I thought they were dreadful, but there are players in that team who are nowhere near the quality of those that they have replaced.

If it was City v Swansea and Newcastle v Man U then it would be nip and tuck. But I think that having done the 'hard' part City may subconsciously take their foot off the pedal (an Newcastle's a hard place to go anyway).

And far from being biased I thought the referee did a good job.

It has for 20 years. 

Too right Simon, and that sums up all that is wrong with modern day football IMO. I'm glad I'm just old enough to remember when football could still be called a game.

The team I support, Rangers, are paying through the nose now, partly for all the years of wreckless spending in pursuit of success in that other farce, the "Champions" League. The Greed League would be a better name for it as far as I'm concerned.

I love the over the top comment on the yahoo page about the match

Wins in City's final two games - away at Newcastle and home to QPR - will now give Mancini's side the title, usurp United at the top of English football and signal a definitive shift in the balance of power in a city that has been characterised by red dominance for decades.

I would have thought its everything to play for again next season, assuming that City do win.

Huge swathes of money hasn't bought the title for Chelsea every year. It's all about managers and player selection.  

Well I can give you the heads up on what it's like for your club to go bankrupt! 

It's not nice.

With Man City's spending power though they really will move apart from the rest. I think Chelseas main mistake was they just signed players with big reputations rather then Man City who are more carefully picking out the players to fit into a formation (e.g Kompany, Yaya Toure and Aguero). It will probably sound OTT, but I really do see Man City really dominating over the next few years, by quite a distance

Absolutely  Just bear in mind when my comments were made! Just before City got into the game 

Indeed it isn't mate, and I can imagine that you will still feel rather angry about the way Leeds were run by Peter Ridsdale and his board during the time they were in charge at Elland Road and the way they allowed huge debts to be racked up. I know that's exactly how I feel about Sir David Murray and, to a slightly lesser extent and for different reasons, Craig Whyte.

As one manager whom I saw interviewed on the BBC by Alan Hansen several years ago said, "Football has got to realise that it's in a real world. At the moment it's in fantasy land". Nothing much has changed unfortunately.

If Shiteh had a better manager they'd have wrapped up this season's title by now. On paper United can't compete with them in terms of squad depth.

And if they manage to get Hazard for next season it'll probably be game over for United.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. yes!!!

City deserve their win last night.. Man U struggled in midfield with the ageing duo of Giggs and Scholes plus  Ji Sung Park who hasnt featured for a long time. Do not understand why Valencia didnt start as the lad has been on fire and will put in a hard shift.  Rooney could do nothing.. no supply. However despite all Citys attacking options they too struggled to open up a changed Utd back four who i thought in general coped quite well. Citys defenders cruised through the game... Citys title to throw away now, Utd done that a cple of weeks ago.

City deserved it as they will do the title should they go on and win it. Not to have had a single shot on target is very unlike United...I think it spells trouble next year if City get the monkey off their back, united need 3 or 4 midfielders for me as they don't have one a really rate at the club.

Looks like Arsenal are doing some good early business - Podolski deal done, talks with Vertonghen, which leaves just M'Vila left of their targets.

If they can get those three they're going to be even more dificult to dislodge from third next season.

I have no affection for City or United but when I found out the result this morning a part of me did feel sad about it. City are on the rise and possibly the end of the road for Fergie won't be many more years away now. People look back to the days of Busby, Stein, Clough, Shankly and Paisley with amazement and Fergie belongs to be part of those names however much of a red nosed mouthy ***** he can be.

It is a triumph of one club buying it was to the prem title (and why shouldn't they if they have the cash) versus players of my generation in Giggs and Scholes who I have grown up watching and a team spirit that Fergie has tried to instill in all of his sides. 

I don't like either particularly, but I would back United over City every time if forced to pick.

Agree

Disagree. I'd like Citeh to win the title just to see a change in scenery for a while. I know they've bought it, but that doesn't necessarily equal years and years of dominance to come. Just look at Chelsea 

I agree that the Giggs, Scholes, Beckham type development was to Manchester United's credit. I remember watching Leeds v Man U in the Youth Cup final in the 1990s, and we beat them over two legs. 35,000 turned up at Elland Road, just surpassing the crowd at Old Trafford.

The relative fortunes of the clubs speaks volumes since those days, I guess.

But Man U spend a lot of money, don't forget, lest we get all dewy eyed about it. Their youth development is nowhere near as productive now. City's money has been better spent than, say, Liverpool's.

And City do try and play the game in an attacking fashion. One of the things about the 'purchased' Chelsea team was that they were horrible to watch (still are to an extent), but Mancini's side do have some creative players who score some sensational goals.

You've still got to know how to win as a team regardless of how good your players are. It's the same with most sports. Once the duck is broken the sportsman/team often goes on to win again and again. FWIW I think City have done reasonably ok with Mancini when all things are factored in, including their budget.

You make it sound like Man U never splurged massive money on transfers, trumping what other teams (at the time) could afford. Yes, they were blessed with a true 'golden generation' who cost nothing and came through the ranks in the 90's. That saved them £millions. However, a quick look at the prices they've paid for players over the years shows that they've consistently broken transfer records, and paid mega-bucks for what were merely squad players:

1998: Jaap Stam £11m (then record for a defender) Dwight Yorke £13m

1999: Fabien Bartez £8m

2001: Van Nistleroy £18m / Juan Veron £28m

2002: Rio Ferdinand £27m

2003: Louis Saha £13m

2004: Wayne Rooney £27m

2006 - Michael Carrick £18m

2007 - Nani £14m / Anderson £15m / Hargreaves £17m

2008 - Berbatov £30m

2009 - Valencia £19m

2010 - Smalling £10m

2011 - Jones £18m / De Gea £19m / Young £17m

Don't try to make out that Man U are gallant paupers, valiantly battling the evil moneybags of football. It was only a couple of years ago that their home was known as Gold Trafford because of the money they threw around.

Liverpool off to another storming start

Excellent result by Fulham

True winning goal was an own goal, however Liverpool were otherwise shut out

I understand that most of the Liverpool team were rested before the cup final, however allowing Fulham their first ever win at Anfield does strike me as misguided.

Also apparently Andy Carrol was poop poor.

Stoke draw with Everton 1-1 also featured an own goal from Peter Crouch, however it helps keep Everton above Liverpool

Worth it for that!

So funny isn't it, I hope they keep Kenny for next year......it's be great to see Liverpool go down

I've heard it's nailed on that Chris Hughton will be Hodgson's replacement at WBA

Can someone please remind me why Adebayor is on the pitch?  What a pile of shi#e!!