City & Utd Who will finish higher and why?

me-skywalker · 25-10-2011 3:44pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

Barr wrote: »

City by a mile if they don't go too far in the CL.

Bodhisopha wrote: »

City.

The race for second place should be interesting.

Why?

Xavi6 wrote: »

City because we're richer and money buys success.

No their not, their owner is. Their financials, net income, net profits, higher costs and higher internal margins. As a company with financial reporting, the City Company isn't performing as well as its peers; United, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Munich... What City have is an unlimited access to 'capital' which their owner can pump in as revenue whenever way they need it.

me-skywalker · 25-10-2011 3:49pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

me-skywalker wrote: »

No their not, their owner is. Their financials, net income, net profits, higher costs and higher internal margins. As a company with financial reporting, the City Company isn't performing as well as its peers; United, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Munich... What City have is an unlimited access to 'capital' which their owner can pump in as revenue whenever way they need it.

OK ok then, your owners are richer than ours!! (was being pedantic)

I believe I wrote back to my own post.... :cool:

W123-80's · 25-10-2011 3:57pm

United, I feel, are under a little less pressure after that loss last week. Fergie has been here before. He will stay in contention until February and then the fun will really start.

Whilst City look unreal on paper, and have been playing unreal also, I think the pressure will get to them in the run in.

I think money will buy City sucess.

I feel it won't happen this season.

United to finish higher then City for me.

Disclaimer; Liverpool Fan..!

DoctorGonzo08 · 25-10-2011 4:13pm

I think the 'money' issue is getting out of hand and its not ever spoken in context. It's not like this is the first takeover. Every one remember Chelsea? But they're an accepted Top 4 team, and are deserving when they won the title. Fact is Utd and Liverpool have had the monopoly on wealth for years because of their 'history'. Does that mean nobody else is allowed to do well because they weren't big in the 60's???

Suck it up and accept the challenge. City have World Class talent and that is why they are where they are.

At least they know where to get value for money 'Augero (£35m) vs Carroll (£35m)' :P

ironbluedun · 25-10-2011 4:20pm

Manchester Utd - I'm a Utd fan

W123-80's wrote: »

U

I think money will buy City sucess.

with some of the shyte talk on here you would think that over the years Blackburn, Newcastle, Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs never spent a penny..........please please play another tune that one is long long spent....

W123-80's · 25-10-2011 4:41pm

ironbluedun wrote: »

with some of the shyte talk on here you would think that over the years Blackburn, Newcastle, Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs never spent a penny..........please please play another tune that one is long long spent....

I was just referring to the fact that it is a relatively new injection of cash. and it is a pretty substantial injection too.

I agree Pool, Chelsea, United have all spent big for sucess. Newcastle have spent big without sucess. Blackburn spent big for 1 league title.

Historically, City haven't had access to large amounts of cash. Now they have. That cash will buy them sucess.

Thats all.

LostBoy101 · 25-10-2011 6:16pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

United Fan

After last weekend's defeat to City I'm not really that worried 'cause there is still a long way to go yet and United always start performing at their best after January as we've been doing for the past few years. Also don't forget Chelsea are not to be written off.

It's an early call at the moment and Feb-Mar would be an ideal time to place a bet on title winners.

Raze_them_all · 25-10-2011 6:40pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

ironbluedun wrote: »

with some of the shyte talk on here you would think that over the years Blackburn, Newcastle, Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs never spent a penny..........please please play another tune that one is long long spent....

the differce is uniteds success on the pitch won them the money, where as city's only way they can win it is if the money buys it

Mont · 25-10-2011 7:53pm

Manchester Utd - I follow another team

Raze_them_all wrote: »

the differce is uniteds success on the pitch won them the money, where as city's only way they can win it is if the money buys it

Football is all about money. To get a top team you need to be (a) very lucky or (b) rich. The only way to break up the monopoly of the top teams these days is a rich sugar-daddy willing to pay top bucks in transfer fees and wages. Good luck to City. Utd spent £60m in the summer. How are teams suppose to match that? City are growing as a football club and the better they become the more profitable they will be in the long-run. And yes, you can buy a league.

ironbluedun · 25-10-2011 9:28pm

Manchester Utd - I'm a Utd fan

Mont wrote: »

Utd spent £60m in the summer.

no they never spend a penny, tut tut much more holy than thou... they are all home grown players you know..........:rolleyes:

Dante · 26-10-2011 12:30am

Manchester City - I follow another team

United will finish top. Why? Three words: Sir Alex Ferguson.

DoctorGonzo08 · 26-10-2011 10:06am

Raze_them_all wrote: »

the differce is uniteds success on the pitch won them the money, where as city's only way they can win it is if the money buys it

Aah, so thats it. Here was me thinking, foreign sponsorship and marketing in the Middle East, Asia and America had something to do with it. Or the cash they got for Beckham & Ronaldo might have something to do with it. Or your takeovers? Or your ridiculously big debt?

But you are right. City should hand back all money invested in them and in the Manchester area. Who would you like from the squad? Silva, Mario, Kompany, De Jong? What? How much? Don't worry about it, sure your Utd, we'll accept an IOU!

MagicMarker · 26-10-2011 10:35am

Manchester City - I follow another team

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Aah, so thats it. Here was me thinking, foreign sponsorship and marketing in the Middle East, Asia and America had something to do with it. Or the cash they got for Beckham & Ronaldo might have something to do with it. Or your takeovers? Or your ridiculously big debt?

All of this is a direct result of success on the pitch.

I don't even know what this stupid argument is about but it's pretty ****ing obvious...

Man UTD: Success = Money
Man City: Money = ?????

karma_ · 26-10-2011 10:58am

Manchester Utd - I'm a Utd fan

MagicMarker wrote: »

All of this is a direct result of success on the pitch.

I don't even know what this stupid argument is about but it's pretty ****ing obvious...

Man UTD: Success = Money
Man City: Money = ?????

This is nonsense.

Back in the 80's, there was, big money for the day spent on players at united, in the days when £1M was a lot to be spending, see back in the late 80's united were in the doldrums, and had been for a long time, they had spent years under the shadow of Liverpool.

Enter J.P. McManus and John Magnier, who proceed to invest a fair sum into the club. Sure, they got their hands on the FA cup, but the league title eluded them. During this time they also hire Fergie, but still he finds it difficult in the beginning so another heavy round of investing begins. Still, it takes Fergie some time and he comes close to the sack, but, they finally get it right, with a core squad of admittedly great talent who were bought, they eventually win the title again in 92/93.

So please spare us the whole 'buying the title' line, it's long worn out and hypocritical.

SlickRic · 26-10-2011 11:00am

the money argument again... delightful.

1) Utd got successful at exactly the right time. the Premier League Era had just hit, and they plundered markets around the world, allied with success on the pitch, with huge success. and fair play. also, the Edwards family, among others, bankrolled them in the late 80s/early 90s, so they aren't holier than thou there either.

2) for anyone below Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and maybe Spurs, to really compete...they need huge foreign investment. that's a fact. so i don't bregrudge them any of it. it's annoying, yes, but it's the only way the apple cart will be properly shaken.

it will be short term. City in its current guise won't be around for ever. just like football being a rich man's game to the degree it is, won't be like that forever.

people begrudging City because of their money do make me laugh. i mean, there is no other way they would ever be successful. i think they all realise that. we just have to deal with it and find a way to beat them. that's fine with me.

it makes it all a little bit more interesting.

anyway, an answer to the OP, i predicted at the start of the season that City will win the League, so I'll stick with that. i think Bobby has, by and large, figured out what Rafa only figured out for us when it was too late...that you have to put lesser teams to the sword. i think it will be close though, due to Utd's ability to beat the lesser teams so efficiently, plus, it wouldn't surprise me if they won all their home games for the rest of the season.

PHB · 26-10-2011 11:17am

Manchester City - I follow another team

SlickRic wrote: »

2) for anyone below Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and maybe Spurs, to really compete...they need huge foreign investment. that's a fact. so i don't bregrudge them any of it. i

I completely disagree with this. Once FFP rules come into play, what clubs need to compete? A long-term strategy with a focus on developing youth, their stadium and their commercial operations, while playing attractive football. The way United made themselves, the way Arsenal are making themselves, the way Spurs are trying to make themselves.

If City or Chelsea didn't get invested huge money, teams like Spurs and Chelsea would be doing much better, because they are well run clubs. They would be able to push on and get regular CL football.

It's not the dominance of the United's that stops the development of other clubs, it's places like City and Chelsea. Why? Because they operate outside of normal business. They can afford to over-pay for players, they can afford ludicrous wages, and in the end, clubs like United get by one prestige and trophies, but clubs like Spurs etc. will lose out. FFP can't come soon enough for me.

jonnyfingers · 26-10-2011 11:36am

Manchester City - I follow another team

As a United supporter I'm not too bothered by the whole money argument. City have a seemingly endless supply of cash, good for them! You can't buy success. Sure you can buy the players, coaches, facilities but at then end of the day they have to play well as a team. The big difference this year is City are playing like a team. Getting Teves out of the team I think is a huge positive. At the moment everyone, with the exception of Tevez, seems to want to be part of the City team. Assuming everyone stays happy and the team continues to play well there is no reason why City couldn't win the league. They have cover for injuries in every position, Mancini seems to have the tactics right this year that is getting the best out of the players he has.

But that could change. I worry about the wages the players are on. The number of quality players in the squad means they can't all play at the same time. Squad rotation is good but if you hit form with a certain lineup you'd be crazy to change it too often. that could mean some top class players sitting on the bench for extended periods of time. Yes they might be getting 200k a week but still they might get unsettled. Jealousy may set in as well for some of the players who aren't earning as much as others. All of this could affect the team

I also worry that such high wages doesn't always earn respect for the club from the player, Tevez being the obvious example of this.

So it's very interesting to see what the long term success of city will be. They will do well this year but will the players stay around for the longterm? Will the cash the manager has availble tempt him to keep buying better and better players or will he build from what he's got?

That's the big question and the main difference between United and City still. United got their money and bought good players (Keane, Cole, Yorke, Cantona, Ronaldo, Rooney, Nani) but at the same time they always had a few homegrown players in the squad who had come up through the ranks and loved the club (Giggs, Scholes, the two Nevilles, Butt, Beckham, Brown, O'Shea, Wellbeck). If City get their youth development working and emulate United then they could well be in it for the long run.

DoctorGonzo08 · 26-10-2011 12:08pm

PHB wrote: »

I completely disagree with this. Once FFP rules come into play, what clubs need to compete? A long-term strategy with a focus on developing youth, their stadium and their commercial operations, while playing attractive football. The way United made themselves, the way Arsenal are making themselves, the way Spurs are trying to make themselves.

If City or Chelsea didn't get invested huge money, teams like Spurs and Chelsea would be doing much better, because they are well run clubs. They would be able to push on and get regular CL football.

It's not the dominance of the United's that stops the development of other clubs, it's places like City and Chelsea. Why? Because they operate outside of normal business. They can afford to over-pay for players, they can afford ludicrous wages, and in the end, clubs like United get by one prestige and trophies, but clubs like Spurs etc. will lose out. FFP can't come soon enough for me.

It is Utd's dominance that halts the development. They had a golden era in Youth development that saw the two Nevilles, Scholes, Beckham and Giggs come through within a couple of years. They were a powerhouse of wealth and investment and got to keep their players. What have you produced since?

City have had elite development in Youth for years. And what happened? Chelsea came in and took SWP and more recently Daniel Sturridge. Haven't forgotten Fergie's mission to try and poach Micah for years either.

The fact is Utd have always been bank rolled, and I find it a bit pathetic to try and take another teams achievments off them crying about money. Take a leaf out of Fergies book and accept the challenge.

His own words were Blackburn came, challenged and I overcame them. Then came Liverpool and Arsenal, and I saw both of them off. Chelsea were next, and I trumped them. Now comes City and I relish the challenge, Its why I'm in football. If I was a Utd fan I'd take pride in that, rather than making excuses.

DoctorGonzo08 · 26-10-2011 12:11pm

jonnyfingers wrote: »

I also worry that such high wages doesn't always earn respect for the club from the player, Tevez being the obvious example of this.

That is the biggest worry. If the Sheik loses his interest in the club and pulls out, City will free fall to League 1. But that's football, and its unfortunatley what City fans are used to :P

MagicMarker · 26-10-2011 12:24pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

City have had elite development in Youth for years. And what happened? Chelsea came in and took SWP and more recently Daniel Sturridge. Haven't forgotten Fergie's mission to try and poach Micah for years either.

Ah yes, the unstoppable force that is SWP.

me-skywalker · 26-10-2011 2:15pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

. City should hand back all money invested in them...

It's not an investment as there will be no return. It's an injection of capital, a gift, exactly like Chelsea. Its not a returns and profit organisation. In finanical terms City is a failing Company, but they have billionaire owners who can take money from elsewhere to pump into their toy.

DoctorGonzo08 · 26-10-2011 2:24pm

The investment isn't just in City for the Sheik, but in Manchester. He is developing all the lands around Eastlands with a view to bring in a large industrial area as well as recreation and training facilities. He also is expanding his Etihad brand over hear using Manchester T1 as his UK base. He sees the Club as an investment and a possible branding he can improve.

Chelsea is different. Roman needed a public front to get him safe from the Kremlin.

ironbluedun · 26-10-2011 2:26pm

Manchester Utd - I'm a Utd fan

more silly arguments about money.......some of you guys must be married to each other :pac::pac:

DoctorGonzo08 · 26-10-2011 2:30pm

ironbluedun wrote: »

more silly arguments about money.......some of you guys must be married to each other :pac::pac:

Agreed. I'll conceed and let the thread go back on topic. (Sorry for the rant)

VW 1 · 26-10-2011 2:51pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

It is Utd's dominance that halts the development. They had a golden era in Youth development that saw the two Nevilles, Scholes, Beckham and Giggs come through within a couple of years. They were a powerhouse of wealth and investment and got to keep their players. What have you produced since?

There was a game at the tail end of last season iirc, and it was the first time since before the 1950's that United didnt have a homegrown player in the squad. I remember seeing it on twitter, maybe someone who can remember it more clearly than I can can clarify the exact figures.

Mr Alan · 26-10-2011 2:55pm

It would be very interesting to see if the spending Utd carried out in pursuit of their first league title under Ferguson would be allowable under FFP, I reckon it'd be anything but.

In my opinion, FFP is a little bit of a joke. While I'm sure there is decent intentions somewhere with it, in my view it's as much designed to try & stop the likes of PSG & City catching the traditional big boys of European football.

The likes of Utd & Madrid have been allowed build their clubs up to what they are in no small part by using massive injections of money into the team over generations-thereby increasing success, fanbase, stadium size etc etc, which now mean they can generate way more cash (therefore spend more under FFP) than any other clubs. Doesn't quite strike me as totally fair.

It's simply going to increase the gap between the have & the have nots in my view.

Blatter · 28-02-2012 6:44pm

Said I'd bump this to see what people think now. City leading by 2 points atm and here are the remaining fixtures for both sides.

Man Utd

Tottenham (a)

West Brom (h)

Wolves (a)

Fulham (h)

Blackburn (a)

QPR (h)

Wigan (a)

Aston Villa (h)

Everton (h)

Man City (a)

Swansea (h)

Sunderland (a)

Man City

Bolton (h)

Swansea (a)

Chelsea (h)

Stoke (a)

Sunderland (h)

Arsenal (a)

West Brom (h)

Norwich (a)

Wolves (a)

Man Utd (h)

Newcastle (a)

QPR (h)

I think Utd have the easier run in overall. City have looked quite likely to drop points away from home this season so you would expect that Swansea, Stoke, Arsenal, Norwich, Wolves, Newcastle away could all be potential banana skins for them, and then they have Chelsea and Utd at home to boot.

The only Utd games that they would be particularly worried about are Tottenham, City and Sunderland away. Utd wouldn't be too fearful of Wolves, Wigan and Blackburn away as their record on the road has been very impressive this season. Saying that, I don't think you could call any away game in the PL as a 'banker'. They should be winning all of our home games as they're all against mid to lower table sides.

Pro. F · 28-02-2012 7:02pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

Mr Alan wrote: »

It would be very interesting to see if the spending Utd carried out in pursuit of their first league title under Ferguson would be allowable under FFP, I reckon it'd be anything but.

I wonder if this theory is supported by evidence or begrudgery.

Hank Scorpio · 28-02-2012 7:08pm

Manchester Utd - I follow another team

Flip a coin! Too close to call imo, the game between the two sides is going to be epic if the gap is as small as it is now

kryogen · 28-02-2012 7:09pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

United have never had a sugar daddy, never had a rich owner pumping millions/billions into the club.

All you ever have to do is look at how much wages are % of turnover and other financial aspects even now to see that as a business the club is one of, if not the best run in the world.

The club never overstretched itself in terms of the finances.

I wonder do the Liverpool fans who remember the glory years think about them as the years that they bought all the trophies on offer?

Im in danger of going off on one here and I may not get my point across very well if i do.

Simply said. United have used revenue generated to build the club, not had someone come along with a blank cheque.

There is a huge difference between United and the likes of City/Madrid/PSG and to an extent Barcelona

PHB · 28-02-2012 7:12pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

Genuinely think this is going to come down to the tie between them. I think we'll gain on City, our run-in is easier. However, I don't think we'll get 4 points on them. As such, I think it'll come down to the game between the two.

Personally, I think the key person to this title challenge is Michael Carrick. If he can perform as he has been doing, the title will be ours.

Morzadec · 28-02-2012 7:43pm

Manchester Utd - I follow another team

It's going to be really close looking at those fixtures. United's look easier, but they have to go to City so that's a pretty big advantage in City's favour.

Looking at United's fixtures, the next game against Spurs looks massive. After that they have about 7 matches that I can't really see them not winning. So beat Spurs and they could be looking at a big run that could swing the momentum their way. If they get a few points ahead maybe City will crumble.

City are 2 points ahead and have United at home so I would say it's theirs to lose. But I think United are really going to crank up the pressure in the coming weeks looking at that fixture list. Will City be able to deal with it?

If I had to call it I suppose I'd go with City. But I'm not sure if I agree with bookies prices -

Best price on City is 4/7 and United 13/8.

Would be good if it was still all in the balance when the match in the Etihad comes around, could be epic!

KeithAFC · 28-02-2012 7:46pm

Sometimes the harder run in helps because you go into every game focused like it is a cup final. *Easier* games can be just a perception and you can get caught out cold.

Daemos · 28-02-2012 8:03pm

Manchester Utd - I follow another team

I think the poll is fairly accurate right now actually. 52% in favour of City, and 48% for United

As a Liverpool fan I'm actually supporting United to win the title, but unfortunately I think it'll be City's at the end of the season

kryogen · 28-02-2012 8:59pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

I think United actually need to win every game from here until the end of the season tbh

greendom · 28-02-2012 9:05pm

Manchester Utd - I follow another team

City's squad means they can cope so much better with injuries/suspensions. I'd be very surprised if they're not top come May.

Sgt Pepper 64 · 28-02-2012 9:20pm

Manchester Utd - I follow another team

kryogen wrote: »

United have never had a sugar daddy, never had a rich owner pumping millions/billions into the club.

All you ever have to do is look at how much wages are % of turnover and other financial aspects even now to see that as a business the club is one of, if not the best run in the world.

The club never overstretched itself in terms of the finances.

I wonder do the Liverpool fans who remember the glory years think about them as the years that they bought all the trophies on offer?

Im in danger of going off on one here and I may not get my point across very well if i do.

Simply said. United have used revenue generated to build the club, not had someone come along with a blank cheque.

There is a huge difference between United and the likes of City/Madrid/PSG and to an extent Barcelona

So many things wrong with this its untrue!

I thank god for the sugar daddies who have made the premiership so much more interesting.
You also make it sound like Utd have never spent any money - yet they broke the transfer record quite a few times
They have never got close to the swash buckling domination of europe that Liverpool achieved
They also have benefited from much bigger gate and marketing revenues so its hardly been like a level playing field

I really admire Utd, and theres no doubt they are the modern english template but to say they have done what Arsenal have done is laughable and to even suggest they have never splashed the cash whilst other clubs have looked helplessly on is even more so

Luap · 28-02-2012 9:30pm

Heart says United, head says City. You know where I'm coming from.

kryogen · 28-02-2012 9:37pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

So many things wrong with this its untrue!

I thank god for the sugar daddies who have made the premiership so much more interesting.

Incredibly selfish outlook

You also make it sound like Utd have never spent any money - yet they broke the transfer record quite a few times

Where did the money come from to do this? certainly not from a sugar daddy, revenue generated by the club, as I have already said.

They have never got close to the swash buckling domination of europe that Liverpool achieved

Never said they did, not going to get into the different era stuff. doesnt matter.

They also have benefited from much bigger gate and marketing revenues so its hardly been like a level playing field

So its Uniteds fault that they invested money in the stadium/marketing have a rich history? The club generated its own revenue streams and used them. Nothing unfair about it. Funnily enough you think the sugar daddys are fair? Or maybe your just interested in level playing fields when it suits you....

I really admire Utd, and theres no doubt they are the modern english template but to say they have done what Arsenal have done is laughable and to even suggest they have never splashed the cash whilst other clubs have looked helplessly on is even more so

Again, your missing the point.

Sgt Pepper 64 · 28-02-2012 10:06pm

Manchester Utd - I follow another team

kryogen wrote: »

Again, your missing the point.

Not really, all you are essentially saying is that we should all bow and worship at the high altar of man utd.
Well I'm sorry theres quite a few of us out who disagree and just because you cant seem to stand any competition unless it follows your own teams holier than thou template
If you bothered to remember, Utd already met and saw off the sugar daddy teams at least once or twice.
You see, your own team manager decided to meet the challenge head on instead of moaning about how unfair it all was.
I suggest you do the same

kryogen · 28-02-2012 10:33pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Not really, all you are essentially saying is that we should all bow and worship at the high altar of man utd.
Well I'm sorry theres quite a few of us out who disagree and just because you cant seem to stand any competition unless it follows your own teams holier than thou template
If you bothered to remember, Utd already met and saw off the sugar daddy teams at least once or twice.
You see, your own team manager decided to meet the challenge head on instead of moaning about how unfair it all was.
I suggest you do the same

Can't stand the competition?

Loved the rivalry with Arsenal, absolutely loved it, best period in the premier league without doubt.

You seem to want to go off into a fantasy world with this so I'll leave you to it.

/done with you now.

Liam O · 28-02-2012 10:41pm

greendom wrote: »

City's squad means they can cope so much better with injuries/suspensions. I'd be very surprised if they're not top come May.

United have a deeper squad than City. City have had an extremely poor bench quite a few times recently and if they had as many injuries as United would really be struggling. The only areas they are probably better equipped is in CM and debatably up front, don't think there is much between the strikeforces though.

Pro. F · 28-02-2012 10:45pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

I thank god for the sugar daddies who have made the premiership so much more interesting.

How have the sugar daddies made the PL more interesting?

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

to even suggest they have never splashed the cash whilst other clubs have looked helplessly on is even more so

United have never dominated the transfer and wages market like Chelsea and City have. United always had rivals close by spending similar amounts of money or more.

CSF · 28-02-2012 10:54pm

I really don't see how whoring yourself out to Asia (particularly) and the rest of the world is considered that much more of an appealing form of money generation than that generated by one individual.

eugeneious · 28-02-2012 10:56pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

Utd have been able to spend money because they happened to be going through a great period of success just as football was becoming so much more financially lucrative hence more tv/prize/match revenue etc for all clubs but obviously more so for the clubs which were winning things regularly such as Utd. Now I'm not an idiot and I know that Utd spent money before they won that first title but the gap between what they were spending and the rest of the league then was a lot smaller that the gap between what City and previously Chelsea were spending than the rest of the league in terms of the scale.

Anyway, on topic I think Utd will edge it. Their whole squad will be prepared for the run in, they have the know-how or more know-how than City and have a slightly easier fixture list. It'll be tight possibly a point or gd will separate them but I reckon Utd will just pip them.

G.K. · 28-02-2012 11:00pm

Manchester Utd - I follow another team

Who from Richards, Kompany, Zabaleta, Lescott, Milner, Džeko, Johnson, Kolarov, Savić, Agüero, Barry, Nasri, Hargreaves, Silva, Clichy, Hart, Kolo Touré, Pantilimon, Tévez, de Jong, Yaya Touré, Balotelli and Pizarro is a particularly bad option from the bench?

Jesus Shaves · 28-02-2012 11:06pm

G.K. wrote: »

Who from Richards, Kompany, Zabaleta, Lescott, Milner, Džeko, Johnson, Kolarov, Savić, Agüero, Barry, Nasri, Hargreaves, Silva, Clichy, Hart, Kolo Touré, Pantilimon, Tévez, de Jong, Yaya Touré, Balotelli and Pizarro is a particularly bad option from the bench?

Hargreaves

greendom · 28-02-2012 11:07pm

Manchester Utd - I follow another team

CSF wrote: »

I really don't see how whoring yourself out to Asia (particularly) and the rest of the world is considered that much more of an appealing form of money generation than that generated by one individual.

The Premier League has a massive international audience. Clubs have to embrace that or they'll be left behind.

Pro. F · 28-02-2012 11:09pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

CSF wrote: »

I really don't see how whoring yourself out to Asia (particularly) and the rest of the world is considered that much more of an appealing form of money generation than that generated by one individual.

Using revenue generated from the brand is a far more sustainable and predictable way of funding a club. It's what any sensible fan would want for their club rather than a sugar daddy who might lose interest or just disappear at any moment.

Pro. F · 28-02-2012 11:11pm

Manchester City - I follow another team

G.K. wrote: »

Who from Richards, Kompany, Zabaleta, Lescott, Milner, Džeko, Johnson, Kolarov, Savić, Agüero, Barry, Nasri, Hargreaves, Silva, Clichy, Hart, Kolo Touré, Pantilimon, Tévez, de Jong, Yaya Touré, Balotelli and Pizarro is a particularly bad option from the bench?

Tevez.

City & Utd Who will finish higher and why?

Comments