The Idiots are winning

I find it slightly odd that we're already getting criticised for something that hasn't even happened yet. First off, The Sun has this "story" about the possibility of clubs who go down suing us:

officials from Newcastle, Boro and Sunderland have discussed taking action if United send out a shadow side in the final game of the season.

A source close to the talks told SunSport: “United have every right to think of themselves but that shouldn’t be to the detriment of others.

“If they field a reserve team at Hull who then win and stay up, then the consequences for two of the three North East clubs will be dire.

“No one is looking for a favour, just a level playing field. And if the rules are not adhered to there are means of recourse.”

If we can win the league in 37 games why are clubs who can't get enough points from 37 games to stay in the league moaning about what might happen in the 38th game? Of course, clubs threatened with relegation have a bit of an excuse for moaning, I'm not sure what this guy's agenda is for writing this piece of trash in today's Sun:

If Manchester United decide to field a shadow team against Hull on Sunday, serious questions will be asked of the champions and those who govern the competition.

Alex Ferguson has already said that he intends to rest most of his first team as they prepare for the Champions League final three days later against Barcelona.

But what, if any, respect would that show for the same competition that grants them entry to the European Cup in the first place?

And if a United reserve side is beaten by Hull, who stay up as a result, what does it say about the Premier League’s power to enforce its own rules?...

Here is how United could line up — first names are excluded as they are irrelevant — Amos, Eckersley, Chester, Evans, Fabio, Tosic, Fletcher, Gibson, Nani, Macheda, Welbeck.

Sound familiar? Didn’t think so.

And it’s a line-up which will horrify the fans of Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Sunderland.

At the same time, why should Fergie risk any of his big guns when they have such an important game just three days later?

Well, it could be argued that by playing a shadow side, United are showing a blatant disrespect for the same competition they have fought so hard to win.

Even though the title race is over, the competition comprises 38 games.

And surely such a deliberate act would compromise the integrity of the Premier League by unfairly weighting the match in favour of Hull. ...

any club relegated as a direct result of United’s team selection would have grounds to sue for compensation similar to those Sheffield United cited.

The Blades successfully showed that striker Tevez’s contribution was a major factor in keeping West Ham up.

Proving the same of a game after 10 rookies are fielded should not be too difficult.

Where to begin - with the pettiest complaint - what on earth is this sentence doing before the possible team list: "first names are excluded as they are irrelevant". Telling us that is irrelevant. What's the point of that sentence? Is it in some way meant to highlight the fact that some people won't recognise the second names? And if so how does not putting the first names there highlight it? Wouldn't including the first names highlight this more? I seem to see this meaningless, excess type of sentence regularly in these stupid moralising pieces the papers love so much- as if they get carried away with their bullshit and it infects their writing, making it as meaningless as their fake outrage.
Secondly: "a line-up which will horrify the fans of Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Sunderland." Sorry? "Horrify?" I'd imagine it might make them shrug their shoulders a bit and maybe moan about, "it's just what you expect from Man Utd," but horrify? Like the guy says it's not the first time a team has played a weakened team on the final day, and it won't be the last.
Thirdly, why is there no speculation about the team Chelsea will put out against Sunderland? They've got an FA Cup Final and could well rest players.
Fourthly -

The Blades successfully showed that striker Tevez’s contribution was a major factor in keeping West Ham up.

Proving the same of a game after 10 rookies are fielded should not be too difficult.

What? I'm fairly sure the law is not quite as stupid as this Sun journalist, and proving that a club went down because in 1/38th Hull's matches Man Utd played a weakened team would seem utterly impossible to anyone sane. As I pointed out before, the last day might bring everything to a conclusion but there were 37 other games before that in which teams were allowed to gain enough points to get out of trouble.
(and having just checked on Oddschecker, we're still slight favourites with the bookies to win the game, so the entire world thinks we're probably good to win the game no matter who we play.)
This in The Guardian is a whole lot better:

If Hull were to win, the two clubs left alongside West Bromwich Albion in the relegation zone may cry foul. Furthermore, although the rule does not specify what punishment should be applied in the event of a transgression, it would be no surprise if a certain Liverpool-based Spaniard urged the authorities to impose a deduction of, oooh, four points.

That, of course, is an unlikely scenario because the reason no club has ever been found guilty of breaking the rule is that it is mightily difficult to prove an offence has been committed. Even this weekend, Ferguson could plausibly claim that a line-up consisting of Ben Amos, Darron Gibson and Richard Eckersley would be stronger than one with more familiar faces because they will be ultra-motivated to prove themselves while the likes of Wayne Rooney, Nemanja Vidic, etc, would understandably be so concerned about avoiding injury that their performances could not ascend to their usual heights.

Just as United's star players would be in an uncomfortable position, so too is the manager. He has a duty both to maximise the club's chances of winning trophies and not to expose his employers' most valuable assets to unnecessary risks. How could Ferguson justifying selecting, say, Cristiano Ronaldo against Hull? What would he say to his employers were the Portuguese to break a leg in that match?

This argument is really quite sensible - would The Sun rather we played a full strength team that just went through the motions and lost? The other point this raises is that everyone always goes on about how the FA and TV should do their very best to help English clubs do well in Europe. So why try and stop us doing that now? And why play the final games on Sunday? Why not Saturday to give us an extra day to prepare if you want us to play a "full strength team".
I like this in The Guardian report as well:

Those who whine about the weakness of a United side shorn of their Rome legion should perhaps bear in mind that Hull's only victory in the last 22 league games came at Craven Cottage in March, when the scorer was a loanee called Manucho – who is probably further down the pecking order at his parent club than Federico Macheda, Danny Welbeck and most of the other players Ferguson will pick.

Genius.
The Sun provides us with yet more rubbish - somehow arguing that Messi is criticising Ronaldo when he says:

“Nobody plays to be the best player in the world. This is a team game. I don’t see it as a tussle between Cristiano and me. It will be a Barca-Manchester battle.

“What is important is that Barcelona are champions of Europe on May 27 in Rome.

“If we are champions it will certainly help me, but this is secondary.”

Considering how many words the media has already written on Messi vs Ronaldo, perhaps it's more a criticism of journalists than of Ronaldo.
Messi actually does criticise us over Tevez:

Messi said: "I have no idea why Manchester [United] are letting Tevez go while he is talented enough to be in every team in the world's starting line-up."

Except ours...
Phil Brown recognises that the game won't be easy:

"It doesn't matter what side Sir Alex puts out," Brown said. "It could be first, second or even third-choice and the players will give a good account of themselves because they are playing for Manchester United and they are representing one of the top clubs in the world."

There's a piece in The Telegraph on the economics of us bringing in players from Brazil and third party ownership and suchlike, which I won't quote from, but it's a good in-depth piece.
Finally, the risks of going to the final in Rome are also making the news today:

Some of the most famous streets in Rome will be turned into no-go areas next week to protect more than 30,000 Manchester United supporters who are expected to descend on Italy’s capital for the Champions League final. The city has also been declared an alcohol-free zone for the match against Barcelona a week today.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office posted a detailed warning to United fans last night as it became clear that as many as 10,000 could be on the streets without tickets and at risk from attacks by members of the infamous Ultras, a group of hardcore supporters accused of a series of violent attacks that have earned Rome the nickname of “Stab City” by followers of English clubs.