The Rooney saga it seems rumbles on. While the imminent departure of the England striker from United has been negated by the new five year contract, the backlash is starting to ramp up. Rooney's trip to Dubai is apparently, according to the tabloid media, an affront to the average working bloke in the street. Curious the way the country builds up their "heroes" only to take delight in tearing them down. I resisted commenting on Rooney at the height of the speculation for one simple reason. Rooney to City never made sense, yet it would seem almost disingenuous to suggest that City could not use a quality talent, regardless of his more recent form.

One of the harder things for the average reader to fathom is that I, as a City fan, do not hate United. Never have. Indeed I have spoken in the past that I consider Duncan Edwards to be the finest player ever. I can and do respect the previous achievements of United. What I dislike is the culture of the club that seemed to be personified by Ronaldo. A couple of years ago he was clearly the best player in the world and yet fell down so often it was laughable. I do hate diving and cheating. A team should win because it is the best team, not because they are more sophisticated at conning a referee.

The irony was that United didn't need that kind of attitude and culture. Because if there is one thing Ferguson does better than anyone else it is building a squad - and no one has come close to a better overall squad than Ferguson in the past decade. I've noted this before, an obvious first team supported by a few veterans, talented youngsters and role players who know their place in the scheme of things. It's a lesson that City should take to heart for the long term.

Only once in recent memory has Ferguson got it wrong and that is when he, ironically, brought in Carlos Tevez. Subsequently when Berbatov joined United the team switched away from their successful 4-3-3 formation and they were left with three players, Rooney, Berbatov and Tevez for two first team places. The odd man out was usually Tevez who thought he should be starting. Rarely do you hear United players complain about playing time. Again this is because every player has a place within the squad and understand their role and the expectations. Players can and do push for more playing time, Darren Fletcher being a perfect example, by the quality of their play on the field. Youngsters come through occasionally and supplement as needed. What United don't normally have is a conflict when it comes to playing time. And with Tevez they did.

It isn't that Rooney and Tevez can't play together, they obviously can. But essentially they are the same player from a positional standpoint, the player who prefers the "hole" in behind a central striker and as two of the better players in the world neither is happy with a place on the bench. Both Rooney and Tevez would benefit enormously from playing with a good old fashioned English Centre Forward, a Dean Ashton type. Berbatov isn't that kind of player and neither is Adebayor. This is particularly true at City where the aquisition of Kolarov and Boateng speaks to attacking wing backs and an aerial component to the attack. Neither Rooney or Tevez could be considered Crouchesquian...

The only way that Rooney to City made even the slightest bit of sense was if it was a prelude to Tevez departing in the Summer. I'm not sure there are many City fans who would take Rooney over Tevez in that scenario although I might be one of them. Rooney is a truly exceptional player.

However if you work under the premise that Tevez is staying, and as captain of the club that is a not unreasonable one, then Rooney just doesn't make sense for City.

The genesis for Rooney's recent disquiet, so we are led to believe, has been the more frugal approach to transfers from United in the past couple of years. One of the more amusing statements from United fans is that City are trying to buy success unlike United. The transfers of Ferdinand, Rooney, Berbatov, Carrick and others show the inaccuracy of those comments. City are trying to buy success quickly, on this we can agree, but United can put out a team that cost around 140 million on any given Saturday, injuries permitting.

However the big ticket buys, Rooney himself, Berbatov, Ferdinand etc. have dried up. This is said to be a result of the financial issues caused by the ownership of the Glazers. I've never believed that, rather it seems more of a lack of the right players being available. Again it's about squad building and not having a conflict for playing time. Chris Smalling is an investment in the future for a time when Vidic and Ferdinand are not the obvious first team starts. Or is it better to bring in a player as good as those two and disrupt the team chemistry? Similarly Javier Hernandez, bought for a bargain prior to the World Cup and an ideal squad player to bring in when Rooney is out of the line up. This has been portrayed as a lack of ambition by United. I disagree it seems prudent, especially in a world where the UEFA Fair Play financial rules will dictate more low cost youngsters coming through. And United have some good ones. Diouf currently on loan to Blackburn was excellent on United's American tour this summer; Tom Cleverley is playing well for Wigan and the intriguing Ravel Morrison has the potential to be the next great thing.

Certainly there are places where United can spend, such as goalkeeper and left wing and I expect them to do so this summer. Maybe United's "problem" was that they haven't communicated their overall plan not only outside Old Trafford but also inside! But it seems logical to me and Rooney should be a major part of that.

So if the buying decisions of Ferguson wasn't really or should not have been an issue was Rooney just being greedy and or manipulated by his agent? Certainly that's the impression that has formulated in the media recently. The anti Rooney articles are just starting with various outlets using the Dubai holiday as an excuse to stick the boot in. Managers are also taking the opportunity to have their say. Ian Holloway is everything that is good about English football but the Blackpool manager was off base with his recent comments about Rooney and footballers in general. Clubs do not "own" players and Holloway should be ashamed of the comment "They bought him, they worked with him, he belongs to them." Again I know I'm in the minority here, but just because you pay someone a large some of money does not give you the right to "own" that player. The public has a perception that somehow a large pay packet means a restraint of trade is ok. It isn't.

As an employee you should be able to pick your employer as you see fit, sign a contract if one is required and see out that contract. The concept of owning a player is archaic.

The recent off the pitch issues of Rooney are well known. I have not commented on them because rather quaintly I happen to believe that private lives should be just that, private. Knowing these issues, Rooney is not a player that I would generally care to join City but frankly I'm surprised that there aren't more issues with footballers rather than less. These are young men that are treated, for want of a better phrase, like gods. Given everything they want from a young age by admiring friends, the media, the public, clubs etc. It would warp the sensibilities of normal kids, never mind those from rough and tumble neighbourhoods with little. The sense of entitlement must be overwhelming. In my experience an individual's values are set by three factors, nature, nurture and environment. Truly I'm surprised we don't see train wreck after train wreck with professional footballers.

As Rooney and his agent surveyed the landscape you have to wonder what they were thinking. In England only City or Chelsea would seem to have made any kind of sense from their perspective even if from a City fans it didn't. That Rooney's sister in law is quite ill is well known and as such moving abroad would seem to have been out of the question even if Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Inter or Milan might have been interested. Rooney had in some ways backed himself into a hole and the only logical destination was a u-turn; which duly arrived.

The commitment from United's owners to spend money would seem to be a victory, if you can call it that, for Rooney yet as discussed I'm not sure Ferguson is going to do anything different than was already planned. United are not a spent force, wishful thinking though many City fans may have. Edwin van der Sar and Ryan Giggs need replacing and there is an argument for a more seasoned right back other than Rafael. But that really is it.

City appear to have learned well their lesson from the Kaka debacle. While the press immediately presumed that City was the logical destination for Rooney other than some polite words from Mancini there was nothing in the press. Faced with the u-turn by Rooney City have no negative fall out in any way and can feel with some justification that Rooney's new wage, and therefore the overall wage structure at United, has been impacted because of City's potential presence in the marketplace.

Which leaves Rooney. Still at United, wealthier for certain and probably I suspect wiser. It isn't over yet for the United striker. His new found wealth and the manner in which it was achieved is going to make him a target for the press. Rooney was perfectly within his rights to tell United he did not plan to sign a new contract. That it went public eventually led to the resolution.

City do not need Rooney. He's a fine talent, but in Tevez City have what they need. In two or three years, who can say, maybe circumstances will be different?