Took me until halftime to get Wiziwig stream to work .... so only had BBC ... but have enjoyed it since I got on ...
City were a turgid team that got bought and spend their way to trophies. We were I get your point tbh but at the same time spurs are given dogs abuse for paying "too little" in wages by pundits and fans alike. As for city, very few slate them. They are lauded for winning everything snd plsying good football and the obscene amount they spend is glossed over as are their regulsr rule breaking measures. City were utter dross until they were taken over. They did not build anything...they simply bought it all. United built their success over s period of time. Arsenal did the same. Liverpool too. Chelsea were winning trophies before they were bought. City scored 9 goals at home the season before the take over. They had been relegated 3 times and over night were challenging for the top 6 and within 2 years were chsllenging for the top 4. City pushed up transfer fees and wages across the board and despite spending over £700m in 3 years they sctuslly hsd the nerve to moan that they "could not sfford Maguire."
Sorry but I read a lot of words, but no mention of the answer to the question....how much was the new ground again?