To all those who in the last page or two are suggesting that if you go far enough up the chain, the owners of Etihad & City are the same, it's absolutely irrelevant. Not because it doesn't come under international accounting definitions of a related party (which it doesn't) but because even if they were considered related, the amount paid is appropriate.
In fact, the amount paid by Etihad is currently less than fair market value. As it happens, a few years ago, when it was looked at for FFP purposes, despite not being a related party, we were told that the Etihad deal would only be considered acceptable revenue for FFP if it didn't increase in quantum until the end of the contracted period, when it would be looked at again. So all this repeated nonsense about whether or not Etihad is connected is just that - nonsense
Secondly, whilst I understand why it was not believed by all at the time, everyone can now see that with hindsight, the investment into the club by the owners has been just that - investment. The club is now financially stable, with income from non related parties and a market value there or thereabouts at the level of the cost of buying us in the first place together with the subsequent investment. So to keep calling us a rich man's plaything no longer works and just smacks of desperation. The purchase can now be seen, with the benefit of hindsight, as a well thought out investment decision
Finally, given how often United have historically smashed transfer records and blown all the opposition out of the market with their financial clout, regardless of how they had that financial clout, to then have a go at others for doing the same is hypocrisy personified. Such people should be more concerned how a massive increase in investment in the squad, since the purse strings were loosened, including spending on Pogba, Di Maria, Lukaku, etc (the three biggest fees ever paid by an English club if I recall correctly) has not resulted in performances on the pitch to reflect such investment. Obviously not helped by a lack of managerial stability and a complete change of styles from one manager to the next. United aren't behind city because they don't have the money. They are behind city because they haven't spent the money as wisely and don't have a well thought out long term plan, instead adopting a scattergun approach to player & managerial signings
