Pete Boyle: Can they become as big as United? No, of course not. City will find out, just as Peter Kenyon found out, that you don't simply gain tens of thousands of fans who will stay around indefinitely by spending a lot of money in the hope of instant success. Clubs such as United, Liverpool and Arsenal have a standing in the game because of football traditions going back a long time, not just from throwing money at the team in the Premier League era.
Anyway, surely City don't want to be this evil global image of what is wrong with football. How could they possibly sing "You're the pride of Singapore" to us ever again? Or have City actually wanted to be Manchester United all along?
Lloyd Scragg: United fans revel in their rich history, shoving it down opponents' throats at every opportunity. But City have a fantastic history too – a strong foundation to build on. The only thing missing from our recent past is success. The Sheikhs are building a dynasty in east Manchester – developing the infrastructure from within, keeping the fans at the heart of the club and providing Manchester with state-of-the-art facilities. That attention to detail stands City in perfect stead to compete for years to come. United have had their day. Now it's our turn.
PB: Fair enough, I can't argue with your point about City's history. It annoys me when Liverpool fans and Alan Green judge history on years of trophies and ongoing success, which is nonsense: complete snobbery. Leicester reached four FA Cup finals and had Gordon Banks and Peter Shilton as goalkeepers but won little silverware. If their new rich backers take them up, will Green and co claim they have little history? Chelsea and City both had proud histories long before they won the so-called lottery. But time will tell if City can knock us off our perch, as we did to Liverpool.
LS: Agreed – whether City can be as big as United will be defined by the future, not our history. With the wealth of talent available to Roberto Mancini now we're more than capable of achieving our domestic goal for this season, which is beating United to the title. But making similar headway in the Champions League will be much harder, especially considering the quality of opposition in our group.
PB: But remember that being a big club isn't just about cash and results. Are you hoping silverware and prolonged success will attract new fans who have shown no interest in City before? Many of them will be tourists and not from the greater Manchester region. Isn't that what hardcore Blues have always detested about United?
There are pretty clear signs City can't develop a bigger local fanbase. While we could get 62,000 to Old Trafford during the fuel crisis paying full price, City have constantly struggled to get much more than a half-full ground for cup games at vastly reduced prices.
LS: We're a working-class team whose fans have been starved of success and have had to live in the shadows of their neighbours for years. But despite that City's fans have stayed loyal – attendances were still high when we were playing teams like Chesterfield and Walsall every week. The foundation is there.
With City's rapid growth, which club is now the most disliked by outsiders?
PB: Both Manchester teams have strong working-class support but like football fans generally in the UK that has steadily been watered down during the past 20 years to a much more middle-class, less militant bunch.
LS: It's still United, definitely, because of their arrogance – the song "We're Man United and we'll do what we want" shows what little humility they have. Until recently, City were everyone's second team because you could always rely on them to mess up – "Typical City". But we've managed to move away from being a calamity club and we've not looked back. If some other fans are green with envy then fantastic! Let them be jealous.
PB: I think you're probably right about us being more disliked, and most match-going Reds wouldn't have it any other way. There was a brief period when Chelsea started edging it because of their cash and I thought it was amusing but I still prefer to be hated.
The signs that people are turning on City are there – you often see them compared with Mikey Carroll winning the lottery – but we're still ahead of them, partly because United have the highest average crowds for virtually all of the past 50 years, and that upsets people. Liverpool really hate us because, despite their on-pitch dominance for two decades, we're still the biggest club in the land. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Perhaps we are arrogant after all.
What about today? Based on the season so far, which side is better?
LS: We've made an excellent, ruthless start. Last season's squad was great, but adding the sensational Sergio Agüero has taken us to another level. And he's been helped by the continued development of David Silva. Words can't describe how skilful that little man is. Man for man, we're the stronger outfit.
PB: City are clearly contenders. On paper most neutrals would say their midfield is stronger – Silva does look classy. In past years Darren Fletcher has relished that sort of challenge but who knows today? We always try and win at home, though, so I except us to be properly up for it – just not necessarily "gung ho".
LS: We've got a real chance. This game used to be about pride. Not now. No longer are we relying on Bernardo Corradi to score our goals … we're a different animal. Mario Balotelli will have a brilliant opportunity to prove the doubters wrong: he's in great form and is channelling his brilliance into frustrating opposing fans, not his own. But maybe the inclusion of Gaël Clichy will be key. Pablo Zabaleta was used against Nani last season but had little success. If Clichy suceeds where Zabaleta failed, and if Silva shakes off Fletcher, it's our game. 2-1 to City.
Lloyd Scragg blogs at manchestercityissues.com
