case in point, when they were initially taken over by Abu Dhabi, and prior to FFP, they MASSIVELY outspent the average. Not just a little bit, we're talking spending £400m at a time when the average 'very good' player still went for about £30m. At this point, United actually had a positive net spend over a 5YR period because of the financial shackles enforced by the Glazer takeover. This squandered any advantage we had built up over the years, with respect to being able to make changes relatively quickly.
Even given this, when Pep took over, he finished 4th in his first season and proclaimed the current squad couldn't adapt to the demands of his system. So what did he do? Bought four fullbacks and two more CBs, plus a 2nd international GK in two seasons. Over a two year period, City spent over £400m, whilst making very little with regard sales.
United and Chelsea can spend, but both are still outspent (net and real terms) the majority of the time by City. It makes it incredibly hard to catch 'the perfect squad' when they are still outspending you every season!
It also puts huge pressure on the Chelsea and United management team(s) to get their signings right. Lukaku, for example, looks like being an expensive mistake for both teams. At least for United, this was maybe the one occasion in history we DID manage to 'fail fast', quickly making a decision and getting all of our money back. Even then, we spent it on Maguire, who for all his imperfections, we have to stick with because we can't just bin an £80m defender. Plus, that's the key in itself, we had to SELL a striker who started every week to BUY a CB, who we desperately needed at the time. City never, ever have this problem. Just go out and get whoever they want and sort the books out later once the dust settles.
Again, City spent £100m on a single player this season. Has that player been any good? Arguably not really, certainly not £100m worth. Has it affected them? Not one iota, because it doesn't matter, they are 'strengthening from a position of strength' which was always one of SAFs great mantras. It gives you the luxury of time and flexibility. Grealish will have plenty of time to find his feet under little pressure, and if he doesn't, it won't matter, they will sell at a loss and go again for big money on the next flavour of the month.
Honestly, I don't really understand how people can fail to see the difference. Chelsea (your club) and United (my club) both have imperfections in their squads. You are lumbered with a £100m forward who doesn't fit your system and two £120m German lads who have never really found their feet. Yet you have to try and work them in somewhere, you can't just go "sod it, stick them on loan and get three more in". Likewise, we are shackled with the likes of Fred, AWB, Pogba (previously) who have never really fit but are too expensive/difficult to replace.
All of this doesn't mean United or Chelsea can't ever compete, it just means our margin for error is miniscule, whilst City's is massive. Liverpool are the one, shining hope other clubs can cling to (can you believe I am saying that as a United fan), because they have competed on basically a budget of net zero, but they have been fantastically run and managed and it can't last for ever. Eventually Salah, Mane, Henderson, van Dijk etc...will peak and they will have to be replaced on a budget. Can they work miracles again and find superstars for £30m each? I suspect not. I suspect they will struggle to replace at least one or two, just because of natural variance in the success of new players, and that will be that, they too will drop well of the pace.