In the eyes of some, including some who should know better, Manchester City were killing football.
Their vast wealth was the final nail in the coffin of our beloved sport.
Then Real Madrid went mental and City seem like the well-managed, sensible investing club of the future.
What a difference a week can make.
Platini has now famously changed his line on big spending clubs as it is no longer an English club doing rather silly things. No surprises there, considering his dislike of all things Anglo-Saxon.
It seems that Real's spree hasn't been thought through and may saddle them with an unworkable debt burden in 3-4 years time.
So UEFA's plans to ban a clubs entry into European competition if they are unable to live within their means could remove Madrid from Champions League footie! M. Platini says Non?
And are Manchester United likely to trouser the £80 million from the Ronaldo sale to keep the threat of Platini's plans at arms length? Perhaps.
So if debt IS the problem then City are fine and dandy as its come direct from the owners own funds, or is that still debt?
Ignoring the head bursting idea that by spending your own money still means that you're in debt (It doesn't does it?? My debit card lets me buy things with my own money but am I in debt to KFC if I buy my Fillet Burger meal that way?)
And it's not an English issue either.
There were massive headlines earlier this year when it was estimated that English football was in debt to the tune of £3 billion pounds.
But as United is £700 million of that and Liverpool £300 million, it became clear that things weren't critical.
A report by the Spanish government claims that Spain's professional football clubs owe over £600 million pounds in TAX ALONE.
Unlike in the UK, where tax bills get paid or clubs are closed down, Spain's clubs also owe hundreds of millions in social security payments and as much or more in other levies, taxes, and loans from the public purse.
Is that debt M. Platini?
Lets say that debt is only when you owe other people money, then no Spanish clubs would be eligible to play in European competitions.
In England Man United, Arsenal, and Liverpool would be sidelined as well.
But then there is Manchester City, spending slowly but surely in a world where debt can kill a club.
Leeds and Valencia are clubs who have suffered at the hands of bankers and venture capitalists but City are different. The money is already the owners to spend, be that investing in Ferarri, Barclays Bank or Roque Santa Cruz.
So when people talk about Manchester City killing football it would be worth considering how many clubs who sell to City might well survive because of that money.
Which of the so-called big clubs creaking under debts are waiting for the call from Garry Cook in the knowledge that the money being invested by City is the only money being invested?
So if £250 million pounds is the figure being spent on players by the Blues then it may well mean that some teams survive because of it.
Are City killing football or saving it?