I suppose I’m taking the 115 charges thing with a pinch of salt. They may be the same charge repeated 115 times, or they may be all different. For what it’s worth, regardless of how many of them are actually proven (or not) and what the punishment is (or isn’t), I’m not debating whether or not they’ve spent more than they’ve earned. Basic maths tells me there is no other explanation. But these rules didn’t exist at all for the first 100 years of football, I don’t see it as being essential to the integrity of the game or anything. If you took out the teams bought by Jack Walker and Abramovic Utd would have won 17 out of 20, or something ridiculous.
I do agree that I’m ‘wrapping everything up in the same bundle’, it’s not something that I’ve ever sought to deny. From my perspective I want to see a premier league with as many potential winners as possible, and with as much variation as possible. That’s what makes it exciting for me. It was boring when Utd were so dominant and I think we’re not far off the time where it’ll become boring that City are so dominant. I accept that one bought success through oil riches and one through legitimate income, but strictly speaking from the point of view of a watcher looking for excitement, the source of the money is not relevant. All I see, and all I’m interested in, is the end product. The absolute worst scenario for me would be a Bayern Munich situation, and I think that’s where we were headed without rich owners putting their own money in.