Let’s get this right from the off – if Manchester City could have hosted the FA Youth Cup final at the Etihad Stadium, they would.
The possibility of losing vital time to complete construction of their newly-expanded North Stand, as well as the haphazard nature of Premier League scheduling, put pay to that.
Moving next week’s showpiece event to Old Trafford is, unquestionably, not the answer, however.
The backlash over City’s decision to play the final at their 7,000-capacity Joie Stadium was to be expected. Much of the vitriol coming their way, mainly from United supporters, is how could City deny young players the opportunity of playing in front of 60,000-plus at Old Trafford, if the Etihad is not available?
But what self-respecting sporting institution would give up that advantage of being drawn at home for the final, and allow United the upper hand, their greatest rival, in being able to play a home match themselves?
City hosted the FA Youth Cup final two years ago at the Etihad. If they could do so again, they would.
The Premier League title chasers have a test event for their new stand booked in less than a week after the final takes place, before then planning to open the top tier for the final day of the season, against Aston Villa, on 24 May.
Losing a full day now could mean construction is not completed. What about all those supporters who have purchased tickets for the final day, what would happen to them?
If we are looking for someone to blame for this unfortunate state of affairs, then look no further than the Premier League.
Had City’s league match against Crystal Palace, only just rearranged for 13 May, not been dropped in so late, there was every chance that it would have been played by now, with schedulers having other earlier options in which to fulfil the fixture.
Then the Youth Cup final could have been played on that date at the Etihad, where there would have been a gap for it. City are already losing one day’s construction for the Palace game, they cannot, this close to completion, lose two.
Nor can they hand an advantage to United. This situation could have been avoided, but playing a fixture you have been given an edge in at the home of your bitter rivals should not be the expected solution.
Read more
Pete Hall: Man Utd finally have four players to build around Pete Hall: How ‘arrogant’ Burnley owners Moneyballed their way back to the ChampionshipUnited, of course, offered an olive branch, in what became a win-win situation for them – play the final at home, or make City look like the bad guys by their refusal to make the switch.
There have been claims City have sacrificed sporting integrity by denying these youngsters their big moment. But if City were to allow United an advantage they had not been afforded by the draw, does that not make a mockery of the draw itself? Why bother, if you are just going to pick venues yourselves anyway?
The whole episode is a real shame. But City are not the villains here.
Hence then, the article about man city were right to put man utd in their place was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Man City were right to put Man Utd in their place )
Also on site :
- Not to be dramatic, but LEGO Batman: Legacy of the Dark Knight might be the best Batman game ever
- UN welcomes ceasefire announced by Ukraine, Russia
- Iran war day 68: Trump talks about progress in talks; Rubio says war ‘over’