Anyway, back to Rooney. He took the easy way out, he shirked away from his responsibility and he didnt really respect the manager nor the fans. He could have been a Ronaldo, i.e making his intentions clear from the start that he wants to leave (because that has been his dream and not because of the squad strength) and still playing his best for the club. Ronaldo's last season saw him win an EPL medal, a Champions League runner-up medal and a League Cup medal. At least United fans were willing to let him leave because he had played his best for them whenever he pulled on the shirt. How about Rooney? 1 goal so far this season, and it came from the penalty spot no less, isnt really a decent return from Rooney. His performances were abject, uninspired and he doesnt really look interested. But heres the crux of the issue. Is it his fault that things have turned out this way? Has player power now become so important that managers like Ferguson are outdated?

The Bosman and Webster rulings have definitely given players alot of leeway in terms of transfers. In the days before Bosman, even if a player has reached the end of his contract, he is still bound to his club and cant leave until a new deal has been agreed. With Webster, clubs are now forced to sell their players when these players announce the intention to leave as the players can buy themselves out of the contract for a nominal, some say criminal, amount. Yes, the Bosman and Webster rulings are definitely good for the players because they can now hold the club ransom and demand a higher pay. For those in the lower leagues, i will argue for the rules to hold because they are literally the ones living hand to mouth, having to squeeze every pound they can out of their bodies before retirement calls. However, for players like Rooney, does 500K a week really make that much a difference from 200K a week? Is he going to build a house with all that money? Hence, perhaps a modification of the rules can be considered, like perhaps removing these rulings for players who are earning say above 70K a week. Clubs have done alot to try and buy these players, try and keep them happy and they deserve total loyalty from these players. No one is saying that you cant leave, but make sure that you commit to your contract and pay back what the club has done for you. Sepp Blatter might say this as football slavery, but to be honest, slaves don't usually buy huge penthouses and beautiful cars and milk in the adulation of millions of fans worldwide. So if this is football slavery, i would think that alot of people will rather be slaves than to be the 'free' workers that they are everyday. Player power must be curbed because at the end of the day, soccer now is not just about the player. It is about the clubs and the fans worldwide who support these clubs. And these fans deserve every right to see their heroes in full flow, playing at their best every match and not whining divas who try to make a few more bucks a week just to buy that new rolls royce. No player is bigger than the club. I think that has been clear since football started. You may leave Rooney, but just remember, you had this glorious chance to replace Cantona, to replace Beckham, Keane, Ronaldo or even one of the legendary trio and establish yourself as the best player in the world. And you blew it. So the next time when you see Javier Hernandez or Nani or Macheda receiving the Ballon D'or, just remember, that award could have been yours if you had stayed. Manchester United have overcome the departures of many players, some as good as you, most greater than you, but the club is still standing. No one is bigger than the club. If you do not want us, we do not want you either.

Another point that i would like to point out would be for media to be objective in their news reports and not to be biased. While some would argue that it is hard to do so, given that journalists have their own opinions on news as well, 'columns' in newspapers are invented for a reason. There, journalists can publish their own views, citing data which do matter for their views and make a case of their own. However, in other parts of the papers, newspapers should just print the facts and statistics from both sides and let the reader decide for himself/herself which viewpoint is more convincing. Take a look at the US Mid-term elections now. Many have started blasting the Obama administration for being 'big government' and being ineffective, especially in terms of improving the domestic economy. These are the very journalists who also complained about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, and did i mention that these are also the very journalists who were up in arms over that Nigerian bomber who somehow managed to sneak onboard a commercial plane and would have succeeded if not for the heroic actions of the passengers? Be fair to the guy, for once. If history has taught us anything, it is that we should not judge the effectiveness of a government in the days that it was in power, but rather in the days when it has left power. Look at Harry Truman. His ratings when he left office were nothing but abysmal, but in recent polls, he was regarded as a top 10 president in the history of the US. So, please try to see things from the long-term perspective. Also, please publish data that may not support the viewpoint of the news that you are reporting. Take for example the Republicans call for less government action. Yes, that will reduce the deficit. But do you remember the last time when the government didnt act directly during an economic crisis? It was just a small matter known as the Great Depression. So, please 1) do not jump to conclusions too quickly and 2) publish data from all points of view, rather than from one which is the current public sentiment just so that you can sell more papers. The difference between news sources (aka news portals and newspapers) and blogs or opinion websites is that news sources let people think for themselves, while blogs publish THEIR opinion and try to convince readers to do the same. We are not idiots. Let us think for ourselves.

2 years is 730 days, but then taking away all the holidays that we have and orientation as well as A level period, the total time that we have spent together is probably fewer than 600 days. As we leave the class, there is just one question that we should all ponder. Given that we can turn back time, will we have done anything differently?