I know City have balanced the books, but there is something wrong with buying Grealish for a record transfer fee to play in a position already well stocked with 2 other international players (Sterling and Foden). That kind of quality accumulation distorts the competition.
Not sure if serious, but will presume so.
So your definition of well stocked is including Sterling, a player out of form for around eighteen months and making it clear through various leaks he wanted to leave and up until the last couple of months showing no signs of regaining that form. So, then Grealish is at the same time available for yes a British transfer record fee of 100 million, he can play in various positions as has been shown with where he has been chosen to play (there may be some disagreement how effective he is in some of those positions such as the false 9) we buy for 100m and can almost guarantee we recoup at least 50m back if we sold Sterling, that is distorting the competition and not actual looking after our own team and forward planning?
Chelsea and united bought a forward when very well stocked in that area, are they also distorting the competition? liverpool, if Salah does not sign a new contract will more than likely buy a new forward on the presumption they will sell Salah, they may even buy one anyway if it looks like he definitely will not sign, also distorting the competition?
Read some nonsense on here, but the exact path we follow is constant planning and evolution of the team and waiting for the right players when they become available, not you though, just wing it and only buy if and when needed, no plan, sounds like the ultimate success story! FFS.