Roman Abramovich is accused of paying people under the table. Man City have 115 charges.
Under Abramovich Chelsea have won - 5 League titles, 2 UCLs, 2 Europa Leagues, 5 FA Cups, 3 energy drink Cups, 2 supercups,
Under Sheikh Mansour Man City have won - 7 league titles, 1 UCL, 3 FA Cups 6 energy drink cups, 1 super cup.
Lets say hypothetically the EPL manage to prove it happened. And the points deduction is something that even Man City cannot recover from Eg. 90+ points deducted.
Would you be willing to accept a relegation to the championship for the above memories?
Eg. you saw your club win those things and have the memories of watching it?
No. There is a certain pride in doing things properly. As a palace fan we have come close to the fa cup twice. That is the height of silverware based achievement.
Would I be more proud of a trophy, or would I be more proud of a metaphorical bastion of hope in the beaten down Borough of Croydon?
City and Chelsea quite literally paid for the trophies, there is no pride in that.
Luton made the FA Cup final once in the 50s, didn’t win but I still feel very proud of that, along with our League Cup win. Doing things the right way is far more important to me than just buying success.
You can’t just buy trophies though, just look at UTD and Chelsea. They’ve spent fortunes over the last few transfer windows and they’re shite. Just cause you spend loads of money it doesn’t mean you’re a good team.
This is one of laziest arguments in modern football.
I can accept many other criticisms of Manchester City (or Chelsea), even if I may disagree with some of them, but this one is just nonsensical. There is no evidence that high spending alone guarantees success. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary, particularly in the Premier League.
Many clubs, including Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton, Blackburn, PSG, Real Madrid, RB Leipzig, Galatasaray, Zenit St. Petersburg, and many others have spent exorbitant amounts over the decades (United, Liverpool, Blackburn, and Real Madrid were “inflating the market” well before City were bought by ADUG) with mediocre or horrible results. Some have had limited success before crashing down to earth, others have tread water, and still others have essentially set money on fire with not even a warm glow to show for it. And in the Premier League, the difference in net spend in the top half of the table is negligible now.
Obviously the biggest spenders in world football tend to perform the best in the top competitions overall, but once you are in that top echelon, spending itself is not enough to win you silverware, especially regularly.
That takes spending the money wisely, acquiring high quality managers, players, coaches, medical staff, and even director level management. It takes competent, forward-thinking leadership and holistic operational structures.
You just have to look at the likes of United and PSG, who have spent as much or more than City over the past 10 years, to see how big spending can play out when you don’t get that mix right.
TL;DR
Obviously spending is required to compete at the top levels of football—all data supports that—but once you are there, data indicates that money itself is not enough for ultimate success.