United couldn?t beat City on the pitch or in the title race last season, so it seems they have hatched a dastardly plot to undermine them off the field.
The Reds have teamed up with Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham to press for the Premier League to adopt its own financial fair play rules, specifically targeting clubs with rich benefactors ? just like Chelsea and City, by sheer coincidence!
United are suddenly worried that all this money being pumped into unnamed clubs is bad for the game, as it creates ?inflationary spending?.
They want to adapt Uefa?s new rules, aimed at stopping clubs spending beyond the money they generate themselves, to our domestic league.
Of course, by a happy twist of fate, this would mean United ? whose revenue is way ahead of everyone else in the league ? could buy all the best players, give them the best wages, and win everything, from here to eternity.
And, by another weird coincidence, it would also mean Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs would suddenly edge ahead of City and Chelsea in chasing lucrative Champions League places.
We could even stop playing each other at football altogether, re-name the Premier League the Manchester United League, hand them all the trophies in August and fly off somewhere warm for the winter.
This self-interested foursome are now trying to sell their idea to the rest of the Premier League, to get the 14 votes, out of 20, they would need to change the rules.
?It?s a debate ? we?re having a discussion on financial fair play,? said Gill. ?The impact of the new TV money has clearly focused the minds. Seven or eight clubs are going to have to abide by UEFA?s regulations in any case.
?The league are working on this and will put a paper together to be discussed at the February meeting. Whatever?s decided is dictated by 14 clubs.?
United need to hope that, if their plan for world domination goes through, that the Premier League doesn?t start applying it retrospectively.
The Reds were one of the main movers behind the Greedy League which aimed to concentrate the wealth in the hands of the few at a time when football was turning from a sport into a multi-billion pound business.
As the richest club in the country, they drove the agenda as English football underwent the biggest inflation ? of transfer fees, player wages and, as a consequence, ticket prices ? in football history.
They more than quadrupled the record fee paid by an English club ? which they already held for the 1981 signing of Bryan Robson ? in 1995 when they paid ?7m for Andy Cole.
They almost doubled the record by paying over ?28m for Seba Veron in 2001, only to break it again a year later to bring in Rio Ferdinand.
They happily paid top dollar to their squad of top players, forcing other clubs to either take financial risks to try and catch them, or simply be content to sit back and admire as United won everything.
It was natural law, they thought. They were earning their own money and spending it. Only Blackburn, who briefly found a rich owner, and moneyed Arsenal interrupted their dominance, and they were just a temporary irritation.
It was a great arrangement. Then along came Chelsea, and more latterly, City to mess up this perfect world, by finding wealthy foreign owners who were prepared to pour money into the clubs they bought.
At the same time, United ? despite a brave effort by a minority of their fans ? found an American owner who did the exact opposite and began leeching money OUT of their club.
Suddenly, clubs throwing their money around are doing a bad thing, says Gill.
It is not their own money, so they shouldn?t spend it, goes the new mantra.
But the market doesn?t care whether Gill made the money by grafting at a coal face for 12 hours a day, or was handed it by a friendly Arab.
Spending more than the others inflates, wherever the cash come from.
Leeds nose-dived, financially and in football terms, by trying to keep up with United, long before Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour came on the scene.
City and Chelsea have played the game by rules which United liked when it suited them. Now the rules suit other clubs more, United and the other three want to change them.
If they truly want financial fair play, all revenue should be centrally pooled and dished out, preferably with the Football League and grassroots football getting a fair share.
Chances of United going for something truly fair? Don?t hold your breath.
What do you think? Have your say
The Reds have teamed up with Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham to press for the Premier League to adopt its own financial fair play rules, specifically targeting clubs with rich benefactors ? just like Chelsea and City, by sheer coincidence!
United are suddenly worried that all this money being pumped into unnamed clubs is bad for the game, as it creates ?inflationary spending?.
They want to adapt Uefa?s new rules, aimed at stopping clubs spending beyond the money they generate themselves, to our domestic league.
Of course, by a happy twist of fate, this would mean United ? whose revenue is way ahead of everyone else in the league ? could buy all the best players, give them the best wages, and win everything, from here to eternity.
And, by another weird coincidence, it would also mean Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs would suddenly edge ahead of City and Chelsea in chasing lucrative Champions League places.
We could even stop playing each other at football altogether, re-name the Premier League the Manchester United League, hand them all the trophies in August and fly off somewhere warm for the winter.
This self-interested foursome are now trying to sell their idea to the rest of the Premier League, to get the 14 votes, out of 20, they would need to change the rules.
?It?s a debate ? we?re having a discussion on financial fair play,? said Gill. ?The impact of the new TV money has clearly focused the minds. Seven or eight clubs are going to have to abide by UEFA?s regulations in any case.
?The league are working on this and will put a paper together to be discussed at the February meeting. Whatever?s decided is dictated by 14 clubs.?
United need to hope that, if their plan for world domination goes through, that the Premier League doesn?t start applying it retrospectively.
The Reds were one of the main movers behind the Greedy League which aimed to concentrate the wealth in the hands of the few at a time when football was turning from a sport into a multi-billion pound business.
As the richest club in the country, they drove the agenda as English football underwent the biggest inflation ? of transfer fees, player wages and, as a consequence, ticket prices ? in football history.
They more than quadrupled the record fee paid by an English club ? which they already held for the 1981 signing of Bryan Robson ? in 1995 when they paid ?7m for Andy Cole.
They almost doubled the record by paying over ?28m for Seba Veron in 2001, only to break it again a year later to bring in Rio Ferdinand.
They happily paid top dollar to their squad of top players, forcing other clubs to either take financial risks to try and catch them, or simply be content to sit back and admire as United won everything.
It was natural law, they thought. They were earning their own money and spending it. Only Blackburn, who briefly found a rich owner, and moneyed Arsenal interrupted their dominance, and they were just a temporary irritation.
It was a great arrangement. Then along came Chelsea, and more latterly, City to mess up this perfect world, by finding wealthy foreign owners who were prepared to pour money into the clubs they bought.
At the same time, United ? despite a brave effort by a minority of their fans ? found an American owner who did the exact opposite and began leeching money OUT of their club.
Suddenly, clubs throwing their money around are doing a bad thing, says Gill.
It is not their own money, so they shouldn?t spend it, goes the new mantra.
But the market doesn?t care whether Gill made the money by grafting at a coal face for 12 hours a day, or was handed it by a friendly Arab.
Spending more than the others inflates, wherever the cash come from.
Leeds nose-dived, financially and in football terms, by trying to keep up with United, long before Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour came on the scene.
City and Chelsea have played the game by rules which United liked when it suited them. Now the rules suit other clubs more, United and the other three want to change them.
If they truly want financial fair play, all revenue should be centrally pooled and dished out, preferably with the Football League and grassroots football getting a fair share.
Chances of United going for something truly fair? Don?t hold your breath.
What do you think? Have your say
Sir Alex Ferguson. 
(20)
Warning: Manchester City are among clubs to be warned against 'cheating' Fair Play rules Photo: REUTERS
Comment