I said no such thing, stop lying and trying to deflect. You said we had no history. Define that for me? What exactly do you mean by no history?
So there's this thing called "reading between the lines". You dismissed my perspective solely on the grounds that I am American. If you appear to be intimating something, and I call that out, I'm neither lying nor trying to deflect.
I suspect that the problem here is American English idiom. "No history" is shorthand for a team or a club whose success is very recent and well outside the norm for the organization. It's not meant to be taken as a literally true statement. It's more a left-handed compliment. A team that has put more trophies in the case in the last few years or decade than it had in the entirety of its past history is one with "no history". It means you're winning, but that there isn't necessarily good reason to believe that success will be sustained long-term.
Teams that have won a lot in the past tend to continue to win, at least here. This is because, by consistently winning, they acquire country-spanning fanbases which produce far more revenue than other teams with more localized fanbases generate. That revenue comes both from direct sales, and from sponsorships. If the team is a flash in the pan ("no history"), the "plastics" as you call them tend to move on quickly when things turn south. As a team builds a longer history of success, that larger fanbase becomes more entrenched and tends to be more loyal through tough times.
As the Premier League has gone global, it has brought that same dynamic into play. You say that football is cyclic. I would tell you that it now is, and likely will be, far less cyclic than in has been in the past. If you want to get and keep a seat at the big table, it can still be done, but it's going to be an uphill sled. Most "no history" teams that slip back down into the mire have their success driven by a player or a manager that moves on. The ones that don't typically have their success driven by a long-term manager in front of a quality back-room organization.
Getting Haaland is the coup that it is because it should enable sustaining the success of the Pep and de Bruyne show for a bit should Pep move on and de Bruyne's form fall off a cliff as he ages. It's one thing to win all the things for a few years, as Pep has, and quite another when that kind of run spans a decade or better, because that kind of run renders it much easier to bounce back from lean times.
