So you dont think city Chelsea and PSG are a cancer in football that needs to be cut out. You think that these clubs with there dreadful owners are good for football and not just the plastics that support these clubs.The discussion was not regarding the background of the owners of City, but about sugar daddies that invest in clubs vs capitalists who enrich themselves at the expense of supporters. I know which of the two I prefer.
PSG, Chelsea and City contribute to rising transfer fees, but those are clubs with owners that put money into football, money that trickles down (I do not belong to the economical right that believes in trickle-down-economics, but in the case of football, money that are invested at the top to buy players from the clubs below actually do trickle down). The owners of the likes of Liverpool, Man United and Woolwich, on the other hand, drains money from football. The problem for championship clubs and league one clubs is not the competition from or money from the clubs above, it is more so over-ambitious, dreamy and sloppy owners that overinvest at their level, and extremely hard competition to get to the next level (e.g. to PL from Championship or to CL from League 1).
"Everything about City is wrong" is a ridiculous statement. They do a lot of things right at City, with respect to how they run a football club. You can hate the owners, you can be jealous at the investments made, but your statement still remains ridiculous.
You sure your spurs?