What a poor game.

And, can only think it's due to Evra starting more games.

I think it's smart and not just an automatic choice like us that just does not make any sense

A team captain should be a constant, a top player in the team. Not a revolving door for the senior players.

But a few years ago when Giggs used to play more consistently, still Neville was the Captain (and missed many many games).

Getting ugly.

Most entertaining part of it.

Yaya Toure has been amazing. I seldom remember him playing THIS GOOD at Barca. great move/signing.

this is shite result ffs

City still have to go to Newcastle, how this wraps up the title is beyond me. Just Sky. Only result that would have finalised it was United winning it to be honest. Either way if City win the title it sums up football these days perfectly.

What a big flop United were tonight. created nothing. completely deserved win for Citeh.

I like how SAF and Mancio nearly had a brawl in the middle of the game but in the hand shook hands like as if nothing had happened gentlemen.

Rooney looked like he was playing for England, if he's not on form, United aren't on form. Same thing as Ronaldo a few years back.

Well at least I feel a bit consoled after the way Man U have collapsed having such a huge lead just a few weeks ago

If City don't win it this year it's guaranteed next year anyway with their money. They'll find ways to get around this fair play thing.

+1

Though it's not over yet, away game at Newcastle shouldn't be taken for granted.

It was the same thing with Chelsea when Abramovich took over, really. And that was in 2005.

You're utterly obsessed with this tedious 'modern football' crap Ash. Milan have done it, Juve have done it, Barca sure as hell have done it, Real have most certainly done it, Inter bloody well did it, Man Utd have done it, Chelsea did it - let's...fall...in, oh, sorry, got sidetracked.

Point is all teams spend money. The problem people have with City is they've come into money and from being nowhere they're suddenly powerhouses.

Some people, possibly yourself included, appear believe this discredits them. Saying they've 'bought' success.

But quite clearly they have no more bought success than anyone else in football. Just because they've done it over a shorter period makes absolutely no difference - looking at Utd's first team tonight and subs - there were plenty of multi-million pound signings. Rooney, Nani, Valencia, Berbatov, Jones, Carrick etc. But some seem to ignore it and consider them more valid as a team because it wasn't done in a shorter space of time.

Milan have shelled out millions over the years, all teams do it.

If you're criticising Man City and modern football and objecting to teams spending shitloads of cash, then frankly Ash, you don't really have any place supporting any major modern team because that is the game. And Milan have done it. Just like everyone else.

United were very poor up front, simply didn't produce. Scholes was a total class act in the middle, but there was zero end product. Clichy and Zabaleta had pretty comfy nights - Nani and Park did zip. Giggs isn't a winger any more.



Yes, that was good to see.

I never said it was the first time, and I'd class modern football as that sort of period too, I don't mean the past week when I say that


Nope, in fact I support my local side, the place I was born (I know that would astonish most on here), the stadium was about 100 yards actually away from me, we play in League 2, hardly the epitome of glamour is it? I don't support/associate myself with all the big teams like a few do on here. I've always maintained I follow Milan as my fantasy team, in that I get to see them on TV, they were run in a great way, had a lot of my 'favourite flashy players' as a young kid and because of previously before I got Sky as a youngster when all I could watch was Italian football.

Milan have spent money yes but they've sure as hell made money too from transfers, everyone spends money but Man City have done it to another degree, even to Chelsea to be honest. I accept it but it doesn't stop me from thinking it sums up an issue with modern football perfectly.

Why are you talking about this short time thing? Most people would say it's because United earnt the money with their business/club. Before anyone mentions it the debt is associated to the club thanks to the Yanks. I complain about others too doing it! - The game involved Man City, thus I spoke about... Man City.

You do realise, you do get that when I say issues with 'Modern Football' it's not all down to money right? Though you've jumped to that conclusion and based your whole argument on the money issue. It's one factor, quite frankly it's a big factor yes but it's not the be all and end all into my 'obsessive tedious 'modern football' argument' as you so eloquently put it

Not sure people understand the arguement of money (or at least my issue)

Villa make around £70m or so a year, probably a little more. So if we have a net transfer spend of £20m then I don't really see a problem with it. City have spent around £500m in 4 years, pretty sure they haven't made that much, there's the issue.

It's also a reason why my interest in football is getting smaller. I'll obviously always support Villa as I have done for 20 years and it's my local team, but I didn't even watch the game last night. In fact I played some xbox then went to bed. I probably won't watch the CL Final either. My interest in sports is mostly with the NFL. A league where there's parity and the teams who are ran well succeed, rather than the teams who spend the most.

Agreed, US sport is a breath of fresh air in most cases with how it helps franchises, MLB aside.

The fact you have targeted Man City and called them effectively a summary of 'what is wrong with modern football' would suggest it's about money. As does your first statement above which I highlighted in italics. What else is wrong with City in context of the modern game which has your hackles up?

So success is less valid if you're making debt? In you and Ash's eyes, Real Madrid, in debt as they were, bailed out by the Spanish government, deserved nothing? Barcelona, who are £350M in debt, should cease trading?

Any company, who make a loss during a period, are in your eyes, not fit for purpose?



Rangers are in administration, never mind threatened with relegation, and teetering on the brink of extinction. We lost the Old Firm game on Sunday miserably, and may struggle tomorrow night against Utd.

I don't give a crap about 'the modern game' and what might or might not be wrong with it - I'm a Rangers supporter and proud to be one, ditto Milan.

I will not stop watching and cheering on no matter what happens. I will be watching tomorrow - a meaningless match in the grand scheme of things.

Not watching is unfathomable to me.



Do you support Milan?

Seriously, I mean, honestly? As you obviously didn't read the reply in full, I stated Man City because they were the team playing last night, I have just as much issue with others going about in this fashion...

And, saying it 'sums up an issue with Modern Football' doesn't mean it's the whole issue! Otherwise I would have put 'Man City sum up THE issue...'. Granted I didn't make it obvious the first time that it wasn't the only issue, surely I did when I replied

Then why not highlight both sides? Both City and Utd have spent crazy amounts in the past decade, City more recently. But it's only City you use in your argument. In fact I seem to recall a point you made last night that the neutrals supporting City sum up what's wrong with modern football. So go on, explain why.



So what are the other issues which bother you so much?

To be fair to United, they've qualified for the CL every single year for God knows how long and that's money they've earned.

As I said before, if Villa spend £30m, that's fair enough, we earn more than that. If Torquay went and spent £30m (which I imagine they don't), I don't think you'd find Ash trying to defend it. In fact he hates Crawley who spend more than they earn, which shows it's not just a case of him hating 1 team because they're winning the league.

I guess this little passage kind of backs up all 3 of us in a way.

I sort of agree with him, yeah.

Roy Hodgson has as many wins at Anfield this year as Kenny Dalglish.

Dalglish started out promisingly but it really has bombed badly. 8th now. It's as bad as the Houllier days.

Little harsh on Ged really. He did finish 2nd and then mostly in the top 4. Kenny has yet to even finish top 4.

Cisse is godly

But.. but.. Ashley sucks and Pardew sucks?

Which world are you living in? The fact that my favourite English team lost miserably to a relegation threatened side and then the next week proceeded to beat one of the best sides in Europe this season would surprise you only if you're not a Newcastle fan. This is just how we roll bitches!

I hope Newcastle/Spurs get 4th. It'd just be too funny when Chelsea win the CL.

You can have CL...we shall just drink our Geordie ales...and wonder why we aren't relegated yet.

If Chelsea win the CL, does that mean Spurs/Newcastle automatically go to EL?

Yeah. Though I think Spurs are all downhill at the moment.

We aren't going to have CL. Since when was I a Chelsea fan!?


Yep.

It's what I would say to Chelsea fans. Quite frankly ... it's not like we are gonna win the damn cup is it next season?

The CL has 2 benefits:

- It lets us get more players since we have something attractive.

- Possibly more spending money.

Most importantly it allows you to keep your players. Miss out on the CL and you can go into free fall, like you have in the past and like we have now.

Also possible.

But if it means someone like Carroll leaves so Ba, Cisse and Cabaye can come in. it's a different thing. I have to say the transfer dealings by our club this season has been well...'un-Newcastle' like to say the least.

Yeah, losing players isn't bad if you can replace them. Problem is to replace a top player with a top player is tough to do. Chances are a CL quality player doesn't want to join a team outside the CL and then the cost of them with no CL football is hard to afford. Newcastle did well by going into 'lesser' leagues and finding the right players.

CL winner takes its league's 4th CL spot if they finish out of top 4? when was that rule legislated? it's not fair! didn't the EPL have 5 teams in CL after Liverpool beat us in Istanbul but failed to finish in top 4? I sure remember something like that...

Ah, a City-esque come from the back for Milan this season?! Granted we were not 8 point behind, and granted we are not City (in the sense that they have an overabundance of quality players for almost every position). But hey, a man can wish, can he not?!

They changed it after that since they didn't want 5 teams from one nation in the CL. Obviously they couldn't just say to Everton "Sorry, you aren't in the CL" when all season long it'd been thought that the top 4 get in.

Collins, Herd and Delph all been naughty out in Birmingham. Collins' and Herd's actions did not look good at all and apologised. Delph also "apologised" but it was more him defending himself than apologising so he can do one back to Leeds the little coward.

What again?

The 3 of them were seen being a bunch of dickheads with a bouncer outside a club.

Chelsea have made an offer for Battersea power station and it's 39-acre land.

They plan to build a stadium, incorporating all of the main features of the power station into the stadium. It will be 60,000 and be 4 seperate stands. I like this, at least they aren't building one of those bowls that everyone else seems to.

Why did I think that was a listed building?

I thought it was as well to be honest.

Come on Chelsea!