I think since clubs spending was more about their owners money than what they generated themselves certainly in this country, for me I see it as the end of one chapter and the beginning of another. A definition of a big club was very much about their history on world football. There are clubs like AC Milan that haven't won anything for a long time but I'd still say are a big club. It seems that 'new money' buys you great players and managers which is enough to call you a big club. It's funny as the more it's just about money, the more it devalues clubs achievements. The PL has more significance for those who haven't won it. Chelsea lifting the trophy was quickly forgotten and it's all about the here and now. If city win it by 20 points yet don't win the CL, it will be no better achievement than previous managers. Attracting big players is positive but I'm sure players didn't come there to emulate the achievements of Colin Bell. I think big clubs still attract players because of their history. The badge still counts for your position in world football.
For me they will never be big clubs cause no matter if someone puts a billion pounds into where I'm from say Birmingham City, Aston Villa will always be a bigger club. New money can't buy you History.
That's complete shite, the no history argument, in general, is complete shite. It's saying a club should win because they have always won. Which is ridiculous.
Are St. Etienne and Nantes really bigger clubs than PSG? St. Etienne themselves were nobodies until they won until the 1963 to 77 period.
Bayern were nobodies in German football until 1968 and probably more specifically the 3 in a row starting in 1972.
So what about United? were they a no history club whose achievements and history counted for nothing when Sunderland, Villa, Arsenal, Huddersfield, Everton, Liverpool, The Wednesday all had more league titles than them?
What about before the premier league when you had half the amount of titles Liverpool had and also lagged behind Arsenal, while level with Everton and Villa?
Now a Little Story about a Club dubbed MoneyBags United.
Take a little club who were building organically like City, we won our first trophy in 1907, which happens to be a year before United won their first, fwiw.
BTW that first trophy in 1908 was heavily bankrolled by a sugar daddy in John Henry Davies who saved the club from folding and invested heavily. Ever hear of the old "Money bags" United from the early 20th century. Or how said sugar daddy was censured by the league for lying about financials in 1910. It's an interesting tale.... Basically, he came in and bought a struggling club in 1902(sounds familiar), spent shitloads (sounds familiar) and after a few years won the title (sounds familiar). Got warned for cheating the books in 1910.
So we've established early Manchester United were a sugar daddy club? Good. And your first trophy and all the infrastructure around your great stadium was bought by a Sugar Daddy. I can just picture all the City fans in 1908 complaining about United's sugar daddy ruining football.
So anyway said tycoon died and United ended up back in trouble financially. What happens?
Along comes another tycoon in the form of James W Gibson (admittedly a brilliant man with tons of foresight who took the club through some seriously hard times) but had the bankroll to do it.
-----
You can paint it any way you like, the badge counts for nothing, history counts for nothing. The growth of both City and PSG, the fall of the Villa's, Huddersfield's, Sunderland's, clubs who won bucket loads while both Manchester Clubs were nobodies show this. Or do you genuinely think players will choose Villa, Sunderland etc.. over United and City. I mean they are Englands true historical clubs.
Fwiw, City won their first trophy before United so they have a longer history of winning. They also held English footballs record attendance from 1934 until 2016, something strangely United have never held. Does it make them a bigger club than United? Nah does it feck. United are ten times the size.
History though is written by the victors which is why Liverpool and United (lately) go on about it so much.
Anyone who thinks Villa, Sunderland etc.. are currently bigger clubs than City/Chelsea are deluded and those are clubs steeped in a much better and more successful history than pre-1992 United. Can you imagine Liverpool fans going on about United in 1993 like United fans do about City now....
In the past 15 years, Chelsea has written their own history and anyone who says they are not a big club needs a slap in the head for idiocy.
Chelsea's means of reaching the top will be forgotten as will Cities and like "Moneybags" United or bankrolled Arsenal teams of the past, only the history of trophies and not the means of winning will be remembered.
Football hasn't changed, just the scale of it has.