United have broken the transfer record once. Ever. If you are talking purely PL and want to go for the 90s onwards we have done it with Andy Cole (£7m), Veron (£28m), Ferdinand (£29m) and Pogba (£89m). Thats 4 times in 30 years. Once in the 90s, twice in the 00s and once in the last 10 years.
Also explain to me how being bought out by the glazers and then saddled with massive debts by that buyout has given us a huge injection of capital? We have been paying ~£60m a year in debt for the last 15 years. You're suggesting that without the glazers takeover we would be worse off financially which is utterly bizarre.
I've covered most of this in my reply above to Adam. I think you've got very confused in the 2nd paragraph - I certainly wasn't talking about Utd being better off because of the Glazer takeover, I thought I made that clear in my reply to you. I was referring to how Utd raised money in 1991. Utd raised equity to fund their growth, just like City have done.
All three of those clubs make massively more in revenue than City. What would happen if the owners of City stopped putting money into the club randomly at some point in the last 5 years. The club would have to try and offload their star players on wages that most clubs can't pay or they would go bust. Its supposed to protect clubs from a business model that relies on external money that could stop at any point in time.
If I inject £100m into a company I am usually not risking the future of that company if I walk away from it in a years time and stop piling money in. Thats not the case in football.
"What would happen if the owners of City stopped......", what would happen if Utd failed to qualify for the CL over the next 3 seasons and PL TV money was cut by 30% due to a recession? Utd would be more likely to go bust than City because they don't just have a £300m odd wagebill that they'd struggle to shift but are hundreds of millions in debt too.
City are spending what they can afford to spend now, whether that's based on their revenue or outside help, no different to Utd, Liverpool or 99% of other clubs. If Utd or Liverpool overstretch themselves and become too reliant on CL & PL money then they will go the same way as Leeds if that revenue dries up. FFP wouldn't have saved Leeds afterall.
There is however a very simple answer to this issue and it's one that only owners like City's could give and that would be guarantees by the owners on financial commitments they sign up to. If FFP is about protecting clubs then make owners guarantee £3 for every £1 lost. That would provide a 3 year buffer for clubs if funding dried up. City as a club would then be far more financially secure than Utd, if they weren't already.
Because the difference in supporters, appeal etc is massive between the largest clubs and the smallest clubs. Literally a single country that broke these rules would clean up the best footballers the world over. FFP is not perfect but trying to put in wage caps and spending limits flatly across the PL is ridiculous.
Why does it matter if City have less supporters? Your argument began by saying FFP was to control wage and transfer fee inflation, putting a spending cap in place solves this issue. It also provides a fair and even playing field. It allows your Jack Walkers, your Abramovic's etc to take a club from mid table and help them compete at the top.
Allow Utd to spend £330m on wages and average £100m per season on transfer fees but allow Chelsea and City to do so too. Coupled with my suggestion of financial guarantees it would be perfectly safe and fair. Why wouldn't you do this? Because it leaves big spending clubs that have been run poorly at risk of being displaced at the top table.
