would man u

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

I would rather see Fergie win it. A good Glasgow man. He runs that club from the bottom up. His players generally set a good example. I agree they were ordinary last night and am surprised they are still in the running.
City are looking for instant success and have driven player wages through the roof in order to achieve this but as it stands they haven't done anything wrong. Toure is a smashing big player especially when he gets into his stride. Wigan horsed Newcastle last week so I think City could beat them. A thrilling race.

You can't buy long-term success, City may win it this year and next year, but after that then they have a serious problem.

Giving players wages a country mile above than any other team can offer, is deeply flawed. You will end up with players who will age and be comfortable on their salaries and will not be moving anywhere else:

(a) Because they can do nothing and still get paid.

(b) The wages their current club offers them is miles above what anyone else can, and so no one can meet their demands.

The cracks are already evident, just look at Adebayor, Bridge and Santa Cruz. No one else can afford to buy them or pay all of their wages, so City have to send them out on loan and pay a good percentage of their wages. Those are players who the manager no longer needs.

Who next? Balotelli for example. What manager will be able to afford his wages and at the same time be daft enough to take the risk on him? Jose Mourinho described him as "unmanageable", so apart from Mancini I don't see any other managers paying so much for his salary and never mind the transfer fee. So what'll happen is he will still be on their books next season, either sent out on loan with the club paying a fraction of his wages. Or he will be out playing golf all year.

I have nothing against City, and their supporters deserve to see their team win the title as they have seen their rivals win it and I think Man City are supported better locally.

My point is, that the approach they are taking will become deeply flawed. And the problem will be worsened every time they change their manager and the new coach decides he doesn't really like a lot of the players and wants his own players in. Where do the old players go, as who can match their wage demands?

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Henrik, you make some good points, and normally most of what you say would be true.

But when the guy with the wallet is Sheik Mansour, and therefore the money supply is virtually endless, it does not matter much to Man City where players go to after they leave, not how much they spend to bring in the next group.

They are trying to do what Roman has tried at Chelsea and (thus far - c'mon Bayern!) has failed to do, and that is take the EPL & then the CL.

Both at Chelsea, and Man City, money has really been no object.

And of course as other clubs try to compete, the vicious cycle begins.

But when do players sitting in the stands who do not play start to become a problem?

Adebayor is on £160,000 a week at City.

City will soon be losing millions of £s a week if they cannot move players on and I don't think Financial Fair Play will be easy to bend the rules if you are losing millions of £s on a weekly basis, never mind yearly.

"If he had the resources City have they would be out of sight of everyone"

**********************

You are kidding right?

Phil Jones: £18m
Ashley Young: £17m
David De Gea: £24m
Chris Smalling: £12m
Javier Hernandez: £9m
Bebe: £7.5m
Anders Lindegaard: £7m

United have spent an absolute fortune on young players who weren't ready to kick a ball for the first team.
They may well come good in a season or two, but Fergie has hardly had his arm tied behind his back.
He could have easily forked out on more established players, but chose not to...

Brooklyn

Brooklyn, I totally agree.

Until Abramovich bought Chelsea, I think United spent more than everyone else for years.