Football FanCast columnist David Mooney reacts to the criticism levied at his beloved Manchester City and feels it somewhat unjust.

So, Manchester City get a billionaire owner and now they're ruining football. It's true. It has to be. The media told me so. Oh, no... Hang on...

Let me start at the beginning. Round about transfer deadline day, a billionaire Arabian company bought into Manchester City and took control from Thaksin Shinawatra, there followed a day of furious blue-bidding, Robinho signed for the club and then everyone was explaining why it was, in fact, City that destroyed football.

Well, just hold your horses, will you? Calm down and take an objective look at the entire situation and soon you will see how that is such a ludicrous claim, it's unreal. Manchester City have not destroyed football - football is still as strong as ever and, even if it were on its last legs because of money, to place the blame solely at City's door is nothing short of ignorance.

Let's start with Chelsea. A few seasons back, the lovely London club were bought by Roman Abramovic and they then set about buying as much talent from around the world as they could. Silly money was splashed in close seasons and suddenly a team that wasn't regularly finishing in the top four was suddenly a league winner two seasons running.

Did they ruin football? Of course not; not if you ask their fans. Not if you asked much of the media, even. It was, apparently, refreshing to see that there were more than two horses that were going to finish the Premiership race. Yet, I don't remember there being the sorts of criticism City are getting when Chelsea were buying players to win things, as well as buying players their competitors wanted.

Going back a bit further - Manchester United. I guarantee that their fans will refute this completely, but I don't think it can be denied that they were immensely lucky to have the youth squad they did when Beckham, Scholes et al arrived ready for first team action. They won the league at just the right time, and are now reaping the rewards of earning millions and millions of pounds for it.

The second a club outside of the top four breaks the English transfer record, we're told that it's getting silly. Isn't smashing that record in 1995 (£7m for Andy Cole), then again in 2001 (£28.1m for Juan Sebastian Veron) and 2002 (£29.1m for Rio Ferdinand) just as silly? Apparently not.

Incidentally, since that youth team that produced a lot of first team stars, I don't recall United's youth policy churning out youngsters that were capable of playing in their first team on a regular basis. Current City manager, Mark Hughes doesn't appear to have any problems throwing in the youngsters if they're ready for first team football and with the likes of Richards, Onuoha, Ireland, Johnson, Sturridge, Evans, Schmeichel, Wright-Phillips and Etuhu all being in and around the first team, the future's certainly bright (and the third kit's orange) for the youth policy.

Now, Arsenal fans. Don't think you're getting off lightly. Ok, so you haven't spent a great deal of cash on players recently because of your new stadium, but let's not forget that your youth policy is to buy the best from other teams and train them in the Arsenal style. Add to that the likes of £13m for Wiltord in 2002, and you're not doing yourselves many favours.

How did Blackburn win the Premiership? It was their wonderful youth policy, wasn't it? Or was it Jack Walker's chequebook that did the damage? Yes, they also bought the Premiership trophy.

I'm starting to see something of a pattern here...

Add to all of this escalation in transfer fees the fact that all this has seen a sudden upsurge since the Premiership's inception, then don't we think Sky have to take some of the blame? Sky have pumped money into football. The new TV deal (admittedly not solely Sky but I can't remember who the other parties were) ensures that any Premiership club who gets relegated should have enough money to buy themselves back in, like some poker player who's not yet ready to give up.

A quick look over to Italy tells us that Milan have smashed the world record transfer fee more than any other club. Has anyone been bothered about that? It seems not. Now Milan are a club that must have made their money honestly? Or they could have been propped up Abramovic-style all along? I think you already know which is the correct answer.

If money really is the death of football, then football died many moons before Manchester City were taken over. It's just convenient to blame them, since they've been starved of success recently. However, I think you'll see that football will continue to thrive and be as strong as ever, especially if we can have five clubs fighting it out for four spots.

• Why Manchester City new boy Robinho will flop
• Man City fan looks to set the record straight
• How do Manchester City fans feel at this moment in time?
• Manchester City have their fingers in many more pies
• Why you can never call Manchester City a dull place
• Why football fans should be happy for Manchester City