WHAT do Manchester City have in common with... Hull, Norwich, Leeds, Forest, Sheffield United, QPR, Leicester, Scunthorpe, Derby, Preston and Burnley.
They have all beaten Swansea City on their own grounds since last August.
QPR also did it 4-0 but I can't recall them being likened to the new Barcelona. Or two-goal Adel Taarabt being called the new Leo Messi.
The only brake put on the overall glorification of Roberto Mancini's side this week was that Swansea reminded a few people of Blackpool.
And how had the Seasiders got on in their first away game in the Premier League?
Er, they were thrashed 6-0 at Arsenal.
So let's not get TOO carried away with City's start to the season.
Which leads into a more general debate on how happy or not we are with City's emergence as the richest club in the world and, with it, the ability to buy all but a few marquee players like Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and Kaka.
My own views are well known. That I am as happy as I was when Chelsea thought they were going to take over the world.
That you win titles by plundering rival clubs for their best players has never struck me as particularly clever.
That's why the implosion of the Galactico-era Real Madrid was so well received. Even better when it coincided with the arrival of David Beckham.
Far better for old school relics like me was the way Alf Ramsey and Bobby Robson built Ipswich.
How Bill Shankly created Liverpool. How Brian Clough transformed Derby and Nottingham Forest.
And, yes, how Alex Ferguson made Manchester United the institution they are now.
Chelsea and City fans will talk of all the money United threw at plundering other clubs. But this has been done over a 25-year period. Its effect has been assimilated.
Like the legendary Liverpool teams, it was done piecemeal, a player a season.
Of course, it's hardly Chelsea and City's fault that the money and so the players have all arrived at the same time. But there is still something too immediate, powerful, vulgar and obscene about it all. Just like football itself.
Credit to City, though, that they learned from Chelsea's mistakes - the Loadsamoney boasting that made the Blues the most unpopular team in the country.
And, yes, they have ploughed money into the community (though this still doesn't alter the fact there is something distinctly fishy about the £400million Etihad Stadium naming rights, something UEFA are looking into).
And, yes, the United monopoly - apart from Arsenal's interjection - had become tedious before Roman Abramovich arrived.
Only for United to reinvent themselves with four titles in five years.
And now it's City waiting to knock them off their perch. If they do, there will be much rejoicing from a set of fans who sank as low as the equivalent of the old Third Division while United were winning title after title, cup after cup.
As City fan Iain Bramwell e-mailed: "Prior to the Sheikh, I had resigned myself to never seeing them win a trophy again. Maybe a fluked Carling Cup.
"Now we are finding it difficult with the pressure of expectation. Life was simpler when we were c**p!"
So, yes, you feel good for City fans. Ironically for the owner of the ugly mug at the top of this column, two of his all-time favourite teams were the Chelsea and City sides of the late Sixties and early Seventies.
For the fact they not only played football the right way but also for the swagger in which they challenged the established order of Leeds, Liverpool and United.
The modern City, though, remain a little too much for this particular old-school fossil.