A couple of points:
I know you are trying to be reasonable but you have fallen for the media narrative that the club has "infinte wealth". We have a rich owner, yes, but he is limited as to what he can invest in squads the same as anyone else.
Also, I don't think City fans despise "super clubs", at least no more than other rival fans. It's the arrogance of these "super clubs" who want a closed shop that grates, in the case of CIty for obvious reasons.
Lastly, your salary cap idea won't float, I don't think, nor should it. There is a club level salary cap that will limit wages and amortisation to 70% of revenues soon. So I am not sure there would be much point testing European labour law for no reason whatsoever..
I will throw you a few bones, though. It's true that City have a higher potential for sponsorship revenues because of who our owners and our directors are. I sometimes have a tinge of guilt about that. But then I remember how Liverpool and United became so successful and I don't give a toss anymore. You want to compete? Get better executives, and probably better owners.
It is also true that our owners can invest as much as they want into CFG, buying new clubs to strengthen recruitment. I haven't seen much benefit to City as yet, but if I was one of the "heritage" clubs of yours, I would stop worrying about what happened ten years ago and start looking at that particular steam train that is hurtling to wards them very, very quickly.
Lastly, it is true that the infrastructure investment exemption has meant we could invest large amounts in the academy, for example, largely unhindered. You can expect the benefits of that little investment to become obvious in the next five years. But don't blame us. We didn't make the rules.